Bibliographical Notices, 375 



morphological difference between «pma and aculeus; and his description 

 ofRibes Cynobasti {ibid. p. 292), in which these words occur — " acu- 

 leus instar spinas sub alis " — shows that he was well aware that the 

 aculeus of the said plant might at a first glance be taken for a spina 

 on account of its place. That wide field of research which was 

 opened up by subsequent authors, urging the principles of morpho- 

 logy, was by no means hidden from Linnaeus' s master-mind ; but he 

 left others to do what he could not eni^r upon himself, if he wished 

 to accomplish the general regeneration of natural history — a purpose 

 so grand in itself that no scientific man has ever grappled with a 

 greater. That the morphological difference between aculeus and 

 spina was before the mind of Linnaeus when he wrote the definitions 

 in page 50 is, in the estimation of Mr. Didrichsen, confirmed by the 

 circumstance that the same matter is treated of once more in a later 

 chapter, but in a different manner. In this second place Linnaeus 

 seems really to have taken a purely terminological view of the matter, 

 describing different kinds of thorns only just as they appeared to the 

 eye. Here aculeus meant only a small, not very rigid thorn, what- 

 ever was its origin ; and this fully explains the fact of Robinia and 

 Parkinsonia being mentioned as instances, although Linnaeus else- 

 where acknowledged them to have spinae. That aculeus does not 

 mean the same in pages 50 and 110 of the * Philosophia Botanica,' 

 might have been concluded from the simple fact that he calls his 

 species of Farkinsonia ** aculeata,* although he describes it as 

 having spinae. In naming the species, he took a purely termino- 

 logical external view ; but in describing it, he did not overlook the 

 morphological nature of its thorns. (It is by a mistake that Kiinth 

 mentions this plant as P. spinosa, Linn.) 



Prof. Schjodte's paper on the Danish Harpalini has a double in- 

 terest, namely, partly on account of the information afforded on the 

 geographical distribution of certain species, and on the general cha- 

 racter of the Danish fauna, and partly on account of the systematical 

 observations by which it is headed. Of Harpalini, the Danish fauna 

 numbers no less than forty- six species, and presents the peculiarity 

 that, besides the species occurring in other countries under the same 

 latitudes, not a few species are found in Denmark which are charac- 

 teristic of far more southern parts of Europe. This is the case with 

 Anisodactylus signatus and nemorivagus ; Harpalus distinguendus, 

 fuscipalpisy honestus ; Stenolophus melanocephalus (=S, Skrimshi- 

 ranus)y vespertinus, and elegans. None of these are found either 

 in Norway, Sweden, or North Germany. JDiachromus germanus, 

 Ophonus punctatuluSy and Stenolophus anglicus *^ reach Denmark 

 through North Germany, but are not found north of the Baltic and 

 the Kattegat. On the other hand, Bradycellus coynatus (Greenland, 

 Norway, North of Sweden) is an instance of a very northerly species 

 which is still commonly found in Denmark, but not further to the 



* Prof. Schjodte has adopted this name, which dates from 1766 (Voet, 

 i. 67, tab. 35. fig. 18), as the Linnean Carabus vaporariorum cannot possibly 

 be this species, and as Voet's name is so much older than Schrank's C. 

 teutonus^ which some have adopted in this country. 



