CYPRAA. 195 
Cyprxa helvola. 
Notwithstanding the comparatively long account of this 
Cowry in the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ the details there mentioned, 
however adequate until of late years to separate the shell 
from its then known congeners, can scarcely be regarded as 
sufficient, from the absence of any pictorial synonym, to indis- 
putably define it, now that the number of known species has 
been so infinitely increased. The addition, therefore, of the 
following references, “ List. Conch. 691, f. 38—Mart. Conch. i. 
t. 30, f. 8326, 8327—Knorr, Conch. 6, t. 14, f. 6, 7,” m the copy 
of the younger Linné, as illustrative of the species designed by 
his father, is not devoid of importance. Linnezus had proposed 
to enlarge his brief description in the ‘ Systema’ by the follow- 
ing paragraph: “Subtus lutea, lateribus ferrugineis, dorso 
albido luteoque maculata.” The Cyprea helvola of authors 
(Reeve, Conch. Icon. vol. 111. Cyp. f. 72) is present (as declared) 
in the Linnean cabinet, and alone of its contents answers to the 
description. 
Cvprxa ocellata. 
The language of the ‘Museum Ulrice’ so clearly points to 
the Cowry accepted universally as the ocellata of Linneus, that 
no difficulty has been experienced by writers in the identification 
of the species. That shell (Sowerby, Conch. Ill. Cyp. f. 67) is 
present in the Linnean collection, and alone agrees with the defi- 
nition. Petiver’s figure is very indifferent; Lister’s (the later 
edition has been here cited) is correct; Bonanni’s execrable. 
In addition to these illustrations “ Mart Syst. t. 31, f. 333, 334” 
has been rightly quoted in the revised copy of the ‘ Systema.’ 
Cyprxa povavia. 
From the particulars specified in the ‘Museum Ulrice’ no 
doubt could be entertained that the richly coloured shell so 
