234 



CHAPTER XXXIII. 



CHEIROPTEKA — BATS FRUGIVOROUS BATS — INSECTIVOROUS BATS (lEAF-BEARING, AND NOT 



LEAF-BEARING.) 



" The Cheiroptera," says Professor Owen, " witli the exception of tlie modification of tlieir digits, 

 for supporting the large webs that serve as wings, repeat the chief characters of the Insectivora ; "* 

 and so they do with some few excejitions, such as the pectoral mammal. That modification in itself 

 is of little importance. It is to be regarded merely as an " accidental " element in their structure, 

 consequent on the mode in which they are to procure their food ; and, therefore, not calling for 

 their removal from an order to which they otherwise belong, any more than their flippers require 

 the removal of the Seals from the Carnivorous Mammals ; or their dejjrivation of limbs, the sepa- 

 ration of the Sirenia from their Pachydermatous allies. But whilst they are clearly Insectivora, 

 an inquiry into the past history of the order suggests doubts of their being modifications of the 

 terrestrial species. It is rather the latter that are to be looked on as modified Cheiroptera ; for, 

 according to all ajopearance, the Bats can trace the most distant parentage of the two. Looking back 

 into the past geological formations, it is impossible to avoid being struck by the extraordinary 

 resemblance which they bear to the Pterodactyles, or flying Lizards, of the oolitic period. 



The first impression which would imdoubtedly strike any one unacquainted with anatomy would 

 be that they belonged to the same class of animals. The form of the head ; the relative proportion 

 of the limbs ; the processless vertebrae ; the general idea of the wing ; the disproportion in the 

 length of the digits ; the dermal wing-membrane, of which fine traces are still preserved in the 

 Solenhofen specimens of Pterodactyles, are all repeated in the Bat. Fig. 1, representing the wing of 

 the Pterodactyle ; Fig. 2, that of the Bat ; Fig. 3,t that of a Bird, show the comparative affinity 

 of the Bat to the Pterodactj-lo more strongly than any words can do ; and although the anatomist 

 comes and disillusionizes us by pointing out that the vertebra) of the Pterodactyle are articulated 

 after the Rejitilian plan ; that the dentition is Reptilian ; that the cranivnn, pelvis, and other parts 

 of the skeleton, are so likewise ; and that even the microscopical structure of the bones is ReptUian, 

 we find it impossible to believe that the two creatures have not something to do with each other. 



How strongly, for example, did the discovery of marks of feathers on the Archaeofteryx add 

 to the conviction of its aflinity to a bird ? and shall we deal a difierent measure when we find 

 impressions of a leathern wing, like that of the Bat, loft among the wing-bones of the Pterodactyle ? 

 It is incredible that two animals so identical in plan could have been repeated by chance. And we 



* Owen, in " Proc. Linn. Soo." ii. p. 23, 1857. published in the Royal So^ietj's "Philosophical Transac- 



t These figures are copied from Professor Owen's draw- tions," vol. cliii., part 1, 1 863, p. 33. 

 ings in his paper on Archaeopteryx LrrHOGRAPHicuM, 



