On some Species of the Genus Epomops. 99 



digit subequal to (in Epomops much shorter than) metacarpal 

 of same digit. 



(11) Vertical fascia? of mesopatagium few (about 7-S) and 

 broadly spaced. In Epomops unusually numerous (36-47) 

 and crowded. 



General size of single species known very small, as Micro- 

 pteropus pusitlus: forearm about 50-60 mm. Size of known 

 species of Epomops much larger : forearm 82-100*5 mm. 



Small whitish hair-tufts at anterior and posterior base of 

 ears, as in all Epomophorine genera. 



For the loan of the type of this highly interesting fruit-bat 

 I am indebted to Sr. A. F. de Seabra, Museu Bocage, Lisbon. 

 The specimen is a fully adult female, teeth practically 

 unworn. 



XII. — On some Species of the Genus Epomops*. 

 By Knud Andersen. 



I. Epomops franqueti and comptus. 



Epomophorus franqueti, Tomes, P. Z. S. 1860, p. 54, 

 pi. Ixxv. — Type locality, Gaboon. Type, in the Paris Mu- 



* Epomops, originally founded by Gray (1866), was by Dobson (1878) 

 not distinguished from Epomophorus ; by Matschie (1899) it was allowed 

 to stand as a " subgenus " of Epomophorus, but by Miller (1907) again 

 united with Epomophorus, probably owing to its general resemblance to 

 the latter genus in dentition and external aspect. I find myself com- 

 pelled to disagree witb Miller. Both Epomops and Epomophorus subsist 

 on soft fruits, but in having adapted themselves to this diet they have, 

 in certain respects, followed essentially different lines of development. In 

 Epomops the rostrum and palate are broadened, in Epomophorus, on the 

 contrary, unusually narrow ; in Epomops the postdental palate has pre- 

 served the common " Rousettine " (flattened) shape, in Epomophorus it is 

 deeply hollowed out posteriorly ; in Epomops the three anterior inter- 

 dental palate-ridges are thick and prominent, conspicuously contrasting 

 with the thin and serrate postdental set of ridges, in Epomophorus the 

 whole set of ridges are peculiarly modified, without contrast between the 

 interdental and postdental ridges; also the hyoid bones and pharyngeal 

 j-acs are different in the two genera. Epomops is in fact much more 

 olosely related to Hypsignaihus and Plerutes than it is to Epomophorus. 

 If we leave Epomops and the short-nosed (in the skull almost Cynopterus- 

 like) Micropteropus in Epomophorus, then Epomoj)hor us becomes decidedly 

 the most heterogeneous genus of fruit-bats ; if we separate Epomops and 

 Micropteropus, then Epomophorus stands as a per:ecily homogeneous 

 group, sharply defined against all other genera of the Epomophorine 

 section, and in the shape of the postdental palate contrasting even with 

 nil other genera of Megachiroptera. 



7* 



