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 15. Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth. Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, J. A. S. B. xiii. pt. i. (June 1844) p. 486. Rhinolophus minor (partim, nec Horsf.) Dobson, Cat. Chir. Brit. Mus. (1878) p. 114. Diagnosis. Skull and external characters: lepidus-ty^ e. Larger: forearm 41'8-42 mm. Details. This species differs from Rh. monticola in its broader nasal swellings, larger size, and considerably longer metacarpals. Colour. Ad., skin: Ganges Valley; teeth almost unworn; two ♂ ad., in alcohol: Wynaacl ; teeth unworn. General colour above between “wood-brown ” and “ cinnamon, ” lighter on the anterior part of the back; base of hairs very light “ ecru-drab ” ; under side “ wood-brown ” or tending to “ ecru-drab. ” Dentition (three skulls). p3 external. p2 and p4 separated, or almost or quite in contact, p2 in the tooth-row, with a welldeveloped cusp, pointing inwards. fl/easnremenfe . On p. 125. Distribution. Indian Peninsula: Wynaad ( Mysore ); Ganges Valley. Technical name. I identify this Bat with Blyth’s Rh. lepidus (to which I find no reference in Dobson’s ‘ Catalogue ’), for the following reasons:—(1) lepidus belongs to this group of the genus, as proved by Blyth’s description of the connecting process, “ still more developed [than in his Rh. subbadius ] and obtusely angulated behind?; the words “ still more developed ” mean, evidently, “ bigger, ” not extremely slender as in subbadius . (2) The types were “ probably obtained in the vicinity of Calcutta ” ; one of the specimens in the British Museum is from the Ganges Valley, therefore in all probability from the very same locality as the types. (3) The colour, as described by Blyth, agrees very well with that of the specimens before me. (4) The forearm was stated to be “If inches ” (41 ’ 5 mm.); the longest finger “ 2f inches ” (57'2 mm.); the tibia “above f inch ” (above 6 mm.); all these measurements are as in the British Museum examples: forearm 41'8-42 mm.; third finger 58'3-59'1 mm.; lower leg 16-17 mm. These facts leave no room for doubt as to the identification of Rh. lepid/ us.