Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society - Vol. 4
by Linnean Society of London · English · Gutenberg #46491 · 542,635 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society - Vol. 4
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society - Vol. 4
Author: Linnean Society of London
Release date: August 3, 2014 [eBook #46491]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46491
Credits: Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Wayne Hammond and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by the Posner Memorial Collection
(http://posner.library.cmu.edu/Posner/))
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JOURNAL OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY - VOL. 4 ***
JOURNAL
OF
THE PROCEEDINGS
OF
THE LINNEAN SOCIETY.
ZOOLOGY.
VOL. IV.
LONDON:
LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMANS AND ROBERTS,
AND
WILLIAMS AND NORGATE.
1860.
PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS,
RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET.
LIST OF PAPERS.
Page
GARNER, ROBERT, Esq., F.L.S.
On the Shell-bearing Mollusca, particularly with regard to
Structure and Form 35
HANLEY, SYLVANUS, Esq., F.L.S.
On the Linnean Manuscript of the 'Museum Ulricæ' 43
HUXLEY, Prof. T. H., F.R.S., F.L.S., F.G.S., Professor
of Natural History, Government School of Mines.
On the Dermal Armour of _Jacare_ and _Caiman_,
with Notes on the Specific and Generic Characters of recent
_Crocodilia_ 1
SALTER, S. J. A., Esq., M.B., F.L.S., F.G.S.
On the Moulting of the Common Lobster (_Homarus vulgaris_)
and Shore Crab (_Carcinus mænas_) 30
SANDWITH, Hon. H., M.D., C.B., Colonial Secretary of
the Mauritius.
On the Habits of the "Aye-Aye" (_Cheiromys madagascariensis_,
L., Cuv.) 28
WALKER, FRANCIS, Esq., F.L.S.
Catalogue of the Dipterous Insects collected at Makessar, in
Celebes, by Mr. A. R. Wallace, with Descriptions of New
Species 90
WALLACE, A. R., Esq.
On the Zoological Geography of the Malay Archipelago 172
INDEX 185
JOURNAL OF THE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
LINNEAN SOCIETY OF LONDON.
On the dermal armour of _Jacare_ and _Caiman_, with notes on the
Specific and Generic Characters of recent _Crocodilia_. By T. H. HUXLEY,
Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S., Prof. of Nat. History, Gov. School of Mines.
[Read Feb. 17th, 1859.]
In the course of a recent investigation into the nature of the singular
extinct reptile, _Stagonolepis_, I was led to inquire somewhat
minutely into the character of the exoskeleton, or dermal armour, of
the existing _Crocodilia_. To my surprise, I found that very little
detailed information on the subject was to be obtained from the standard
repertories of Comparative Anatomy, or even from the special monographs
on Crocodilian structure and classification; but I was still more
astonished to discover, among whole genera of recent _Crocodilia_,
an exoskeleton possessed of characters such as have been universally
supposed to be peculiar to long extinct forms of the order, and whose
existence in any recent species has hitherto, so far as I can ascertain,
been completely overlooked.
The attempt to discover the limits within which this remarkable
exoskeleton is to be found, led me to look, more critically than I had
previously done, into the arrangement and specific characterization
of the recent _Crocodilia_. I have thereby arrived at results which,
imperfect as they are, may be of service by leading others to inquire
into the exact characters of species not at present within my reach;
and I therefore propose to preface my account of the peculiarities of
the exoskeleton in two of the genera of recent Crocodiles with some
remarks on the classification of the group, and with a few notes upon
the characters of the species and the limits of the genera.
Everyone is acquainted with the great improvement effected in this
branch of Herpetology by Cuvier, who divided the Crocodiles, which he
regarded as constituting only a single genus, into the three subgenera
_Alligatores_, _Crocodili_, and _Longirostres_. Subsequent writers
have admitted these highly natural subdivisions; but there has been a
constant tendency to raise their rank. The genus _Crocodilus_ has become
the order _Crocodilia_; the subgenera _Alligatores_, &c., have been
elevated into families; Dr. Gray has shown that the _Alligatores_ must
be divided into three genera, and that there are at least two genera of
_Crocodili_; and, while one of Cuvier's species of _Longirostres_ has
been suppressed, the group is very generally retained with a changed
name (_Gavialis_), a very important addition having been made to it in
the _Crocodilus Schlegelii_ of Müller and Schlegel.
Unless the considerable materials contained in the British Museum, the
Hunterian collection, the collection of Dr. Grant, and the Christchurch
Museum at Oxford had been freely placed at my disposal, I should have
been wholly unable to acquire the information contained in the following
pages. It is only right, therefore, that I should take this opportunity
of offering my thanks to my friends Dr. Gray, Prof. Quekett, Dr. Grant,
and Dr. Rolleston for the many facilities they have liberally afforded
me.
The recent species of the order _Crocodilia_ are divisible into three
families, which correspond with the original subgenera of Cuvier, and
may be termed the _Alligatoridæ_, the _Crocodilidæ_, and the
_Gavialidæ_.
I. In the ALLIGATORIDÆ the teeth are strong and unequal, and the
posterior ones differ greatly in shape from the anterior. The anterior
pair of mandibular teeth, and the fourth pair (or the so-called canines)
are received into pits in the margins of the premaxilla and maxilla;
while the mandibular teeth behind these pass inside, and not between,
the maxillary teeth. The mandibular symphysis does not extend back
beyond the level of the fifth tooth, and often not nearly so far. The
line of the premaxillo-maxillary suture on the palate is straight,
or convex forwards. The wide posterior nares look downwards, and are
situated forwards on the palate.
This family embraces three genera, readily distinguishable by
osteological characters--_Alligator_, _Caiman_, and _Jacare_.
Genus 1. ALLIGATOR.
Dental formula, 20-20/20-20. 9th maxillary tooth the largest of
its series. The snout is very broad, flattened, and rounded at the
end. There is an indistinct longitudinal interorbital ridge; and there
are two short ridges along the line of junction of the prefrontal
and lachrymal bones. The aperture of the external nares is divided
into two parts, by the prolongation forwards of the nasal bones. The
supra-temporal fossæ are well-marked and open, though not large. The
vomers do not appear in the palate. The feet are well webbed. The dorsal
bony scutes are not articulated together; and there are no ventral
scutes.
This genus contains only one species, the well-known _Alligator
Mississipiensis_, or _lucius_, which is exclusively North American.
Cuvier (Oss. Foss. ed. 4. vol. ix. p. 211) gives the appearance of the
vomer in the palate as a general character of the _Alligatores_; but
this bone is not visible in the palate of any of those _Alligatores_
which Cuvier would have referred to his _A. lucius_ or _A. palpebrosus_,
and which form the genera _Alligator_ and _Caiman_ as here defined. The
vomers are in fact as slender and delicate as in the Crocodile, and
extend only between the level of the tenth maxillary tooth anteriorly
and the descending processes of the prefrontal posteriorly.
What may be called the median nares, or the arch formed by the
postero-lateral part of the vomer and the anterior and superior lamina
of the palatine bone on each side (which would constitute the posterior
boundary of the posterior nares, if the palatine and pterygoid bones
gave off no inferior or palatine processes), are situated nearly on a
level with the twelfth tooth, or with the palato-maxillary suture.
Genus 2. CAIMAN.
Dental formula 20-20/22-22 (Natterer). The face is without median
or transverse ridges, but it is sharply angulated along a line which
extends from the orbit forwards along the sides of the snout. The
anterior nasal aperture is undivided in the dry skull. The vomers do
not appear in the palate. The supra-temporal fossæ are obliterated,
the circumjacent bones uniting over them. The webs of the feet are
rudimentary. The dorsal scutes are articulated together by lateral
sutures and anterior and posterior facets; and there is a ventral
shield, consisting of similarly articulated scutes.
Natterer[1] has described three species of _Caiman_--_C. palpebrosus_,
_C. trigonatus_, and _C. gibbiceps_. The Caimans abound chiefly in
tropical South America; but they are found as far north as Mexico, a
specimen of _C. palpebrosus_ in Dr. Grant's collection coming from that
country.
Genus 3. JACARE.
The snout is broad, and rounded at the end[2]. Each prefrontal bone
is traversed close to its anterior extremity by the ends of a strong
transverse ridge, which then curve round and pass forwards on the
lachrymal and maxillary bones, to subside opposite the ninth tooth.
The anterior nasal aperture is not divided by bone. The vomers,
separated by a longitudinal suture, appear in the palate between the
premaxillaries and the palatine plates of the maxillaries. The temporal
fossæ, though not large, are open. The webs of the feet are small. The
dorsal scutes are articulated together, as in the preceding genus; and
there are similarly-articulated ventral scutes. There are 18-20 teeth
on each side, above and below; and the fourth tooth in the upper jaw is
the largest. The mandibular symphysis extends back nearly to the fifth
tooth.
In a skull of _Jacare_ (_fissipes?_), 19 inches long, in the British
Museum, I find that part of the vomer which is visible in the palate to
be a rhomboidal plate, somewhat truncated anteriorly, and rather more
than 1-1/2 inch long and 1 inch wide. Its anterior end comes within
3/8ths of an inch of the posterior margin of the anterior palatal
foramen. Its posterior margin reaches to the level of the eighth tooth.
The visible portion of each vomer is only its anterior end, which forms
a thick and solid wedge-shaped plate, broader in front than behind, and
articulating by a rough anterior and outer face with the premaxilla, by
an obliquely ridged posterior and outer face with the maxilla, and by
its internal face with its fellow. Its upper, rounded surface projects
but little into the nasal passage. 2-1/4 inches behind its anterior
end, the posterior and upper extremity of the vomer passes into a thin
and narrow plate of bone, whose plane is at first inclined at an angle
of 45° to that of the anterior part of the bone, but gradually becomes
vertical; as it does so it deepens, until, 3 inches behind the anterior
extremity, the vomer is a thin vertical plate of bone, 5/8ths of
an inch deep, which articulates below with the palatine plate of the
maxilla, and, about 1 inch behind this, with the palatine plate of the
palatine bone. The upper edge of this plate nowhere extends to one-third
of the height of the nasal chamber. It gives off a horizontal process
outwards, which, gradually increasing in width, inclines downwards until
it comes into contact, first, with the inner surface of the maxilla,
and, 3/4ths of an inch behind this, with the nasal plate of the
palatine bone. In front of its junction with the maxilla, the horizontal
plate of the vomer presents a long free edge, concave externally; and
this bounds the median nares internally and posteriorly. Throughout its
junction with the maxilla, the horizontal plate is parallel-sided; but
after it joins the palatine bone, it gradually narrows posteriorly,
in consequence of the gradual increase in width of the palatine, and
ends almost in a point, 6-1/4 inches behind its anterior end. The
posterior edge of the vertical plate is extremely thin, and 7/8ths
of an inch deep. It articulates with the anterior end of the vertical
plate of the pterygoid, while the straight inferior edge articulates
throughout with the palatine plate of the palatine bone. The vomers
terminate midway between the median nares and the descending process of
the prefrontal. The median nares are bounded entirely by the vomer and
the maxilla. They correspond with the nasal face of the palato-maxillary
suture, but are rather behind its palatine face, and they are about on
a level with the interval between the tenth and eleventh teeth. If the
anterior edge of the palatine bone bounded them, they would be a little
behind the twelfth tooth. The posterior nares, 2-1/8 inches wide, by
7/8ths of an inch long, look altogether downwards, are completely
divided by a bony septum, and have the form of a rhomboid with its
narrowest side posterior. They are surrounded by a strong raised ridge,
incomplete only at the anterior and outer angles of the rhomboid.
Five species of _Jacare_ are enumerated by Natterer--_J. fissipes_, _J.
sclerops_, _J. nigra_, _J. punctulata_, and _J. vallifrons_. They have
met with only in South America.
[1] "Beitrag zur näheren Kenntniss der Sudamerikanischen
Alligatoren," 'Annalen des Wiener Mus.,' Band i.
[2] According to Natterer, the dental formula of _J. nigra_ and
_J. fissipes_ is 18-18/18-18, of _J. sclerops_ 19-19/20-20, of _J.
callifrons_ and _J. punctulata_ 20-20/18-18.
* * * * *
II. In the family of the CROCODILIDÆ the teeth are usually strong and
very unequal in size, and there is always a considerable difference
between the anterior and the posterior teeth. The two anterior
mandibular teeth are received into pits in the premaxilla; but the
canines pass into grooves (which may be converted into fossæ) situated
at the junction of the premaxilla and maxilla. The other mandibular
teeth are received between the maxillary teeth. The symphysis of the
lower jaw does not extend beyond the level of the seventh or the eighth
mandibular tooth. The premaxillo-maxillary suture may be either straight
or strongly convex backwards. The divided vomers do not appear in
the palate. The posterior nares look more or less backwards, and are
transversely elongated. The supra-temporal fossæ are always open, and
the feet are distinctly webbed. The dorsal scutes are not articulated;
and there are no ventral scutes.
Two genera, _Crocodilus_ and _Mecistops_, are distinguishable in this
family.
Genus 4. CROCODILUS.
The teeth are always strong and very unequal, the strongest in the upper
jaw being the tenth. The mandibular symphysis does not extend beyond the
level of the sixth tooth. There are usually six cervical scutes, in two
rows, or forming a rhomb, and separated by a distinct interval from the
tergal scutes. There are 18 or 19 teeth above, and 15 below, on each
side.
1. _Crocodilus vulgaris._
As Cuvier has remarked, it is extremely difficult to find good
distinctive characters for all the species of this genus. My first
difficulty was to ascertain the precise characters of that species which
has been misnamed _vulgaris_, inasmuch as I could find neither in the
British Museum, nor in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, any
_authentic_ skeleton or skull of this, the so-called Nilotic Crocodile.
This difficulty subsisted up to the time that the chief statements
contained in the present essay were laid before the Linnean Society; but
since then I have been enabled, by Dr. Gray's permission, to examine the
skull of a small stuffed specimen, brought to this country from Egypt
by Sir Gardner Wilkinson, and to study the splendid entire skeleton of
a _Crocodilus vulgaris_ in the Christchurch Museum at Oxford, presented
to that Institution by the gentlemen who shot it on the Nile, and set
up with great care under the auspices of my friend Dr. Rolleston, Lee's
Reader in Anatomy and Curator of the Museum. Fortunately the entire
skin has been preserved; so that this is the most complete record of
the hard parts of any individual crocodile with which I am acquainted,
besides being, so far as I am aware, the only authentic entire skeleton
of _Crocodilus vulgaris_ in this country. I subjoin the chief points
of interest which I noted in my brief examination of this valuable
specimen:--
Inches.
The total length of the skeleton is 114
" " " skull 16
Between the outer edges of the posterior ends of
the quadrate bones 8-3/4
From the snout to the middle of the canine notch 2-3/4
Transverse diameter of snout opposite 10th tooth 4-7/8
Long axis of orbit 2-1/4
Short axis of orbit 1-5/8
Interorbital space opposite the middle of the orbit 1-3/4
Anterior edge of the orbit from end of snout 10-1/2
Syncipital[3] area in length, about 2-1/2
" " in breadth anteriorly 3-3/4
" " " posteriorly 4
Supra-temporal fossæ, wide 7/8
" " long 1-1/8
Least width of parietal 7/16
Total length of mandible 20-1/2
Its greatest depth 3
Length of cervical region (or anterior 8 vertebræ) 10-1/2
" dorso-lumbar region 27
" sacral " 3-3/4
Length of humerus 7-1/2
" ulna 5-1/4
" fore foot, extreme length 6
" femur 8-1/2
" tibia 6
" hind foot, extreme length 9-1/4
From the above measurements it will be seen that the skull is somewhat
slender. Behind the canine groove it widens to the tenth tooth, which
is 5-3/4 inches behind the end of the snout. It retains about the
same diameter to the twelfth tooth, and then slowly widens again,--a
sudden increase in size, to the extent of half-an-inch, taking place
opposite the posterior margin of the orbit, owing to the flanging-out
of the jugal. On the whole, however, there is a slow and even increase
in breadth, from the canine groove to the ends of the ossa quadrata.
The nasal aperture is pyriform, its wider end being forwards, and its
narrow posterior extremity, into which the pointed ends of the nasal
bones project, attaining the level of the first tooth behind the canine
groove.
[3] By this term I denote that squarish flat area bounded by
the postfrontal and squamosal bones laterally, by the occiput
posteriorly, and by a line joining the outer angles of the
postfrontals anteriorly.
On the left side there is only a pit for the reception of the
anterior mandibular tooth, while on the right side this pit is
converted into a complete foramen. On the upper face of the skull, the
premaxillo-maxillary suture runs vertically upwards through the canine
groove, and then passes obliquely backwards to a point 5 inches behind
the end of the snout. The anterior part of this suture lies in a strong
ridge, which is continued downwards and forwards on the premaxilla to
the level of the fifth tooth, a groove separating it from the margin
of the nasal aperture. Posteriorly this ridge dies away, but a curved
irregular elevation, convex inwards, arises opposite the tenth tooth. It
is wholly confined to the maxilla, not extending on to the nasals.
There is a distinct, rough, irregular elevation, bounded on its
outer side by a sharp groove, which extends back to the orbit, on
the lachrymal bone. The profile of the skull is convex as far as the
posterior boundary of the nostril, and very slightly concave from that
point as far as the twelfth tooth. It then passes back as a straight,
slightly ascending line, only interrupted by the lachrymal ridge, to
the margin of the occiput. The inferior margin of the maxilla is convex
downwards as far as the canine groove, whose lower end is indicated by
a deep sinuation. It then becomes convex again, the crown of the curve
being at the ninth and tenth teeth, and its posterior end sweeping into
a concavity whose summit is at the twelfth tooth. Behind this the edge
of the maxilla is only slightly convex. The inferior contour of the
jugal bone is very concave; but the articular end of the quadrate bone
descends to the level of the edge of the ninth alveolus.
The orbits have a sort of heart-shape, their apices being turned
forwards, and their more convex sides inwards.
The supra-temporal fossæ are half-moon-shaped, their straight sides
being external and so inclined that, if prolonged, they would decussate
upon a line joining the anterior margins of the orbits.
On the palatine surface of the skull, the premaxillo-maxillary suture
runs backwards from the canine groove, as far as the level of the middle
of the second alveolus behind the groove (or that of the seventh tooth),
which point it reaches at about the junction of the middle with the
inner third of the palatine plate of the maxilla. The suture then turns
abruptly forwards until it reaches the level of the anterior margin of
the alveolus of the sixth tooth, when it bends suddenly inwards to meet
its fellow. The whole suture, therefore, has the form of a W. The vomers
are completely hidden.
The posterior nares look downwards and backwards; their aperture is,
from the incompleteness of the septum, single, and has a transversely
elongated crescentic form. It measures 1-1/8 inch in width by
3/8ths antero-posteriorly. The basi-sphenoid is seen for about
1/8th of an inch on the base of the skull behind it, bounding the
sides of the eustachian tube. The dental formula is 18-18/15-15.
The fourth and tenth teeth are largest in the upper jaw, the first and
fourth in the lower. The eight posterior teeth on each side in the upper
jaw, and the five posterior in the lower, have a marked constriction
between the short crown and the fang of the tooth. There are deep
interdental pits for the reception of the mandibular teeth between the
third and fourth, and fourth and fifth teeth above, and between the
succeeding teeth from the sixth to the thirteenth.
The hyoidean cornua are very strong curved bones, the chord of whose arc
measures 3-1/2 inches. They are concave inwards, convex outwards,
concave posteriorly, convex anteriorly; they are flattened from side to
side below, but they end above in subcylindrical styloid extremities.
In the ninth vertebra the neurocentral suture passes just above the
base of the parapophysis; it traverses the parapophysis in the tenth
and eleventh vertebræ, while in the twelfth the parapophysis suddenly
rises to the root of the diapophysis, and the suture lies far below
it. The centra of the dorsal vertebræ, as far as the thirteenth
inclusive, have hypapophyses. The diapophyses of the ninth vertebra pass
almost horizontally outwards, but are a good deal inclined backwards.
In the succeeding vertebræ up to the fourteenth or fifteenth, the
diapophyses are, in addition, inclined upwards, the upward inclination
being most marked in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth vertebræ. From
the fifteenth vertebra onwards, the transverse processes pass almost
directly outwards, without either upward or backward inclination. The
span of the transverse processes is greatest in the eighteenth and
nineteenth vertebræ, in which the distance between the extremities of
these processes is 7-1/4 inches, a length about equal to that of the
longest vertebral rib.
The rib of the ninth vertebra is terminated by a single long and slender
semicartilaginous process which does not unite with the sternum.
Each of the vertebral ribs from the tenth to the seventeenth vertebræ
inclusively, on the other hand, is united with the sternum, or its
continuation, by two such semicartilaginous costal elements, which
may be respectively termed sternal and lateral. The sternal elements
of the ribs of the tenth and eleventh vertebræ are united with the
sternum proper; those of the next five vertebræ are connected with its
median backward prolongation, while those of the seventeenth vertebra
are attached to the processes into which this prolongation divides
posteriorly.
The sternal costal elements are very broad and flat, and though the
lateral ones are less so, they are wide and expanded. The lateral costal
pieces of the eleventh to the sixteenth vertebræ inclusively, give
attachment to very large and flat, triangular, _processus uncinati_.
Those of the twelfth are 3-3/4 inches long and 1-3/8 inch wide at
their widest part. The transverse processes of the twentieth vertebra
bear rudimentary ribs. The centrum of the thirteenth vertebra is
1-3/4 inch long, and the vertebra is 3-3/4 inches high from the
lower edge of the centrum to the summit of the neural spine. The centra
of the vertebræ retain nearly the same length to the twentieth caudal;
but behind this vertebra they are shorter, as are the anterior dorsal
vertebræ. The first caudal vertebra is provided with two styliform
bones, which represent the chevron bones of the other caudal vertebræ,
but are not united below.
The dorsal scutes have the arrangement which his often been described.
They are separated (except perhaps the median rows) by integumentary
spaces, neither overlapping nor uniting by sutures; and there are no
ventral scutes.
Among the osteological characters which have been detailed, the
peculiarities of the tergal armour, the proportions of the skull,
combined with the characters of the ridges upon its surface, and the
form of the premaxillo-maxillary suture amply suffice to diagnose this
species. Even in the small skull, only 5-1/2 inches long, lent to
me by Dr. Gray, the characteristic features of the species are well
exhibited, although age appears to give rise to many differences. Thus
the posterior margin of the external nostrils does not extend so far
back as in the adult, and the facial is smaller in proportion to the
syncipital region, whose anterior and posterior transverse dimensions
are very nearly equal. The orbits are proportionally larger, the
interorbital space more excavated; and the outer straight margins of
the supra-temporal fossæ are parallel with the longitudinal axis of the
skull. Still more important differences are visible on the palatine
face of the skull. The premaxillo-maxillary suture reaches back, indeed,
to the line of the seventh tooth; but it forms an even curve whose
summit is in the middle line. The aperture of the posterior nares,
again, has a totally different form from that which it assumes in the
adult. It is somewhat heart-shaped, with its apex forwards, measures
1/4 inch long by 3/16ths at broadest, and looks altogether
downwards, while its anterior margin is situated far more forward in the
palate than that of the adult.
