M. C. COOKE ON THE HAIRS OF INDIAN BAT , 35 



■whicli many hairs present, if it were found that the shaft of the 

 hair grevv faster than the scales which surround it, and that the 

 whorls of scales were separated from each other, just as the slides 

 are in the drawing out of a telescope. 



" Since these observations were made, I have been kindly favoured 

 by Mr. Powell with some hair of a bat from India, the species of 

 which is at present unknown, in which the view I have entertained 

 of the nature of bats' hair is beautifully borne out, and if any doubt 

 had previously existed of the scaly character, I think that it would 

 at once be banished when these hairs were seen under the micros- 

 cope. The scales are most remarkably developed, and in some of 

 the hairs they surround the shaft in a continuous whorl, and with- 

 out any preparation by scraping, in many places they will be found 

 to be entirely wanting, whilst in others they are still attached to 

 the shaft, but out of their proper position." 



Dr. Carpenter, in " Tlie Microscope," alludes to the hairs of (jne 

 of the Indian species of bat in the following words : " It has a set 

 of whorls of long narrow leaflets (so to speak) arranged at regular 

 intervals on its stem" (p. 644, fig. 329 c. 1857). It will be 

 observed that two theories of structure are indicated by these two 

 observers. Quekett regards the whorls as entire scales or cups, 

 with an irregular margin, in which we shall hereafter find Mr. 

 Gosse corroborating him ; whilst Dr. Carpenter alludes to them as 

 whorls of leaflets, or (as I presume) independent linear scales, in 

 which Griffith and Henfrey seem to concur. Figures also bear out 

 this interpretation, for Quekett's original figures show the scales 

 removed entire, and Carpenter's figure gives the whorled character. 

 Dr. Hogg in his figure exhibits Dr. Carpenter's theory, and in his 

 remarks quotes Quekett's, and thus commits himself to both. The 

 figures given in Quekett's treatise on the microscope are very 

 different from the original figures, and, as I believe, incorrect. I 

 may allude to the figure given in Brewster's " Treatise on the 

 Microscope " (1837), published before Quekett's observations of 

 the whorled " hair of the bat genius " (pi. xii., fig. 16), which is 

 remarkably rude, and probably does not indicate the hair of an 

 exotic species. A similar rough figure is given in Brocklesby's 

 "Views of the Microscopic World" (New York, 1851), "each 

 possessing a figure like that which would be formed by a series of 

 cones, with the points of each inserted into the middle of the base 

 of another" (p. 126, fig. 206). 



