M, C. COOKE ON THE HAIRR OF INDIAN BATS. 43 



species, and probablj'^ resembles Macroglossxis. Tlie species of 

 Pteroptis, Megaderma, Rhinoloi^hus, and Ilipposideros, unknown, 

 it is presumed will not differ materially from those already ex- 

 amined. Coelops Frithii has occurred in Bengal, but I believe that 

 only one specimen is known. Taphozous saccolaimus probably ac- 

 cords with the other two species of the same genus. Cheiromeles 

 torqiiatus has such very short hair that it appears to be almost 

 naked ; it is confined to Sumatra, and therefore is not Indian. 

 NoctuUnia noctula is Himalayan as well as British. The species 

 of Nycticcjus not examined are probably very much like the four 

 species to which I have alluded. Scotophilus probably offers in its 

 other species counterparts of those already examined, and what 

 remains of Vespertilio to be known, doubtless will partake of the 

 same tyjDe as those already described. Murina suilla is a Hima- 

 layan species of which I have no knowledge, and it is the only one 

 of its genus recorded in India. Kerivoula pallida and Sychesiiii 

 is presumed will not differ much from Kerivoula picta. Myotis has 

 five representatives in India, of which one is also British. The 

 common barbastelle, Barbastellus communis^ is British as well as 

 Indian. Nyctophilus Geoffroyi is European as well as Indian. Of 

 all, therefore, which I have not examined, and which consist of 

 about fifty species, there are only eight genera unrepresented, and 

 of these one is unique, and four are European genera, leaving but 

 three peculiarly Asiatic genera, and of these Cheiromeles belongs 

 to Sumatra, so that Xanthaipyia, which is a genus of fragivorous 

 bats allied to Ptero^ms and Murina^ which has but one Indian 

 species, are all that really demand examination. 



I think, therefore, if my researches have not been wholly 

 exhaustive, that we have an approximate idea of the structure of 

 hair in all the species of Indian bats as comprised in the three lists 

 to which I at first referred. Although I do not wish to insinuate 

 that there is specific character in the hair, yet I think that there is 

 not the slightest reason to believe that any great dissimilarity will 

 be found in the hairs of any species of a given genus of which the 

 hairs in other two, three, four, or more species are known to resem- 

 ble each other, and to follow a common type. If, for instance, in 

 four species of Nycticejus the hair is so nearly alike as scarcely to 

 be distinguished the one from the other, it is not illogical to con- 

 clude that in a fifth species there will be^ no great divergence from 

 the type of the other four. 



