Type specimens of bats (Chiroptera: Mammalia) in the collections of the Museum f r Naturkunde, Berlin Author Turni, Hendrik Author Kock, Dieter text Zootaxa 2008 2008-09-03 1869 1 1 82 https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.1869.1.1 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.1869.1.1 1175­5334 5133648 Rhinolophus rufus Peters, 1861 Peters, W. C. H. (1861) Über die von Hrn. F. Jagor bisher auf Malacca , Borneo, Java und den Philippinen gesammelten Säugethiere aus den Ordnungen der Halbaffen, Pelzflatterer und Flederthiere. Monatsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1861: 710 [706–713]. Valid name: Rhinolophus subrufus Andersen, 1905 Holotype : ZMB 2532 , body in alcohol, skull extracted, male; Paracali, Luzon, Philippines ; collected by F. Jagor , between 1857 and 1861. ? Paratype : ZMB 2271 , skin; Philippines ; donated by Gray , ex BMNH, sub Rhinolophus euryotis . Comment: Andersen (1905: 284) pointed out that the species name “ rufus ” is preoccupied by Rhinolophus luctus var. rufus [ or rufa ] Eydoux & Gervais, 1836 . Peters knew the description of Eydoux & Gervais (1836) , but believed the name “ rufus ” to be available in the genus Rhinolophus since these authors described only a variety. Andersen (1905) described Rhinolophus subrufus as new on the basis of a specimen from Manila (Luzon, Philippines ) assuming that this was the same species described by Peters 1861 as Rhinolophus rufus . Lawrence (1939: 46) proved that “ var. rufa ” of Eydoux & Gervais is morphologically clearly distinguishable both from Rhinolophus luctus Temminck, 1835 and from Andersen’s subrufus and must be regarded as separate species. Lawrence does not mention Peters’ rufus . During the present investigation two specimens have been examined: The holotype ZMB 2532 and a further specimen ZMB 2271 from the Philippines . ZMB 2271 was considered by Peters as Rhinolophus rufus , since he corrected the former catalogue entry (“ Rhinolophus euryotis Temm ”) and marked it with a type asterisk. This correction may have taken place after Peters´ publication (1861), therefore it is uncertain whether it really represents a paratype .