m 



TENTH ETOE. 



Dental characters closely similar to those of Thoopleras, but ail 

 incisors narrower and more sharply pointed, i" reduced to about 

 half tlie length of i', i, entirely absent, canines without trace of 

 cinguhim cusps (inner edge of lower canines often slightly thickened 

 at base), and p^ and m^ without surface elevations. Upper canines 

 with a vertical groove on antero-medial surface, but the groove 

 shallower than in Tltoo/>tcrus ; p^-m^ and p,,-m, shortened and 

 broadened f o quite or very nearly the same extent as in Thooi>terus ; 

 p' and P3 unicuspid ; inner ridge of p\ m', and Pj and botli outer 

 and inner ridge of m, very low or practically obsolete, the crushing 

 surface of m^ thereibre nearly perfectly flat. 



PaJate-ridges. — Not differing essentially in number and arrange- 

 ment from those of C'l/nofdems (fig. 50, p. 591). 



External characters. — Odontoid papilla; on inner side of li])S as 

 in Ci/nopterits {I'hoopierus unknown in this respect, but probably 

 not differing). Ear broadly rounded off above as in Thoopterus ; 

 antitragal lobe distinct but small. Tibia unusually long, little less 

 than one-half (in all the foregoing Cynopterine genera little more 

 than one-third) of forearm. Tail very tliin, length rather more 

 than half of hind foot with claws, thus apparently not (juite so 

 much reduced as in Thoopterus (of which, however, only skins have 

 been examined). Calcar unmodified. Membranes inserted on tip 

 of first metatarsal (as in Ci/nopterus ; in Thoopterus on second toe); 

 vertical fascias of mesopatagium numerous and crowded (in Cyno- 

 piterus much fewer and more spaced). I'ollcx and second digit 

 distinctly shorter than in Ci/nopterus, third and fourth digits 

 somewhat longer (chiefly owing to a lengthening of the distal 

 phalanges), fifth slightly shorter (see table below, the upper row 

 of which shows the wing-indices of Fenthetor, calculated from 

 twenty specimens, the second row those of Cynoptenis, the third 

 those of Thoopterus for comparison). Fur of single species known 

 much shorter and more closely adpressed than in Tlioopterus. 



1000 I 



i 

 1000 \\ 



i 

 1000 1 1 



Secondartj sexual characters. — None (males and females without 

 neck tufts and not difiering in size nor in colour). 



Affinities. — Penthetor is, without doubt, the Indo-Malayan repre- 

 sentative of the Austro-Malayan l^hoopterus. As evident from the 

 description above, its principal claim to stand as a genus distinct 

 from Thoopterus is the absence of i, and shortening of i". In 

 addition to this, the tooth-rows extend further backward, the 



