600 CHUtOiNAS. 



geiuiine Ci/noplcnix (or " Pia-Ja/sohia"), even by those recent writers 

 {e. (J. Miller, 1907) who take the genus C'jnoptenis in its must 

 restricted sense ; the reason is, no doubt, that its dental formula is 

 exactlj' the same as that of Cynopievus ; on the other hand, the 

 l)rosence of an antero-external cusp in j/ and the complete 

 suppression of the tail (both of which facts were mentioned by 

 'i'emminck) might have aroused some suspicion as to its real 

 affinities. Ey Trouessart (1807) it was jiJaced in the subgenus 

 Mecifcrops under Cjinopterus, presumably owing to the absence of a 

 tail, and by Matschie (1^99), probably for the same reason, 

 tosether with Thoopta-us nif/rescens and tS])h(rrlas hlanfordi in the 

 subgenus Thooptems under Ci/nopttrus. The only author who has 

 hinted at the possibility of a closer relationship between "Ptei-opus" 

 iiifliiiwcephalus and " Cipiopterus" [i. e. Baliomjcteris] macalatus 

 is Oldtifld Thomas (Ann. & Mag, N. H. (6) xi. p. 342, 1893).— 

 Chiroua.v melanocepli'tlus differs from any sjiecies of Ci/nopterus in 

 the following series of characters :—(!) absence of postorbital 

 foramina, (2) fusion of ])remaxill8e, (3) separation of foramoi 

 rotuudum and ovale (character not absolutely constant), (4) pre- 

 sence of vertical groove on upper canines, (5) absence of secondary 

 (cingulum) cusp in canines, (0) presence of antero-external basal 

 cusp in p\ (7) great reduction of m', m,, and m,, (8) absence 

 of tail and reduction of central interfemoral, (9) enlargement of 

 wings, (10) small size and broadly rounded extremity of ears, 

 (^11) black cap contrasting with paler back, (12) unusually small 

 size of animal. All of these characters, except (2), reoccur, 

 unaltered or (0 and 9) somewhat modified, in BaUonycterh. That 

 C'hirona.v is verv closely related to this latter genus, in fact scarcely 

 more than its Javan representative, is beyond all doubt ; on the 

 other hand its differences from Balionycteris, as summed up above 

 (p. 658) under the heading "Differential characters," are obviously 

 too important to allow it to be included in that genus. In having 

 lost the posterior upper molar (m^) and in having the premaxilla3 

 solidly united aiiteriorly, it stands on a slightly higher level than 

 its relative, but it is less specialized (i. e. nearer Cynop>terus) in the 

 unmodified condition of the incisors. 



1. CMronax melanocephalus, Tamn. 

 Cynoptervs rneJanoceplicdus, Dobson, Cat. Chir. E. M. p. 85. 



Pteropus nielaiiocephalus, Temminck, Mon. Mamm. i. p. 190, pi. xii. 



(animal), pi. xvi. f}g!-\ .3, 4 (skeleton; incisors) (182.5: Bantam) ; 



Lesiinn, Man. Mamm. p. 112, n. 290 (182?); Desmarest, Diet. 



Set. Nat. xlvi. p. ?<6Q (1827) ; J. B. Fiacher, Syn. Mumm. p. 88, 



n. 23 (1829) ; O. CvviW, R. A7i., 3 ed. i. p. 138, footnote (1836) ; 



,'^chinz, Svr.f.. Vevz. Sihiy. i. p. 134, n. 37 (1844) ; Giehel, Siii'iy. 



p. 1002 (1855). 

 Pachysoma melandceplialuni, Jt. Geofioy, Diet. Class. d'Hid. Nat. 



xiv. p. 704 (1828) ; id., Ann. Sci. Nat. xv. p. 204 (1828) ; id., 



Bi'lu7)<icr^s Toy. Ind.-Orient.. Zool. p. 96(l^'31); I^csson, Hist. 



