464 Mr. E. Blyth's Notices of various Mammalia. 



Rhinolophus, GeoiF. and Cuv. — In preparing a notice of the 

 Indian species of this difficult genus, so far as I am acquainted 

 with them_, I labour under the considerable disadvantage of not 

 having M. Temminck^s valuable monograph to refer to ; but I 

 vf]W. nevertheless endeavour to review the history of the group, 

 so far as the means at my disposal will permit of. The first 

 endeavour at collating the species would appear to be that of M. 

 Geoffiroy St. Hilaire, in the 'Annales du Museum/ tom. xx. pp. 

 254 et seq. (1813). Four species are there noticed, in addition 

 to the two common in Europe* ; and among the former is a 

 species from Timor, the Rhinolophe crumenifere of MM. Peron 

 and Lesueur, which I conceive to be erroneously identified with 

 the Vespertilio speoris of Schneider, described to inhabit India, 

 as it difi"ers from the latter in its considerably larger size and (it 

 would seem) more rufous colouring. 



In the second edition of Cuvier^s 'Regne AnimaP (dated 

 1829), these six species only are referred to; but Dr. Horsfield, 

 in his 'Zoological Researches in Java^ (dated 1824), had de- 

 scribed seven (alleged) species as inhabitants of that island, two 

 of which have since been brought together by Mr. Gray, after an 

 examination of the original specimens collected by Dr. Horsfield, 

 — Rh. deformisj Horsfield, being thus identified with Rh. insignisj 

 Horsfield. 



Then followed M. TemmincFs Monograph of the genus, 

 wherein (if I remember rightly) several species were added to 

 those of his predecessors ; of which, among perhaps others un- 

 noticed in Mr. Gray^s subsequent synopsis, I find mentioned by 

 authors a Rh. luctus, Tem., from Java, an alleged rufous variety 

 of which is described in the Zoology of the Voyage of La Favorite, 

 from Manilla ; also a Rh. pusillus, from India, which appellation 

 is referred with a mark of doubt to a specimen in the Zoological 

 Society's museum, in Mr. Waterhouse's catalogue of the mam- 

 malia preserved in that collection, where also is mentioned, 

 but likewise with a mark of doubt, Rh. insignisj Horsf., from 

 Ceylon. 



Confining ourselves now to the describers of Asiatic species f. 

 Col. Sykes, in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society for 

 1831, describes a Rh. dukhunensis, distinguishing this from the 

 Rhinolophe crumenifere oiVeron and Lesueur, which, it is added, 

 is the Rhin. marsupialis of M. Geofiiroy's lectures, and the Rh. 

 speoris of M. Desmarest, by its much smaller size, &c. ; but this 



* A third European species, found towards the South (in Dalmatia, 

 Sicily, &c.), also in the Levantine countries, and it would appear all Africa, 

 is the Rh. capensis, Licht., Rh. clivosus, Riipp., v. Rh. Geoffroyi, A. Smith. 



f The form is peculiar to the old world, inclusive however of Australia 

 (apud J. E. Gray). 



