CYPREHA. , 199 
scription and the manuscript synonym. As to the cited figures 
of Gualtier and Rumphius, the former assuredly does not be- 
long to this species, being more lke the preceding ; the latter 
reference was probably a misprint for K (9 represents an Oliva), 
which has been usually quoted for cicercula. The peculiarity 
of its features could alone have enabled naturalists to truly 
divine what Cowry was intended by so very brief a description 
and so very inaccurate a synonymy. 
Cvprxa globulus. 
The description in the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ aided by the se- 
lected synonymy of that work, clearly indicates the Cyprea 
globulus of authors. This shell (Reeve, Conch. Icon. vol. ii. 
Cyp. f, 118) is present in the Linnean cabinet, and alone of its 
contents agrees with the definition. In addition to the cited 
figures (none of which are very characteristic), Linnzus, in his 
revised copy, has quoted an indifferent engraving in Martini 
(pl. 24, f. 242), which has been almost invariably ascribed to 
this species. The O in the reference to Petiver’s Amboyna 
shells was probably a misprint for 19, which latter is copied from 
the cited reference to Rumphius. Barrelier’s figure is irrecog- 
nisable. 
| 5 ie Bel Brae 
Bulla obtunt. 
The Ovula oviformis of authors (Sowerby, Spec. Conch. Ov. 
f. 2, 3) is marked for this shell in the Linnean cabinet. It was 
impossible for naturalists to avoid recognising a species so 
strikingly peculiar in its features, and illustrated by so correct 
