CIIIKOI'TKKAN NOTES 



470 



Details. — 111 Rh. refulgens (/) (Malay Peninsula, Sumatra) 

 the sella is distinctly expanded l)elow the middle, and considerably 

 narrower at sunnnit (1.^-1.3 nun.) than at base (1.8 nun.); in 

 Wi. feae the lateral margins of the sella are completely straight 

 and parallel, th(> width of the sella at sunnnit (1.8 mm.), conse- 

 (piently, the same as at ])ase (1.8 mm.). This is the most ol)vious 

 external ditterence l)etween the two species. Further, th(> ears in 

 Wi. feae are somewhat hroader (13.3-13.5 nnn. , against 11.2-1':^ 

 in Rh. refulgeiis) , the horse-slioe a little broader (7.8-8 nmi. , 

 against 7.::2-7.o), the tail rather longer (19-22 mm., against lo-19). 



The only tangible difference in the skull is the greater zygo- 

 matic width in Rli. feae (8.8-9 mm., against 8.2-8.3), and, perhaps, 

 a slightly greater width of tlie nasal swellings (4.9-0.1 nnn.. 

 against 4.8). 



All other external, cranial, and dental characters as in Rh. 

 refulgens. 



Remarks. — The only other small Oriental species of the 

 RÌI. lepidus group with a parallel-margined sella is Rh. gracilis (-), 

 from the ^lalabar coast, which, however, is readily discriminated 

 by its long lancet, small size (forearm about 3() mm.), and V(n'y 

 short tail (13.o nnn.). 



Affinities. — The only essential difference betwiH^n RJi. feae 

 and Rh. refalgens is the shape of the sella; in all other respects 

 ihe two species are so similar to each other as to leave no doubt 

 of their close relationship. 



Ftliinolopliu;-; pusilluj-i, Temm. 



1824. Rhinolophus minor C), Horsfleld, Zool. Res. Java, pi. | IJ, figs. C, U. 

 1835. Rhinolophus pusillus, Temminck, JNIon. Mamrn. II. p. 30, pi. 29, Wg. 8, 

 pi. 32, figs. 22, 23. 



\}) 1'. Z. S. 1905 II p. 124, pi. IV. ligs. 16a, b, c: Ann. Mus. Civ. Genova (3) HI. 

 p. 20 (1907). 



(2) P. Z. S. 1905 II. p. 129, pi. IV. figs. IS a, b, c. 



(^) Mr. Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. , has kindly drawn my attention to the fact that tlie 

 name Rhiiìolùplins minor Horsf., 1821, is invalidated by Vespertilio ferrumcqttinnnt 

 minor Kerr, 1792 {An. Kingd. p. 99, no. 132), which is Rhinolophus hipposidcriis, 

 Bechst , 1800. (The name of this latter species is saved I)y the happy circumstance 

 tliat Kerr employed the name minor in an earlier page of the same book. (p. 97 , 

 no. 127) for another form of « Vespertilio », viz. V. mo/ossits minor). 



