OCR Text |
Show 1905.] OF THE GENUS RHINOLOPHUS. 95 in the original description as given by Temminck are the following:- (1) In " taille, forme du corps, des oreilles et des follicules accessoires du nez" very much like Java specimens of Rh. affinis Horsf. It may be said so; the difference in the shape of the sella is not easily ascertained in dried skins. (2) " Des proportions moins grandes," as compared with affinis. As measurements Temminck gives :-Of rouxi: forearm " 1 pouce 10 lignes " (49‘5 mm.), expanse of wings " 10 pouces." Of affinis: forearm " 1 pouce 10 lignes," expanse " 11 a 12 pouces." 49‘5 mm. is one of the commonest measurements of the forearm in the series before me. It looks a little contradictory that Temminck, having stated that rouxi is smaller than affinis (which is quite correct), gives precisely the same measurement of their forearms, though, at the same time, a considerably larger " expanse" of the latter species. But just that is the salient point. As a matter of fact, the two species can have the forearm of exactly the same length (very large rouxi, and small affinis) ; but also in that case, the expanse of 111 i. affinis is always markedly larger than that of Rh. rouxi, for the obvious reason that in the former species the second phalanx of the third (longest) finger is always absolutely longer than in the latter. (3) A red, a dark, and an intermediate phase of rouxi were known to Temminck. I have the same phases before me. That similar phases occur in Rh. borneensis lias no bearing on the present technical question; borneensis lives far away from " Calcutta." The " phases " of Rh. affinis are different. (4) " Les molaires de la machoire superieure sont en meme nombre cjue dans Vaffinis, celles de l'inferieure en compte cinq, on une de moins, par le manque total de la petite dent dont Y affinis est pourvu, et qui forme la sixieme molaire." Since Temminck emphasises the " manque total " of p3, I suppose that he has not overlooked this small tooth, but has examined a (probably aged) individual in which it was wanting (cf. the specimen mentioned above). The word " sixieme " is, of course, a lapsus for " cinquieme " (Temminck counted the " molars" from behind forwards). To sum up There can be no doubt that Temminck's Rh. rouxi is the Bat here under consideration, being a species (1) bearing much resemblance to Rh. affinis ; (2) of almost the same size, but with a markedly smaller expanse of wings ; (3) with a red, a dark, and an intermediate phase; and (4) inhabiting the Continent of India. " Rh. peter s ir-The original description of Rh. petersi is meagre and vague ; the figures of the head and nose-leaves published four years later are badly drawn ; the type specimen (in the Calcutta Museum) has no indication of locality. This may sufficiently account for the fact that no technical name in the genus has been the source of more confusion. I therefore think it of some use to give a brief sketch of its rather complicated history in literature :- (a) As to the identification of '" Rh. petersi," in the original |