On some Bats of the Genus Rhinolophus, with Remarks on their Mutual Affinities, and Descriptions of Twenty-six new Forms. Author Andersen, Knud text Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1905 1905-12-31 2 75 145 journal article http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3757451 d81354de-a914-4582-98be-811adbff11df 3757451 18. Rhinolophus minor Horsf . Rhinolophus minor Horsfield , Zool. Res. Java (1824), pl. [7], figs. C, D. Rhinolophus pusillus Temminck , Mon. Mamin , ii. 8e monogr. (1835) p. 36, pl. 29. fig . 8, pl. 32. figs. 22, 23; Peters, MB. Akad. Berlin, 1871, p. 309. Rhinolophus brevitarsus Blyth , Cat. Mamm . Mus. Asiat. Soc. (1863) p. 24 (nomen nudum) ( “ vicinity of Darjeeling ” ). Rhinolophus minor (partim) Dobson, ut supra . Diagnosis. Skull and external characters: minor-type. Ears, tail, and tibia shorter. Forearm 37-38 mm. Details. This species differs from Rh. cornutus by the shorter ears, tail, and tibia (cf. measurements). The forearm is, at least on an average, shorter. Colour. ♂ ad., skin; Darjeeling; November; teeth unworn. General effect of the colour of the upper side very much as in Rh. refulgens , though perhaps not quite as dark; base of hairs light, 11 ecru-drab ” ; under side “ ecru-drab, ” darker on the hinder belly and flanks. Dentition (three skulls). p3 in row, almost in row, or external. po and p4 well separated, or almost in contact. p2 in row; a small cusp, pointing inwards. Measurements. On p. 128. Distribution. Darjeeling. Siam. Java (cf. remarks below). Technical name. Horsfield’s type of Rh. minor is in the British Museum. Rh. pusillus *. — The figure of the head of Rh. pusillus , as given by Temminck, proves that he had before him one of the small species of what is here called the lepidus group (shape of connecting process, of sella, & c .). The only question is, therefore, to which species the name pusillus belongs. It would seem to be settled, beyond doubt, by Temminck’s statement that the types were brought from Java. But Dobson, who examined these types in the Leiden Museum, gave the rather astounding information that they are 1 undoubtedly specimens of Rh. hipposiderus ” ! t There is only one answer: if so, an interchange of labels has taken place in that Museum; for the Bat figured and described by Temminck as pusillus was certainly no hipposiderus ; among all the small Rhinolophi existing it would be difficult to find a stronger to Rh. pusillus , in the shape of the connecting process, than Rh. hipptosiderus. * Temminck, ut supra; Dobson, Cat. Chir . Brit. Mus. (1878) p. 117 ; id. Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1880, p. 175 ; Peters, MB. Akad. Berlin, 1880, p. 23. t This is the source of the statement that Rh . hipposiderus should occur in Java; there is no other foundation. The range of Rh. hipposiderus has its extreme eastern limit in Gilgit (N.W. Himalayas); there is not a single reliable record of that Bat from the whole of the Oriental Region; and the species therefore cannot possibly turn up again in Java. Remarks. From Java I have seen one old skin only (the type) and a fragment of the skull, representing the nasal swellings and the teeth. It is, of course, not sufficient to prove that the Java Bat is in all particulars identical with that from Darjeeling; but the nasal swellings, the teeth, the connecting process, the horseshoe, as well as the measurements of the wings and tibia, are the same. If not identical, they are, at all events, extremely closely related.