372 On Micionycteiis microtis, Miller. 



tively. 1 have examined the ears of the single specimen of 

 3/. viicrotis very carefully, and can find no evidences of 

 singeing or other apj)arent injury that mifiht have caused 

 tliern to shrink from 20 mm. to 12 mm. In places about 

 1 mm, of the ear has been rolled or folded on itself, givino^ 

 the margin of the ear a heavier appearance than in that of 

 J/, niegalods. The outer surface of the ear of M. microtis is 

 furred about one-half tiie distance from the base to the tip, 

 and in M. megalotis the furring extends about one-third that 

 dii^taiice. 1 can detect no essential difFeretices between the 

 skulls of the two species. The forearm of M. microtis, as 

 already noted by Miller and Andersen, is considerably shorter 

 than that of the Mexican form of M. megalotis and a little 

 smaller than in Venezuelan examples of the typical race. 

 Tiie same is true of the tibia and foot. 



[I am glad that my note on Micronycteris mirrotis, Miller, 

 in the July number of the 'Annals' has induced Dr. Lyon 

 to give the above interesting details on the type specimen. 

 But I Hiust admit that I still do not feel satislied that the 

 extraordinarily small ears of this example are in their natural 

 condition. I am all the more inclined to douljt on this point 

 as (in addition to the case referred to in my paper, p. 55, 

 footnote) I have recently seen another very striking instance 

 of shrinkage of the ears in a bat : in a series of Fipistrellus 

 pipistrelhis from Ireland, kindly shown me a few months ago 

 by Major ]5arrett Hamilton, the ear-conches of all examples, 

 without exception, had shrunk to little more than half their 

 natural size ; the specimens were j^i'^^^^'ved in alcohol and in 

 other respects undamaged. With their small ears they looked 

 very strange indeed, and I cannot help thinking that if this 

 series of bats had not been the well-known F. pipislrellits, 

 but, say, a Micronycteris -, if they had not come from Ireland, 

 but, say, from Central America, from which material for 

 coujpaiison is considerably scarcer; they might easily have 

 been described as a readily distinguishable new species, and 

 —in view both of the very great difference in the size of the 

 ears of these specimens as compared with individuals in a 

 rioimal state of preservation, and of the fact tliat in this case 

 Lot a single specimen only was available, but a series of 

 individuals all exhibiting the same peculiarity — the mistake 

 would have been very excusable. One statement in ^liller's 

 description oi M. microtis — contirmed by Lyon — seems tome 

 worth enijdiasizing, viz. that the skull does not differ appre- 

 ciably J rom that of M. megalotis ; it is, of course, not decisive 

 evidence that microtis is not specifically distinct from mega- 



