A MONOGRAPH OF THE BATS OF NORTH AMERICA. 175 



Genus PROMOPS Gervais. 



Fromops Gervais, Exped. du Compto de Castelnau, Zoologie, Mammifferes, 1885, 

 59, pi. XII, figs. 3, 3a; Petera, MB. Akad. Berlin, 1865, 574. 



3 2 11 



Dental Formula. — Molars-, premolars -, canine , incisors X 2 = 30. 



Promops was separated by Gervais from 3Iolossus, Geoff., on the j)res- 

 euce of two premolars iu the upper jaw, Moloss^iS having but one. 



Diagnosis. — The hirgest bat in the fauna, tlie forearm measuring- 

 Oli'""'* Ears joined and reach forward quite to the nuizzle. Proto- 

 cone, without the crenulatious Which are so conspicuous in ^folossns 

 riifus. The maxiUary incisors toucli and occupy tlie intervals between 

 the canines. The tirst maxillary premolar is small and withdrawn to 

 palatal side of axis of dental series. Anterior V of first molar much 

 smaller than the second. In common with other Molossi (excepting- 

 Xydinomiis), the premaxillpe are conjoined at the palate. The fifth digit 

 is much the smallest of the series, and the first phalanx of the third and 

 fourth digits is dorsiflexed in repose. The first row of phalanges in 

 manus is from three to four times as large as the second. The fifth 

 metacarpal bone is one-half the length of the fourth and nearly one- 

 third the length of the third metacarpal bone. 



1. Promops perotis californicus Merriam. (Plates xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii.) 



Dr. C. Hart Merriam has described a bat in the fourth fasciculus of 

 the Xorth American Fauna* under the name of 21olossi(s californieusA 

 Two adult females of this bat have been forwarded to me by the Na- 

 tional Museum, and upon these the following descrii)tion has been 

 based. I have long been familiar with a species of Molossus which ap- 

 peared to be a distinct variety, one specimen without locality, which 

 was sent to me by Mr. J. C. Cooper, of the California Academy of Science, 

 and a second purchased of Mr. Ward, also without locality. One of 

 these was in fair condition and more closely answered to the description 

 of j\I. glauciiius than to M. perotis, and was identified as M. glaueinus 

 var. 1 have not seen M. glaucinvs, and held as probable that, as in th<^ 

 case of Macrotus, a species of Cuban bat might find closely allied forms 

 iu Mexico and California. Were it not for the fact that I have ex- 

 amined M.icaterhousii from Cuba I would have hesitated in separating 

 M. californicus from it. Dobson indeed does not recognize the S])ecies 

 last named. Pursuing this plan of reasoning, I declined to describe 

 the Californian specimen as new. Mr. Merriam has been fortunate in 

 securing fnlly adult forms, which are evidently the same as my ^F. glau- 

 einus var., and has described them under the name above given. He 



*N. A. Fauna, 4, 1890-1. 



tl liave been acquainted with two examples of this species for along time. Ono 

 was jmrchasedin a miscellaneous lot, and one sent for examination by the California 

 Academy of Science. Both of these examples were without locality, and I assumed 

 they might bo member of faunse from which I had never received specimens. 



