36 ^Ir. K. Andersen on the Bats of the 



{H. turpis) three supplementary leaflets external to the 

 horseshoe, in another [fJ. annirjcr) four, the fourth very small 

 (or, in very rare instances, completely wanting^). Wart-like 

 elevations, formini; a backward extending? direct continuation 

 of the third supplementary leaflet, greatly developed in adult 

 males, smaller in females. Frontal sac in adult males very 

 large, opening transversal ; in females small or represented 

 by a depression only. 



Males of the armh/er type ovcrarje somewhat larger than 

 females, but practically there is no fixed difference in size 

 between the sexes, small males being often inferior in size to 

 large females. 



Colour. — Uppcrsidc, from shoulder-region to tail ('Miorse- 

 shoe-pateh^'), almost ''Vandyke brown,'^ this colour confined 

 to the narrow tips of the hairs ; broad base of hairs " wood- 

 brown"; uppcrside of head, neck, and front of back, owing 

 to a considerable reduction or cpmplcte absence of the dark 

 hair-tips, " wood-brown," contrasting -with the rest of the 

 back; line of demarcation between these light- and dark- 

 coloui'ed regions of the upperside strongly marked, crescent- 

 shaped, concavity forwards. The whole of the underside a 

 very dark shade of " wood-brown." — Individual variation 

 small : the " horseshoe-patch " can be darker, approaching 

 " seal-brown," and at the same time the " wood-brown " 

 lighter ; this is the case especially in young adults. The 

 sexes are alike in colour, nor is there any appreciable colour- 

 difl'erence between the species or subspecies. 



Range. — Throughout the Himalayas, eastwards to the 

 Loo-choo Islands, southwards to the Malay Peninsula. 



1. Hipposiderus armiger, Hodgs. 



Diagnosis. — Forearm about 87'5-97 mm. 



Four supplementary leaflets, the fourth very small and 

 occasionally (in 1 out of 26 specimens examined) completely 

 wanting. [Skins of this species, in which the nose-Ieavcs 

 are damaged or made unrecognizable by shrinkage, are 

 puzzlingly like H. diadema or //. lankadiva ; the very diff'erent 

 naso-frontal region of the skull will make them easily distin- 

 guishable ; in case also the skull is unavailable for examina- 

 tion, H. armiger can always be discriminated by the longer 



beyond the level of the very broad facial region of the skull, almost to 

 the same degree as in Rhimniycteris !), showing it to have no very close 

 relationship with the urmi(jtr type. I believe it to be a relative of 

 U. leptophyUd, the skull of which is as yet unknown. 



