VOLUTA. 219 
was different from both. Neither of the engravings referred to 
coincides with the shape mentioned in the description they are 
intended to illustrate: they are cylindrical, and consequently 
more suitable for Bulla than Voluta pallida; yet the indicated 
colouring of the former is very unlike that exhibited by either 
of the shells represented, for Adanson’s drawing seems the 
Martinella triticea of Sowerby’s Monograph, Lister’s is de- 
cidedly the Bulla (Cylichna) cylindrica. The published locality 
was taken from Adanson. 
To sum up, then: the original Bulla pallida is far too briefly 
defined for positive identification, and may be considered as 
expunged by our author himself: from the peculiarities of 
colouring it might have possibly been a young Cowry, at least 
I find nothing in the collection, nor do I know aught elsewhere, 
that agrees better. The species of the ‘Museum Ulrice’ was 
a Margimella (somewhat perchance resembling rosea or carnea, 
but the actual species must be conjectural). The Voluta pallida 
(ed. 12) was assuredly a Marginella, likewise, and possibly ceru- 
lescens (specimens of which are present in the Linnean cabinet), 
yet, as certainty cannot be obtained, it is better to erase the 
species altogether from our catalogues. 
The Marginella pallida of Kiener and Sowerby, although by 
no means an ovate-oblong shell, has frequently been supposed 
identical with the Linnean Volute. This idea has arisen, pro- 
bably, from the circumstance that it was likewise figured by 
Lister in the referred-to plate (714), but without the a. Schréter’s 
ideal of the V. pallida (though too often cited for the same) is 
perfectly different; it is a magnified drawing of a minute shell, 
and looks more like the Marg. lactea of Kiener. Neither of 
these species are to be found in the Linnean collection. 
Mérch conceives that the Marginélla varia of Sowerby’s 
‘Thesaurus’ (vol. i. pl. 86, f. 137), of which an example is 
present in the collection, is the true representative of Voluta 
pallida: its narrow cylindrical shape, however, would only suit 
the Bulla of the tenth edition. The conjecture is plausible 
enough, for that abundant little species would have tolerably 
suited the ideal formed by the union of Adanson’s figure, had 
it been attached to the diagnosis in the tenth edition, and the 
very meagre details of the following description: ‘“ 'T. cylindrica 
(the degree of narrowness is not specified, (spira elevata acuta 
