It always annoys me a bit when I see shells used "out of context" in advertising. If it is just a shampoo ad or a jewelry ad or something, I don't mind seeing a few Florida shells scattered about with a few Indo-Pacific shells mixed in. But when it is an ad for a resort, an enticement to visit a particular geographic area, you would think they might at least take the time to ensure that the species they are using as illustrations are actually found in that area. Recently there was an article in a local magazine about Cape Cod beaches. Along one vertical edge of the page was a color border showing five shells and a starfish, on a background of sand. There was a channeled whelk (Busycon canaliculatum), an Atlantic moon snail (Polinices duplicatus) and a bay scallop (Pecten irradians), all quite appropriate; but the other two shells were a crown conch (Melongena corona) and a Conus miles. The starfish pictured was the west coast species sold in gift shops as the "sugar star" - I forget it's scientific name. I suppose the photo looked just fine to someone who doesn't know any more about shells than the author and publisher did. Then again, they may have purchased a basket of shells at a Cape Cod gift shop, and assumed that they were Cape Cod shells - a BIG mistake! Imagine a travel brochure for an African safari, showing a zebra, a giraffe, an elephant, and a moose! No-one would be guilty of such a glaring misrepresentation! Yet they do the same sort of thing with molluscs, and few people know enough about them to even recognize the error. At a shell club meeting a couple of years ago, a member who has done some traveling brought in four postcards for us to look at. Each card had the exact same full color photo of a spread of colorful shells on sand. The captions under the four pictures read, respectively - "Colorful Shells of Cape Cod"; "Colorful Shells of Hawaii"; "Colorful Shells of Florida"; and "Colorful Shells of California". The actual origin of the shells in the picture? Undoubtedly the Philippines. Paul M.