2. _Crocodilus biporcatus._
This, the best-known Crocodile, is a very well-marked species,
characterized (beside the peculiarities of its dermal armour) by a
comparatively slender skull, similar in shape to that of _C. vulgaris_,
and, like it, without any sudden enlargement immediately behind the
canine groove; and by the strong ridge which arises on each lachrymal
bone close to the anterior edge of the orbit, and is continued forwards
on to the line of junction of the nasal and maxillary bones, so that
the naso-maxillary suture traverses the axis of the ridge, and then
CURVES outwards, descending towards the alveolus of the tenth tooth.
The premaxillo-maxillary suture is W-shaped; and its salient angles
reach backwards even to the level of the posterior margin of the
seventh alveolus.
3. _Crocodilus Americanus_ (_acutus_, Cuv.)
has the slenderness of snout (even more marked) and the form of the
premaxillo-maxillary suture of the preceding species; but it is at once
distinguished from this and all other Crocodiles (except _C. rhombifer_)
by the marked longitudinal and transverse convexity of the middle of the
face, which gives the profile a totally different aspect from that of
the other species, which are flat or concave in this region.
4. _Crocodilus Journei_
is another unmistakeably distinct and very remarkable species. The
descriptions and figures given by Graves, Bory de St. Vincent, and
Duméril and Bibron, of the unique specimen of this Crocodile to the
Bordeaux Museum, would alone have compelled me to differ entirely from
the view taken by Dr. Gray of the affinities of this species. These
observers agree in stating that _Crocodilus Journei_ has six cervical
scutes, arranged as in the other Crocodiles, and, as Graves says,
"separated by an interval of four inches" from the commencement of the
tergal scutes, whence it is obviously impossible that it can be a
_Mecistops_. But, in addition to this, I had the good fortune to find,
among the recent additions to that excellent osteological collection
which Dr. Gray has gradually formed at the British Museum, the skull of
a Crocodile obtained from a dealer in Paris, and labelled by him "Croc.
de l'Orinoke." I at first imagined this Crocodile to be a _Mecistops_;
but on careful investigation it turned out to be no other than the skull
of a _Crocodilus Journei_, somewhat larger than the Bordeaux specimen,
but, as the subjoined measurements will prove, agreeing with it in all
its proportions:--
Inches.
Length from end of snout to end of ossa quadrata 22-1/2
Breadth between outer margins of ossa quadrata 9-3/4
---- at the level of the anterior margins of the orbits 5-1/2
---- at the tenth tooth 3-1/2
---- at the end of the snout 2-3/4
---- of the interorbital space 1-3/4
Length of mandibular symphysis 5
Now Duméril and Bibron expressly state that the length of the head of
_C. Journei_ equals 2-1/2 times its greatest transverse diameter,
that the width of the jaws at the anterior margins of the orbit equals
one-fourth the length of the head, and that at the tenth tooth it equals
one-sixth the length of the head; and these are as nearly as possible,
it will be observed, the relations of the same dimensions in the above
list.
In the specimen in the British Museum there are eighteen teeth on each
side above, and fifteen below. The Bordeaux specimen is stated to have
the same dental formula, except that there are sixteen teeth in the left
ramus of the mandible. The fourth and tenth maxillary teeth are stated
by Graves to be as large again as the others; and the corresponding
alveoli have these proportions to one another in the British Museum
specimen. In fact, there can be no doubt that this skull is that of a
true _Crocodilus Journei_.
But its general characters at once prove the close affinity of _C.
Journei_ with the other true Crocodiles, from which it differs only in
its elongated and gradually tapering skull, and in the more backward
extension of the mandibular symphysis[4], which attains the level of the
posterior margin of the sixth tooth.
In this character, and in the extreme slenderness of the snout, there
is doubtless an approximation to _Mecistops_; but _Crocodilus Journei_
is sharply separated from that genus by the characters of its teeth, and
by those of its dermal armour.
[4] The greater proportional length of the symphysis is noted by
Duméril and Bibron.
5. _Crocodilus bombifrons_ (_palustris?_).
All the species of _Crocodilus_ which I have hitherto mentioned have,
in common, the backward curvature of the premaxillo-maxillary suture to
the level of the seventh tooth. But there is a species of Crocodile,
about whose proper specific name I am by no means clear, in which this
suture passes straight across the palate, or may even be a little convex
forwards.
And not only do the skulls of this species exhibit this approximation
to those of the _Alligatoridæ_, but they resemble them still further in
their rounded snouts, their great width immediately behind the canine
groove, and in the fact that, in young specimens, one or the other
canine may be received into a pit instead of into a groove[5].
In the Hunterian Collection there are seven skulls, varying in length
from 5-1/4 inches up to 16 inches, in none of which does the crown of
the premaxillo-maxillary suture extend beyond a line joining the sixth
pair of teeth. In all there are two short ridges (convergent in young
specimens, nearly parallel in old ones) upon the lachrymal bones, which
end before reaching the anterior limits of those bones. They all have
an oblique ridge on the upper jaw above the tenth tooth; and the snout
attains the width which it has opposite this tooth immediately behind
the canine groove. In the British Museum there are five middle-sized
skulls with the same characters; but two of these have a pit on one
side of the upper jaw, and a groove on the other, and one has something
between a pit and a groove on each side.
Dr. Gray, has in his 'Catalogue[6],' mentioned the peculiar transverse
disposition of the premaxillo-maxillary suture in his _Crocodilus
bombifrons_; and on examining the two crania thus named in the British
Museum collection, one of which is 20 and the other 21 inches long, I
can discover no distinguishing character between them and those already
described. There can be no doubt then, I think, that these constant
and well-marked characters, exhibited by fourteen skulls which vary in
length from 5-1/4 to 21 inches, prove the existence of a distinct
species of Crocodile, which I would provisionally term _bombifrons_.
[5] In a skull of this species 14-1/2 inches long, in the British
Museum, the vomers are completely excluded from the palate, and
their anterior ends do not extend for an eighth of an inch beyond
the palatine part of the palato-maxillary suture, which lies on a
level with the anterior margin of the twelfth alveolus. Each vomer
is 2-3/8 inches long, and presents the same general form as that
of _Jacare_; only the anterior division is but a very small, flat
and thin plate, not a quarter of an inch long. The boundary of the
median nares is formed in equal proportions by the vomer and the
palatine, and is opposite the fourteenth tooth. The hinder end of
the vomer articulates with the end of the descending process of
the prefrontal.
[6] 'Catalogue of the Tortoises, Crocodiles, and Amphisbænians in
the Collection of the British Museum,' 1844, p. 59.
I believe that this species has been constantly confounded with
_biporcatus_, from which it may be at once distinguished by the
direction of the premaxillo-maxillary suture, and by the shape of the
snout behind the canine groove. I have found these distinctions to hold
good at all ages; but the last-mentioned difference is far more marked
in middle-aged than in either young or old specimens.
All the skulls named _Crocodilus palustris_ which I have seen are
referable either to _C. biporcatus_ or to _C. bombifrons_. With respect
to the _C. palustris_ of Lesson and Duméril and Bibron, the latter
authors consider it to be only a variety of _C. vulgaris_. Their
description would, however, apply very well to _C. bombifrons_, as I
have defined it above; and they expressly state ('Erp. Générale,' t.
iii. p. 113) that all their specimens (twelve in number and varying in
length from 30 centimetres to more than 3 metres) came from the East
Indies or the Seychelle Islands. Now, Duméril and Bibron enumerate only
three Asiatic Crocodiles--_C. biporcatus_, _C. palustris_, and _C.
galeatus_, the last of which was only known to them by description; so
that all the numerous Asiatic crocodiles which passed through their
hands belonged either to _C. biporcatus_ or _C. palustris_. On the other
hand, all the skulls of crocodiles from Asia which I have met with
(amounting to at least twenty) are either those of _C. biporcatus_ or
of the species which I have called _bombifrons_; so that I suspect the
latter title will turn out to be a synonym of _palustris_.
6. _Crocodilus rhombifer._
I have not been able to obtain any skull of this species, which,
according to Cuvier's account and figures ('Oss. Fossiles,' t. ix. p.
102), resembles _C. Americanus_ in the great convexity of its nasal
region, but differs from it in the greater breadth of the skull, and in
the strong converging preorbital ridges, which appear to be limited to
the lachrymal bones. If the figures are to be I trusted, however, there
are other very important distinctive characters about the cranium of
this species; for Cuvier's, fig. 2, pl. 331, which gives a view of the
palate, shows the premaxillo-maxillary suture forming a nearly straight
transverse line.
* * * * *
There remain several species of _Crocodilus_ whose skulls I have not
been able to examine, and of which no sufficient descriptions exist. Of
these, (7.) _C. galeatus_ and (8.) _C. Gravesii_ (_planirostris_) would
appear to be very distinct forms. (9.) _C. marginatus_ is considered by
Duméril and Bibron to be only a variety of _C. vulgaris_; and they take
the same view of (10.) _Crocodilus suchus_. Professor Owen, however, has
figured the cranium of an Egyptian mummy under this name ('Monograph on
the Reptilia of the London Clay,' Pal. Soc., 1850). In the under-view
of this skull (tab. i. fig. 2), the junction of the premaxilla and the
maxilla in the palate seems to be broken away; but on the left side, the
palatine process of the maxilla is entire, as far as the level of the
anterior margin of the sixth tooth, and there is not a trace of a suture
behind this point. Are there, then, two or more species of Crocodile in
Egypt, as Geoffroy St.-Hilaire supposed?
With regard to the distribution of the species of _Crocodilus_, _C.
vulgaris_, _C. marginatus_, and _C. suchus_(?) appear to be exclusively
African; all the crocodiles from other parts of the Eastern hemisphere,
which I have met with, belong, as I have stated above, either to _C.
biporcatus_ or _C. bombifrons_, both of which species are found in
the Ganges. _Crocodilus galeatus_ appears to be peculiar to Siam.
_Crocodilus Americanus_ and _C. rhombifer_ are undoubtedly American. _C.
Journei_ has been supposed to be African; but such positive evidence as
exists tends rather to prove it to be an American species. Thus Bory de
St. Vincent states that the Bordeaux specimen is "suspected to have come
from America;" and, as I have said, the skull in the British Museum is
labelled "from the Orinoko."
_Crocodilus Gravesii_ (_planirostris_) is supposed by Bory de St.
Vincent to have been brought from the Congo; but its real origin is not
known.
Genus 5. MECISTOPS.
The cranium is elongated, and the snout slender and Gavial-like. There
are eighteen slender and subequal teeth above, and fifteen below, on
each side. The mandibular symphysis extends back to the level of the
seventh tooth. The cervical scutes are arranged in two transverse rows,
each of which contains two scutes; and there is no space left between
the posterior row and the tergal series.
This excellent genus, as established by Dr. Gray, includes Cuvier's
_Crocodilus cataphractus_ (which Dr. Gray considers to be the young of
a species whose full-grown form was discovered by Mr. Bennett in West
Africa), _Crocodilus Journei_ and _Crocodilus Schlegelii_. As I have
endeavoured to show, however, _C. Journei_ is a true crocodile; and, as
I shall point out below, Müller and Schlegel have satisfactorily proved
_C. Schlegelii_ to be a Gavial. Consequently _Mecistops_ is at present
represented by only one species, which must be called _M. cataphractus_
if _M. Bennettii_ of Gray is really the adult of the form which Cuvier
described.
* * * * *
III. In the family of the GAVIALIDÆ, the snout is always very long and
slender; the teeth are for the most part slender, sharp-edged, and
subequal. The two anterior mandibular teeth pass into grooves, one of
which lies on each side of a beak-like prominence of the premaxillæ,
which carries the two anterior upper teeth. The canines are received
into grooves. The mandibular symphysis extends back to at least the
fourteenth tooth, and is partly formed by the junction of the splenial
bones. The premaxillo-maxillary suture is always strongly convex
backwards. The posterior nares are situated more forward than in the
_Crocodili_. The temporal fossæ are large. The feet are strongly webbed.
The dorsal scutes are not articulated; and there are no ventral scutes.
I distinguish two genera in this family, _Rhynchosuchus_ and _Gavialis_.
Genus 6. RHYNCHOSUCHUS.
There are twenty teeth above, and eighteen or nineteen below, on each
side; the mandibular symphysis extends to the fifteenth tooth. The
posterior teeth of the upper jaw, and almost all those of the lower jaw,
are received into interdental pits; the orbital margins are not raised;
and the premaxillæ are hardly at all expanded. The premaxillo-maxillary
suture does not reach the third tooth behind the notch.
I propose the name _Rhynchosuchus_ to indicate that generic type which
is at present represented by the solitary species called by Müller
and Schlegel _Crocodilus_ (_Gavialis_) _Schlegelii_, and admirably
described and figured by them in their essay, 'Over de Krokodilen van
der Indischen Archipel,' in the 'Verhandelingen over de natuurlijke
Gesch. der Nederl. overzee. Bezittingen,' 1839-1844. Under the title
_Crocodilus_ (_Gavialis_) _Schlegelii_ (p. 18), they say--"The Gavial
from Borneo, when compared with the Indian one, is principally
distinguished by the following characters:--
"1. By its stronger form and better developed limbs.
2. By its much less slender head and snout, which last does not narrow
so suddenly in front of the eyes as in _G. Gangeticus_.
3. By the smaller number of teeth, of which there are twenty above and
eighteen below on each side, while _G. Gangeticus_ has 28/26 or
27/25; furthermore, the teeth are stouter, less curved, and less
sharp, and are disposed more perpendicularly, and the ninth tooth of the
upper jaw (reckoning from the front) is considerably larger and stronger
than the others; whence it follows that, just as in the true Crocodiles,
the snout at the level of this tooth exhibits a lateral projection.
4. By the shorter symphysis of the under jaw.
5. By the absence of the swollen nasal prominence (neusklep), which
characterizes the Gangetic Gavial.
6. By the less expanded form of the tabular upper surface of the hinder
part of the skull.
7. By the very slight production of the edges of the orbit.
8. By the large eyes.
9. By the presence of a number of small nuchal shields, while _G.
Gangeticus_ has but one pair.
10. By the strongly developed keels of the dorsal scutes.
11. By the much larger scales on the under parts and on the legs of the
animal.
12. By the different colours with which it is variegated."
* * * * *
These authors further point out that the vomers appear for a small space
in the posterior part of the palate, that the opercular or splenial
bones join in the symphysis of the lower jaw, and that the cervical and
dorsal scutes form one continuous shield; and they represent the two
anterior mandibular teeth passing in grooves on either side of the end
of the premaxilla. In fact, they fully and completely establish the fact
that their new species belongs to the _Longirostres_ of Cuvier, or to
the Gavials of later writers.
Under these circumstances, it is somewhat surprising to find the
deliberate conclusions of these careful investigators set aside in the
following brief passage:--
"This Bornean species (_C. Schlegelii_) was, in fact, originally
described as a new species of Gavial; but the nasal bones, as in the
fossil from Sheppey, figured in t. ii. 15, extend to the hinder
border of the external nostril."--_Owen_, _Fossil Reptilia of the
London Clay, Crocodilia_, p. 15: 1850.
Müller and Schlegel give remarkably clear and beautiful figures of the
skull of their Gavial; and these show at once that the nasal bones do
not "reach the hinder border of the external nostril," but meet the
premaxillaries at a point very distant from that border, viz. opposite
the ninth tooth. Even did the nasal bones reach the posterior boundary
of the nostril, such a character would not outweigh those derived from
the relations and number of the teeth, the structure and extent of the
mandibular symphysis, and the disposition of the dermal scutes,--all of
which are so clearly and definitely set forth by Müller and Schlegel,
that it seems difficult to understand how any one who had consulted the
original memoir could have overlooked them.
It was possible, however, that Müller and Schlegel, notwithstanding
their great opportunities, might have erred in their statements; and I
therefore gladly seized the opportunity of testing their description by
comparing it with an authentic skull of the species in question, from
New Guinea, in the collection of the British Museum.
I have found the statement of Müller and Schlegel minutely accurate
in almost all points; and there cannot be the slightest doubt, not
only that the Schlegelian crocodile is one of the _Gavialidæ_, but
that it forms a distinct generic type in that family, as different
from _Gavialis_ as _Caiman_ is from _Jacare_, or _Mecistops_ from
_Crocodilus_.
* * * * *
The following are the most important measurements of the skull of
_Rhynchosuchus Schlegelii_ in the British Museum collection:--
Inches.
Length from the end of the premaxilla to that of
os quadratum 23
Breadth from outer edge of one os quadratum to that
of the other 8-3/4
Breadth across the face in front of the orbits 4
" at the 9th tooth 2
" at the 5th tooth 1-1/2
" at the 3rd tooth 1-3/4
" of the beak-like curved process which carries
the two anterior teeth 1
Mean width of lower jaw from symphysis to extremity 1-5/8
Length 12
No tooth measures transversely more than 3/16
The face is very smooth; but a slight longitudinal groove runs down on
each side from the anterior margin of the orbit for about two inches.
Anteriorly to this point the snout retains a nearly even diameter as
far as the ninth tooth, in front of which it suddenly narrows a little,
retaining nearly the same dimensions to the fourth tooth, where it
widens a very little, and then suddenly narrows to the terminal beak.
The lower jaw does not expand at all at its extremity. The nasals join
the premaxillaries opposite the ninth tooth, and the splenial bones, in
the lower jaw, end opposite the tenth mandibular tooth, as the figures
of Müller and Schlegel show. The vomers appear between the inner edges
of the palatines posteriorly, as a thin bony band 1-3/8 inch long
by 1/8 inch wide, which tapers at each end and is divided by a
longitudinal suture. The ninth tooth of the upper jaw is stronger than
the rest.
The only point in which the description of Müller and Schlegel seems
to me to be incomplete[7] is with regard to the disposition of the
teeth. They say--"The teeth of _C. Schlegelii_, as regards their form
and development, more nearly resemble those of the true Crocodiles;
but in the way in which the teeth of the two jaws are opposed, there
is the most complete resemblance between our species and the Gangetic
Gavial,--both which species differ from all other crocodiles in the
circumstance that when the mouth is shut, all the teeth of the under jaw
project outside the lateral margin of the upper jaw" (_l. c._ p. 22).
What I find is this:--The anterior teeth of both the upper jaw and
the mandible are long, slender, sharp-edged, and slightly curved. The
posterior eleven, on each side, in the upper jaw, are short, straight,
conical, and constricted below their crowns. There are deep interdental
pits between the ten posterior mandibular teeth, into which the opposed
teeth of the maxilla are received when the jaws are closed. All the
mandibular teeth, except the two anterior and the fourth pair, pass into
like pits in the upper jaw. The anterior eight teeth on each side of
the upper jaw pass straight down outside the lower jaw. In the Gangetic
Gavial the relations of the teeth of the two jaws appear to me, as I
shall state below, to be very different.
_Rhynchosuchus Schlegelii_ inhabits the inland lakes of Borneo, and is
found in New Guinea.
[7] Or it is possible that the _Rhynchosuchus_ from New Guinea,
which I have examined, is specifically distinct from the Bornean
form.
Genus 7. GAVIALIS.
There are twenty-seven or twenty-eight teeth in the upper, and
twenty-five or twenty-six in the lower jaw. The mandibular symphysis
extends to the twenty-third or twenty-fourth tooth. The lateral teeth
of both jaws are, all but the very hindmost, directed obliquely
downwards (or upwards), forwards or outwards, and are not received
into interdental pits. The anterior margins of the orbits are raised.
The premaxillæ and the end of the mandible are greatly expanded. The
premaxillo-maxillary suture reaches the level of the fourth tooth behind
the canine notch.
The only true _Gavialis_ is the well-known _G. Gangeticus_ from the
East Indies. In this 'Gavial,' or 'Garrhial,' the vomers are slender
bones which do not extend further forwards than the level of the
twenty-second or twenty-first tooth, and have but a very short and
slender representative of the anterior flattened division of the bone in
_Jacare_; posteriorly they extend back to the level of the descending
processes of the prefrontals. In a skull 25 inches long the vomers
have a length of about 4 inches, extending as they do a little further
forward than the palato-maxillary suture. The median nares are opposite
the twenty-fifth tooth.
* * * * *
All the _Crocodilia_ which I have enumerated are provided with two
perfectly distinct kinds of dermal armour,--the one consisting of
plates of horn, produced by a modification of the superficial layer of
the epidermis; the other composed of discs of bone marked by a peculiar
pitted sculpture on their outer surfaces, and developed within the
substance of the dermis. To the former I shall apply the term "scales;"
the latter are what I have denominated "scutes."
All recent _Crocodilia_ have both scales and scutes in the dorsal
region of the body, the scutes underlying, and having the same general
form as the scales. In all, the ventral region of the body is also
covered with scales which have a very definite shape; but in no recent
Crocodilian which I have examined, save those species which are
included in the genera _Caiman_ and _Jacare_, are there any scutes in
the ventral region.
Again, in the genera _Alligator_, _Crocodilus_, _Mecistops_,
Rhynchosuchus, and _Gavialis_, the edges of the scutes, except those of
the two median longitudinal rows, are hardly ever united by sutures,
nor do the posterior margins of those in each transverse row overlap the
anterior margins of the succeeding row. At any rate, there is no flat,
bevelled, articular facet on the outer surface of the anterior margin of
a scute, for articulation with the inner surface of the posterior margin
of its predecessor. In the genera _Caiman_ and _Jacare_, however, the
lateral edges of all the scutes of the dorsal and ventral shields are
united by serrated sutures; and the anterior end of the outer face of
each is provided with a well-marked smooth facet, which is overlapped by
the smooth under-surface of the scute in front of it.
I first noticed the remarkable structure of the dermal armour of these
_Alligatoridæ_ in the skin of a _Jacare_ (_sp. incerta_), wanting the
end of the tail, but which must have belonged to an animal between five
and six feet in length. It had long been in my possession; but I had
never before had occasion to study its characters minutely.
The horny scales, which had the appearance of thin tortoise-shell,
could be readily peeled off (especially by the aid of a little caustic
potash); and then the white surface of the subjacent bony scute upon
which they were modelled came into view. It is to be understood,
however, that the inner surface of the scale corresponded only in its
general form with the outer surface of the scute; for it did not dip
into the pits with which the latter is sculptured. These are in fact
filled by the dry dermis which extends over and encloses the scute, a
very thin layer (bearing the rete mucosum) being interposed between it
and the scale; so that the pitted sculpture does not come out well until
the scutes have been boiled.
The _dorsal_ scutes are both carinated and angulated. By the application
of the former term, I mean to indicate that, along a median or submedian
longitudinal line, their substance is more or less elevated, so as, in
many cases, to form a very prominent crest. This crest always subsides
before it reaches the anterior margin of the scute, though it may extend
beyond the posterior margin. Its highest point is always behind the
centre of the scute, and is devoid of sculpture. The sculpture however
seems to radiate from this point, inasmuch as it consists, on the
greater part of the scute, of distinct pits, which are usually round
towards the centre, but towards the periphery become ovals with their
long axes directed towards the point in question.
The smooth inner surfaces of the scute shelve towards a depression
which corresponds with the external ridge, under which the sides of
the scute seem to meet in an angle. This may be called the 'angulation'
of the scute. From before backwards, the inner surface of the scute is
a little convex. The scute is thickest in the middle; posteriorly, it
thins off to an edge and overlaps its successor; anteriorly, its outer
surface is bevelled off at an acute angle with the inner, so as to give
rise to a smooth shelving surface--wide from side to side, narrow from
before backwards--forming the 'articular facet,' which is overlapped by
the inner surface of the posterior edge of the preceding scute. I have
termed this the 'articular facet;' but it must not be supposed that
there is anything like a true joint between the opposed facets of the
overlapping and overlapped scutes; on the contrary, they are at once
separated and connected by the dermal connective tissue.
