Speaking of similar names, that reminds me of an embarrassing
situation a few years back.  I had some Turbinella laevigata
specimens from Brazil.  I listed them on one of my price lists and
mailed it out.  A couple of days later a fellow called me in the
evening and wanted to know if these specimens were really over 80 mm
in length, or if that was a misprint.  I assured him they were over
80 mm.  He sounded rather astonished, and said "that's awfully big
isn't it"?  I told him the species actually gets larger than that.
Later, another collector called me.  Same thing - he asked if these
were truly 80 mm, or was it supposed to read 8 mm.  I couldn't
imagine what he was talking about, but again, I told him they were
indeed 80 mm+.  He asked if this was a newly described species,
because he had been collecting for many years, and had never heard of
it.  No, I replied, the species was described many years ago.
Meanwhile, I was really wondering what in the world was going on
here.  It didn't hit me until I was lying in bed that night (when a
lot of things hit me).  I jumped up, went downstairs, grabbed a copy
of my list, and sure enough, I had typed Turbonilla instead of
Turbinella.  A couple of letters can make a big difference!
For those who might be unfamiliar, Turbinella are big, heavy
whelk-like shells, commonly called chank shells (family
Turbinellidae), some of which reach about a foot (30 cm) in length.
Turbonilla are delicate little needle-like shells (family
Pyramidellidae), usually about a half inch (12 mm) in length.  So an
80 mm (3 inch+) Turbonilla would be world news indeed!
 
Paul M.
P.S.  I just proof-read this message before sending it, and found
that I had used the wrong name (again!!) in my second sentence!  I
must have a mental block on this one!  Sheesh!