Feb. 1, 1S6S.] 



IIARDWICKE'S SCIENCE. GOSSIP. 



29 



genera of Rhinolophus and Hipposideros cannot be 

 distinguished by their hairs, and indeed many 

 zoologists seem to be in doubt whether the one 

 should not be regarded as a sub-species, or section 

 of the other. There is a very great similarity in the 



*fi* 



Fig. 20. Hairs of Hipposideros Fig. 21 . Hair of Hipposideros 

 nobilis x 300. larvatus x 300. 



hairs of the eleven species of the two supposed genera 

 examined (figs. 17 to 22). All these exhibit no trace 

 of medulla either dry, or mounted in balsam. The 

 single species of Nycteris is associated with this 

 group, with, which it agrees in many particulars. 

 Mr. Tomes has expressed the opinion in the pro- 

 ceedings of the Zoological Society, that it is only a 

 modification of llhinolophus. When mounted in 

 balsam the margins of the scales arc much more 

 distinct in Nycteris than any species of Hipposideros 

 or Rhinolophus (fig. 23). 



Fig. 22. Hairs of Hipposideros 

 rnurinus x 3u0. 



Fig. 23. Hair of Nycteris 

 Javanica x 30U. 



The fourth group is of most interest to the 

 microscopist, since it includes those hairs which have 

 the margins of the scales jagged, toothed, or 

 serrated, and consequently the veritable "hair of 

 Indian Bat." As far as the specimens examined 



are concerned it includes the genera Rhinopoma 

 and Taphozous. It might be termed the group of 

 long-tailed Bats. The genus Rhinopoma lias one 

 representative in India, and one in Egypt, which 

 Mr. Blyth suspects are identical. The hairs of both 

 are very similar. The Indian Rhinopome {Rhino- 

 poma Hardicickii) has a tail extending two inches 

 and a quarter beyond the membrane, and hence its 

 entire length would not fall short of three inches, 

 the length quoted by Mr. Janson. Unfortunately, 

 however, the only hairs of this species yet examined 



F'g. 24. Hairs of Rhinopoma 

 Hardwiekii x 300. 



Fi?. 25. Hair of Taphozous 

 melanopogon x 300. 



were from a small tuft taken from the back of a 

 single specimen, and these are certainly not identical 

 with the hairs which are required to be identified, 

 the scales are smaller, less cup-shaped or spreading, 

 and the shaft appears to be thicker (fig. 21). It would 

 be rash, however, to affirm that this species cannot 

 furnish the coveted hairs, since some other portion 

 of the body, or the other sex, may possess them, 



'\/ 



»W 



Fig. 2fi. Hair? of Taphozjus 

 longimanus x 300. 



Fig. 27. Hair of Nyctinomus 

 plicatus x 300. 



although appearances are against such an issue. Of 

 the three species belonging to the other genus 

 (Taphozous) two have been examined, and the hairs 