The posterior margin of the articular facet is separated by a deep
transverse groove, divided by little partitions into as many pits,
from the rest of the sculptured surface; but there is no trace of any
suture dividing the scute into two portions. The lateral margins of each
scute are united by serrated sutural edges with those which lie next to
them in the same transverse row; so that each row forms a nearly solid
flat bony bar, composed, in the middle of the back, of as many as ten
distinct scutes. The outer edges of the outermost scutes only, thin off
and exhibit no sutural serration, inasmuch as they are not directly
connected with ANY other scutes.
The median line of the back corresponds in general with the suture
between the two middle scutes of each transverse row; so that the scutes
are disposed symmetrically on either side of that line. Furthermore,
the anterior part of the inner surface of each of the two middle scutes
is connected by ligament with the extremity of the spinous process of a
vertebra; at least, this is the case in the dorsal, lumbar, sacral, and
anterior caudal regions.
The scutes which protect the _ventral_ side of the body, from the
throat backwards, are four-sided and similar in their ornamentation
to the dorsal scutes; but they exhibit neither ridge nor angulation,
their outer and inner surfaces being parallel, and either nearly flat
or evenly curved. Each forms, in fact, a segment of a large cylinder,
inasmuch as the whole ventral shield is convex transversely, being
nearly flat in the middle and much bent up at the sides. The dorsal
shield, taken as a whole, is, on the contrary, nearly flat. The lateral
edges of the ventral scutes interlock suturally; and their anterior and
posterior edges are overlapped and overlap, just like the dorsal scutes.
The outer edges of the outermost ventral scutes thin off and are not
united with any bony element; and the ventral, like the dorsal scutes,
are usually arranged symmetrically on either side of the median sutural
line. There may be as many as twenty-two scutes united by their lateral
sutures into a single strong, curved, transverse, bony, bar-like segment
of the ventral armour.
Throughout the neck and body, and as far as the commencement of the
tail, the ends of the dorsal and ventral bony bars, whose sum may be
regarded as a dorsal and a ventral shield respectively, are separated
by an interval of integument, in which only small scattered scutes are
visible. The physiological import of this arrangement becomes obvious
when we consider in what manner the animal breathes; and indeed the
integumentary interval answers very precisely to the leather which
connects the two boards of a bellows. Again, though the limbs are
themselves covered with articulated scutes, they are afforded free
play upon the body by this flexible interspace. Immediately behind the
hind legs, the ventral and dorsal shields unite; and the tail is from
that point surrounded by a succession of bony hoops, each of which
corresponds with a vertebra, the segments of the exoskeleton answering
to those of the endoskeleton.
The most remarkable feature about the ventral scutes, however, and that
in which they differ most widely from the dorsal ones, consists in the
fact that each scute is composed of two distinct pieces, an anterior
and a posterior, which unite together by a transverse serrated suture.
The anterior piece or 'semi-scute' may attain to three-quarters the
length of the posterior, and it has exactly the same width. The anterior
semi-scute bears the articular facet and the transverse pitted groove,
whose posterior wall is just in front of its hinder edge, or in other
words, of the suture, when the two semi-scutes are united.
Such are the general characters and mode of arrangement of the dorsal
and ventral armour of _Jacare_. But there remain many noteworthy
peculiarities in the disposition and number of the components of each
band of the armour.
Thus, in the _dorsal shield_ there are two rows of nuchal scutes, each
containing eight separate keeled bony plates; and of cervical scutes
there are five rows, the two anterior of which contain four angulated
and carinated scutes each, while the three posterior contain only two
scutes each. All these scutes, except the anterior row, have articular
facets; and all those of each row are united suturally. Of dorsal scutes
there are thirty transverse rows up to the median keel of the tail,
which commences with the thirty-first row. The number of scutes in each
row is as follows:--
Rows. Scutes.
1, 2, 3, 4 6
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 10
12, 13 8
14, 15 6
16, 17, 18 4
19 6
20 8
23, 24 6
25, 26 5
27, 28 4
29, 30 4
31, 32, 33, 34 5
The rest of the tail is wanting.
Throughout the dorso-lumbar and sacral regions (_i. e._ up to the
nineteenth row), the median scutes are hardly keeled at all, while the
outer ones are the more strongly carinate the more external they lie.
In the caudal region, the second scute from the middle line, in the
twenty-third row, has a strong keel and angulation, which grows stronger
in the corresponding scutes up to the thirtieth inclusive, until the
superior and lateral faces of these scutes, in the twenty-ninth and
thirtieth rows, are inclined to one another at a right angle and
very strongly keeled. I have said that, as a rule, the median line
is occupied by a suture between two median scutes; but in the caudal
region[8], in the twenty-fifth row (which corresponds with the sixth
caudal vertebra) the two median scutes are replaced by one flat scute,
so that there is no suture in the middle line. In the twenty-sixth row
there is a similar arrangement, but the flat scute is smaller; and in
the twenty-seventh no trace of it is left, so that the strongly keeled
lateral scutes meet in the middle line, which is again occupied by a
suture. This continues up to the thirty-first row, when the median scute
reappears as a thin vertical plate, broader below and in front, where it
articulates with the median lateral scutes, than above and behind, where
it exhibits a free edge only covered by the horny epidermis. It is thus
that the serrated dorsal crest of the tail is formed. The scutes of the
crest exhibit only very small round and distant pits.
The _ventral shield_ begins in the neck just behind the level of the
anterior margins of the orbits: the fifteen anterior rows may be termed
subcervical, as they lie in front of the thorax. In the first six rows
the scutes are very small, and increase in number up to twelve in a row.
In the next six rows there are ten scutes in a row, and in the last
three, twelve. All these rows are symmetrically divided by the median
line. In the three hinder rows the inner scutes are longer than the
outer ones; and this is most markedly the case in the fifteenth row,
whose innermost scute is half as long again as the corresponding one of
the preceding row, and more than three times as long as the outermost of
its own row.
[8] The second and third cervical rows in _Caiman palpebrosus_ and
_trigonatus_ also contain a median scute, and consequently an odd
number of scutes. In _Caiman trigonatus_, the third to the ninth
supra-caudal rows have each a median single scute.
The sixteenth row differs from its predecessors and successors, and may
be termed the axillary row. It is bent upon itself with an angle open
forwards, and is divided into two halves (each of which contains seven
scutes) by the union of the middle scutes of the fifteenth subcervical
with those of the first row of what may be termed the subdorsal scutes,
or those which lie under the thorax and abdomen. Of subdorsal and
subcaudal scutes there are, up to the broken-off end of the tail,
thirty-seven rows, with the following numbers of scutes:--
Rows. Scutes.
1 12
2 10
3, 4, 5, 12
6, 7, 8, 9, 14
10 16
11 14
12-17 14
18-20 12
21 14
22 18
23 22
24 22
25 20
26-28 18
29-31 16
32-34 14
35 12
36, 37 10
It will be noticed that there are three more rows of ventral than of
dorsal scutes. On endeavouring to ascertain how this came about, I
observed that the first subdorsal was a good deal behind the first
dorsal row, though the eighth to the twelfth dorsal corresponded exactly
with the eighth to the twelfth ventral rows. In the anterior part of the
body, therefore, there is a clear general correspondence between the
segments of the dorsal and those of the ventral armour.
In the caudal region, again, I found that the twenty-fourth ventral
row, which is the first of the caudal rows not excavated by the vent,
corresponded exactly with the twenty-first dorsal row. It was clear,
therefore, that three ventral rows wore interpolated somewhere between
the twelfth and twenty-first dorsal rows; and on close examination I
found this interpolation to arise from the doubling of the fourteenth,
fifteenth, and sixteenth ventral rows.
I have examined _Jacare fissipes_ and _nigra_, _Caiman trigonatus_,
and _C. gibbiceps_, in the British Museum; and I find, in all, dorsal
and ventral armour having the same essential arrangement as that just
described. A specimen of _Caiman palpebrosus_ about two feet long, the
opportunity of examining which I owe to Dr. Grant, exhibits the dorsal
and ventral shields (whose scutes are in the main similarly arranged)
very beautifully; and a young _Jacare_ of about 18 inches in length,
for which I am indebted to the kindness of the same gentleman, proves
that the scutes are developed even in specimens of this age. I have
no hesitation therefore in expressing my belief that this singularly
complete dermal armour will be found to be characteristic of all the
species of the genera _Caiman_ and _Jacare_. On the other hand, I
have examined _Alligator Mississipiensis_, _Crocodilus vulgaris_, _C.
biporcatus_, _C. Americanus_, _C. rhombifer_, and _C. bombifrons_,
_Mecistops cataphractus_, and _Gavialis Gangeticus_, of various ages and
sizes, without having been able to discover a trace of ventral scutes.
This is the more remarkable, as the well-marked ventral and dorsal
shields of many of the ancient _Teleosauria_ would lead one to expect
a corresponding exoskeleton (if anywhere) in their nearest allies, the
modern _Gavialidæ_. However, _Goniopholis_, with its strong armour, is
more like an ordinary Crocodile; and I have recently discovered that a
true Crocodile in some respects curiously similar to _C. bombifrons_
(_C. Hastingsiæ_) was covered with scutes exceedingly like those of the
modern _Caiman_ and _Jacare_.
In minute structure the bony scutes of _Jacare_ closely resemble those
of such a fish as a Sturgeon: a middle layer, containing so many canals
as to appear almost cancellated in longitudinal or transverse section,
is covered externally by a thin, and internally by a thick, layer
composed of bony lamellæ, nearly parallel to the plane of the scute.
Round the canals of the middle layer, the bony lamellæ are disposed
concentrically, to a greater or less extent. The lacunæ are of very
various shapes; and there are perhaps as many short as elongated forms.
The canals of the middle layer communicate by large branches with the
inner, by smaller and fewer branches with the outer surface of the
scute.
In the young _Jacare_ mentioned above, I found the dermis to be
distinguishable into two layers. The more superficial of these is thin,
made up of irregular or formless connective tissue, and contains many
ramified pigment-masses. Its smooth outer surface underlies the rete
mucosum. Internally, it passes into the second or deep layer, which
consists of successive layers of distinctly fibrous connective tissue,
disposed in definite parallel bundles, and having a very regular
arrangement. Throughout a space corresponding with the area of each
scale, in fact, the bundles of each layer cross those of the succeeding
layer at right angles; and the successive tiers of bundles are tied
together by short cords disposed perpendicularly to the planes of the
tiers. A corresponding arrangement of the bundles of connective tissue
has long been known to obtain in the dermis of Fishes and _Batrachia_.
At each end of this small "mat" of connective tissue, the bundles, if
I may so say, fray out; and at the anterior end, the layers, loosened
in texture, bend upwards, spreading out at the same time to become
continuous with the fibres of the "mat" in front. In consequence of
the matting under the quadrate surface of each scale, the dermis has a
peculiar facetted aspect, quite apart from any osseous deposit. Where
bony scutes are formed, they appear as very thin perforated plates in
the most superficial portion of the deep layer of the dermis; so that
there is a single thin layer of dense connective tissue above them,
while below them are all the rest of the denser and deeper lamellæ of
the dermis. Through the apertures in this primitive osseous plate (the
rudiment of the middle layer of the future scute), bundles of connective
tissue extend, connecting the deep with the superjacent lamellæ.
If a thin section is made and decalcified with weak acid under the
microscope, the calcareous matter, as it is dissolved away, leaves an
obscurely fibrous matrix of a different aspect from the surrounding
connective tissue, and the endoplasts, or nuclei, of this matrix are
seen each to have occupied the centre of a lacuna.
Again, the rudimentary scute lies in the dermis as in a sort of pocket,
the superficial and deep walls of which separate from it with great
ease; and in good thin sections made through the dermis and scute, there
seems to be no direct connexion between the substance of the scute above
and below, and the connective tissue with which it is in contact. Nor
could I satisfy myself that the margins of the scute were continuous
with the surrounding bundles of connective tissue. However, the specimen
had been a very long time in spirit; and I am unwilling to lay too much
stress upon these observations, which tend to negative the supposition
that the scute proceeds from the direct calcification of the connective
tissue of the dermis.
On the other hand, I must remark that horizontal sections of the scutes
have presented oblique parallel fissures, sometimes crossing one
another, which might readily be supposed to correspond with the lines of
separation of ossified bundles of connective tissue.
* * * * *
NOTE.--During a recent visit to Paris, my friend Mr. Busk was kind
enough to examine the specimens of recent _Crocodilia_ in the Museum
of the Jardin des Plantes, with reference to certain points to which
I requested his attention. Mr. Busk informs me that there is no doubt
about the transverse direction of the premaxillo-maxillary suture in
_Crocodilus rhombifer_; and his statements lead me to entertain no
question that _C. bombifrons_ is a synonym of _C. palustris_.
In the typical specimens of _C. marginatus_ and _C. suchus_ of Geoffroy
St.-Hilaire, the premaxillo-maxillary suture extends back to the level
of the seventh tooth.
Mr. Busk has furthermore pointed out to me the existence of another
American species of Crocodile--_C. Morelettii_, which has been described
by M. Auguste Duméril in his "Description des Reptiles nouveaux ou
imparfaitement connus," &c., 'Archives du Muséum,' t. vi. 1852.
This species inhabits lake Flores, in Yucatan; and it is said by M.
Duméril to approach _C. Americanus_, from which it differs in the
proportions of the skull and in the characters of the dermal armour.
June 21st, 1859.
* * * * *
On the Habits of the "Aye-Aye" (_Cheiromys madagascariensis_, L.,
Cuv.). By the Hon. H. SANDWITH, M.D., C.B., Colonial Secretary of the
Mauritius. Communicated by Prof. OWEN, F.R.S., V.P.L.S.
[Read April 7th, 1859.]
"Mauritius, Jan. 27, 1859.
"MY DEAR MR. OWEN,--After very great difficulty and much delay, I have
at length obtained a fine healthy male adult _Aye-Aye_; and he is now
enjoying himself in a large cage which I have had constructed for him.
He is a most interesting little animal; and from close observation I
have learnt his habits very correctly. On receiving him from Madagascar,
I was told that he ate bananas; so of course I fed him on them, but
tried him with other fruit. I found he liked dates,--which was a grand
discovery, supposing he be sent alive to England. Still I thought that
those strong rodent teeth, as large as those of a young Beaver, must
have been intended for some other purpose than that of trying to eat
his way out of a cage--the only use he seemed to make of them, besides
masticating soft fruits. Moreover, he had other peculiarities,--_e.g._,
singularly large, naked ears directed forward, as if for offensive
rather than defensive purposes; then, again, the second finger of
the hands is unlike anything but a monster supernumerary member, it
being slender and long, half the thickness of the other fingers, and
resembling a piece of bent wire. Excepting the head and this finger, he
closely resembles a Lemur.
Now as he attacked, every night, the woodwork of his cage, which I was
gradually lining with tin, I bethought myself of tying some sticks over
the woodwork, so that he might gnaw these instead. I had previously
put in some large branches for him to climb upon; but the others were
straight sticks to cover over the woodwork of his cage, which _alone_ he
attacked. It so happened that the thick sticks I now put into his cage
were bored in all directions by a large and destructive grub called here
the _Moutouk_. Just at sunset the Aye-Aye crept from under his blanket,
yawned, stretched, and betook himself to his tree, where his movements
are lively and graceful, though by no means so quick as those of a
squirrel. Presently he came to one of the worm-eaten branches, which he
began to examine most attentively; and bending forward his ears, and
applying his nose close to the bark, he rapidly tapped the surface with
the curious second digit, as a woodpecker taps a tree, though with much
less noise, from time to time inserting the end of the slender finger
into the worm-holes, as a surgeon would a probe. At length he came to
a part of the branch which evidently gave out an interesting sound,
for he began to tear it with his strong teeth. He rapidly stripped off
the bark, cut into the wood, and exposed the nest of a grub, which he
daintily picked out of its bed with the slender tapping finger, and
conveyed the luscious morsel to his mouth.
I watched these proceedings with intense interest, and was much struck
with the marvellous adaptation of the creature to its habits, shown by
his acute hearing, which enables him aptly to distinguish the different
tones emitted from the wood by his gentle tapping; his evidently acute
sense of smell, aiding him in his search; his secure footsteps on the
slender branches, to which he firmly clung by his quadrumanous members;
his strong rodent teeth, enabling him to tear through the wood; and
lastly by the curious slender finger, unlike that of any other animal,
and which he used alternately as a pleximeter, a probe, and a scoop.
But I was yet to learn another peculiarity. I gave him water to drink
in a saucer, on which he stretched out a hand, dipped a finger into it,
and drew it obliquely through his open mouth; and this he repeated so
rapidly, that the water seemed to flow into his mouth. After a while he
lapped like a cat; but his first mode of drinking appeared to me to be
his way of reaching water in the deep clefts of trees.
I am told that the _Aye-Aye_ is an object of veneration at Madagascar,
and that if any native touches one, he is sure to die within the year;
hence the difficulty of obtaining a specimen. I overcame this scruple by
a reward of £10.
I quite despair of obtaining the bones of the _Dinornis_ or _Dodo_,
though I have made every effort. I shall always be proud to be of
service.
Believe me, yours very faithfully,
H. SANDWITH."
* * * * *
On the Moulting of the common Lobster (_Homarus vulgaris_) and Shore
Crab (_Carcinus mænas_). By S. JAMES A. SALTER, M.B., F.L.S., F.G.S.
[Read April 7th, 1859.]
I am induced to bring this subject before the Linnean Society, on
account of the singularly perfect specimen of the thrown-off slough of
a Lobster which I have now an opportunity of exhibiting, and because
the process by which it was shed was witnessed and carefully watched by
two competent observers--by my friend Mr. Robert Cooke, of Scarborough,
a Fellow of this Society, and by the intelligent wife of the Curator
of the Scarborough Museum, in an aquarium in which institution the
occurrence took place.
The methods by which certain of the Decapod Crustaceans cast their old
shells in the process of renewal and growth have already been made the
subject of observation and record.
Réaumur, as early as 1712, and again in 1718, saw and described the
sloughing of the common freshwater Crayfish (_Astacus fluviatilis_).
It was witnessed in the common edible Crab (_Cancer Pagurus_) by Mr.
Couch, in 1833.
Subsequently the moulting-process was observed by Mr. Gosse, in the
Spinous Spider-crab (_Maia Squinado_).
Beyond these three recorded examples, I believe that the actual
operation of moulting in Decapods has never been seen, though the
sloughs of our common Crustacea, and the animals themselves but recently
emerged from their old shells, are familiar to all marine zoologists.
There is no recorded account of the moulting of the Lobster, that I have
been able to discover.
The Lobster from which the slough was obtained, and whose operations
are the subject of this communication, was an inhabitant of a large
marine aquarium in the Museum at Scarborough. The period was July 1857.
The aquarium contained the ordinary assemblage of sea-shore animals,
and a considerable collection of vegetation, which consisted of _Ulva_,
_Fucus_, and other common sea-weeds.
For two days previous to its throwing off the shell, the Lobster was
observed in a very peculiar attitude, and to be very busily engaged.
Its abdomen was permanently and stiffly erected and straight; while the
animal, in this rigid attitude, was hard at work detaching and carrying
all the soft sea-weed it could collect to one end of the aquarium, where
it thus accumulated a large mass of vegetation, which was afterwards
destined to become a screen and protection for its soft body. At the
same time, and by the same means, a clearing was made at the other
end of the tank, in which it had space for the evolutions which were
subsequently necessary for the extrication of its body.
The Lobster remained in the peculiar rigid attitude I have described,
during the entire two days previous to the moult. On the third day, a
crack was observed along the membrane which unites the dorsal surface
of the first abdominal ring with the carapace; and when these parts
became separated by about half an inch, the bright-blue membrane of the
new shell being plainly visible beneath, the operation of extricating
the abdomen commenced. By a strong vibratory action of the whole
abdomen, principally in a lateral direction, one segment was, at first,
protruded through the split; and this was followed by an interval of
complete repose, during which the animal remained quite motionless.
Then, by another vibratory action, the second segment was extricated;
then followed an interval of repose, when the third was withdrawn; and
so on till, at last, the entire abdomen, after having been bent double
upon itself, was turned completely out backwards, and then, elongated
and compressed, remained above and parallel to the empty shell that it
had occupied, and which was still attached to the under surface of the
cephalothorax. Hitherto the only orifice of escape consisted in the
transverse splitting of the first abdominal segment from the carapace,
on the dorsal surface. None of the abdominal segments separated from
each other.
Thus far the extrication had commenced at the front of the abdomen,
and had progressed from before backwards. It was now observed that
the carapace had split from behind forwards, the fissure commencing
posteriorly at the transverse split between _the_ carapace and the
first abdominal segment, and reaching forwards to the apex of the
rostrum, which, however, it did not absolutely divide. The two halves
of the carapace then separating posteriorly, the interval between
them, together with the original transverse slit, constituted a trifid
opening, through which the rest of the animal escaped.
The escape of the cephalo-thoracic portion was effected from behind
forwards. First the posterior ambulatory legs were loosened and
withdrawn; then followed the next pair; and this process was continued
from behind forwards, pair by pair--the withdrawal of each pair of legs
being followed by an interval of repose. The limbs were withdrawn very
readily from the old shell, slipping out of it as a leg would from a
loose boot. No apparent effort accompanied these operations so far.
The extrication of the claws, however, was attended with much and
violent exertion. This consisted of two powerful and sudden tugs, the
soft abdomen of the Lobster pressing by its under surface upon the
upper surface of the empty shell. By this means the soft chelæ were
drawn through the narrow joints of the old shell, exhibiting strong,
unmistakeable marks of the violence and pressure to which they had been
subjected. The escape of the chelæ from their unyielding incasement
was not aided by any splitting of the old shell, the large soft hands
being drawn by compression through the narrow joints, as a wire is drawn
through the contracting holes of a draw-plate.
The efforts for the withdrawal of the chelæ were the last, and succeeded
in completely freeing the Lobster from its old case. Not only the
claws, but the parts of the mouth, the antennæ, and the eyes, were
all unsheathed; and with the last tug the regenerate Lobster plunged
backwards, and entirely escaped, above and behind the now empty
shell--its former tenement.
The operation, from first to last, occupied about twenty minutes, and
was performed entirely in view, in that part of the aquarium which the
Lobster had cleared of sea-weed.
Immediately after emerging from the old shell, the Lobster, was much
deformed: there was a general elongation of the whole animal; but this
was most remarkably the case with the claws, which were quite drawn out
of shape. During the few subsequent hours, both the body and the claws
became shorter and much enlarged. This increase of size did not result
from any unfolding of membrane of the shell previously plicated, as no
folds were observable immediately after the emergence of the animal,
but from a simple distension, apparently from the imbibition, either
by swallowing or by endosmosis, of considerable quantities of water.
The membrane of the new shell was perfectly soft, and of a bright blue
colour. At first the Lobster was shy and quite inactive, retiring to
and remaining concealed among the accumulated sea-weed; but in a few
hours it emerged from its retreat, and moved freely about the aquarium.
The membrane of the new shell remained soft for some days, but on the
seventh it appeared to have become perfectly calcified.
