658 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol. xxix. 



island by Doctor Abbott continn the orioinjil diagnosis and description, 

 and enables me to point out, with more conhdcncc, the distinguishing- 

 characters of the species. Rh. calypso ditl'ers from liJi. ^umatranm 

 chiefly in the following respects: The horseshoe is broader, 9.6-10.2 

 mm. (in Kuinatra'nus 8.:2-8.3); the sella broader, at base 2.7 (in sw/m- 

 traniis 2), immediately above the expansion 2.2 (in HuiJiafrmiuH 1.8); 

 the ears larger. 



In one example p^ is almost quite in row, an individual variation 

 (or, if preferred, reversion to a more primitive stage) which I hith- 

 erto had not seen in this species or its closest allies {sainatranas^ 

 acuminatus)^ but which certainly was to be expected; in all other 

 individuals examined this small tooth is external to the row. 



RHINOLOPHUS TRIFOLIATUS NIASENSIS, new subspecies. 



Diagnosis. — Similar to the typical RJi. frlfolkdus^ ])ut with longer 

 tail. 



Reriuirl's. — In l-t specimens of Rli. trifoHatus^ from Lower Siam, 

 the Mala}' Peninsula, Sumatra, and X. Borneo, the length of the tai'l 

 varies between 29. P> and 36 mm.; in the oidy Nias specimen obtained 

 by Doctor Abbott it measures 40 mm. In other respects, cranial, 

 dental, and external, the Nias form is indistinguishable from the 

 typical form of Rh. trlfoliatus. 



Type. — Female adult (in alcoliol, originally in formalin). Nias, 

 March 15, 1905. Collected by Dr. W. L. Abbott (no. 4088). Cat. 

 No. 1413.50. U.S.N.M. 



(GENERAL REMARKS. 



From Sumatra the following species of RJiiaolopJnis arc known to 

 me: Rh. affinls superans^ Rh. sumatrajius, RJi. trlfollafas ti/pfcus. 



From Nias. — Rh. clrce, R/t. frifol'iatns nMsensls. 



From Engano. — Rh. calypso. 



RJi. svij/atrant/s.^ R/i. circc, and Rh. calypso.^ together with Rh. acu- 

 vihiati/s (Java) and Rh. acwawatas avda.r (Lombok). form a small, 

 well defined section of the Rh. lepidus group. As will be observed 

 from the above, the Nias and Engano representatives of this section 

 are specifically different from the Sumatra representative, and also 

 specifically different mter se. The only other RhinoI<>p)has as yet 

 recorded from these small islands {Rh. t. niasensis) is so exceedingly 

 like the typical trifolhdns that, for the present at least, I do not think 

 it advisa1)le to separate it as a distinct ''species;'' the small difference 

 in the length of the tail pointed out above may ultimately prove to be 

 indicative of an average difference only. But the total result, that the 

 three RhJnohpltl as yet known from Nias and Engano are either spe- 

 cifically or subspecifically different from the Sumatra species, is worth 

 noticing. • 



