BULLA. 209 
however, being sufficiently ample to distinguish the species 
from any of the Testacea of Northern Europe, has enabled 
naturalists to universally recognise the object intended in 
the Physa hypnorwm of modern conchology (Sowerby, Genera 
Shells, Lymn. f. 10). 
Bulla teredbellune. 
This aberrant species was pictorially defined in the tenth 
edition of the ‘Systema,’ and was then located in the genus 
Conus. All the cited figures represent the Terebellwm subu- 
latum of Lamarck’s ‘ Animaux,’ and that shell (Crouch, Introd. 
Lam. Conch. pl. 20, f. 1) is still present, as declared, in the 
collection of our author, and alone agrees with both descrip- 
tion and synonymy. Linneeus, in his revised copy, has sub- 
stituted 736 for the longer mode of reference to the earlier 
edition of Lister: both the lineated and spotted forms of subu- 
latum are delineated in that engraving. The Conus terebellum 
of the ‘Museum Ulrice’ appears from its description to be 
perfectly distinct. The expressions “Striz 44, acutiuscule, 
elevate, inequales,” and ‘“Spira conica, teste + longitudine, 
sine tuberculis majoribus” (which implies that it has small 
ones), do not at all harmonise with the well-known features of 
this smooth-surfaced species. 
Bulla Cvprxa. 
I cannot agree with Deshayes in identifying this shell with 
Ancillaria cinnamonea; for even had our author manifestly 
described a member of that genus, there is nothing in his very 
brief account that is indicative of that species in particular. 
An examination of the tenth edition of the ‘Systema’ shows 
us that Linneus did not intend to constitute a species thus 
named, but merely inserted a description of it in Bulla, as a 
precautionary measure, because the less experienced naturalists 
would naturally search for the names of the young Cowries in 
that genus. It was not there reckoned among the species, 
2E 
