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!