NANONVCTEEIS. uGl 



free edge not prominent., lirain-caso less flattened than in Miero- 

 pteropus, basicrauial axis more distincth' dellected against facial 

 axis. Zygomata much slenderer, not heavier at middle than 

 anteriorly and posteriorly, and standing much less widely out 

 laterally. Coronoid low, extremely narrow, scarcely broader at base 

 than at tip, and so much sloping backward as to render profile of 

 mandible from m., to top of coronoid an almost straight (very flatly 

 concave) line ; condyle at level of alveolar line. 



Dentition (fig. 40).— ^4-^ pV^m^ X 2 = 28. Dental for- 



/i '.cp, p^p^m^m, 



mula and characters of individual teeth as in Ejmmops, Epomophorus, 

 and Micropteropas, but dentition on the whole unusually weak. 



Palate-ridges (fig. 41). — 4 + 8 or 9. Four anterior ridges practi- 

 cally similar in position to corresponding ridges of EpoMops franqueti 

 and Epomophorus ivahlbergi ; tirst ridge slightly hastate, second 

 to fourth straight or arcuate, second and third undivided, fourth 

 very narrowly divided at middle. Central portion of fifth to ninth 



Fig. 41. — Pdlate-rldges \j( INc/MOiit/cicris veldkampi (90.10.6.1). 

 I (linear). 



thickened and prominent, narrowly divided at middle, lateral 

 portions thin and serrate. 'J'his set of ridges passing very gradually 

 into the simple, thin and serrate, extreme posterior ridges. 



External characters. — Muzzle much narrower than in Microptero- 

 pus, distance from eye to tip of nostrils less than (in Mic.ropterop>u:i 

 equal to or more than) breadth at angle of mouth. Other external 

 characters and sexual differentiation as in Microjitei-opits. 



Affinities. — In one important cranial character the present genus 

 is similar to Micropteropus : both are short-faced Epomophorino 

 bats, and in both the rostrum is shortened almost precisely to 

 the same degree. But, in spite of this fact, the slender rostrum of 

 Nanonycteris looks so different from the heavy, Cynopterine rostrum 

 of Micropteropus, the profile of the brain-case, the shape of the bony 

 palate, and the development of the palate-ridges are so strikingly 

 dissimilar, that it is difficult indeed to believe in any very close 

 relationship between the two genera. They are probably of quite 

 different origin. Whereas Micropteropus appears to be somewhat 

 closely allied to Epomopliorus (see above p. 557), Nanonycteris 

 is, judging from its broad postdental palate, the flattened posterior 

 edge of the palate, and the arrangement of the palate-ridges, 

 almost certainly in its origin more intimately connected with 



2o 



