Stenodermatous Bat from Trinidad. 169 
Head and body (c.) 73 millim.; ear, above crown, 9; fore- 
arm 50 (=1°96 inch); tibia 19. 
Skull: basal length (c.) 20 millim. ; greatest breadth 16°8 ; 
interorbital, breadth 6°2 ; palate, length 12°6, breadth outside 
mT! 11-4,1nside ™» 6:2. 
Teeth: uppercanines, vertical length 3°6, greatest horizontal 
diameter 2°0, distance from tip of one to tip of the other 4:1; 
front of canine to back of ™? 9°8; front of “1 to back of 
m2 4-7; transverse breadth of @:+ 2°6; height of lower canine 
3°3 ; front of canine to back of 7-3 10°3; front of a7 to back 
Olas os Wenet ly Ol pep 2725 aa DOs oa 0 Oe 
No detailed comparison of this new species with its allies 
. . 2 2 
is necessary, as its dental formula (I.5, M. 5) at once separates 
it from every other member of the group except the otherwise 
very different Artibeus perspicillatus and Stenoderma achra- 
dophilum. 
In working out the relationships of this form, however, 
several points in connexion with the genera of the group have 
arisen which seem to be worthy of mention. ‘The number of 
the molar teeth, a character elsewhere usually of generic 
importance, here only seems to be of specific value, a fact only 
recognized after the foundation of almost as many “ genera ” 
or “subgenera” as there really exist species. Mr. Dobson, 
in his invaluable ‘Catalogue,’ has practically adopted the 
later views of Prof. Peters on the subject, and has wisely only 
admitted such genera as are based on other characters than 
those of the molars; but some of the species appear to me to 
be referred to the wrong genera owing to the principle of 
ignoring the molars not being sufficiently rigidly carried out. 
In comparing the two genera Vampyrops and Chiro- 
derma Mr. Dobson says of the latter:—“‘This genus is 
undoubtedly closely allied to Vampyrops..... The form 
of the upper and lower first premolars is, however, very 
different and peculiar ; the second molar in both jaws is larger 
than any of the other teeth; and in immature specimens a 
well-defined cleft extends backward from the nasal opening 
in the middle between the orbits.” 
Now, in my opinion, this last character, that of the nasal 
cleft, is the only valid distinction between the two genera, and 
the statement by Prof. Peters that it closes up in old age is 
simply due to his having wrongly attributed to Chiroderma 
an old individual of a species (Phyllostoma pusillum of Wag- 
ner) really referable to Vampyrops, he at that time thinking 
that the form and number of the molars was of more import- 
ance than the presence or absence of the nasal cleft, 
