206 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
Bulla anplustre. 
The erroneous reference, in the tenth edition, to figures in 
Lister and Gualtier which did not correspond with the ascribed 
features, was not repeated in the twelfth, where the description 
is not illustrated by any pictorial synonyms, but refers us for 
details to the ‘Museum Ulrice.’ The language of that work 
so clearly describes the very peculiar colouring of the Bulla 
amplustre of authors, a specimen (Mawe, Conch. t. 22, f. 5) of 
which is still preserved in the Linnean cabinet, where it solely 
agrees with the definitition, that few writers have failed to 
recognise it. The vexillum has occasionally been confused 
with it, but the painting is quite different. 
Bulla fics. 
The synonymy of this Bulla comprehends delineations of 
most of the Ficule known to the older conchologists. These 
figures, for the most part, are so ill executed that it requires 
some boldness to pronounce upon the species intended. F. ficus 
of authors, however (Seba, 68, f. 5), ficoides (Bonan. 3, t. 15) 
and reticulata (Gualt. 26, M) are clearly included: the two 
former only are present in the Linnean collection. The 
“yeticulato-striata spira obliterata” suits ficoides better; ‘“ ob- 
ovato-clavata” is more applicable to the shape of jficus. The 
details of the ‘Museum Ulrice’ are equally contradictory, if 
taken in their strictest sense “ pallide flavescens, maculis 
fuscis” and “spira obtusa, vix eminens supra testam”’ are 
characteristic rather of ficoides than jficus ; “ obovata, rotundata, 
levis,” the last expression explained, or modified by, “ striis 
elevatis decussatis obsoletis” are the reverse. The adoption 
of the genus Ficula, and the application of the specific epithet 
levis applied by Reeve to the traditional jficus (Kiener, Coq. 
Viy. Pyrula, pl. 13, f. 1), to avoid tautology, obviate the diffi- 
culty: otherwise, it would be desirable, in a case of doubt, to 
follow in the wake of our predecessors in science. 
