500 Mv. K. Andersen on Ilipjoosideriis diadema 



British Museum, closely agreeing with Geoffroy's figure and 

 description. 



Horsfield's Rh. nobUis *, — The cotypes f (two skins) o£ 

 Horsfield's " Rhino/op'ms nobUis," from Java, are in the 

 British Museum ; botli of: them are young adults, i. e. 

 evidently full-grown, but the epiphyses of the metacarpals 

 not ankylosed and the teeth unworn. The skull of one of 

 these cotypes, and the skulls of several other examples from 

 Java, are as in the Timor bat. The forearm of five Java 

 skins measures 85-91, of the Timor skin 8i"5. It may mean 

 (if it means anything) that, in a large series, Java specimens 

 will turn out to be on an average larger than Timor speci- 

 mens, in which case Horsfield^s name will, of course, have 

 to stand fur the former race J. 



Hijiposiderus lanhadiva, Kelaart. 



Diagnosis. — Anteorbital width moderate : 9'2-98 ; teeth 

 very large : upper row 14-14"7. Ears moderate : width 

 about 23-24 ; size very large : forearm 88-94'8. 



Details. — This species differs from H. diadema (all forms) 

 in the following particulars : — 



* Th. Horsfield, ' Zoological Researclies in Java and the neiglibouring 

 Islands ' (London, 1824), no. 7, letterpress (unpaged) ; figs. L, iS, O, P, Q 

 (head and dentition) on hlack-and-white plate (without number) ; coloured 

 plate [8] (whole fig.). 



t Nos. A and B in Horsfield's Cat. Mamm. Mus. East-Ind. Comp. 

 (London, 1851) p. 35. 



X H. duidevia also occurs in the Malay Peninsula. The skull of an 

 example (skin) in the British Museum, from Gunnong Pulai, Johore 

 (collected by AV. Davison, presented by A. O. Hume), has the anteorbital 

 ■width 10 mm., a trifle larger than in the races described above ; the size 

 of the teeth (upper row 13 mm.) is quite asiu an average form oi diadema. 

 I should have no hesitation in identifying this bat with Dobson's 

 " H. Masoni," from Lower ]3urma, were it not for the reason that Dobson 

 described this latter as having only one (central) vertical ridge on the front 

 of the posterior leaf, whereas iu the Johore specimen the lateral ridges 

 are well developed (the other character of "Masoni" mentioned by 

 Dobson, viz. a downward projecting process from the symphysis of 

 the mandible, looks so strange that 1 suppose it may be an individual 

 deformity in the only specimen known). The possibility is perliaps not 

 excluded' that iJobson had before him a specimen in which (as I have 

 pointed out above to be sometimes the case in II. d. vicariits) the lateral 

 ridizes were markedly reduced, therefore easily overlooked. The length 

 of the forearm of the Johore specimen and of the type of " Masoni " is 

 almost exactly the same (in the former 8(f8, in the latter 85). A safe 

 identification of the Malacca form would require more material both 

 from the Malay Peninsula (specimen " c '' of H. diadema in Dobson's 

 Catalogue (p. 137), from Penang, is a II. unniyer) and from the type 

 localitv of " Masoni,'^ 



