p' slightly larger ill crown area lliaii i^ p, about twice tlie bulk of i,. 

 p^-in* and p^-m., similar to corresponding teetli of liouscttufi, but; 

 crowns Hatter, longitudinal ridges lower; outer and inner ridge of 

 ]>' and Pj less completely united anteriorly than in liousettjis ; m" 

 smaller, scarcely one half the area of m' ; m, little more than half 

 the bulk of m^ ; ra^ similar in size to p,. 



Falate-ridijes. — 4 + 3 + ? (formula derived from Jentink's descrip- 

 tion, I. s. c). 



Wings. — Second digit clawed. Lateral membranes arising from 

 sides of back, separated by a space about 15-17 mm. in width, and 

 inserted posteriorly on back of first (or junction between first and 

 second) metatarsal. Relative lengths of metacarpals and phalanges 

 essentially as in Stenoniidans (Bousetfy.s lauosns, see p. -0). The 

 subjoined wing-indices are calculated from measurements of only 

 two specimens : — 



Tail. — As in Roiisetfus. Shorter than hind-foot ; basal portion 

 conneclcd with underside of interfemoral by its dorsal integument, 

 tip freely projecting. 



liinu/e. — Celebes ; as yet only known from the northern portion 

 of the island. 



Affinities. — Boneia is closely related to Enuseitus, but decidedly 

 more specialized. It differs chiefly (and almost only) in certain 

 characters of the canines and incisors, which again have effected 

 some modification of the front of the rostrum and mandible. As 

 pointed out in the description of the genus, both the upper and 

 lower canines are unusually heavy, and the lower canines slanted 

 strongly outward (see front view of rostrum and mandible, rig. o, 

 p. 55) ; the latter character necessitates a greater distance (broader 

 jyalate) bet^veen the upper canines; the breadth of the rostrum 

 anteriorly is further increased by the laterally projecting sockets 

 of the upper canines. The widening of the space between the 

 upper canines has forced the rami of the prcmaxillne from each 

 other anteriorly (in all typical species of lioKsttttis. as in most 

 genera of Megachiroptera, the premaxillie are much more firmly 

 united with the maxilliC and nasals than anteriorly with each 

 other). It appears unlikely that the degeneration, or at least in 

 adults complete suppression, of the inner upper incisor has had 

 anything to do with the separation of the premaxilhu ; though i' is 

 missing, its portion of the premaxillre is preserved. The heavy 



