M. C. COOKE ON THE HAIRS OF INDIAN BATS. 37 



wbicli have been preserved, and brushed, and dusted, and subjected 

 to all kinds of \-icissitudes for twenty or thirty years, whereby, 

 undoubtedly, their microscopical character has suffered considerably. 

 A fair allowance should be made for this fact, which is only coun- 

 terbalanced by their specific identification. 



Assuming that the hair in question was that of an Indian bat, I 

 was led to enquire what species of bats were found in the Indian 

 Empire, and in this enquiry I was assisted by three catalogues, 

 which are the only authoritative ones with which I am acquainted. 



I. — Dr. J. E. Gray's list of the specimens of the Mammalia in 

 the collection of the British Museum, dated 1843. 



II. — Dr. Horsfield's catalogue of the Mammalia in the Museum 

 of the Hon. East India Company, dated 1851. 



III. — Mr. Edward Blyth's catalogue of the MammaHa in the 

 Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Calcutta, 1863. 



In Dr. Gray's list occur the names of 47 species of Indian bats. 

 In Dr. Horsfield's catalogue there are enumerated 34 species, and 

 in Mr. Blyth's catalogue (including desiderata), 73 species. In 

 one list some species occur which are not found in the others, and 

 some probably which may be only varieties, but taking them as 

 they stand, excluding all which are quoted as synonymous, and 

 accepting those which the authors regard as distinct species, we 

 have, on a comparison of the three lists, not less than 90 species, 

 distinbuted amongst 24 genera. Inasmuch as Mr. Blyth's catalogue 

 is the most recent, and taking into account the advantage he 

 possessed of residence in India, and of personal examination of 

 many living species, I am inclined to accept his list as the basis of 

 my observations. 



The 73 species named in Blyth's catalogue are grouped under 

 24 genera. These include Malayan and other forms not found in 

 contii^ental India. 



The only positive information which could lead to the discovery 

 of the imknown species was communicated to me in a private letter 

 addressed by Mr. Jauson, of Exeter, to a friend, from which I am 

 permitted to quote. 



Mr. H. Janson writes : " I have every reason to believe that I 

 was the means of first introducing this object to the microscopic 

 world, and thus it was — One of my immediate neighbours (now 

 many years ago) was an old Indian officer^ named Major Godfrey, 

 who had lived twenty-five years there, and who had a strong turn 



