As a group MFHILT offer a good picture of the readings current in the later mediaeval period, and only rarely have I been obliged to cite a vulgate manuscript from the editions of Heinsius, Burman, or Lenz as testimony for a variant.
M
Heinsius did not have knowledge of B or C, and seems to have considered his codex Moreti (preserved at the Museum Plantin-Moretus in Antwerp as 'Latin, n° 68 [anc. 43] [salle des reliures, n° 32]' in Denucé's catalogue of the museum's collection) to be the best of the poor selection of manuscripts available; at xvi 33, understandably despairing of restoring the true reading, he accepted M's reading pending the discovery of better manuscripts.
M was dated by Heinsius to the twelfth or thirteenth century; Denucé assigns it to the twelfth century.
At viii 85 M alone has the correct ullo for the other manuscripts' illo; this could naturally have been recovered by conjecture. At x 1 it has cumerio, the closest reading in the manuscripts collated to the correct Cimmerio; but Professor R. J. Tarrant informs me that Cimmerio is also found in British Library Harley 2607.
M has suffered from a certain degree of interpolation. Following x 6 there is the spurious distich set cum nostra malis uexentur corpora multis / aspera non possum perpetiendo mori. At ii 9 Falerno is a deliberate alteration of Falerna. At x 49 Niphates is an interpolation from Lucan III 245. At xiii 47 duorum (also given as a variant reading by F2) looks like an attempt to correct the cryptic transmitted reading deorum, and at xv 15 tellus regnata is presumably a metrical correction following the loss of -que from regnataque terra, the reading of the other manuscripts. At xvi 25 eticiusque looks to be a deliberate alteration of Trinacriusque, but I am not sure what the interpolation means.
F
Francofurtanus Barth 110, used by Burman, shows some signs of independence. At iii 44, where a pentameter has been lost, B and C omit the line, while the other manuscripts, including M, have the interpolation indigus effectus omnibus ipse magis; F has the separate interpolation Achillas Pharius abstulit ense caput, also found in Heinsius' fragmentum Louaniense. F omits viii 51-54, at xi 1 reads Pollio for Gallio, and at xvi 33 has a reading somewhat different from those offered by the other manuscripts.
F alone of the manuscripts collated offers the correct audisse (for audire) at x 17. At xi 21 it and B alone have the correct mihi for tibi (omitted by C). At xiv 7 it has the probably correct muter for mittar, also found in Bodleianus Canon. lat. 1 and Barberinus lat. 26, both of the thirteenth century. With the exception of muter, these readings could have been recovered by conjecture; given the separative interpolation at iii 44, F differs surprisingly little from the other manuscripts.