These are the details of the exuviation of the Lobster whose cast-off
shell is before the Society. By a happy accident, the same observers had
an opportunity of witnessing the sloughing of another Lobster, in the
month of November following. The process was identically the same in
every particular; but it was observed that the subsequent calcification
of the shell did not take place till after the lapse of about fourteen
days,--a circumstance probably dependent on a lower temperature and a
less active nutrition. These are, I believe, the only two instances in
which the exuviation of the Lobster has been actually witnessed; but
there exist specimens of sloughs which are entirely in keeping with this
description. In the fish-house of the Zoological Society of London there
are two specimens which were cast in the tanks there; and in each there
is the same transverse splitting of the carapace from the abdomen, and
the longitudinal splitting of the carapace itself, without any other
opening for the escape of the animal.
One or two general observations are suggested by the foregoing
description. In the only examples of the exuviation of macrourous
Decapod Crustaceans, there exists a singular diversity in the
process itself. In _Astacus_, as described by Réaumur, the process
commences with the escape of the cephalothorax; in _Homarus_, as I
have now described it, it begins by the emergence of the abdomen. In
_Astacus_ the carapace is detached and thrown off bodily and unbroken,
being severed from its attachments with the lateral portions of the
cephalothorax, as is the case in the Brachyura; whereas in _Homarus_ the
lateral attachments of the carapace remain, whilst the plate itself is
split up the centre. In _Astacus_, as is also the case in the Brachyura,
the thrown-off slough is uniformly left resting on its dorsal surface;
in _Homarus_ the reverse is uniformly the case. But the most striking
dissimilarity is to be found in the circumstances _stated_ to attend the
liberation of the chelæ. Prof. Bell, in the Introduction to his 'History
of the British Stalk-eyed Crustacea,' remarks--"It is impossible to
imagine that the crust of the legs, and especially of the great claws
of the larger species, could be cast off, unless it were susceptible of
being longitudinally split" (p. 35), and he then proceeds to give the
account detailed by Réaumur of the longitudinal splitting of the shell
in the neighbourhood of the joints of the claws in _Astacus_, so as to
allow of the extrication of the hands. Nevertheless, however impossible
it may appear for the chelæ to escape without this splitting, no such
circumstance occurs in the exuviation of _Homarus vulgaris_; and when
we consider that the hands of _Astacus_ are small in proportion to
the wrist-joints, and that in _Homarus_ they are larger in proportion
to those joints than in any other of the Macroura, this dissimilarity
in the mode in which the claws escape is the more remarkable, and, I
confess, to my own mind it suggests the suspicion that the distinguished
and usually most accurate French naturalist to whom I have referred may
possibly in this instance have been led to consider as a fact that which
was to him a supposed necessity[9].
Since the foregoing account of the moulting of the Lobster was written,
I have dredged a specimen of the common shore-crab (_Carcinus mænas_),
in the act of casting its shell. This little crustacean had taken
refuge, no doubt for the safe and secret performance of sloughing in
a forest of _Zostera_, on one of the mud banks in Poole Harbour, and
while scraping these weeds with a keer-drag it fortunately fell into my
net. It shows how the Brachyura leave their old shells by the horizontal
splitting away of the carapace from the other portions of the shell--the
carapace itself remaining entire; and it also shows (and this was my
principal object in exhibiting the specimen) the enormous amount of
increase of size upon emerging from the shell, and the rapidity with
which that increase takes place. The animal, as now seen, is in exactly
the same state as when taken out of the water, and its bulk is probably
some four times larger than the area of the shell in which it had been
encased only a few minutes before. I retained the Crab in connexion with
its old shell, and prevented its further escape by wrapping it in paper,
so that it could not move its limbs. I thought such a specimen would
be telling and illustrative, and that the old shell, being in contact
with the new, would afford facilities for contrast. In this condition
the Crab died, and, being out of water some time, it became dry, and
the soft new shell collapsed and bulged in; but, upon placing the dead
Crab in sea-water, the soft shell very speedily imbibed sufficient
fluid to distend it to its previous dimensions. This of course was
simply the effect of endosmosis. Mr. Couch, in describing the moulting
of the common Edible Crab (_Cancer Pagurus_), speaks of its _drinking_
large quantities of water, and _thus_ becoming distended; but I rather
think that the distension takes place by endosmosis, even during
life. There are two circumstances which militate against Mr. Couch's
opinion:--first, the rapidity with which the distension occurred in the
Crab I have just exhibited, while still in the act of moulting; and
secondly, that after death the same distension occurred when the Crab
was immersed in sea-water; in which case it could only be by endosmosis.
Indeed to me it seems very probable that this very endosmosis, when the
water once comes in contact with the new, uncalcified shell, may, by
distending it, be the main agent in the breaking open and dissevering of
the elements of the old shell.
[9] The suspicion above expressed has been fully confirmed by
observations made by Mr. J. J. Bennett, the Secretary of the
Linnean Society. Mr. Bennett informs me that, in an aquarium in
his possession, an _Astacus fluviatilis_ has twice cast its shell,
and the process of moulting was on each occasion accomplished
without any splitting of the shell at the joints of the claws.
* * * * *
On the Shell-bearing Mollusca, particularly with regard to Structure
and Form. By ROBERT GARNER, Esq., F.L.S.
[Abstract of a Paper read before the Society.]
The author commences the paper, of which the following is the substance,
with some general observations on the morphology of animals. He thinks
that the idea of an ascending and successive scale or chain of creation
is, in the main, correct, when the great classes, and not species or
genera, are made the links,--the disturbing or modifying influences
being due to modes of life, food, habitat, &c., and causing a different
(say the quinary) distribution. He is an advocate, too, for the doctrine
of one fundamental plan of organization, and thinks that, in the
zoophyte, there is a real union of both the animal and vegetable
_nisus_.
The great divisions of this chain, the _radiate_, _articulate_,
_molluscous_, and _vertebrate_, constitute an ascending series; the
links of the chain, so to speak, being in each case, for such an
extent, of a particular pattern; but, nevertheless, one of the highest
mollusks may surpass in organization one of the lowest fishes, or an
articulate creature a mollusk. The author considers such great divisions
of animals, as well as minor ones--the gasteropodous mollusks, for
instance--as realities, and not mere abstractions; and that they are
independent of the circumstances of food, habitat, locomotion, &c.,
just referred to. So great, however, are these disturbing influences,
that they often produce an extraordinary external resemblance or
pseudo-analogy between animals of a very different nature, as between
a _Chiton_ and an _Oniscus_, and they are connected intimately with,
though not the cause of, what we call specific or generic distinctions.
Aërial life, in contradistinction to aquatic, raises much the character
of the locomotive organs; yet this is subordinate to type: hence the
creeping Mollusk appears to have commonly a higher organization than the
flying Insect.
The cartilages of _Sepia_ have a true resemblance to those of a Skate,
and the Cirrhipede truly connects the Mollusk with the Crustacean.
The author regards _Dentalium_ as a gasteropod, differing in this
respect from Lacaze-Duthiers, whose beautiful paper, however, renders
it supererogatory to say anything more on this animal, except that
the author believes that the presence of the spiniferous tongue, of a
proboscis, and the nature of the food, are favourable to his view: he
also takes the feathery tufts to be the branchiæ.
The anatomy of _Aspergillum_ is similar to that of _Pholas_; its mantle,
however, is all but closed in front, and ends in an obliquely-set
muscular disk, applied to the internal surface of the rose of the
so-called _arrosoir_, the openings of this part of the shell giving exit
to certain processes and fimbriæ of the fleshy disk,--a narrow slit
being also left in both the muscular and shelly disks for the exsertion
of the small, compressed and curved foot. The animal is enveloped
within the shell by a rather horny, general membrane.
The author touches upon the anatomy of some other genera of
Lamellibranchiata. _Solemya_ has its firm, horny, dark cuticle doubled
inwards from the valves over the tubular mantle; behind, it has an anal
opening, and a second fringed branchial slit lower down: the branchiæ
and tentacles are single on each side, the former being remarkably
feather-like. The foot is similar to that of the Solens, but crenate
round its anterior disk. _Cyrenoidea_ has the mantle closed below, but
with two openings behind, the upper one with a semicircular internal
fringe, incomplete above; a callous rim and fringe surround the mantle,
which has also a third opening for the long, compressed, bent, and
blunt foot. This last has a remarkable crystalline body, directed from
the stomach to the pedal pore, apparently, as in _Cardium_, subserving
by its elasticity to the extension of the foot, and consequently to
locomotion; at any rate, it is not a sexual distinction. The external
branchiæ are short, and the upper or internal branchial cavity does
not communicate with the lower one. The renal organ opens near the
branchial nerve, and the ovary at the base of the abdominal mass.
_Trigonia_ is remarkable for its beautifully fringed, open mantle,
its pectinated pits for the secretion of the teeth, and the large
scythe-shaped foot, trenchant before and peaked behind, and having a
fringed disk. _Vulsella_ is allied to the Oyster, but more so to the
Pectens, having a small cylindrical grooved foot and appended visceral
mass, but no byssus; the rectum perforates the heart, and has a tentacle
above its opening. _Perna_ has a similar foot, and a very bulky byssus,
with a large muscle attached to their base; the lips resemble those
of the Oyster. The anatomy of _Crania_ is little different from that
of _Orbicula_, as described by Owen,--the beautiful arms folded in
several coils, with a simple mouth at their base, the stomach and short
intestinal canal surrounded by the liver and hearts, and terminating
by a lateral bend; the ovaries ramifying in the mantle; the adductor
muscles being four in number, with some bands to the mantle; and on
the latter, glandular markings corresponding with the microscopic
sculpture of the shell. With respect to _Anomia_, the author has again
been anticipated by Lacaze-Duthiers, though he has already given, in
another paper, most of its anatomy and morphology: he would simply call
attention to its very long and curious crystalline stilette, unconnected
with the minute foot.
With respect to that _quæstio vexata_, the sexes of the
Lamellibranchiata, he observes that any number of individuals of
_Cyclas_ may be examined, and young fry will be found in the branchial
laminæ in all; that all Oysters have ova, and also all individuals of
_Pecten maximus_, the subpedal mass being visibly composed of an ovary
and a testis. He is obliged to believe that one species of British
_Anodon_ is universally oviferous. But the common Edible Cockle appears
to have the individuals of different sexes, and the same may be said
with regard to _Mytilus edulis_ and _Patella_.
The spermatozoa in the Cockle are oblong and a little curved, and
torulated, as it were, whilst they are pear-shaped in _Mytilus_; they
are also extremely minute, and their appendages must be very fine, for
with a power magnifying 500 diameters they are scarcely to be seen.
In the shell of a _Patella_, _Emarginula_, or _Haliotis_, we have the
two conjoined valves of a lamellibranchiate mollusk; and through such
forms as _Calyptræa_, _Hipponyx_, _Navicella_, and _Nerita_, we arrive
at the ordinary form of the gasteropod with its operculum.
Then follows a disquisition on the progressive tendency to a spiral
geometry in these animals, due to a varying plan of conformation,
and not to the force of the heart, there being generally an atrophy
of the left side of the body. In _Nautilus_ and _Argonauta_, the
shell and mantle are reversed in position to what they are in the
Gasteropods, whilst _Sepia_ and _Hyalæa_ agree rather with the latter.
The symmetrical shell of the lower Gasteropods undergoes a lateral
torsion in the higher, spiral forms, to become again symmetrical in
the Cephalopoda. The branchiæ in _Patella_ retain a position analogous
to that of the same organs in the Lamellibranchiata; in some Chitons
they have a tendency to retract towards the anus, as in _Doris_; in
_Fissurella_ they waste at the sides and become developed above the
neck, as in the spiral Gasteropods; but in them, the right branchia,
and right side of the mantle are principally developed. From this
torsion arises the form and spire of the shell. In _Aplysia_, where
the branchial fissure is far back and to the right side, the right
respiratory nerve preserves a superior position, and passes backwards to
form its ganglion at the front of the branchial opening; the left, on
the contrary, passes under the oesophagus to form a second ganglion,
not mentioned by Cuvier, behind the first. In the more spiral Gasteropod
the torsion is greater; the right nerve, for instance, mounts upwards
over the digestive canal to form its ganglion quite in the left flank,
whilst the left goes below the digestive canal to attain the right
flank. In _Sepia_ the branchiæ are again symmetrical and abdominal.
The shell of the young _Sepia_ is composed of distant plates, only
connected by minute transversely striated laminæ or flattened tubes,
producing by their insertion a beautiful appearance of sinuous lines,
very like those of a Baculite or Ammonite; and the spongy part of the
shell, so constituted, is probably filled with air from the cavity of
the body situated immediately in front, the intervening membrane having
a peculiar structure. This cavity of the body exists in much lower
mollusks; air being apparently secreted in it, to lighten the animal.
The author thinks that, in considering the anatomy and form of the
body of the Gasteropoda, about ten species may be taken as types of
corresponding families.
1. PATELLA _and its congeners_.--He claims to have been one of the
first to show the termination of the oviducts and renal organs between
the processes of the branchiæ in the Chitons. As they are commonly
phytivorous, the intestine is often very long and disposed in large
coils, in double apposition; the buccal apparatus is very remarkable.
_Chitonellus_ differs but slightly from _Chiton_, the central elements
of its tongue, however, being little developed, though having the same
tessellated basement membrane. The tongue of _Emarginula_ differs much
from that of _Patella_, having an immense number of serrated side-hooks
and a dilated middle portion.
2. CALYPTRÆA, _&c._--The mollusks of this division have often
supranuchal branchiæ, as have some of the last; the sexes also are
frequently separate, rendering copulation necessary; and they are
sometimes partially spiral, with a tendency to form an operculum.
However, the little _Ancylus fluviatilis_ appears to be what is commonly
called hermaphrodite, with a branchial lamina on the left side, together
with the heart and openings of the genital organs; the stomach has a
cæcum, and the penis a long filiform appendage; the female parts opening
near the rectum and behind the male organs. It must respire by water
rather than by air, for, in a rapid stream, the stones at the bottom
are covered with _Ancyli_ (upon which also its round oothecæ, each
containing four or five ova, are deposited), and it appears impossible
for them to get to the surface to breathe. On the contrary, the
lake-_Ancylus_, though the margin of its mantle is ciliated, may perhaps
come to the surface, ascending the stalks of the Water Persicaria, on
which it is mostly found, and on which its oothecæ are deposited. When
the dark cuticle of this last minute creature is removed, its organs
may be seen to be reversely disposed to those of the larger species, the
heart being placed to the right, before the apex of the shell, and the
rectum also on the same side.
3. DORIS, _&c._--The little _Doris aspera_ swims, back downwards,
on the surface of a glass of sea-water, copulates, and deposits its
semicircular oothecæ. The brain of the common Lemon Doris is of a fine
orange colour, enveloped in a glandular matter, and is constituted by
a complicated assemblage of ganglia: there are acoustic sacs and dark
ocular spots upon it. There are six ganglia on the buccal mass, and
about six or eight minute ones on the stomach. The anal sac appears
to be a purple- or ink-bag; and the so-called matrix is composed of a
peculiar substance, swelling enormously in water, of which it renders
a large quantity viscid, and being also coagulable by alcohol and
bichloride of mercury, but not by heat. Spermatozoa were found in the
genital vesicle, as well as in the epididymis and its cæcum. The spines
of the lingual plate are uniform, and in number about 10,000.
4. APLYSIA, _&c._--_Aplysia_ has been before alluded to. Cuvier, in
his generally beautiful drawings, has scarcely done justice to (5)
_Ianthina_, nor to its beautiful float and ootheca; it is peculiar
for its fins, and the disk at the back of the foot. With respect to
_Magilus_, it should be removed from the (6) Tubulibranchiata, its
animal being a _Purpura_ in structure, with a bent horny operculum, and
a very long linear appendage on the right side of the head, leading to
the supposition that the animals are of different sexes, though there
seem to be difficulties in the way of sexual congress. In the specimen
examined, the spire of the shell was not solidified; the animal had a
short proboscis, with rather bent subulate feelers, and eyes on the
outside; it had also a rich purple secretion near the rectum on the
right side.
7. TROCHUS, _&c._--Some of the species of _Trochus_ surpass even
_Emarginula_ in the beauty of their lingual apparatus. The renal
organ opens into the bottom of the branchial cavity, contrary to its
disposition in _Helix_ and _Lymnæus_, where its exit is near the
respiratory orifice. In _Planorbis_, that part of the respiratory cavity
receiving the excretions seems separated by an imperfect valve from the
right portion. With respect to the secretion of this organ, it consists,
in both Gasteropoda and Lamellibranchiata, of numerous pellucid globular
bodies, containing opaque earthy nuclei or granules, and presenting
different appearances in _Anodon_ (for instance), _Cyclostoma_,
_Buccinum_, and _Helix_. When these bodies are incinerated, lime is
left, which in some cases appears to have been combined with oxalic
acid. The little _Nerita litoralis_ presents the structure of the
Turbonidæ very prettily and in small compass, particularly in the very
long spiral tongue. _Delphinula_ has the fringed mantle and sides and
very wonderfully armed tongue of the other Trochidæ. _Melania_ is of
similar organization to our well-known _Paludina_, the stomach compound,
the mantle and bilobed head fringed, and the latter marbled like that of
_Paludina_. _Ampullaria_ appears to be truly amphibious.
8. BUCCINUM, _&c._--_Natica_ presents much the same structure as the
common _Buccinum_, but has a muscular disk anterior to the mouth,--a
disposition, with some variations however, found in other mollusks. The
first and second stomachs are at a distance from each other, the tongue
is little developed, and the branchiæ (often single in the Turbonidæ)
two in number. _Purpura_ also differs but little from _Buccinum_.
_Ovula_ is a less attainable mollusk: the foot is long and rather
narrow, and subventral rather than subtrachelian, with a sinuosity on
the right of the neck, where also is a short hooked penis in the male,
receiving a vas deferens from near the rectum behind; there is a large
and small branchia, and the reflected portion of the mantle is covered
with tubercles and tentacles,--no doubt a fine garnish in the living
animal; the mouth has a muzzle, and there are small eyes on the external
sides of the curved, awl-shaped tentacles; the elements of the tongue
are beautifully toothed and serrated.
9. LYMNÆUS, _&c._--Of the air-breathing aquatic and (10) terrestrial
gasteropods the most interesting particulars are their generative
organs, which the author proposes to re-examine. The brain of _Helix
aspersa_ is composed internally of pyriform or oval ganglionic vesicles,
each giving origin to one or more nervous fibres. The acoustic sacs
are similar to those of _Doris_. The nerves from the upper part of the
ring are enveloped in a darkish neurilema, and comprehend no doubt
olfactory, optic, and tactile twigs; there being the buccal ganglia for
taste, and the acoustic sacs for hearing; the twigs, however, forming
the buccal or pharyngeal ganglia have a broad double root on each side,
near the origin of the above three nerves. The lower part of the brain
is very analogous to that of _Sepia_, giving off nerves to the foot,
and external and internal respiratory ones to the mantle, respiratory
opening, branchiæ, &c. _Lymnæus_ has the cephalic ring formed by about
twelve ganglia, exclusive of two large and two minute ones on the buccal
mass. The upper portion of the ring has ganglionic swellings, but in
other respects the nerves are as in _Helix_. Its lower portion consists
of two pedal nerves, and has the acoustic spot and a minute ganglion
upon it; behind, this lower portion consists of five ganglia connected
with both the anterior and upper swellings by a cord, but separated from
the former by the aorta, as usual, and giving nerves to the flanks,
pulmonary orifices and sac, heart, stomach, and viscera. The lower
ganglia are bright yellow.
With respect to the Pteropoda, the branchiæ in _Hyalæa_ exist as a
delicate membrane under the swollen part of the shell, in structure
much like the same part in the Ascidians, the inlet being through the
anterior opening of the mantle. There are eyes at the fold of the
mantle behind, and two small tentacles above the mouth; the heart and
rectum being on the left side, and the generative opening at the base
of the right ala. _Cleodora_ is a very beautiful creature, with the
same disposition and structure of viscera; brain-spots but no eyes
were visible; the mantle had beautiful muscular bands; the branchiæ as
above; the buccal apparatus is imperfect in both. _Cleodora_ has similar
membranous expansions with _Hyalæa_, and also a sort of triangular lip.
_Argonauta_ has a lachrymal pore before and beneath the eye. The
beautiful and obvious respiratory mechanism in the Cephalopoda needs
not to be described. There is a large sac behind the viscera of the
Argonaut, which opens on each side; it is perhaps of some hydrostatic
use. There are at least three pairs of salivary glands, of which four
open on the floor of the mouth, and two or three at the commencement
of the gullet. Several small shells of Pteropoda and fragments of
Cephalopods were found in the stomach, on which was observed the large
nervous ganglion found in all these, as well as in lower mollusks.
The branchial nerves have each two ganglia, of which the last at the
root of the branchiæ is rounder than the other; the branchial hearts
have processes as in _Sepia_. In _Sepia_ two openings lead from the
respiratory sac into the cavity containing the venæ cavæ and their
secreting appendages often imbued with glittering crystalline particles,
and from the above cavities a wider opening on each side leads into
a second sac further back, situated in front of the shell. There are
auditory sacs in the Argonaut. The oviducts have separate openings, but
originate together. Both _Sepia_ and _Argonauta_ are infested with a
subcutaneous filiform entozoon, hooked anteriorly and rolled up spirally
in the former. _Loligo media_ and _Sepiola_ have but one oviduct, and
the two large, glandular, laminated organs, opening at their summits,
are wanting in _Argonauta_ and _Octopus_. In _Sepiola_ one would almost
think that copulation takes place, for the author has taken what he
supposes to be the capsules of Needham, with dilated oval ends, tubular
and bent pedicles or processes, enclosed elastic filaments, and adhering
zoosperms, from the oviducts of the female: he has made the same
observation also in _Sepia_. The latter has very similar male organs
to _Octopus_, as described by Cuvier. In the embryo _Sepia_, the yelk
enters below the mouth and opens into the upper stomach, but the beak
of the animal also appears to be inserted into it behind. The vitellus
in reality therefore enters by the foot, as it does in _Bulimus_, and
probably in all Bivalves.
* * * * *
On the Linnean Manuscript of the 'Museum Ulricæ.'
By SYLVANUS HANLEY, Esq., F.L.S.
[Read Dec. 3, 1858.]
Not the least important result of the investigations of the Committee
appointed by the Linnean Society to examine the condition of the
collections and manuscripts of Linnæus, was the rediscovery of a written
copy of the 'Museum Ulricæ.' The volume was manifestly, from internal
evidence, a legible transcript of the original manuscript of that
work, with alterations and interpolations in the peculiar handwriting
of the author. It was, indubitably, the unpublished catalogue so
often mentioned in the tenth edition of the 'Systema,' and contains
descriptions of certain species alluded to as defined, yet, strangely
enough, omitted in the printed edition. It is worthy of notice for
many reasons: it corrects the frequent misprints; explains the many
fallacious allusions to preceding species, their sequence being very
different; it exhibits those early synonyms, which, culled from
comparison with the actually described specimens, had been eventually
supplanted by supposed better representations; above all, it imparts to
us those original headings, or diagnoses (condensed from the subsequent
details), which had been suppressed, of old, in favour of those already
published in the 'Systema.'
