ClIIROI'TKHAN NOTKS 13 



According to Cabrera, H. tephrus differs from H. caff'er^ in 

 the following: three respects: — 



(1) It is « mas pequeno (juc cual(|uiera de las formas de està 

 especie hasta allora descritas » ; forearm 40 , third metacarpal 

 .'M mm. (2) The ears are « mas largas ipie anclias » , whereas 

 « en las otras dos especies del mismo grupo {H. caffer y beatus), 

 la longitud de las orejas es menor (|ue sn anchura » ; length of 

 ear 13.o, width of ear 1':2.5 mm. (3) The skull « es notable por 

 ofrecer una anchura maxilar menor (|ue la longitud de la s(-rie 

 dental superior, mientras en el H. caffer dicha anchura es igual 

 (') un poco mayor que la longitud de la serie dental » ; in tin- 

 type specimen the maxillary width is stated to be o nun. , the 

 maxillary tooth-row .0.7 ; in another specimen the measurements 

 are stated to be, respectively, 5 and 6 nun. 



In testing the validity of these characters I leave out of con- 

 sideration all the other examples referred by me above to H. c. 

 tephriiis^ taking as a basis only tlie authentic specimen (topotype 

 and paratype) sent by Cabrera: — 



The length of the ears of this s})ecimen , from base of inncn' 

 margin to tip, is 13 mm., their greatest width 14.2 nun., i. e. 

 tlie ratio between the leiigth and width of the ears is quite 

 as in all other races of H. caffer. It will be noticed that my 

 measurements of the length of the ear (13 mm.) is very closely 

 in accordance with that given by Caljrera (13.5 nun.), whereas 

 tliere is a considerable difference l)etween his (12.o nmi.) and 

 my own measurement (14.2 mm.) of the loidth of the ear; when 

 therefore Cabrera found the ear of H. tephrus to l)e nuich nar- 

 rower than indicated by me for any race of H. caffer, it is 

 ol)viously because he took the measurement according to a method 

 different from my own. — In all the four races of H. caffer 

 described in my monograph of this species, the maxillary widtli 

 of the skull (externally, across m^-m^) is a trilie larger than, or at 

 least equal to, the length of the maxillary tooth-row (c-nr^) , in 

 H. tephrus tlie former is stated to be decidedly smaller than the 

 latter; in other words, the palate is said to be narrower. But the 

 maxillary width of the topotype of //. tephrus is 6.3 mm., tlie 

 maxillary tooth-row 6 mm., i. e. the ratio between the maxil- 

 lary width and the length of the maxillarij tooth-row is 

 quite as in all other races of H. caffer. Here, again, it will 



