BULA. 207 
The reference to plate 88 of Seba was an error; nine out of 
the twelve cited figures were again quoted, and more properly 
so, for the succeeding species, of which the remaining three are 
likewise representations. 
Bulla vapa. 
In the reference to Seba, “38, f. 7, 8” was a misprint for 
for “68, f. 7,8”; the entire synonymy is otherwise correct. 
The Pyrula papyracea of authors (Kiener, Pyrula, pl. 14, f. 2) 
is present (as stated) in the Linnean cabinet, and alone agrees 
with the combined pictorial and descriptive definition. 
Bulla canaliculata, 
Our author described this shell from an example in the 
‘Museum Ulvice ;’ he did not himself possess it. The account 
of it is so thoroughly insufficient, that even its modern genus 
has not been ascertained, so that an examination of the type, 
though it might serve to inform us what was really designed by 
Linneus, should not disturb any appellation that may have 
been subsequently bestowed (with an adequate and lucid defini- 
tion) upon the species. Even the younger Linné did not 
recognise it, but has written in his copy “ Voluta ex auritis 
vult Solander. The Akera Ceylanica does not so ill accord 
with the following brief description, transcribed from the 
‘Museum Ulrice’ :— 
“ Oblonga, cylindrica, laxa, testacea, pallido-nebulata. Spira 
brevis, anfractibus excavato-canaliculatis. Columella parum 
torta.” 
Bulla conowea. 
Had our author possessed this shell, which although de- 
seribed at some length has baffled the attempts of naturalists 
to determine it, we might have hoped to have identified it, by 