This wholesale substitution, adopted by Linnæus, as a ready method of
avoiding a tedious revision of all the headings, when he absorbed in the
more comprehensive groups of his 'Systema' the members of manuscript
genera he had determined to reject, involved a serious amount of
confusion; for, oftentimes, the species of the two works, although
designated by the same appellations, were totally distinct; and the
combination of the diagnosis of the one with the details of the other
displayed an array of features not known to be associated in any object
in nature.
The generic arrangement exhibited in the manuscript differs essentially
from that which appeared in the final edition of his 'Systema Naturæ.'
As a whole, it is decidedly inferior, yet it segregates certain natural
groups, such as _Lyra_ and _Cassida_, the value of which have been
acknowledged by all modern naturalists. The following list and sequence
of the genera comprised in it, cannot, indeed, be regarded as an
entire system, for certain groups, viz., _Chiton_, _Lepas_, _Teredo_,
_Sabella_, and the typical forms of _Mya_, _Mactra_, and _Anomia_, were
not at that period represented in the Museum; but it is not devoid of
interest, since it manifests a transitional stage in the progressive
advance to that matured scheme which was finally elaborated in the pages
of his revised 'Systema.'
Dentalium.
Patella.
Nerita.
Helix.
Turbo.
Trochus.
Turricula.
Buccinum.
Lyra.
Morion.
Conus.
Voluta.
Strombus (not that of the 'Systema').
Harpago (=Strombus).
Murex.
Cassida.
Cypræa.
Bulla.
Haliotis.
Nautilus.
Cymbium (=Argonauta).
Spondylus.
Ostrea.
Pecten.
Arca.
Pinna.
Mytilus.
Solen.
Tellina.
Chama (not that of the 'Systema').
Cunnus (=Venus).
Pholas (not that of the 'Systema').
Trunculus (=Donax).
Bucardium (=Cardium).
Besides the four genera (_Chiton_, _Lepas_, _Teredo_, _Sabella_) that
were excluded from this catalogue, either from the absence of specimens,
or from mistrust of their being veritable Testacea, six of the
remaining 32, namely, _Pholas_, _Mya_, _Mactra_, _Chama_, _Anomia_, and
_Serpula_, were likewise omitted, not being yet eliminated from _Solen_,
_Bucardium_, _Spondylus_, _Ostrea_, and _Dentalium_. To counterbalance
these, we find no less than eight subsequently abandoned groupings:
_Turricula_ (an undefined amalgam of the long-spired species of
_Buccinum_, _Murex_, and _Strombus_).
_Lyra_ (the _Harpa_ and _Purpura_ of the Lamarckian school).
_Morion_ (an unnatural compound of _Eburna_, _Auricula_ proper,
_Pythia_, _&c._).
_Strombus_ (a combination of the immature members of the received genus
with _Pyrula_, _Fasciolaria_, and other allied forms).
_Cassida_ (nearly the modern _Cassis_).
_Pecten_ (equal to _Lima_ and _Pecten_).
_Chama_ (the _Tapes_ of recent conchologists).
_Pholas_ (chiefly composed of _Artemis_ and _Lucina_).
It may be remarked, moreover, that the simple univalves commence, and
the bivalves close the series; the exact converse of the order in which
they are marshalled in the two principal editions of the 'Systema
Naturæ.'
I feel assured, after a careful study of the manuscript, that the names
eventually allotted to the shells of the 'Museum' did not result from a
careful comparison of the royal specimens with the typical examples in
the private collection of our author, but were attached to the species,
either from the identity of the written and printed synonymy, or from
the general accordance of their described features with the meagre
characteristics enumerated in the prior publication.
The erased nomenclature of the species, however, was very dissimilar,
and was scrupulously based upon a supposed identity of the specimens
with those delineated by Rumphius, Klein, and d'Argenville. Assuredly
at that period of his career, our author entertained the same profound
respect for the laws of priority which is professed by all modern
naturalists; and I hesitate not to affirm that, from the crude and
inharmonious theories of his predecessors, he eliminated a system of
Conchology that was better suited to the requirements of the age he
lived in than any more elaborate arrangement would have been. For
simplicity attracts the student, whom a more complex (even if more
natural) method would repel; and for the collection of an adequate mass
of materials wherewith, eventually, to build up a more symmetrical and
widely-based structure, a multitude of comparatively unskilled labourers
is more efficacious than a small knot of the most erudite architects.
Before inviting the attention of my readers to the original headings of
the 'Museum Ulricæ,' and to my brief account of the variations in the
written copy from the text of the printed version, I must premise, that
it has not been my practice invariably to notice, in the summary, such
trifling differences of construction as the preferential use of the
ablative for the nominative case, where the verbal change involved no
alteration of the precise meaning.
MUSEUM LUDOVICÆ ULRICÆ REGINÆ.
CONCHYLIA.
CHITON, LEPAS.
Nothing relating to these two genera was found in the copy.
PHOLAS.
The _Pholas_ of the manuscript is perfectly dissimilar to that of the
'Systema.' Our author had evidently, when he first wrote the 'Museum
Ulricæ,' not appreciated the remarkably striking characteristics of this
group, having located the only species he then knew (for _P. candidus_
seems a subsequent discovery) with the _Solens_.
P. CANDIDUS. Not mentioned in the manuscript.
P. CRISPATUS. _Sol._ ovatus, obtusissimus, cardinis dente depresso
rotundato.
The Appendix to Lister was not cited; "Habitat in Anglia, Suecia," was
appended to the description, which in many respects was inferior to the
published one. The account of the hinge was merely "Cardo dente dilatato
rotundato extus excavato."
MYA.
The three incongruous forms assorted as _Myæ_ were not so united in the
MS.; the second being very properly placed with the _Mussels_, the other
two ascribed to _Solen_.
M. LUTRARIA. _Sol._ ovali-oblongus, cardine laterali dilatato
semiorbiculato.
In lieu of the reference to Lister (whose work does not appear to have
been consulted by our author at the period when this portion of his
manuscript was written), plate 45, figure N, of Rumphius was quoted as
illustrative. The published account of the hinge is much more complete
than the written one, which was apparently drawn up from a worn
specimen; it ran as follows: "Cardo extus vix gibbus, intus constans
laminis 2 semiorbiculatis concavis introrsum spectantibus."
By a slip of the pen, in my "Ipsa Linnæi Conchylia," I had termed
Brown's figure of the Linnean _Mya lutraria_, _L. oblonga_, instead of
_L. elliptica_.
M. PERNA. _Myt._ lævis, cardine terminali unidentato.
The intended name was _M. Magellanicus_.
M. VULSELLA. _Sol._ oblongus, linguæformis, cardine terminali dilatato
semiorbiculato.
"Pinna linguaformis subfalcata" was written after the reference to
the 'Museum Tessinianum;' hence it seems that Linnæus did not himself
consider that he had used the binomial method in that work, or he would
have quoted it as _P. lingulata_.
"Rumph. 148. t. 46. f. A," and "Gualt. t. 90. f. H," were the
unpublished synonyms.
SOLEN.
Testa valvulis utrinque hiantibus. Cardo dente unico inflexo recurvo.
The _Mya lutraria_, _M. vulsella_, and _Pholas crispatus_ were
originally included in this genus.
S. VAGINA. _S._ linearis rectus, cardinibus unidentatis.
"Habitat in Indiæ littoribus arenosis: in mari Rubro (_Hasselquist_)"
was the recorded locality in the MS., where the European shell
delineated by Gualtieri was not then included: "Klein, 163. t. 11. f.
65" (a copy from the cited figure of Rumphius) was its substitute.
S. SILIQUA. _S._ linearis rectus, cardine altero bidentato.
The wretched drawings of Argenville were not quoted; but "Bonan. 2. f.
56" (error for 57), "Plane. t. 3. f. 6," and "List. Ang. 192. t. 5. f.
37," were cited instead.
S. ENSIS. _S._ linearis subarcuatus, cardine altero bidentato.
The final remark was not in the MS.
S. CULTELLUS. _S._ ovali-oblongus curvatus.
"Habitat in Amboinæ littoribus arenosis" is an addition of the MS. The
intended name (derived from Rumphius) was _cultriformis_.
S. RADIATUS. _S._ ovalis, cardinis costa tereti.
"Habitat in littoribus arenosis Xulii(?) Amboinæ" is an addition to
the published account. The intended specific name was _violaceus_, an
appellation bestowed upon it by Rumphius: "_solida_" was an emendation.
S. STRIGILATUS. _S._ ovalis, oblique striatus.
"Bonan. 2. f. 76" (error for 77) was an unpublished synonym.
S. ANATINUS. _S._ ovatus membranaceus, costa falcata.
_Rostrum anatis_ was the intended name.
TELLINA.
Testa altero latere inflexa. Cardo dentibus aliquot, raro lateralibus.
T. GARGADIA. _T._ antice rugosa, rima dentata.
The absurd "marginis posticum latus remotum" was a misprint for (dens)
"marginis posticus, latus, remotus."
T. LINGUA-FELIS. _T._ subovata scabra.
"Klein, t. 11. f. 62" (cited in the 'Systema'), and "d'Arg. t. 25.
f.G" (the description of which suits better than the drawing) are the
additions of the MS.: "sesquilatiore" was the printed emendation of
"latiore."
T. VIRGATA. _T._ ovata, striis transversis retrorsum imbricatis,
dentibus lateralibus.
The erroneous reference to d'Argenville was not present: "Klein, 158.
Tellina virgata Rumphii" had been added by Linnæus. A very large portion
of the printed account is wanting in the MS., to wit--"æquales. Intus
radiis obsolete incarnatis picta." "Labris rugosis et scabris," "hymene
tectis. Anus est rima concava," "primores," "transversi cum cavitate pro
oppositis dentibus," "longitudinalem." The "retrorsum" was originally
"sursum"; "dextrum" was "sinistram"; "Tertius dens" was "Altera testa."
T. GARI. _T._ ovalis, striis transversis retrorsum imbricatis, dentibus
lateralibus nullis.
The G in the reference to Rumphius, and the F in the reference to
d'Argenville were misprints for D and I, and were so published in the
'Systema:' the "primoribus" was an emendation.
T. ALBIDA. _T._ ovalis, lævis, nymphis prominulis. "Primores" was an
emendation. The species was unnamed.
T. FOLIACEA. _T._ antice scabra, rima serrata.
The Rumphian name "folium" was the intended appellation: "Klein, 162. t.
11. f. 64" was cited, as in the 'Systema': "aciatum" was the reading for
the printed "acutum."
T. PLANATA. _T._ ovata plana, transversim striata, marginibus acutis.
The erroneous reference to Gualtieri (whose figure C looks more like the
species than his G) is not to be found in the manuscript. The species
was not named.
T. LÆVIGATA. _T._ ovata lævis, nymphis intractis.
The figure of _T. chloroleuca_ in Rumphius was not quoted, neither was
the hence-derived appellation attached: the "radiato" and "primoribus"
were also subsequent additions.
T. RADIATA. _T._ ovali-oblonga, longitudinaliter substriata, sutura
postica canaliculata. "Obsoletis" and "primores" were subsequent
emendations.
T. ROSTRATA. _T._ oblonga, antice angulato-rostrata.
The _T. rostrata_ of the final edition of the 'Systema' was assuredly
the _T. Spengleri_, and with that shell solely will the printed
account in the 'Museum Ulricæ' accord. But the five earlier lines of
the description (save "et albus"), and the detailed dentition (except
"fossula distinctus"), with the varieties _a_, _b_, _g_, and the same
synonyms as in the tenth edition of the 'Systema,' appear in the MS.
with the name _T. petasunculus_ attached. Whether designedly or not,
there was a pictorial definition of _T. vulsella_ in the earlier
'Systema;' and if an author be not allowed to amend his description, _T.
vulsella_ is better entitled than _T. Spengleri_ to the name _rostrata_.
"Margo exterior parum repandum est" was written in the MS.
T. REMIES. _T._ rugosa, suborbiculata.
The expressions "hians," "primores," "remoti," and the last five words
of the details were absent; "utrinque" followed "duo": "non" in place of
"vix" was the earlier reading.
T. SCOBINATA. _T._ scabra orbiculata.
"Primores," and "in altera testa profunda fossula distinctus," were not
in the copy.
CARDIUM.
Cardo dentibus baseos binis, marginis solitariis remotis acutis. Valvulæ
gibbæ, hinc figura cordis.
BUCARDIUM was the epithet applied in the written copy to the members of
this genus, to which the _Solen bullatus_ of the 'Systema' was correctly
referred. _Mactra_ had not then been separated.
C. COSTATUM. _Buc._ sulcis costis elevatis membranaceis.
The original description has been somewhat enlarged in the press, by the
addition of "brevissimis," "et extrorsum flexis," "fossula distinctus;
at vero ille sub anno quasi duplex"; "minus vero ad latera sulcata,"
moreover, was simply "ad alterum latus": the only expression omitted in
printing was "reflexus," which followed "Anus margine."
C. CARDISSA. _Buc._ compressum, valvis carinatis, natibus contiguis.
"Colum. Aqu. 19. t. 16" (cited also in the 'Systema') was quoted in the
MS. from which the "vix," "subcontigui," "remotus, validus, fossula
distinctus," were absent. The "Rima" was termed "subrotunda" instead of
"cordata."
C. HEMICARDIUM. _Buc._ subquadrilaterum: valvulis carinatis, umbonibus
distantibus.
"Fasciis" was a misprint for the original "facies": "sulcis convexis"
was written "sulcis excavato-rugosis." There was no specific
appellation.
C. MEDIUM. _Buc._ subcordatum subangulatum; valvulis angulatis sulcatis
lævibus.
The prefatory remarks were the only portion of the printed description
to be found in the MS. The species was not named, but was quoted in the
'Systema' before the publication of its details.
C. ACULEATUM (misprinted "muricatum"). _Buc._ subcordatum, sulcis
convexis, linea cava exaratis, versus apicem dentatis.
The intended name was _verum_.
C. ECHINATUM. _Buc._ subcordatum, sulcis acutis exaratis linea elevata
ciliata aculeis inflexis plurimis.
"List. Ang. 188. t. 5. f. 33, Pectunculus echinatus," "Bonan. 2. t. 90,"
"Gesu. Aq. 131, 132," "Faun. Suec. 1339," "Rondel. Aq. 22," were the
original synonyms, to which our author had subsequently added "Klein,
139. t. 10. f. 40." "Alba" followed "gibba"; "parum antrorsum inflexis"
was the reading for the printed "erectis subulatis"; "extrorsum" for
the "uti extus": "brevioribus. Anus lævis, sutura simplici prominula,"
"recurvi," "fossula distinctus," were emendations.
C. TUBERCULATUM. _Buc._ subcordatum, sulcis obtusis nodosis transversim
striatis.
"Gualt. t. 71. f. M." was a correct additional synonym.
C. ISOCARDIA. _Buc._ cordatum, sulcis imbricatis squamis fornicatis.
"Klein, 138. isocardia fragum" had been interpolated by Linnæus; hence
the name, which was not in the original. The "fossula distincti" has
replaced the earlier "validi."
C. FRAGUM. _Buc._ subcordatum subangulatum, sulcis notatis semicirculis
elevatis.
By the addition of "mala" to the erroneously cited figure of Gualtieri,
our author has virtually repudiated it. "Spinosæ" followed "Pruni;" the
fallacious "s. rubris" was not present, nor "sæpe" either; "anteriore"
stood in the place of "postico," and "postico" in that of "antico." The
descriptions of the "rima" and "anus" have been added: "recurvati" and
"fossula distincti" were amplifications.
C. UNEDO. _Buc._ subcordatum, sulcis lunulis coloratis.
C. MURICATUM. _Buc._ subrotundum sulcatum, lateribus muricatis.
C. MAGNUM. _Buc._ oblongum, sulcis angulatis latere serratis.
I had hoped to have found the 19 a misprint, but the MS. and the printed
copy agree precisely in every particular.
C. FLAVUM. _Buc._ subovatum sulcatum, latere altero scabrum, altero
dentatum.
The redundant "subovata" was not in the copy, where the remark was made
that the species resembled the shell subsequently termed _Chama cor_,
the figure of which (Gualt. t. 71. f. E.) had been cited, but erased in
the MS. The ideal hence derived is a very different shell from the one
supposed identical. No mention is made of lateral teeth: was it then a
veritable _Cardium_?
C. LÆVIGATUM. _Buc._ ovatum, striis læviusculis longitudinalibus.
I do not consider this (the _B. striatum_ of the MS.) to be identical
with the _C. lævigatum_ of the 'Systema.'
C. SERRATUM. _Buc._ ovale læve, antice serratum.
"Ovata" stood in the place of the printed "obovata": "curvatus" and
"parvi" were subsequent to the MS.
C. TRISTE. _Buc._ ovatum læve, rima anoque obsolete striatis.
The 'Museum' was referred to for this shell previously to the
publication of the details. Curious to relate, the species was wholly
omitted in the twelfth edition of the 'Systema.' It was, in all
probability, a _Mactra_, which genus had not been constituted at the
period when the description of _C. triste_ was issued.
C. PECTINATUM. _Buc._ subcordatum, striis hinc longitudinalibus, illine
transversalibus.
The erroneous reference to Gualtieri was not present in the written
copy.
* * * * *
Mention was made in the 'Systema' of a _Solen bullatus_, for a more
detailed account of which the reader was referred to the 'Museum
Ulricæ.' No such species appeared in the published edition; but the
omitted shell (a veritable _Cardium_) was thus described in the
unprinted version:--
BUC. BULLATUM. _B._ subrotundum, antice crenato-hians.
Rump. 143. t. 44. f. N. Pecten bullatus.
Testa subrotunda, inflata, gibba, fragilis, pellucida, substriata,
rufo nebulosa, antice hians, margine serrato. Umbones tumidi, obtusi,
reflexi. Rima minima brevissima. Ani regio obsoleta. Dens cardinis fere
unicus, minimus. Marginales solitarii, remoti, compressi, majores.
DONAX.
TRUNCULUS was the proposed name of this genus, which was thus
characterized:--
Testa compressa, antice obtusissima, retusa. Cardinis dentibus 2,
marginis unicus.
D. SCORTUM was wisely omitted.
D. PUBESCENS. _Trun._ antice spinis ciliatus.
D. RUGOSA. _Trun._ antice rugosus, marginibus crenatis.
The printed "cuneiformis" has replaced the earlier "majuscula"; and
"crenulatis" was originally "undulatis." "Intus subviolacea est" was not
in the written copy.
D. TRUNCULUS. _Trun._ antice lævis, marginibus crenatis.
The reference to Klein was not in the original, but "d'Arg. t. 25.
f. L." was quoted (as in the twelfth edition of the 'Systema'). The
last seven words printed were not in the copy. The intended name was
_gibbus_.
D. CUNEATA. _Trun._ cuneiformis, marginibus integerrimis.
The final remark was not in the copy, where "parva, ovata," preceded
"cuneiformis." The then unpublished details were quoted in the
'Systema.'
D. SCRIPTA. _Trun._ ovatus lævis scriptus.
The erroneous citation of Gualtieri (a misprint for 88. f. Q.) was not
in the copy, and, as the figure represents the _D. trunculus_ in the
page opposite, I suspect was carelessly placed here by the printer, when
our author had inserted it in his revised proof. I suspect this error
often occurred, as for instance in _Tellina planata_ and _radiata_,
where Gualtieri's figure (added during revision) was attached to the
former instead of to the latter. "Margo interne crenulatus," and nearly
the entire account of the teeth, were emendations.
D. MURICATA. _Trun._ ovatus, striis muricatis, margine denticulato.
"Postice solitarii" followed the final "utrinque": "primores" was an
emendation.
VENUS.
This genus (as a whole) was not to be found in the manuscript System.
Its components were distributed into three groups, two of which bore
names that were subsequently allotted to forms very remote from those
therein so designated.
CUNNUS. Testa subrotunda. Rima nymphis instructa. Dentes cardinis 4,
lateralibus divaricatis versus latera. This contained the bulk of the
_Veneres_, all except Nos. 63, 66, and those referred to _Pholas_ and
_Chama_.
PHOLAS. Testa lenticularis. Rima fissa, destituta nymphis. Dentes
cardinis 1 s. 2, marginalis tantum intra anum. _V. Pennsylvanica_,
_incrustata_, _punctata_, _edentula_, _exoleta_, _scripta_, _pectinata_,
_ziczac_ were its constituents.
CHAMA. Testa ovalis cum angulo. Cardo dentibus 4 confertis, quorum
unus in singula valvula bifidus. In this were located _V. literata,
rotundata, decussata_.
V. DIONE. _Cun._ cordatus, antice pubescenti-spinosus.
The same references to Petiver, Olearius, and Lister were present as in
the 'Systema.' The final remark was an addition. The proposed name was
_C. Veneris_.
V. MARICA. _Cun._ subcordatus, decussatim striatus, pube lamellosa.
V. DYSERA. _Cun._ testa subcordata, sulcis transversis reflexis, labiis
concavis incumbentibus.
Neither "Huic rugæ, &c.," "lævis," nor the synonym of Lister were in
the original.
V. CHIONE. _Cun._ subovatus, lævis.
The erroneous reference to d'Argenville was not inserted in the MS.,
from which "lanceolatis," likewise, was absent.
V. MACULATA. _Cun._ testa ovato-cordata lævis.
"Lanceolata" and "ovato-oblongus" have been additions. The observation
that it was difficult to distinguish this shell (which was not named
in the MS.) from the following, would mislead one, since the remark
referred to two unpublished species, which it originally preceded.
V. MERETRIX. _Cun._ subcordatus glaber, labris gibbis, nymphis apice
hiantibus.
_C. vulgatus_ was the name originally designed.
V. CASTRENSIS. Cun. suborbiculatus glaber, characteribus scriptus.
V. MEROE. _Cun._ sutura postica hians.
V. FIMBRIATA. _Cun._ subrotundus decussatus rugosus, longitudinaliter
striatus.
D'Argenville was not referred to.
V. RETICULATA. _Cun._ subcordatus, striis crenatis decussatis, ano
cordato.
V. tigerina. Cun. suborbiculatus, striis crenatis decussatis, ano ovato.
The name was an error, having been derived from the "Lingua tigerina" of
Rumphius (his figure G., not H.): _fuliginosus_ was the one originally
intended.
V. PROSTRATA. _Pho._ orbiculata, transverse striata, labiis
scabro-membranaceis.
The unpublished details had been previously referred to in the
'Systema.'
V. PENNSYLVANICA. _Pho._ glabra, rugosa, antice sulco longitudinali.
"Habitat in Pennsylvania," and "subdiaphana," were the unprinted
additions. The "margo interne crenatus," "nates sub-recurvatæ," and
"color intus versus marginem violaceus," were not in the copy. The last
character (so utterly inappropriate to the features of _Lucina P._) was,
I suspect, intended for _punctata_ on the page opposite.
V. INCRUSTATA. _Pho._ glaberrima lævissima, punctis excavata.
The details were referred to in the 'Systema' before their publication.
V. PUNCTATA. _Pho._ longitudinaliter sulcata.
The G in the reference to Rumphius was a misprint for the written
D, from which figure ("Chama pectinata") our author had proposed to
borrow the specific name, but subsequently had preferred the published
designation. "Klein, 147. Actinobolos æquilatera" has been added to the
MS. by Linnæus.
