•154 Mr. K. Andersen on African Rhinoloplii. 



Rhinolophus acrot'is and Rh. Andersoni. 



Eh. acrotis*. — There is a type ((^ ad.) and a topotype f 

 ( (^ jun., both in alcohol) preserved in the Stuttgart Mu- 

 seum, labelled "No. 986; Keren, v. Heuglin ; 1862." 

 Peters J put the name down, without comment, as a synonym 

 to Rh. clivosun, Cretzsch.^ (type from Mohila, Arabia), stated 

 by him to occur both in Arabia and N.E. Africa. I find no 

 reference to this species in Dobson's writings. 



Results. — Rh. acrotis is decidedly the same species as 

 recently described by Oldfield Thomas 1| under the name 

 Rh. Andersoni. The types agree in all specific characters — 

 in the nosc-lcaves, the ears, the structure of the wings and 

 membranes, the tail, &c. ; like Rh. Andersoni the type and 

 topotype of Rh. acrotis lack ever}' trace of the lower 7;3 and 

 upper p^. There is, however, a certain difference in the 

 size. It marj be due to the fact that the type (as well as the 

 other specimens in tl)e British Museum) of Rh. Andersoni is 

 an immature individual. But the topotype of 7?/*. acrotis is 

 also a young animal, by no means more advanced in age than 

 the type of Rh. Andersoni, and nevertheless it is markedly 

 larger. When, furthermore, considering that Rh. acrotis 

 and Rh. Andersoni were procured in widely separated 

 localities — the former in Erytrea, the latter in the Eastern 

 Egyptian Desert, — I find it, at least provisionally, more advis- 

 able to keep them distinct as sub-species so long as it remains 

 unproved that the obvious diiference in size falls within 

 the limits of individual variation. According to this, the 

 nomenclature of the forms in question would be : — 



JR/i. acrotis, t. Heiiglin (1861), type, in the Stuttgart Museum, from 



Keren, Erytrea, about 15- 4-5' jS'., 38° 30' E. 

 Rh. acrotis Andeisoju, Thomas (1904), type, in tlie British Museum, 



from the Eastern Egyptian Desert, abo\it 22° N., 35° E. 



* Yon Heuglin, " Beitrage zur Fauna der Saugethiere N.O.-Afrika's," 

 N. Act. Ac. Ctes. Leop.-Car. xxix. (18G1) p. 10. 



t It would certainly do no harm to regard both of these specimens as 

 " cotypes " (as they were called in a letter liiudly sent me by Prof. Lam- 

 pert), since they are the same tpecies, taken by the same collectfa- in 

 the same locality. As, however, v. Heuglin, in the paper just referred to 

 (p. 4), mentions oyrJy the adult male, I have to acknowledge this fact and 

 restrict the term " type " to this specimen, calling the other a " topo- 

 tvpe." 

 ' X Peters, MB. Akiid. Berlin, 1871, p. 311. 



§ Cretzschmar, Riippell's ' Atlas' (1826), p. 47, Taf. xviii. Conf. also 

 Peters, MB. Ak. Berlin, 1866, p. 16; and C. von der Decken, 'Beisen in 

 Ost-Afrika,' iii. 1 (186i)j, Taf. ii. fig. 2. 



II Oldfield Thomas, Ann. k Mag. Xat. Ilist. (7) xiv., Aug. 1904, p. 156. 



