The Rev. L. Jenyns on the Common Bat of Pennant. I6l 



vious examination, I would not rest too strongly upon this point: 

 nevertheless, I conceive that under any circumstances the Lin- 

 nean name should be suffered to rest with the continental species, 

 of which there are so many excellent figures and details by Dau- 

 benton*, Buffont, Geoffroy J, and Desmarest§, rather than with 

 our own, of which there is not a single delineation or description 

 by any British naturalist sufficiently accurate to admit of its 

 being recognised. 



Indeed, on this subject, it is surprising to remark the way in 

 which authors have contented themselves with copying the bare 

 and meagre descriptions of their predecessors, without adding 

 anything from their own observation. Of all our English writers, 

 including Martin, Berkenhout, Bewick, Shaw, Stewart, and 

 Donovan, there is scarcely one who has done more than repeat 

 the general colour and dimensions of this Bat, as originally 

 stated by Pennant, or perhaps merely translate the Linnean 

 specific character. And even in our two latest publications by 

 Mr. Griffith and Dr. Fleming |1, though (in the former at least) 



* Mim. de I' Acad, des Sciences de Paris, ann. 1759. p. 378. pi. 1. f. 1. 



t Hist. Nat. torn. 8. p. 126. pi. 15. f. 1. 



% Jtm. du Mils. torn. 8. p. IQl. pi. 47 & 48. 



§ Mammal. (Encyd. Method.) p. 134. pi. 33. f.2. 



II In the Animal Kingdom of Mr. Griffith the description appears to be a translation 

 from Desmarest, or at least evidently belongs to the Vespertilio murinus of that author ; 

 yet along with references to BufFon and other continental writers, are associated as 

 synonyms the Common Bat of Pennant and the Short-eared English Bat of Edwards ; 

 thereby showing that these were considered to be the same as the species described, 

 notwithstanding that Pennant's dimensions of this Bat are set at two inches and a half 

 for the length of the body, and nine inches for the extent of wing, while Mr. Griffith has 

 annexed to his own, a length equalling Jbi^r inches, and an expanse of nearly eighteen ! 



Dr. Fleming in his History of British Animals has fallen into the same mistake. He 

 has likewise taken for his specific character of our Common Bat that belonging to the 

 Vespertilio murinus of Geoffi^oy and Desmarest, annexing the usual references to Ray 

 and Pennant; under the idea that all these authors were describing the same species. 



Y 2 the 