V. EXOLETA. _Pho._ decussatim striata.
The original synonymy and details have been so transmuted in the
press, that it is manifest that the amended (!) species was perfectly
distinct from the shell originally designed. The name of the latter was
_clathrata_, and the declared sculpture was not merely "transversim,"
but "et longitudinaliter" likewise (in place of "striis retrorsis"). The
reference (added by Linnæus) was not to Gualtieri, but to Lister, 335,
f. 172, and its copy in Klein (t. 10. f. 52), both which would have more
appropriately been assigned to _V. reticulata_. The _V. exoleta_ having
been previously defined in the 'Systema,' this confusion becomes of
little importance.
V. ZICZAC. _Pho._ striis transversis membranaceis erectis.
The number which indicates the position of this species in the 'Museum'
has been subsequently ('Syst.' ed. 12) referred to _V. cancellata_, yet,
judging from the generic appellation (and consequent dentition), it
could scarcely have been that well-known species. The "lentiformi" of
the 'Systema' (ed. 10), where the name _ziczac_ first appeared, forbids
the annexation; but, although the details of the 'Museum' were there
referred to, the obnoxious word was not mentioned in that publication.
The following are the printed emendations (?): "lævis, et quasi excisa,"
"compressa," "variat colore albissimo."
V. PECTINATA. _Pho._ sulcis longitudinalibus nodosis, antice antrorsum
ramosa.
The additional synonym of "Gualt, D. 75, f. A." appears in the MS.,
where "quam reliquæ" follows "orbiculata," and in place of "In area
antica" may be read "et a primo sulco." The details there terminate with
the word "lanceolatum," "_Ramosa_" was the intended name.
V. SCRIPTA. _Pho._ striata, postice angulo recto circumscripta.
The incorrect figure of d'Argenville was not indicated.
V. EDENTULA. _Pho._ subgloboso-lenticulata rugosa edentula.
V. LITERATA. _Cha._ transversim striato-ovata.
The earlier reading of confertim was "profunde"; "striis crenulatis
antice et postice," "lanceolata," and "tres s." were absent.
V. ROTUNDATA. _Cha._ transversim striata ovata absque angulo.
The printed additions are "varius in variis," "aut albis," "lanceolata,"
and the final remark. There was no name attached in the MS.
V. DECUSSATA. _Cha._ testa ovata, decussatim striata.
"Sæpe" and "minimus" are the sole printed additions.
* * * * *
Probably the _V. Phryne_ of the 'Systema' was designed by the following
unpublished description:--
CUN. VENOSUS. C. subcordatus lævis lateribus rugosis. Testa cinerea,
nuce coryli major, gibba, glabra, antice et postice transversim sulcata.
Margo exterius tantum denticulatus, non vero apex externus, aut margines
laterales.
The _V. macrodon_ answers fairly enough to this definition.
SPONDYLUS.
This very natural genus was confused with _Chama_, and thus
characterized:--
Testa imbricata. Cardo e callo gibbo oblique inserto fossula obliqua.
* * * * *
S. GÆDEROPUS. _S._ imbricatus auritus, cardine dentato.
"Rumph. t. 48. f. 1," "Gualt. t. 99. f. E. F. G," "Bonan. 2. f. 21,"
"Rondel. c. 40. p. 41," were the additional synonyms of the MS. The "ad
cardinem truncata" was an emendation for the previous "breviore": the
"superiore" a misprint for the written "inferiore": the final remark was
not present.
S. REGIUS. _S._ spinosus sulcatus inauritus cardine dentato.
No name was attached to this species: the previous one had been termed
_Pectinites_.
S. PLICATUS. Not mentioned in the manuscript.
CHAMA.
The members of this genus were included in _Spondylus_, except
_cordiformis_, which was referred to BUCARDIUM.
C. GIGAS. _Sp._ plicatus squamosus, ano hiante crenato.
The species as originally defined was more comprehensive in its details
than when printed; for the restricting "decussatim" had not been added,
and "Gualt. t. 93. f. B." was an additional synonym. The printed
additions were "obsoletis," "Margine reflexo," "exteriore duplicato
longiore," and the final remark. _S. imbricatus_ was the intended name.
C. HIPPOPUS. _Sp._ plicatus muricatus, ano retuso clauso dentato.
"Arg. t. 26. f. H." was an additional synonym of the MS.: the printed 20
should have been 10, as written: "ut in præcedente" was an emendation:
_S. asper_ was the proposed name.
C. LAZARUS. _Sp._ imbricatus.
Seba was not cited: "obliquam" followed "fossam" in the MS.
"Elevatis," "longitudine testæ," "productiore," "instar auris" formed
no portion of the early description.
C. ANTIQUATA. _Sp._ subcordatus, sulcis perpendicularibus transversim
striatis.
No name was attached to the original details, which appear to have been
altered ("in aliis minimum cordatum impressum fuscum"), and the synonym
of Bonanni added, in order to comprise that species (_Cardita sulcata_)
which had been pictorially defined in the 'Systema.' "Gibba" was
preceded by "admodum": "obsoletis" was not present. _Cardita bicolor,
var. unicolor_ was probably intended.
C. SEMIORBICULATA. _Sp._ semiorbiculatus compressus, decussate striatus,
rudis.
"Interior" was the earlier reading of "primarius."
C. CORDATA. _Sp._ cordatus, transversim striatus, hinc elongatus,
compressus.
C. OBLONGA. _Sp._ oblongus, antice angulatus, dentibus anticis acutis.
"Unico" (error for "unicus") originally preceded "in altera valvula."
C. CORDIFORMIS. _Buc._ subrotundum læve, umbonibus recurvatis.
The brief description in the 'Systema' had evidently been copied in the
manuscript by our author himself, who cited Gualt. t. 71. f. E. as the
sole synonym. The specimen had apparently been added to the collection,
subsequently to the drawing up of the first catalogue.
ARCA.
Testa crassa, umbonibus distantibus intus fornicatis. Cardo planus,
masticatus dentibus numerosis minimis æqualibus transversis.
A. TORTUOSA. _A._ oblonga obliqua, valvula altera oblique carinata.
"Nates, &c." and "Cardo, &c." were the printed additions to the earlier
description. The 'Systema' synonyms of Klein (t. 8. f. 16) and Bonanni
(2. f. 128) were present in the manuscript.
A. NOÆ. _A._ oblonga angulata hians.
This manuscript furnishes us with the additional synonyms of
"Aldrov. 3. p. 513." and "Sloan. Hist. 2. p. 257. Musculus Matthioli,"
besides the previously published references to Lister (368. n. 208)
and Bonanni (2. t. 32). The formation of the hinge was not, however,
indicated, and the passage commencing with "Nates" has been enlarged
from "Umbones remotissimæ, area interjecta concava, ad angulum rectum
striata. Margo exterior in medio hians, apertura barbata."
The intended specific epithet was _A. Noemi_.
A. ANTIQUATA. _A._ testa oblique cordata, transversim sulcata, antice
angulo compresso, rima intra rhombum transversim striata.
The admixture of two species (at the least) in the published edition
resulted from the amalgamation of two earlier descriptions. To the above
diagnosis belonged the printed details with the following important
changes. In place of "extus striata longitudinaliter sulcis crenatis,"
the reading was simply "intus striata longitudinaliter," and in lieu of
"interjecto spatio rhombeo plano," merely "rima patens."
The proposed name for this shell, from a supposition of its identity
with the _Pecten virgineus_ of Rumphius, was _A. virginea_. The other
species which Linnæus referred to the same numerals of the 'Systema' was
not named, but was thus characterized:--
A. (Sys. n. 144). _A._ cordata, sulcis nodosis, rima decussatim striata.
List. Hist. ... Pecten polyleptoginglymus, &c.
Gualt. t. 87. f. C.
Testa reliquis magis gibba, albido-flavescens, sulcis xxx obtusis,
transversim nodosis: nodis transversis, obtusissimis, imbricatis.
Intus albida. Margo dentibus xxx argutiusculis. Rima sulco rhombeo
circumscripta, disco decussatim vix manifeste striato. Umbones distantes
ad neutrum latus flexi.
A. SENILIS. _A._ oblique cordata, octosulcata, lævis, antice hians, rima
obtusangule striata.
Lister (without numerals!) was referred to in illustration; the early
unimproved account of the beaks and ligamental area ran as follows:
"Umbones distantes, oblique incurvati. Rima hians striata transversim ad
angulos acutos": "et profunde immersis" was an addition.
A. GRANOSA. _A._ subcordata, sulcis muricatis, rima obtusangule striata,
utrinque angulum formante.
The name was evidently borrowed from Rumphius, whose _Pecten granosus_
("143. t. 44. f. K.") was referred to in the manuscript, though neither
quoted in the printed copy nor in the 'Systema' (ed. x.). "Bonan. 2. n.
73," and Lister (without numerals) were also cited.
A. DECUSSATA. _A._ lenticularis, decussatim substriata, apicibus
reflexis.
For a detailed account of this shell, to which no specific name was
attached in the MS., the 'Museum Ulricæ' was referred to, previous to
its publication.
A. PALLENS. _A._ lenticulari-subobliqua, decussatim striata, rima brevi.
This was the type referred to in the 'Systema.'
A. PECTUNCULUS. _A._ lenticularis sulcata, decussatim rugosa.
"Arg. t. 27. f. B," and Lister without numerals appended, were the
unpublished synonyms. The expressions "leviter," "exteriore tenui;
sulcata," "in arcum," were not parts of the original copy, which
contained, however, the unprinted paragraph "latere interiore margine
prominente notato." There was no specific name attached to either this
or the next species.
A. GLYCIMERIS. _A._ lentiformis, transversim substriata, rima lævi.
The '_Chama glycimeris Bellonii_' of Lister (t. 247) was an unprinted
synonym.
* * * * *
The following suppressed description of an unnamed Ark that was allied
to, if it were not, _fusca_ or _barbata_, was found in the manuscript.
The 'Museum' had been referred to in the synonymy of the latter in the
'Systema,' but the species was not mentioned in the published version.
_Arca_ ovalis, compressiuscula, apicibus subcontiguis.
Testa rudis, ferrugineo-fusca, longitudinaliter striata, striis quasi ex
punctis callosis concatenatis, alternis striis majoribus ovatis, parum
obliqua, minus lateribus gibba, rotunda absque angulis. Margo æqualis,
edentulus. Apices recurvi fere tangunt se invicem. Rima dentibus
minutissimis, antice longius extensa, nec recta.
OSTREA.
The very natural genus _Pecten_ was separated from the unsymmetrical
oysters, with the following definition:--
PECTEN. Testa subrotunda, altera planior, basis transversa, anguli
transversi (auriculæ) ad basin. Cardo cavitas conica, striis utrinque 3
longitudinalibus obliquis.
The genus OSTREUM, enlarged by the addition of the true oysters
confounded with the _Mytili_, the _Meleagrinæ_, _Aviculæ_, and the
_Anomia placenta_, was thus characterized:--
O. MAXIMA. _Pec._ radiis 14 rotundatis longitudinaliter striatis.
In place of Gualtieri, "List. Ang. 184. t. 5. f. 29. Pecten maximus,"
and "Faun. Suec. 1343" were referred to: these synonyms had been added
subsequently to the description.
O. JACOBÆA. _Pec._ radiis 14 angulatis, fornicis longitudinaliter
striatis.
The cited drawing of Gualtieri was not mentioned.
O. ZICZAC. _Pec._ radiis 18 explanatis.
No specific name was attached to this, the preceding, and the next two
species.
O. STRIATULA. _Pec._ radiis 16 obliteratis, transverse
membranaceostriatis, margine integerrimo.
O. MINUTA. _Pec._ radiis 20 convexis.
O. PLEURONECTES. _Pec._ radiis 12 duplicatis, extus lævis.
O. OBLITERATA. _Pec._ radiis 24 duplicatis, extus lævis.
O. RADULA. _Pec._ radiis 6 convexis decussate striatis, margine crenato,
auriculis æqualibus.
O. PLICA. _Pec._ radiis 16 convexis læviusculis, decussato-striatus.
No specific name was appended to either this, the next, or the two
preceding species.
O. PALLIUM. _Pec._ radiis 12 convexis, striatus, scaber, squamis
imbricatus.
This with the remainder of the _Pectens_ (as far as _flavicans_) formed
a group characterized by "Auricula altera intus ciliato-spinosa."
O. NODOSA. _Pec._ radiis 9 nodoso-vesicularibus.
O. PES-FELIS. _Pec._ radiis 9, lævis, fornice squamis fornicatis.
The printed diagnosis, or heading, was evidently drawn up from a
different shell.
O. PELLUCENS. _Pec._ radiis 9, lævis, fornice squamis
cochleari-hemisphæricis.
No name was attached to this or the next shell.
O. SANGUINEA. _Pec._ radiis 22 scabris, semiauritus.
The reference was not to plate 74 (as printed) of Gualtieri, but to
plate 73. "Purpureus nigro undatus" was written after the indicated
colouring.
O. VARIA. _Pec._ radiis 30 scabris explanatis.
"Et omnia cadem" followed "sanguineæ"; "striis compressis echinatis" was
not present; "color pallidior" was in the place of "concolor."
O. PUSIO. _Pec._ radiis 40 filiformibus.
O. GLABRA. _Pec._ radiis 10 lævibus planiusculis, internis striis
elevatis duplicatis.
Gualtieri's rude drawing was not quoted.
O. OPERCULARIS. _Pec._ radiis 20 subrotundis, decussate striato-scaber,
operculo convexiore.
O. GIBBA. _Pec._ radiis 20 glabris, gibbus.
Brown's drawing was not quoted.
O. FLAVICANS. _Pec._ radiis 8 striatis, margine altero rotundato.
As in the 'Systema,' the next two shells, along with this, formed a
group distinguished as having the "Valvulis altero latere magis gibbis."
No names had been appended to this, the three preceding, and the two
following species.
O. FASCIATA. _Pec._ radiis 20, auriculis æqualibus exoletis.
The "gibba" of the borrowed diagnosis was not, it may be observed, in
the original.
O. LIMA. _Pec._ radiis 22, imbricatis squamis, altero margine rotundato,
auriculis obliteratis.
The "gibba" of the borrowed heading was not in the original diagnosis.
The final remark was likewise absent.
O. ISOGNOMON. The entire account of this species was added to the copy
in the Linnean handwriting. "Klein, 128. t. 8. f. 15. Isognomon" and
"Cardo ut ephippo" had been omitted in printing.
O. MALLEUS. _O._ trilobum.
"Transverso ad marginem" was a subsequent addition.
O. FOLIUM. _O._ ovatum, lateribus obtuse plicatum.
Klein's copy (t. 8. f. 22.) of the indicated figure in Rumphius was
cited, in the handwriting of Linnæus: the "cavitate conica" was an
emendation.
O. EDULE. _O._ subrotundum semiorbiculatum, valvula altera plana
integerrima.
There was no semicolon after "opaca," but a comma after "latiore." The
original sole synonym was the omitted one of "Gualt t. 102. f. B."
O. SEMIAURITUM. _O._ semiauritum ovatum læve, basi obliqua.
Linnæus himself had added this species to the earlier catalogue.
O. EPHIPPIUM. _O._ submembranaceum curvum, cardine octosulcato.
In addition to the published _Ostreæ_, the following description of the
shell subsequently termed _O. perna_ (Syst. ed. 12.) was found in the
manuscript:--
_O._ rugosum, inæquale, tumidiusculum, cardine octocrenato.
Testa perniformis, obovata, substantia ligni antiqui, tumidiuscula,
superficie obsolete rugosa, inæquali interne livida. Cardo transversus,
margine inflexo, notatus crenis obtusis circiter 8.
ANOMIA.
The single species here mentioned was comprehended in _Ostreum_.
A. PLACENTA. _O._ orbiculatum planum pellucidum.
Reference was made, by a long periphrasis, to plates 225, 226 of
Lister's 'Historiæ'; Seba was not quoted: "intra discum testæ adnatis"
was absent.
MYTILUS.
Testa opaca, læviuscula. Cardo nullis dentibus instructus, sed fossula
obliqua intra marginem.
This definition very properly excluded the oysters which had been
erroneously inserted in this genus. Only the _Mytili_ and _Modiolæ_ of
Lamarck were left as members; for _margaritiferus_ and _hirundo_ were
transferred to _Ostreum_!!
M. FRONS. _Ost._ acutum plicatum, labio altero scabro.
M. CRISTA-GALLI. _Ost._ acutum, plicatum, labio utroque scabro.
The reading of the MS. was not "secundum marginem insculptus," but
"secundum marginem Mytilus."
M. HYOTIS. _Ost._ subacuto-plicatum imbricatum squamis compressis, labio
utrinque glabro.
M. MARGARITIFERUS. _Ost._ semiauritum, imbricatum tunicis, basi
transversum.
"Bonan. 2. f. 1." was the omitted synonym. The description of the hinge
was not at first inserted.
M. UNGUIS. _M._ subrotundus, longitudinaliter striatus, pellucidus.
This ambiguous species was not named, but placed next to _Ostrea
edulis_. I entertain but little doubt of its being a young _Perna_.
M. LITHOPHAGUS. _M._ cylindricus.
Neither Gualtieri nor d'Argenville was referred to, which confirms
my idea that the species of the 'Museum' (termed _coriaceus_ in the
manuscript) was not the Mediterranean _Lithodomus_.
M. BILOCULARIS. _M._ striatus, cardine fornicato.
M. EXUSTUS. _M._ striatus, dorso angulato.
M. EDULIS. _M._ lævis, subcurvatus, cardine terminali mutico.
The printed synonyms are additions. From the "crassa," and the "absque
denticulo," it is by no means improbable that some large exotic species
was intended. The proposed name was _niger_; and that word originally
formed part of the heading, but had been erased by Linnæus.
M. UNGULATUS. _M._ læviusculus, valvis obliquis postice dilatatis,
antice apice.
"Lineis" was "tunicis" in the original. I do not consider that the
details of this species (the _M. rusticus_ of the MS.) pertain, even
generically, to the _ungulatus_ of the 'Systema.'
The large _Mytilus_ represented by Gualtieri was not quoted: the
reference, on the contrary, was to the two _Modiolæ_ depicted by
Rumphius ("Rump. 151. t. 46. f. B. C.") and to their Kleinian names
("Klein, 127. Musculus acutus vulgaris, a. b."); and to that genus,
rather than to _Mytilus_, does the account of the suture, and the final
remark, apply.
M. MODIOLUS. _M._ lævis, cardine sublaterali, margine dorsali dilatato.
The erroneous, yet approximate, synonyms of Rumphius and Gualtieri (the
4 H's of whose engraving represent 4 different shells) were not quoted
in the original. The species (for want of a good figure) was not clearly
defined until the twelfth edition of the 'Systema.'
M. VIRIDIS. _M._ lævis membranaceus, cardine terminali.
M. RUBER. _M._ rugosus, valvulis obliquis, postice dilatatis, margine
antico apicem æquante.
The preceding mussel spoken of was not _viridis_, but _ungulatus_. The
reading was not "brevissimo, compresso," but "brevissime compresso."
M. HIRUNDO. _Ost._ valvis bilobis, lobo anteriore angustiore longiore.
"Bonan. 2. f. 57" (error for 58) and "List. 220. f. 55" were quoted.
PINNA.
The definition was not precisely similar in words to that of the
'Systema,' but the sense varied but little. It ran as follows:--
Testa oblonga, membranaceo-fragilis, basi angustata. Cardo nullus, sed
valvis altero latere coadunatis ut una appareat.
P. RUDIS. _P._ rugosa squamis fornicatis per seriem digestis.
The name of this shell, identified (I think wrongly) by our author
with the one he had termed _rudis_ in the 'Systema,' was originally
_fornicata_.
P. NOBILIS. _P._ squamis canaliculato-tubulosis subimbricatis.
P. MURICATA. _P._ striata, squamis concavis ovatis acutis.
"List. Hist. t. 370. no. 215," and "Sloan. Hist. i. p. 254," were
present among the original synonyms.
P. ROTUNDATA. _P._ squamis obsoletis, testæ margine rotundato.
P. SACCATA. _P._ nuda saccata erectiuscula.
P. DIGITIFORMIS. _P._ nuda digitiformis incurva.
P. LOBATA. _P._ nuda lobata.
* * * * *
In addition to the printed species, an anomalous _Pinna_, which I doubt
not was the _Lingula anatina_, is here described.
P. VIRIDIS. _P._ ovalis, basi compressa.
Generis dubii huc relata, donec certiora determinentur.
Testa utraque ovali-oblonga, viridis, intus magis pallida; quasi
compressa, et fere naviculata, acutior.
ARGONAUTA.
The intended name of this genus was _Cymbium_, the one applied to it by
Gualtieri.
A. ARGO. _Cym._ carina dentata.
"Bonan. 1. f. 13," and "Klein, 3. t. 1. f. 3," were the unprinted
synonyms. The intended specific epithet was _C. papyraceum_.
NAUTILUS.
There was no definition of either this, or of the preceding genus, in
the written catalogue.
N. POMPILIUS. _N._ apertura cordata, anfractibus contiguis.
The unprinted synonyms were "Bonan. 1, f. 1, 2," "Breyn. Polyth. 14,"
"Pet. Amb. t. 3. f. 7," "Pet. Gaz. t. 99. f. D," "Klein, 2. t. 1. f. 1,
2," and "Bellon. Aquat. 318. t. 382." Seba was not quoted.
N. SPIRULA. _N._ apertura orbiculari, anfractibus distantibus.
The I in the reference to Rumphius was a misprint for the written 1;
"Bon. 1. f. 39," "Breyn. Polyth. 21. f. 2," "Klein, 5. t. 1. f. 6," and
"Petropol. Mus. 532. n. 6," were the unprinted synonyms: "tubo" was an
emendation.
CONUS.
Testa oblonga, cylindrica, deorsum attenuata. Apertura longitudinalis.
Labium edentulum. Os non reflexum. Columella integra.
This most natural genus had the precise limits ordinarily assigned to
it.
C. MARMOREUS. _C._ conicus fuscus, maculis ovatis albis.
"Bonan. 3. f. 123" was an additional synonym; the "versus basin
transverse striata," and "subtruncata, apice prominulo," with the
account of the variety, were not found in the MS.
C. IMPERIALIS. _C._ pictus fasciis flavis cingulisque linearibus albo
fuscoque articulatis.
The "obconica" was simply "conica"; there was no description of the
spire.
C. LITERATUS. _C._ conicus albus punctis fuscis.
The spire was not described: the reference to d'Argenville was I, not
_Q_.
C. VIRGO. _C._ striis convexis lævibus, basi cærulescente.
"Longa" was originally "magna": the erroneous reference to Gualtieri was
not inserted.
C. CAPITANEUS. _C._ conicus, basi fusca, spiræ anfractibus
adscendentibus.
At least two species were confused; but, from the heading, it is clear
that _C. generalis_, rather than _C. capitaneus_, was the typical form:
the latter was the variety _g._
The V in the reference to Rumphius was a misprint for the written Y:
"Gualt. t. 20. f. G." and "Pet. Gaz. t. 27. f. O." were additional
synonyms. "Notata lituris undatis fuscis" was not in the manuscript.
C. PRINCEPS. _C._ flavus, lineis fusco-purpureis longitudinalibus
ramosis.
"Sub" preceded "convexa."
