572 Mr. O. Thomas 07i a new Genus and 



tlie median pair of teeth are slender and unicuspid, the next 

 pair have a minute basal cusp, which becomes well-developed 

 and pointed on the next 3 or 4 on each side. In the smaller 

 fisli {H. corinus) the lower median tooth has 2 or 3 cusps on 

 each side and none on the upper edge, whilst each lateral 

 tooth has only 6 cusps ; the second pair o£ teeth in the upper 

 jaw are unicuspid, and the next 3 have only a very small and 

 obtuse basal cusp. 



Jn the larger shark the fins are relatively less developed 

 and consequently they are more widely separated from each 

 other. The anal begins below the last ^ of the dorsal and 

 the length of its base is less than its distance from the caudal, 

 which fin is f the total length of the fish, whereas in the 

 smaller example the origin of the anal is only a little behind 

 tiie middle of the dorsal, the length of its base is equal to its 

 distance from the caudal, which is more than ^ the length of 

 the fish. 



Examination of a series of examples from the Mediter- 

 ranean and the Atlantic shows conclusively that these 

 differences are due to the size of the fish and are not specific. 

 The British Museum has large specimens agreeing in denti- 

 tion and the position of the fins with the Japanese example, 

 and smaller ones which resemble the Californian fish in these 

 respects. Moreover, after a careful comparison, I am unable 

 to find any reason for referring the Pacific and Atlantic 

 specimens to different species, and I am forced to conclude 

 that there is but one living species of HexanclmSj viz. 

 H. griseus, L., which has a wide distribution. 



LXV.— ^ iieiv Genus and Two new Species of Bats. 

 By Oldfield Thomas. 



Eomops, gen. no v. 



In 1900 * Dr. Scharff described a bat from Benin under the 

 name of Morniopterus Whitleyi and was good enough to 

 transfer the typical specimen to the British Museum. 



Later on Dr. W. J. Ansorge obtained on the Lower Niger 

 two examples of the same bat, and in examining these I find 

 that a mistake has inadvertently been made in the dental 

 formula given, and that, instead of being a Morniopterus, this 



* Ami. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (7) vi. p. 569. 



