N.E.Z.C. 
2 ALLEN — CHILONYCTERIS TORREI Pa a 
which are fairly constant and quite independent of age and sex.” 
He supposed these represented two variants of a single dimorphic 
species. Subsequently Rehn,' in his revision of the genus, working 
with part of Miller’s series, followed him in treating the two as one 
species, macleayit, and so they have since stood. 
Through the generous interest of Professor Carlos de la Torre, 
of the Universidad de la Habana, the Museum of Comparative 
Zoology has lately received a collection of bats in alcohol from the 
caves at Baracoa and Maisi, Cuba. Among the specimens are 
several Chilonycteris, some of which represent the larger, some the 
smaller of the two supposed variants of macleayit. The striking 
contrast in bulk between the two led me to examine the series 
more closely, with the result that several characters were found 
which sufficiently establish the specific distinctness of the large and 
the small bats. In the larger species the fleshy protuberances at 
the sides of the nostrils are more prominent, and the upper rim of 
each nostril is produced into a squarish lobe. In the smaller spe- 
cies the lateral lobes are less prominent, while the upper border 
of the nostril, instead of forming an erect lobe, is rimmed by a 
series of from four to six small wart-like papillae. The ears of the 
larger species are proportionally broader, and on the inner edge, 
near the point of greatest width, bear three small blunt papillae, 
which in the smaller bat are more prominent and tooth-like. The 
skulls of the two show further differences. In addition to its much 
less size, that of the smaller species is more pointed at the muzzle 
in dorsal view, and the interorbital region is more abruptly con- 
stricted. In his paper previously quoted Mr. Miller states that 
part of his series was sent to the British Museum for comparison 
with Gray’s type of macleayii, with the result that the name was 
found to have been based on the larger of these two bats. This 
leaves the smaller animal without a name, unless Gundlach’s 
Lobostoma quadridens* can be satisfactorily identified with it. 
But this seems not to be the case. The greater part of his descrip- 
tion applies equally to both species. The name quadridens is 
1 Rehn, J. A. G., Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1904, p. 186. 
2 Gundlach, J., Arch. f. Naturgesch., 1840, vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 357. 