C. AMMIRALIS. _C._ basi punctato-scaber.
After "summus" was written "cingulo albo"; after "ordinarius," "cingulo
nullo"; Seba was not quoted; "pruniformis" was the earlier reading
for "conico-convexa, pyriformis." The variety _a._ was described as
"circumdata lineis numerosis albis nigro articulatis, quarum quæ
cylindrum distinguit a spira latior maculis albis nigrisque majoribus
alternantibus." The variety _g._ was not originally present in the
catalogue, but was interpolated by Linnæus. "Hæc pretiosissima ut
vendita fuerit 500 florenis" was the final remark.
C. NOBILIS. _C._ subcylindricus lævis glaber, spira acuta argute
canaliculata.
"Cacumen" was a misprint for the written "acumen."
C. GENUANUS. _C._ pictus cingulis linearibus albo fuscoque articulatis.
A strange confusion took place between the details of _C. senator_
and _C. Genuanus_. The published description belonged to the former,
the synonym the latter, and should have preceded the following brief
description:
"Testa conica, pallida, glauca, oblongiuscula. Lineæ 19 transversæ
fusco-nigræ s. purpurascentes albo interruptæ, alternæ sæpe
angustiores. Spira subconica, obtusa."
C. GLAUCUS. _C._ emarginatus, basi striatus, spiræ inermis anfractibus
convexis.
C. MONACHUS. _C._ gibbus acutus, fusco-cærulescente nebulosus, basi
striatus.
Bonanni was not quoted in the written copy.
C. MINIMUS. _C._ cinerascens, punctis oblongis cinctus.
The original description has been much altered by Linnæus. It ran as
follows: "Testa ovata, glauco-cinerea, gibba, striæ transversales
plus 30 punctis fuscis oblongis. Spira convexa, alba, maculis fuscis
magnis transversis." The cited figure does not even suit these meagre
characteristics, which might have been equally applied to _C. glaucus_.
C. RUSTICUS. _C._ ovatus, basi rugoso-scaber, spira conica convexa.
The variety was not noticed, and d'Argenville was not quoted in the
original catalogue. "Flavo et glauco" should have been "flavo aut
glauco," as written.
C. MERCATOR. _C._ ovatus, albus fasciis reticulatis flavis.
C. BETULINUS. _C._ subemarginatus, basi rugosus, spira planiuscula
mucronata.
Seba was not cited.
C. FIGULINUS. _C._ emarginatus, basi rugosa, spira convexa acuta.
An additional synonym, "Rump. t. 31 (error for 33, there being no number
1 in that plate) f. 1," was indicated.
C. EBRÆUS. _C._ ovatus albus fasciis nigris ex maculis transversis.
"Pet. Gaz. t. 99. f. 12." was quoted.
C. STERCUS-MUSCARUM. _C._ emarginatus, basi striatus, spiræ anfractibus
canaliculatis.
Of the two species confounded under this designation the _C. arenarius_
appeared as a variety in the manuscript. Of the typical form "Spira
lævi," "Pet. Gaz. t. 75. f. 1," and "Rumph. Mus. t. 33. f. Z," were
cited as illustrations; the other synonyms were ascribed to "Var.
α. coronatus spinis obtusis." The colouring was not mentioned.
C. VARIUS. _C._ scabro-coronatus, elongatus, spira coronata acuta.
C. GRANULATUS. _C._ scaber inermis, striis lævibus.
The original size indicated was "magnitudine coryli."
C. MAGUS. _C._ subcylindricus, fasciis longitudinalibus albo punctatis.
The erroneous figure of d'Argenville was not referred to; and the
32, Q (as in the 'Systema'), not 34, A, of Rumphius was quoted as
illustrative. The final remark had been interpolated by Linnæus.
C. STRIATUS. _C._ ovato-oblongus gibbus nebulosus, striis tenuissimis
parallelis fuscis.
The "Cæterum testa minus ante convoluta est," is a press addition. "Pet.
Gaz. t. 98. f. 9." was correctly cited.
C. TEXTILE. _C._ pictus venis reticulatis luteis, maculis luteis
fuscisque.
The intended name (_C. drador_) was an amusing specimen of conchological
Latin: it was of course borrowed from d'Argenville's appellation of
"_Drap d'or_." "Columella ad postica quasi replicata est" was added in
the printing; the "luteo" was originally "albo"; the "subconica" was
"anfractibus subconicis"; and there was no mention of a variety.
C. AULICUS. _C._ pictus venis reticulatis fasciisque longitudinalibus
interruptis fuscis.
"Columella postice replicata est," and the objectionable "obovato-sub,"
were not in the copy. No figures were cited in the original catalogue.
C. SPECTRUM. _C._ cærulescens, flavo-nebulosus, punctis striisque
alboluteis.
The original description did not comprise those characteristics which
are so much at variance with the essentials of the _C. spectrum_ of
authors. The following passages were omitted: "gibba, minus arcte
convoluta" (this replaced "conica"), "Columella postice striata et
replicata. Intus testa sub-cærulescens," "mucrone cingulis granulato."
C. BULLATUS. _C._ flavus, albo nebulosus.
The account of the variety, and the "vix tuberculata," were absent from
the manuscript.
C. GEOGRAPHUS. _C._ oblongus gibbus coronatus.
The Rumphian name was the one attached to this species in the written
copy.
C. TEREBELLUM. _C._ scaber inermis, striis tuberculatis.
The synonyms attached to the published details were "Gualt. Test. t.
25. f. L.--Arg. Conch. t. 16. f. P.--Rumph. t. 33. f. EE." Now these
harmonize with both the heading and the description, and clearly
indicate the _C. Nussatella_ of the 'Systema'!
The details attached to the published synonyms (which latter belonged to
the _C. terebellum_ of the 'Systema,' and to which were joined "Gualt.
t. 23. f. O.--"Bonan. 3. f. 57.--Pet. Amb. t. 13. f. 24,") ran as
follows:
"Testa cylindracea, glabra, antice angustior, desinens in spiram
attenuatam, anfractibus 3. Basis truncata, tennis. Columella non torta,
sed involuta. Color pallidus."
CYPREA.
Testa ovata lævis involuta. Apertura linearis, utrinque dentata. Spira
occultata intra testam.
C. MAPPA. _C._ subturbinata characterisata, macula longitudinali
dentata.
"Pet. Amb. t. 16. f. 2." was an omitted synonym. The terminal remark
is an improvement upon the earlier "Noscitur linea utrinque dentata in
superficie scripta."
C. ARABICA. _C._ subturbinata characterisata, macula longitudinali
simplici.
"Denticulis testaceis" and the description of the variety were
additions by the hand of Linnæus.
C. ARGUS. _C._ subturbinata subcylindrica, maculis annularibus.
The synonyms of Petiver (t. 97. f. 6) and Bonanni (f. 263), quoted in
the 'Systema,' were also present in the MS., where "2. s. 1" was in
the place of "duabus." The "pallidis" was a misprint for the written
"pallidæ." The account of the variety was subsequent to the copy.
C. TESTUDINARIA. _C._ obtusa cylindrica, extremitatibus depressis.
"Pet. Amb. t. 8. f. 7." was an unprinted synonym.
C. CARNEOLA. _C._ subturbinata pallida, fasciis incarnatis.
C. TALPA. _C._ subturbinata violacea, fasciis pallidis.
"Pet. Amb. t. 16. f. 1." was an unprinted synonym: "pallide
flavescens" was the earlier reading for "testacea." The final remark
was not in the copy.
C. AMETHYSTEA. _C._ subturbinata, dorso violaceo.
Rumphius was not originally cited as illustrative.
C. VANELLI. _C._ subturbinata, maculata punctis lutescentibus.
"Obsoletis" was originally in the place of "acutis": the "sæpe
lutescentibus" was an addition of the press. _C. Ovum Vanelli_ was the
intended designation.
C. LOTA. _C._ subturbinata alba, denticulis subulatis.
C. FRAGILIS. _C._ subturbinata gibba fragilis, obsolete fasciata.
Linnæus himself inserted this heading, with the first three lines of the
printed details, in the manuscript copy. Neither the reference, nor the
longer account of the variety (evidently a different species) appeared
there.
C. CAPUT-SERPENTIS. _C._ obtusa triquetro-gibba, postice obtusiuscula.
"Fusis" was the earlier reading for "confertis."
C. MAURITIANA. _C._ obtusa triquetro-gibba, postice depresso-acuta.
"Pet. Gaz. t. 96. f. 8. ex Insula Mauritii" was added in the manuscript:
"fuscus" was the earlier version of "fusco-testaceus."
C. VITELLUS. _C._ subturbinata livida, maculis albis.
The published reference was substituted for "Bonan. 3. f. 254," a
more characteristic figure: "maxima ex parte distincta, sed" followed
"Spira." "Albida," not "alba," was the tint at first ascribed to the
base.
C. MUS. _C._ obtusa subovalis gibba cinerea, fascia longitudinali fusca.
Our author himself inserted the account of this species in the
manuscript. Seba was not quoted. "Habitat in Carthagena" was appended to
the description.
C. TIGRIS. _C._ obtusa ovata, postice obtusa.
In the synonym of Rumphius, 36 is a misprint for 38: the erroneous
reference to the H of Gualtieri was not in the copy, where "Pet. Gaz.
t. 96. f. _7_" was indicated as illustrative. The printed additions
were "aut alba," "fusco-ferrugineis" (in lieu of "fuscis"), and "s.
alba, quasi exarata; postice subcylindrica, truncata"; the previous
words "Linea, &c." of that sentence were also absent from the original
description, but had been inserted by the hand of Linnæus. "Postice"
preceded "planiusculo," and "subviolaceo" followed "nitore."
C. LYNX. _C._ oblongo-ovata, linea flavescente, postice acutiuscula.
No variety was mentioned in the written copy.
C. ISABELLA. _C._ obtusa cylindrica, extremitatibus luteis.
"Pet. Amb. t. 16. f. 16." was cited in the manuscript, where the final
remark was wanting.
C. ONYX. _C._ umbilicata, subtus fusca.
Neither of the synonyms was quoted in the copy.
C. SUCCINCTA. _C._ umbilicata, labio interiore utraque extremitate
rotundato.
The entire account of this shell (the _C. bicincta_ of the MS.) was
added to the copy by our author.
C. ZICZAC. _C._ umbilicata, subtus lutea punctis fuscis.
None of the cited figures were referred to in the original, where
"interiore" stood in the place of the printed "utroque fusco."
C. HIRUNDO. _C._ umbilicata, supra cærulescente.
"Sparsis", "s. fusca", "necnon macula, &c." were emendations of the
press: "postice" preceded "fere marginato" in the original.
C. ASELLUS. _C._ umbilicata alba, fasciis tribus fuscis.
"Pet. Amb. t. 16. f. 18." and "Pet. Gaz. t. 97. f. 11." were cited in
the copy as illustrative.
C. CRIBRARIA. _C._ umbilicata, maculis albis.
"Margo" preceded "adscendens" in the copy, in which "livide flavo" was
found in place of "luteo": "flavicantibus" was omitted. The intended
name was _C. Argiolus_.
C. ERRONES. _C._ umbilicata, macula testacea æquali.
_Erratica_ was the original specific appellation.
C. MONETA. _C._ marginate-nodosa.
"Pet. Gaz. t. 97. f. 8." and "Pet. Amb. t. 16. f. 8." were omitted in
printing; "subflavescente" followed "convexo"; "subtus planiuscula" and
"incisis" were absent. In place of the final remark (added, however,
by the hand of our author), there originally stood "Noscitur tuberibus
quinque elevatis."
C. ANNULUS. _C._ marginata annulo flavo.
The "s. rotundata" was added in printing.
C. EROSA. _C._ marginata flava albo-punctata.
"Undique aspersa" and "Macula fusca notat medium utriusque lateris" are
the printed emendations.
C. HELVOLA. C. marginata, postice crenata, subtus flava immaculata,
supra albo punctulata.
The final remark was unwritten, and the size not mentioned: "marginis
gibbi" was "margine exteriore gibbo", and "subcrenati" was "latere
subcrenato."
C. STOLIDA. _C._ marginata variegata cinereo testaceoque.
"Quinque" and "adspersis" were not in the original.
C. OCELLATA. _C._ marginata lutea, ocellis nigris.
C. FLAVEOLA. _C._ marginata fulva, albo punctata.
C. PORARIA. _C._ marginata subviolacea, albo punctata.
C. PEDICULUS. _C._ transversim sulcata.
"List. 168. t. 3. f. 17." and "Barr. t. 1326. f. 28." were cited in
addition to the printed synonyms. The last four words of the description
were not in the copy.
C. NUCLEUS. _C._ sulcata punctata tuberculis, rostrata.
"Pet. Amb. t. 16 f. 11." was cited as illustrative.
C. STAPHYLÆA. _C._ punctis elevatis sine striis, subrostrata.
The printed "minus" has been substituted for the earlier "vix"; "lutea"
for "flava"; and "totam basin" for "maximum partem baseos."
C. GLOBULUS. _C._ rostrata lævis.
The printed additions were "alba s.", "extremitate utraque" (in place
of "postice"), "Superficies punctis vix manifestis notata", and
"excurrentes in strias".
BULLA.
Testa subrotunda, inflata, lævis. Apertura oblonga, non utrinque
dentata. Spira obsoleta. Columella obliqua.
The _Murex ficus_ and _rapa_ of the printed edition were originally
located in this genus, from which _Auris Midæ_, _Auris Judæ_, and
_achatina_ were excluded: the two former were placed in _Morion_, the
last in _Buccinum_.
B. OVUM. _B._ birostris, labio dentato.
"Arg. t. 21. f. A." "Pet. Gaz. t. 94. f. 7." "Pet. Amb. t. 8. f. 6."
were additional references in the written copy: "magnitudine ovi
gallinacei", "apice et basi producta", were emendations during the
printing. The "dilatata" was originally modified by a "parum."
B. VOLVA. _B._ birostris, rostris elongatis striatis.
"List. t. 711. f. 63" had been added to the copy by the hand of Linnæus.
The mode of reference (not, as in the earlier writings, by sections and
chapters) evinces that this addition was, in all probability, subsequent
to the publication of the work.
B. VERRUCOSA. _B._ angulata, aucta utrinque puncto osseo.
The correct synonyms of "Arg. t. 21. f. M." and "Pet. Gaz. t. 97. f.22."
were found in the manuscript: the printed emendations were, "magnitudine
ovi passerini", "uti anterius", and "granis duobus" for the earlier
"punctis."
B. GIBBOSA. _B._ angulata, cingulo elevato.
"Bonan. 249", "List. t. 711. f. 64", "Pet. Gaz. t. 15. f. 5", were
cited in the copy: "præcedentis magnitudine", "solidiorque", with
the modification of "cylindrica" by a preceding "sub", were press
emendations.
B. NAUCUM. _B._ rotundata pellucida.
The size was not at first mentioned.
B. AMPULLA. _B._ rotundata opaca.
The printed "nulla" replaced the earlier "descendens, nuda", and
"pallido-testacea" the written "albida." The "antice, nullus vero
postice" was an emendation of the press.
B. PHYSIS. _B._ spira obtusa, lineis crispata.
"Sæpe", "hiansque", "tenue", and the name, are not to be found in
the written copy: "apicem" was the reading for the printed "ventrem,
aduatum."
B. AMPLUSTRE. _B._ spira elevata, fasciis incarnatis.
B. PALLIDA. _B._ spira elevata acuta, corpore cylindrico.
So very many changes has this puzzling species experienced in the
works of our author, that it has been thought advisable to transcribe
the written description from the manuscript copy:--
Testa ovato-cylindrica, glabra. Spira convexo-conica, mucronata.
Columella multum torta. Color lividus, longitudinaliter grisco
undulatus.
This evidently was a very different shell from the four-plaited, pale
pink, and often variegated specimen described in the printed copy.
The description of the outer lip, the name, and the terms "solida",
"lævigata, obsoletior" were, likewise, additions of the press.
B. CANALICULATA. _B._ cylindrica lævis, spiræ anfractibus
canaliculatis.
The entire account of this species was added to the manuscript in the
Linnean handwriting.
B. ACHATINA. _Buc._ glabrum, apertura integra.
"Colum. Aphr. 18. t. 16" was the omitted synonym: "vel inæqualiter
ovata" and the entire account of the base (merely described as "vix
manifeste emarginata") were the printed additions.
B. AURIS-MIDÆ. _Morion_ ovali-oblongum, spira rugosa, labio interiore
bidentato.
Figure 122 of Klein's seventh plate was correctly quoted as
illustrative: "crudæ" preceded "niger."
B. AURIS-JUDÆ. _Morion_ oblongus, spira lævi, labio interiore
tridentato.
B. SOLIDULA. _B._ ovata opaca striata, spira elevata.
I do not doubt, from the "ovata", that _Tornatella flammea_ was the
shell originally here intended; for the inharmonious account of
the inner lip (as well as of the outer one) was not found in the
manuscript,--from which, too, the erroneous reference to Bonanni was
at first absent. The "acutiuscula" was "obtusiuscula": the "postice
rotundata, antice acuta" was an improvement upon the earlier "pone
gibba."
B. LIVIDA. _B._ spira elevata obtusa, corpore cylindrico.
This heading makes no mention of the columellar plication of the
shell so named in the 'Systema,' and confirms my surmise of their
distinctiveness. The name _livida_ was not originally attached to the
description, but had been added (together with "obsoletis") by Linnæus,
from a mistaken identification.
There has evidently been some error in the comparison with _Voluta
Caffra_. I suspect that _Conus bullatus_ was meant, as the contrasting
characters answer admirably. "Differt a _B. pallida_ et _livida_, quod
testa solida--anfractus spiræ canaliculati". This passage shows that
"fragilis et spiræ anfractus obtusæ" referred to _livida_, not to
_Caffra_.
VOLUTA.
Testa oblonga, subconvexa, basi emarginata, replicata in canalem rectum.
Columella plicata oblique. Labio integro.
The genus appears to comprehend precisely the same members as in the
published edition. They were arranged in sections exactly corresponding
with the Lamarckian genera of _Oliva_, _Voluta_, _Mitra_, and
_Marginella_.
V. PORPHYRIA. _V._ spira basi obliterata, labio medio retuso.
Linnæus spoilt his excellent earlier description by his attempted
emendations. The interpolated "Faux sæpius rufescens" (misprinted
virescens), and the reference to Gualtieri's figure O. (_O.
erythrostoma_), formed no part of the original version.
The "Varictas fere sola est _V. Olivæ_" was an afterthought.
V. OLIVA. _V._ spiræ basi reflexa.
The synonyms were thus distributed. To var _a_, Rumph. t. 39. f. 2, and
Gualt. t. 23. f. B; to var. _g_, Rumph. t. 39. f. 3; to var. _e_, Arg.
t. 16. f. R; to var. _d_ ("Cæsius atro-undatus," not "Fusco undulatus"
as printed), Rumph. t. 39. f. 4. The expressions "ponderosa" and "magis
sulcatum" were not in the original.
V. ISPIDULA. _V._ spira adscendente, margine unico.
"Pet. Gaz. t. 59. f. 8," cited in the 'Systema,' was also written in the
manuscript: not so the "Varietas forte præcedentis _V. Olivæ_." None of
the drawings exhibit the produced spire, which must have resembled that
of _O. jaspidea_. The earlier name was _ispida_.
V. GLABELLA. _V._ ovata lævis, labii margine reflexo, basi rotundata.
The reference to Gualtieri (a doubtful figure) was not originally
inserted. The intended name was _V. polita_.
V. CAFFRA. _V._ fusiformis lævis.
The absurdity of asserting, in relation to this and the next species,
that each resembled the other, but was larger, arose from the
circumstance that when our author, in revising the labours of his
amanuensis, added "sed major," he omitted to erase it from the following
species.
V. VULPECULA. _V._ fusiformis angulata inermis, transversim striata.
Of the ample details the first two paragraphs only were found in the
manuscript. The proposed name was _V. picta_.
V. PLICARIA. _V._ fusiformis, angulis antice subspinosis.
The intended appellation _angulata_ was changed from an erroneous
impression of the identity of the species with the _Turricula plicata_
of Rumphius. "Mucronatis" and "albidus" were emendations. "Bonan. 8.
f. 65" was referred to, as in the 'Systema'.
V. PERTUSA. _V._ fusiformis, labro denticulato, striata punctis
pertusis.
_V. denticulata_ was the name originally proposed for this _Mitre_.
V. MITRA. _V._ fusiformis lævis, labro denticulato.
The final paragraph was not in the manuscript, where "Bonan. 3. t.
119, 120", and "Klein, 36. Mitra episcopi", the former cited in the
'Systema', the latter a mere name, were quoted as illustrative.
V. MUSICA. _V._ spinis obtusiusculis, columella plicis 8.
The reference to the letters X. and Y. of Gualtieri (neither of which
are illustrative) stood not thus in the original: the characteristic Z.
of that work was the figure really cited. The printed edition has been
enlarged by an "ob" before "ovato" the addition of "solida", and the
description of the lips.
V. VESPERTILIO. _V._ spinis acutis, columella plicis 4.
The only printed additions are "ob" before "ovato", "s. glauca", and
"fuscis lineis" in place of the "saturatius."
V. ÆTHIOPICA. _V._ spinis fornicatis cingentibus apicem papillarem.
"Habitat in mari Pacifico", "Pet. Amb. t. 7. f. 5" (copied from
Rumphius, t. 31. f. B.), and "Bonan. t. 3 f. 1" (cited in the 'Systema')
were the unprinted additions.
V. CYMBIUM. The entire account of this shell was in the handwriting of
Linnæus, and inserted at a later period than the mass of species. The
decided reference to Gualtieri _was not in the manuscript_.
V. OLLA was not mentioned in the written catalogue.
* * * * *
In addition to the species published in the 'Museum,' the following were
also characterized in the manuscript:--
V. FABA. _V._ ovata, antice subplicata, labii exterioris margine
reflexo, basi rotundata.
Bonan. 3. f. 49.
Testa magnitudine vix fabæ, ovalis, lævis, antice subplicata, livida,
punctis fuscis aspersa. Spira testæ 1/2 brevior, subplicata. Labium
exterius reflexum, basi rotundatum integrum.
This was evidently the shell so designated in the 'Systema.'
V. GRANULATA. _V._ fusiformis, sulcis longitudinalibus, striisque
transversalibus.
Rumph. Mus. t. 29. f. V.
Arg. Conch. t. 12. f. V.
Testa facie antecedentis, sed sulci et striæ contrariæ, fusiformis,
sulcis longitudinalibus elevatis obtusis, striis transversalibus
exaratis. Color cinereus, fasciis linearibus 2 rubris ex punctis. Spira
longitudine ventris. Apertura præcedentis.
This was the _V. sanguisuga_ of the 'Systema.'
The preceding species referred to was
V. LIMA. _V._ fusiformis, sulcis transversis, striisque
longitudinalibus.
Rumph. Mus. t. 28. f. T.
Testa fusiformis, scabriuscula, striis longitudinalibus secundum testam,
et sulcis secundum anfractus adscendentibus margine acutiusculis. Color
albidus sulcis elevatis rubris--albidus sulcis elevatis flavis albo
interruptis. Spira longitudine ventris. Apertura oblonga, intus alba.
Basis acuta, emarginata. Labium exterius integrum; interius nullum.
Columella dentibus 4 obliqius.
These features fairly enough suit the _Mitra filosa_, generally, and
with reason, supposed to be the _V. filaris_ of the 'Mantissa.' The
cited figure however, seems _M. gracilis_ of Reeve.
