OCR Text |
Show 8 6 MR. K. ANDERSEN ON BATS [May 16, same island in tlie British Museum *. As, however, Rh. borneensis has for many years been completely confused not only with several more or less closely related species, but also with the widely different Eh. minor, the following remarks may not be out of place here :- The salient point in the original description of Rh. borneensis, as given by Prof. Peters (Joe. infra cit.), is this : " Sattel . . . . an dem vordern obern Ende abgerundet, die hintere, zusammenge-driickte Spitze [i. e. the posterior connecting process] kaum hoher, abgerundet." 1 have emphasised the last three words, because they clearly prove that Rh. borneensis belongs to what here is called the simplex group (connecting process low and rounded off), and has nothing to do with Rh. minor or its allies (connecting process projecting and pointed). But ten years later (MB. Akad. Berlin, 1871, p. 306), Peters himself believed Rh. borneensis to be identical with Rh. minor, described by Horsfield so long ago as 1824. The reason was, beyond all doubt, this: to identify Horsfield's Bats without an examination of the types is, in most cases, impossible ; and Peters had not seen the type of Rh. minor (then in the Indian Museum, London, now in the British Museum), but only the bad figure in the ‘ Researches in Java' ; as, furthermore, the two species in many respects (size, wings, sella, ears, &c.) are, externally, puzzling alike, the mistake is easily explained. Thus, according to Peters, there were two small Indo-Malayan Rhinolophi: the one, with a low and rounded connecting process, he called Rh. minor, Horsf. (synonym: Rh. borneensis, Peters); the other, with a projecting and pointed connecting process, he identified with Temminck's Rh. pusillus, stated to be from Java. Under these circumstances, a quite reasonable conclusion : we had a name for either " species," and perfectly clear diagnoses. Dobson, who examined the type of Rh. minor, states, quite correctly, that the connecting process is projecting and pointed; when, nevertheless, he put Rh. borneensis down in the list of " synonyms " to Rh. minor, he must have overlooked the most important point in Peters's description of borneensis, the shape of the connecting process. Dobson, therefore, called the small Indo- Malayan Rhinolophus with pointed process Rh. minor (synonym: Rh. borneensis)'. thus, the names were the same as employed by Peters, but the diagnosis exactly the reverse; Temminck's Rh. pusillus he identified with Rh. hipposiderus (sic); and as to the small Indo-Malayan Rhinolophus with rounded process (the true borneensis) he put it down under Rh. afjinis, Horsf. (!), with which species he also united the very different Rh. rouxi, Temm., at the same time keeping a genuine Rh. rouxi separate as Rh. ])etersi. This accumulation of errors and wrong identifications * On one point there is a discrepancy between Peters's description of Rh. borneensis and the series before me: according to Peters the length of the forearm is 37 111111. ; in the smallest (adult) specimen I have seen, it measures 41'2 111111. I am informed by Prof. Matschie, who kindly re-examined the type for me, that Peters's statement must be a misprint or a slip of the pen ; the forearm of the type specimen (a rather young, but apparently full-grown individual) measures 41 mm. |