Ee | ALLEN — CHILONYCTERIS TORREI 3 
evidently based on the fact that, at the point of greatest breadth 
of the ear, Gundlach found four small tooth-like projections (“4 
Zibnchen’’). These are present in both species, though more 
prominent in the smaller. Their number, however, in our speci- 
mens does not exceed three on each ear. The only part of Gund- 
lach’s description that seems diagnostic, is the following: The 
fleshy papillae at the side of the nose on its upper rim projecting 
in a point (“Die Hautlappen zur Seite der Nase an ihrem oberen 
Rande in eine Spitze hervortretend”’). Though not altogether 
clear, this description, as may be seen by reference to the figures 
(Plate I, figures 1, 2) seems to apply better to the larger bat, whether 
the papillae intended be those on the upper margin of each nostril 
or the fleshy protuberances one at each side on the upper lip. The 
few measurements given are: length of the entire body (“ganzen 
Korpers”), 1’ 63’” = 39.2 mm.; tail in the membrane, 63’” = 
13.7 mm.; free part of tail, 3” = 6.3 mm.; calcar, 73"’ = 16 mm.; 
expanse, 8” 3’ = 209.5 mm. If ‘entire body’ means head and 
body, the measurement 39 mm. is nearer that of the smaller animal; 
yet, as Miller’s table of dimensions shows, the head-and-body 
measurement of the smaller bat may be as great as 45.6 mm. or as 
small as 40; on the other hand the same dimension of the larger 
species may vary between 40 and 51 mm. However, the measure- 
ment is one that cannot be made with great accuracy in alcoholic 
or even fresh specimens. The sum of Gundlach’s measurements of 
head and body plus tail is 59.2 mm., which is smaller than any of the 
total-length measurements published by Miller for the two species, 
though in consequence agreeing more nearly with that of the 
smaller. The tail measurement (20 mm.) is more nearly that of 
the latter also. All Gundlach’s measurements are small, yet, of 
themselves, they are insufficient to be characteristic of either spe- 
cles; we may even suppose his specimen to have been young or 
shrunken in preservative, or his method of measurement may have 
been different. It seems clear that his description is not suffi- 
ciently diagnostic to render the name quadridens certainly appli- 
cable to either species. He may have had both before him at the 
time. Though his measurements accord more nearly with those 
of the smaller species, his description of the nose lappets seems 