BUCCINUM.
The species which compose this group in the 'Museum' were originally
separated under many generic designations.
1. BUCCINUM. Testa ovata, ventricosa. Apertura integra, semilunaris,
superne extrorsum, postice introrsum.
2. CASSIDA. Testa ovata, gibba. Cauda reflexa oblique. Apertura
longitudinalis, obliqua.
3. LYRA. Testa ovata, ventricosa. Apertura ovata, patens, pone
submarginata. Labium interius nullum. Columella compressa, nitida.
4. TURRICULA. (No definition: evidently intended for all the turreted
shells.)
5. MORION. Testa oblonga, inermis. Apertura oblonga, labio interiore
reflexo unidentato.
In the first were located the _Dolia_, and _B. echinophorum_; in the
second the _Cassides_, with _B. papillosum_ and _arcularia_; in the
third the _Harpæ_ and _Purpuræ_; in the fourth the _Terebræ_; in the
fifth _B. glans_, _spiratum_, _glabratum_.
_B. undosum_ was located in _Murex_.
B. PERDIX. _B._ umbilicatum subsulcatum, basi recta.
The proposed name was _B. pennatum_, adopted from Rumphius:
"lunari-patula" was not in the manuscript.
B. POMUM. _B._ exumbilicatum, labio utroque dentato.
"Barr. Ic. t. 1325. f. 12" (cited in the 'Systema'), and "Klein, 95.
Semicassis, striata, costosa", were the additional synonyms of the
manuscript: "s. sulcata", "nullum, interne", "at vero in adultioribus
accrescit planum album", were subsequent emendations.
B. DOLIUM. _B._ emarginatum subsulcatum rugosum, labio exteriore reflexo
dentato.
The _Dolium fimbriatum_, or, as Deshayes prefers it, _D. Minjac_ (the
Malay name was Bia Minjac in Rumphius, who preceded Adanson), was
assuredly the shell described in the 'Museum', as the recorded dentation
of the outer lip clearly manifests. An excellent figure of it in Petiver
("Gaz. t. 99. f. 11") was cited in the original copy, where the drawing
of Gualtieri was not referred to.
B. ECHINOPHORUM. _B._ (changed to _Cassida_) tuberibus ("quaterna serie"
interpolated) nodosum.
The reference to Rumphius was correctly written 1, not I, in the
original, where "albido-flavescens" was the indicated colouring. The
printed emendations were "quadruplici s. quintuplici", instead of
"triplici", and the entire account of the aperture, which at first ran
simply as follows, "Labium exterius crassius, margine tenuiore, interne
subrugosum, obsolete dentatum."
B. TUBEROSUM. _B._ tuberibus gemina serie nodosum.
The entire published account of this species had been interpolated
by Linnæus in the written copy, with the exception of the "color
pallidus." The "nodis anterioribus" was a misprint for "nodis
acutioribus."
Gualtieri's admirable figure of the _Cassis tuberosa_ of authors was
not, however, cited, which confirms my statement that the species of
the 'Museum' was not the _Cassis_ usually so designated.
B. CORNUTUM. _Cas._ acuminibus antice cingentibus, superficic
reticulata.
The I in the reference to Rumphius was a misprint for the written 1:
"maculata" was originally "maculis griseis."
B. RUFUM. _Cas._ nodis sparsis.
"Pyri" was a misprint for the written "pugni". Neither the "maculis
fuscis" nor the "Variat tota albo colore" were originally present. The
Rumphian name _rubra_ was the one written.
B. FLAMMEUM. _Cas._ longitudinaliter striata, antice subnodosa.
To the solitary synonym our author had added "List. t. 1004. f. 69" and
"Sloan. Hist. 2. p. 242. n. 2". The final remark was not in the copy.
B. TESTICULUS. _Cas._ lævis, striis longitudinalibus, sulcis
transversalibus.
"Vix ullus" was at first "nullus": "læve" was not present.
B. DECUSSATUM. _Cas._ lævis, striis decussatis, labio exteriore
dentato.
"Bonan. Clas. 3. t. 157" was an additional synonym.
B. AREOLA. _Cas._ glabra, spira papillosa.
The erroneous references to Gualtieri, and to the figure 2 of
Rumphius, were not present in the original, nor was there any allusion
made to the sculpture of the inner lip.
B. ERINACEUS. _Cas._ subsulcata, antice nodosa, labio edentulo,
postice extrorsum denticulato.
The entire account of this _Cassis_ was interpolated by Linnæus in the
pages of his amanuensis.
B. GLAUCUM. _Cas._ glabra, antice muricata, labio dentato, postice
extrorsum denticulato.
The superfluous A in the reference to Gualtieri was a misprint:
"inferne" was "interne": the "acuminata" and "marginatum" were
emendations.
B. VIBEX. _Cas._ glabra, labio edentulo, postice extrorsum denticulato.
The figures 8 and 9 of Rumphius were not cited.
B. PAPILLOSUM. _Cas._ papillis decussatis, labio tenui, extus
denticulato, fauce glabra.
"Rectum" followed "exterius" in the written copy, wherein "s. albidus"
and "antice sinu excavata" were not to be found.
B. GLANS. _Morion_ labio exteriore denticulato, interiore bidentato.
"Labium exterius margine postico denticulato" was omitted in printing.
B. ARCULARIA. _Cas._ longitudinaliter sulcata, labio exteriore tenui,
interiore maximo.
B. COSTATUM. _Lyra_ costis longitudinalibus, antice prominulis,
alternis obsoletis.
This diagnosis but ill suits the _Many-ridged Harp_, which, of late,
has been considered identical.
B. HARPA. _Lyra_ costis longitudinalibus antice mucronatis.
The shell is described in the MS. as "striata subtilissime
longitudinaliter", and "Pet. Amb. t. 2. f. 2", "Pet. Gaz. t. 48. f. 13"
(the latter quoted also in the 'Systema') are there substituted for the
reference to Gualtieri. The printed additions are considerable; to
wit, "costæ vero striis transversis", "anfractibus costis mucronatis",
"denticulatum."
B. PERSICUM. _Lyra_ læviuscula, labii margine crenulato.
The erroneous citation of Grew (t. 9. f. 5, 6) in the 'Systema' had
been adopted in the manuscript.
B. PATULUM. _Lyra_ muricata spinis obtusis.
Neither the erroneous reference to Gualtieri, plate 51. f. A (which
was designed for _Purpura hæmastoma_), nor the "color interne
rufescens", is to be found in the manuscript.
B. SMARAGDULUS. _Lyra_ glaberrima, columella denticulata.
Neither the erroneous reference to d'Argenville, nor the specific
name derived from his figure, is to be found in the MS. The proposed
appellation was _L. vitrea_. "Simillima Cassid, lapillo, sed glabra,
et columella crenata" is the unprinted remark.
B. SPIRATUM. _Morion_ umbilicatus, anfractibus distinctis canaliculo.
The specified colouring was "alba, maculis longitudinalibus fuscis";
"pone bifidum" followed "integrum." The intended name was _M.
canaliculatus_.
B. GLABRATUM. _Morion_ umbilico descendente flexuoso.
d'Arg. Conch t. 12. f. G.
"Testa oblonga, acuminata, obtusiuscula, glaberrima, anfractibus
confluentibus, Neritarum maximarum pondere. Color albo-flavescens,
nitidus. Apertura obliqua, profunde emarginata. Labium exterius
integerrimum. Labium interius antice reflexum adnatum, dein solutum
brevius flexuosum, descendens ad basin. Sulcus profundus distinguit
basin testæ. Umbilicus pone labium interius descendens ad basin sulco".
B. VIRGINEUM. I can find no account of this shell in the written copy.
B. UNDOSUM. The nearest approach to this species seems the variety B.
of the _Murex succinctus_ (the shell so named in the 'Mantissa').
_M._ lævis, sulcis transversis lævibus, angulo marginali.
d'Arg. Conch. t. 12. f. N. Bon. 3. f. 47.
Testa ovata, absque tuberculis magnitudine nucis, exarata sulcis
transversis pallidis, eminentibus vero lineis luteis. Spira obtusa,
anfractibus rotundatis. Cauda teretiuscula. Apertura ovata, margine
crasso, nec alia costa laterali crassa.
Var. B. Rugis s. angulis obliteratis 5 longitudinalibus.
B. MACULATUM. _Turricula_ elongata, anfractibus lævibus integerrimis.
The l. of Gualtieri, and the reference to d'Argenville, were printed
emendations.
B. CRENULATUM. _Turric._ elongata, anfractibus margine crenatis.
The reference to Gualtieri was an emendation.
B. STRIGILATUM. _Turric._ elongata, oblique striata.
B. DUPLICATUM. _Turric._ elongata emarginata, anfractibus bipartitis
striatis.
STROMBUS.
This genus, rendered more natural by the omission of _S. lividus_ and
_ater_ (assigned to _Turricula_), appeared under the designation of
HARPAGO with the following definition:--
Testa depressa, nodosa. Apertura longitudinalis. Labium antice
dilatatum ultra basin.
The _Strombi_ of the manuscript were the young of this genus (erased by
Linnæus) and certain Lamarckian _Fusi_, _Pyrulæ_, and _Fasciolariæ_.
S. CHIRAGRA. _Har._ labii spinis lævibus 6, extimis recurvis, fauce
striata.
"Bar. Icon. 327. f. 1." was an additional synonym.
S. SCORPIUS. _Har._ labii spinis nodosis _7_, fauce striata.
The published account was enlarged by the following passages, which are
not to be found in the written copy: "crenulato cincta", "lato, brevi",
"s. incarnata", "s. testaceo-nebulosus". "Distinctum" was originally
"obscuro", and "repandus, inflexus" was "denticulatus."
S. LAMBIS. _Har._ labii spinis lævibus _7_, fauce lævi.
"Bar. Icon. t. 1326. f. _7_" was the synonym omitted in printing. The
name was borrowed from d'Argenville.
S. MILLEPEDA. _Har._ labii spinis lævibus 10.
"Anteriora" was "posteriora" in the manuscript.
S. LENTIGINOSUS. _Har._ labio inermi integro rotundato, angulis
pluribus nodosis.
The "aut marginatum" was "fragile, diaphanum", so that a young shell
appears to have furnished the materials for description.
S. GALLUS. _Har._ labio inermi mucronato, cingulo dorsali spinoso.
S. AURIS-DIANÆ. _Har._ labio inermi muricato, cauda recurva, lobo
incurvato.
The "32. f. II." was a misprint for the written "17. f. O." The
printed additions are "usque" and "Color testaceo et albido nebulosus."
S. PUGILIS. _Har._ labio inermi obtuso, spira spinosa distincta, basi
emarginata.
"Nitida", and "sed spira albida", were not found in the original.
S. LUHUANUS. _Har._ labio obtuso, antice posticeque emarginata.
Few of the details were present in the original copy, but appear
to have been added, to discriminate the species from the allied
_gibberulus_. "Spira obtusa brevis" was added by the hand of Linnæus;
"sæpe subplicati", "postice lobo obsoleto instructum", "intus",
"Columella nigricans", "Cauda nulla, sed postice emarginata", were all
absent from the MS.
S. GIBBERULUS. _Har._ labio inermi dorso lævi, spira repanda.
The printed additions are "subtus planiuscula", "læves", "fuscum", and
the final remark.
S. LATISSIMUS. _Har._ labio inermi rotundato, spira subnodosa
breviore, dorso lævi.
S. EPIDROMIS. _Har._ labio inermi dilatato, dorso lævi, spira
subnodosa.
The _S. epidromis_, as it originally stood in the manuscript, was a
recognizable species, and precisely identical with the shell so named
in the 'Systema'; for the erroneous reference to Gualtieri was not
present, neither was "carinato," nor any of the discordant details
from "interius" to the termination. As the printed description now
stands, it would suit _S. emarginatus_ or _succinctus_, at the least,
equally well. I doubt not our author, when correcting the press,
forgot his own species, and added the partial essentials of one
species to those of another.
S. CANARIUM. _Har._ labio inermi dilatato, dorso spiraque lævibus.
The erroneous reference to plate 37 of Rumphius was not present in the
written copy, which contains the additional synonyms of "Pet. Gaz.
t. 98. f. 11", and "Klein, t. 4. f. 73": the latter was not there
originally. The early description has been improved, in the press, by
the addition of "obovata", "Faux lævis, alba", and "longitudinaliter
subundulatus."
S. VITTATUS. _Har._ labiis inermibus, spiræ anfractibus vitta
interstinctis.
S. URCEUS. _Har._ labiis inermibus striatis, dorso nodoso.
The erroneous reference to Gualtieri was not present in the original,
but in place of it the 37. W. of Rumphius (_S. mutabilis_): "Spira
testa brevior, plicato-subnodosa" was, likewise, absent. "Klein,
49, urceus fimbriatus" (a name for Rumph. t. 37. f. F & W) was
interpolated by our author.
S. ATER. _Turricula_ labiata.
Neither the reference to Rumphius, nor the "et postice emarginatum"
were found in the original. This confirms my expressed belief that the
Museum species (to which no name was at first attached) was distinct
from that of the 'Systema.'
S. LIVIDUS. _Turric._ labiata, anfractibus serie subspinosa.
This was located in a section of _Turricula_ distinguished as having
the outer lip dilated and rounded.
* * * * *
Besides the above, the following unprinted details were found in the
manuscript:--
The _Strombus gigas_ was described at length under the appellation of
_Harpago gigas_.
_Har._ labio inermi rotundato, dorso spiraque subulato-spinosis.
Gualt. t. 34. f. A. Bar. Icon. 1727. f. 7.
Testa gibba, maxima, magnitudine capitis. Cauda obtusa. Spira spinis
patentibus, subulatis, validis. Anfractus desinens in dorso spina.
Series in dorso spinarum maximarum ferme conicarum. Labium dilatatum,
rotundatum, spira longius, vix adnatum spiræ. Faux glabra, nitida,
incarnata. Color pallidus.
The _Strombus dentatus?_ was also defined (without a specific
appellation) by the following characters:--
_Har._ labio dentato, testa lævis, plicato-nodosa.
Testa simillima reliquis, longitudine articuli digiti, lævis,
flavescens, subplicata, plicis antice acuminatis nodis. Spira
acutiuscula, similiter plicata, nodosa. Labium exterius minus
dilatatum, postice margine dentatum et interne fuscum, striatum.
Labium internum crassum, integrum, læve.
The _Strombus palustris_, although not published until the twelfth
edition of the 'Systema,' had been already defined in the 'Museum' as
_Turricula cornea_.
_Tur._ decussatim rugosa, labio dilatato.
Rumph. 101. t. 30. f. Q. Strombus palustris.
Testa crassa, rudis, pyramidalis, cornea aut plumbea, anfractibus
12 et ultra, secundum spiras transversim aliquot striis exarata,
longitudinaliter subplicata, adcoque sine spinis rugosissima. Labium
dilatatum, rotundatum, concavum, edentulum.
MUREX.
The definition of this genus ran as follows:--
Testa subovata, spinosa. Apertura coarctata, ovata, desinens in
canalem tubuloso-conniventem.
This was evidently designed for the _Murices_ proper. The other
species of the 'Museum' were distributed in the groups of _Cassis_,
_Turricula_, _Bulla_, and _Strombus_. The last was defined as follows;
"Testa obverse conica, nodosa, labium exterius angulum transversalem
superne formans; interius nullum. Columella incurva. Cauda integra."
M. HAUSTELLUM. _M._ caudatus, subinermis, nodosus.
"Suturis" was originally "costis". The printed emendations
are "gibbis, adglutinatis", "costati et nodosi", "subtus rima
longitudinali clausa", "margine", and the final remark.
M. TRIBULUS. _M._ caudatus spinis subulatis trifariis.
"Olear. Mus. t. 39. f. 1" was cited in the transcript, to which
Linnæus had added "Bonan. 269" and "List. t. 902. f. 22", all which
synonyms are present in the 'Systema.' The printed additions are
"suturis 3 longitudinalibus, adglutinatis, incrassatis", "secundum
suturas: superficies transversim striis elevatis distinctis", "recta".
M. CORNUTUS. _M._ caudatus, spinis subulatis serie gemina.
The s. in the reference to Rumphius was a misprint for the written
5: "Pet. Gaz. t. 68. f. 12" (as in the 'Systema') was present in the
copy. The expressions "striata", "conicæ", "obliquo situ", and the
final remark, are the printed additions.
M. TRUNCULUS. _M._ subcaudatus, spinis simplici serie.
The description of the tail and account of the variety were
not originally present: "suturis" was, at first, "plicis", and
"adglutinatis" was "antrorsum adnatis".
M. RAMOSUS. _M._ dædaleus triangularis, spira longitudine ventris.
Had the original manuscript been printed, the multitude of species
confused under this appellation would have been somewhat lessened. For
the cited figures of _M. inflatus_ (Rumph. t. 26. f. A. and Gault. t.
38. f. A), with that of another short-spired _Murex_ (Arg. t. 19. f.
C), were separated from the rest, and quoted for a _M. unguis-odor_,
the brief definition of which was "_M._ dædalens triangularis, spira
ventre breviore."
The published details, and the drawings of the longer-spired and more
slender-bodied _Murices_ (Rumph. t. 26. f. l; d'Arg. t. 19. f. E, H.),
appeared as _M. lichenoides_.
I consider, then, that in that event the _M. adustus_ (Arg. t. 19.
f. H.), which would tolerably suit the definition, would have been
considered the typical form, and _M. axicornis_ (Rumph. t. 26. f. l,
and d'Arg. t. 19. f. E.), the variety γ.
M. SCORPIO. _M._ dædaleus quadrangularis, spira subcapitata.
The ill-judged final remark was not in the copy.
M. SAXATILIS. _M._ dædaleus quinquangularis, spira contigua.
The idea of this being a mere variety was not expressed in the
original.
M. RANA. M. angulatus subdepressus, costis lateralibus.
The R. of d'Argenville was properly referred to the variety B. The
"alba", "sulcis transversis", and "Dorsum anfractum simplici cingulo
aculeato" were not in the copy.
M. LAMPAS. _M._ angulatus tuberculis nodosis, cauda flexuosa, labio
interiore lævi.
The earlier reading of "una alterave ruga" was "uno alterove
denticulo."
M. FEMORALE. _M._ angulato-triqueter: angulis antrorsum acuminatis.
The intended name was _M. triqueter_. Grew's engravings (f.
7, 8) of the species were correctly cited, and the erroneous
reference to Rumphius was not inserted. The printed additions were
unimportant--"exarata", "repando", "sub" before "edentula", and
"levissime".
M. LOTORIUM. _M._ angulatus, tuberculis conicis, cauda flexuosa, labio
interno rugoso.
"Subter" was a misprint for the written "inter": the "ut in proximis"
was a printed addition.
M. RUBECULA. _M._ angulatus, sulcis moniliformibus, costis lateralibus,
dorsalique.
"Gualt. t. 49. f. I" was rightly cited as illustrative: "ex" preceded
"lineis".
M. RETICULARIS. _Cas._ inæqualis gibba reticulata, cauda elongata.
The erroneous reference to Rumphius was not present in the manuscript.
As corroborative of my expressed belief in the identity of the
species described in the 'Museum' with the _Triton ! mulus_, it may
be observed, that our author has wholly separated this and the allied
_anus_ from the true _Tritons_ and _Ranellæ_, and that the original
heading corresponds accurately with the peculiar characteristics.
M. ANUS. _Cas._ inæqualis, gibba nodosa, labris rugosis.
"Pet. Gaz. t. 74. f. 9" and "Pet. Amb. t. 6. f. 4" were the unprinted
synonyms. The "rugis reticulato-intertextis", "irregularis", and
"patens" were emendations.
M. RICINUS. _M._ ecaudatus, ore utrinque dentato.
"Æqualibus, ad labium majoribus" was not in the copy.
M. CAPITELLUM. _M._ ecaudatus ovatus, columella rugosa, labio edentulo,
superficie inermi rugosa.
"Alba" followed "edentula", and "Umbilicus ad basin" terminated the
description in the original: the word "striis" was a subsequent
introduction.
M. TURBINELLUS. _M._ ecaudatus, turbinatus, columella dentata, spinis
explicatis.
The printed additions are "anteriores", "nodulosa", "alba", "Cauda vix
ulla", and "Variat colore albo spira longiore".
M. CERAMICUS. _M._ ecaudatus, utrinque acuminatus, columella dentata,
spinis conicis.
"Rumph. t. 49. f. L." was an unpublished synonym.
M. NODUS. _M._ ecaudatus ovatus, labio denticulato.
As "Gualt. t. 28. f. R." was quoted, and "aut nigris, conicis,
obtusiusculis" (a character which probably belonged to some distinct
species erroneously supposed to be a variety) was not inserted in the
manuscript, I feel convinced that the _Purpura hystrix_ of authors was
the species designed in the 'Museum Ulricæ.'
M. HYSTRIX. _M._ ecaudatus edentulus, fauce lævi.
M. MANCINELLA. _M._ ecaudatus, edentulus fauce striata.
This original heading, and the absence of the erroneous synonym from
the MS., confirm the received opinion of the identity of the Museum
species (not that of the 'Systema') with _Purpura mancinella_.
M. HIPPOCASTANUM. _M._ ecaudatus edentulus, fauce edentula integra,
spinis serie triplici.
Gualtieri's erroneously cited figure was not indicated in the
manuscript. No specific name had been originally attached to the
description.
M. MELONGENA. _M._ ecaudatus edentulus fauce patula lævi, spinis serie
duplici.
"Bonan. 3. f. 186" had been added to the synonymy by our author. The
details were less copious than in the published edition, "apice solo
acuminatus" being the meagre substitute for the entire description
from "Spira" to the end.
M. FICUS. _Bul._ caudata, striis reticulatis, spira obtusa.
"Pet. Amb. t. 6. f. 9" was an omitted synonym. The shell described in
the 'Museum' was assuredly not the _ficus_ of most writers.
M. RAPA. _Bul._ caudata, striis longitudinalibus, spira acuta.
M. FUSUS. _Turric._ caudata lævis, labio dentato.
"Bonan. f. 121" and the name had been added to the MS. by Linnæus.
M. BABYLONIUS. _Turric._ caudata, transversim angulo sulcata, labio
marginali versus basim sinu exciso.
M. COLUS. _Turric._ caudata striata, labio exteriore crenato.
The printed emendations were "longa" and "s. angulati." The name was
added by Linnæus. The following unnamed _Turricula_ succeeded the
species in the manuscript copy:--
_T._ caudata striata, longitudinaliter sulcata.
Testa parva, striis plurimis secundum anfractus. Anfractus scabri,
sulcis longitudinalibus 15. Color anfractuum superne griseus inferne
pallidus. Apertura ovata. Rostrum baseos rectum, testæ dimidio brevius.
Labium tantum exterius integrum. An filia præcedentis?
M. MORIO. _Strom._ spira subnodosa, labio exteriore intus rugoso.
The synonymy, as might be expected (for Seba was unknown to Linnæus
when the descriptions were written), was not in the original.
M. COCHLIDIUM. _Strom._ spira pyramidata, anfractibus planis.
The reference to Seba, the name, and the "Cauda subulata, longitudine
testæ" were not present.
M. CANALICULATUS. _Strom._ spira subconvexa, anfractibus distantibus.
The "Anfractus distincti canaliculo per omnes s
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/46491