the Bats of tlie Fuviilij MegadermatiJie. 13'J 



Diagnosis. — Average size larger. 



Detailn. — Can only be (li.scriniiiiatetl from L. f. affiats by 

 average characte-rs : forearm hiS-(Vl mm., skull 2l"')-2G, upper 

 tot»tli-ro\v i)-l(), a.s ai,Min.st 52-58 mm., 2.>-5-2l, H'T-U re- 

 spectively in L.f. o finis. 



JS/iecinietis e.rumi/icd. — 153 (21 skin^) and 23 skulls, viz. 

 Gambia ((>), Kumasi (1), N. Nigeria (2), Kordofan (t), 

 Kuweiizori (4), Uganda ((>), British East Africa (10). 



lidiuji'. — Tne same as tliat of the genus (above, p. 138), 

 with the exception of Balir-el-dhazal. 



liechs(ein*s V. mrc/a/ods. — Under the name V. megal)ti:i 

 Bechstein describes a bat taken by Levaillant in Great 

 Namaqualand, which, from the absence of the tail and the 

 presence of nose-leaf and tragus, was clearly a member of 

 the family ]\Ieg;i(lermatida?. But no species has in recent 

 times been recorded from Africa south of 15° S., and the 

 measurements quote 1 by Bi'dntein are so strange (rendered 

 from German inches into millimetres: nose-leaf 35 mm.; 

 body 78 mm. ; ear 70 (!) mm. ; expanse 210 mm.) that it 

 appears safer to leave Levaillant's bat unidentified. 



Geofroij's }[f<j(t(lenna frons. — Type locality : Senegal. 

 Geoffioy^s description is based, not on actual spi'cimens, but 

 on Daubcnton^s description of " La Feuille'^ (/. s. c), which 

 is undoubtedly the species here under consideration, being a 

 bat with an ovate nose-leaf, "posei verticalement, qui 

 ressemble h. une feuille," " huit lignes de longueur sur six de 

 largeur,^' with the ears " j)r(is de deux fois aussi gratides que 

 la membrane" [/. e. the nose-leaf], aJid united " i)ar la moitid 

 de la longueur de leur bord interne,'' with a long, narrow, 

 pointed tragus, with no tail, with the fur " d'une belle couleur 

 cendiee, avec quelque teinti de jaunatre," with I] incisors, 

 ^ cheek-teeth, and inhabiting Senegal. 



Miller's Lavia rex. — Type locality: Taveta, German East 

 Africa. Miller reli'-'S for the discrimination of L. rex on its 

 greaterexternal dimensions, longer mandible, and heavier teeth: 

 "forearm GO mm,," " nuindible 17*8," "maxillary tooth- 

 row 9-2," instead of '-56 mm./' "15-2" mm., and "«'2 mm." 

 respectively in L. frons. These measurements, as well as all 

 the others given by Miller, place it beyond doubt that his 

 L. rex is L. Jrons frons and tliat the reason for his describing 

 it as new was that he compared it, not with the true L. frons 

 fruns, but with the smaller race described in this paper as 

 L. frons ajffinis. 



