THE BARBASTELLE 213 



In Britain this bat is unknown from Scotland, Ireland, or the Isle of 

 Man, and in England the records of its occurrence are mainly from the 

 south. Sowerby's first British specimen was taken by Peete at 

 Dartford, Kent, before 1804 (see synonymy), and Bell was indebted 

 to Waring for another from a chalk cavern at Chiselhurst, in the 

 same county ; its occurrence there is corroborated by Millais, who, 

 however, believes that it is now rare ; and it is also reported, 

 although not recently, from Cornwall (Clark). Montagu (see 

 synonymy) mentioned specimens from both Milton and Kingsbridge, 

 in Devon, thus completing its range across the south of England. 

 Montagu's record has, indeed, been questioned by Gray (^Zoological 

 Jouryial, ii., no, 1826) on the ground that the individual in the British 

 Museum marked by him barbastellus, is undoubtedly referable to Myotis 

 mystacinus. But this error must have arisen in the labelling and not in 

 identification, since Montagu's description is very full and correct, and, 

 moreover, recent observers confirm the occurrence of the bat in Devon. 

 It was, for instance, reported as "scarce" at Teignmouth by Jordan 

 (^Zoologist, 1843, 75), while a specimen from Torquay is, as Hollis 

 informs me, in the Exeter Museum (see de Hiigel, Jonrn. cit., 1869, 

 1768). Thus between Cornwall and Kent the sprinkling of occurrences 

 perhaps indicates a continuous distribution. There are several records 

 for Surrey (Mitford,/t'/^r//. cit., i860, 6953 ; Millais, 42 ; Thorburn, Field, 

 19th July, 1902, 142; Dalgliesh, Zoologist, 1907, 299; Bucknill and 

 Murray); and Sussex (Borrer, Zoologist, 1874, 4128-29; Brazenor, 

 Joiirn.cit., 1887, 152 ; Millais, 42); for Hampshire, one or two (Hart and 

 Kelsall) ; for Wiltshire, one at Salisbury (Blackmore, Zoologist, 1869, 

 1558); for Somerset, a small colony in the roof of Wells Cathedral 

 (Berry in Millais, 43), and a breeding haunt in Mendip Caves (Lewis, 

 Journ. cit., 1906, 69). From Dorset the bat is reported by Borrer once 

 {Jouni. cit., 1869, 4128-29), and by Dale as "not common" {Journ. cit., 

 1887, 234). North of the Thames Valley it is known from Essex, 

 where Doubleday found it not uncommon in Epping Forest {Journ. cit., 

 1843, 6"]), and where Laver, writing of the whole county, thinks that, 

 although "not so rare as it is usually believed to be," it cannot be called 

 common; from Middlesex and Oxford Borrer received one each from 

 Hornsey and South Weston respectively {Journ. cit., 1874,4128); in Hert- 

 ford, Oldham found one on Berkhampstead Common {Journ. cit., 1908, 

 391) ; for Buckingham, Cocks knows of two occurrences, and one in 

 Berkshire; while from Gloucester two .specimens came under the notice of 

 Charbonnier {in lit., also see Jourti. cit., 1892, 329; Witchell, yi?«r;A cit., 

 1892, 356) : and others were known to Tomes from the Warwick border. 

 Alfred Newton met with it in Suffolk ; the elder Gurney, in Norfolk 

 {Journ. cit., 1857, 5420; see also for Suffolk, ^O'^q, Journ. cit., 1891, 347) ; 

 and in Norfolk Southwell describes it as not rare and generally distributed. 



T 2 



