LEISLER'S BAT 85 



should not occur in other parts of England, Wales, and even in Man 

 and Scotland (see Service's observations under A^. tioctula). 



This bat is well known in Ireland, where the first recorded was taken 

 in Belvoir Park, Co. Down, about 1848. A second was knocked down 

 by a mechanic with a fishing-rod in BlackstaffLane, Belfast, Co. Antrim, 

 in July 1858. It passed into the hands of Darragh, and was exhibited 

 by J. R. Kinahan at a meeting of the Belfast Natural History 

 and Philosophical Society on 25th April 1860.^ In 1868 the 

 species was found abundantly in Armagh by Barrington, who also 

 received a specimen from Kildare {Zoologist, 1874, 4071-74), and it 

 has since been discovered in Dublin (Ogilby, Journ. cit., 1874, 4236), 

 Wicklow (Barrington, Journ. cit., 1875, 4532), Fermanagh (Barrington, 

 Journ. cit., 1883, 116), Westmeath (Moffat, Irish Naturalist, 1897, 135), 

 Cavan, Louth (Jameson, /w^rw. cit., 1897, 41-42), Londonderry (Alcock, 

 Jourji. cit., 1899, 174), Carlow and Wexford (Barrett-Hamilton, /(C?z^r«. 

 cit., 1900, 134; Moffat, 162; Pack Beresford, 1906, 194). Its range, 

 although a few county records, e.g., for Kilkenny, Meath, and 

 Monaghan, are needed for continuity, may be said to include the 

 whole east coast, together with a considerable portion of the north 

 and north-west. In many districts it is common, or even abundant, 

 and, although no western or south-western specimens are forthcoming, 

 R. E. Dillon (in lit., also quoted by Jameson) is well acquainted with 

 large, straight-flying bats, almost certainly of this species, at Clonbrock, 

 Co. Galway, and Laver informs me that he has seen many in the same 

 county ; one, labelled Tyrone, is in the Dublin Museum. It is probable, 

 therefore, that the bat has been overlooked in many parts of Ireland. 



Distribution in time : — This bat is not known as a fossil. 



Period of gestation: — Although no observations have been published, 

 there is no reason to suppose that this differs from that of the Noctule. 



Tlie number of young, although stated to be usually two in Germany, 

 is not known to exceed one in Britain (see Tomes, Zoologist, 1854, 4365), 

 born early in summer, probably in June. 



Description : — This bat resembles the Noctule, but is much smaller. 

 The body is relatively lighter, and the bones of the limbs less massive 

 and of somewhat different proportions. 



Thus in the wing (again as compared with the Noctule) (Plate VII., 

 Fig. i), while the greatest expanse, third metacarpal and longest digit 

 are relatively of smaller dimensions as compared with their forearm, 

 the lower leg is markedly, the tail and fifth metacarpal slightly, longer, 

 so that the wing and interfemoral membrane are slightly shorter and 

 distinctly broader. 



1 The first published proceedings of the B. N. H. and P. Society date from 1871, 

 but Robert Patterson has most kindly looked up the present reference for me in the 

 old minute-books. 



