Mr. K. Andersen on A/n'can Rliinoloplii. 457 



(2) " color multo obscurior quam in sp. reliquis affiuibus " ; 

 the colour is as usual in Rh. capensis : (3) " aures evidenter 

 majores quam in R. capetisi, scd forma vix differunt '* ; the 

 size of the ears is the same as in Rh. capensis : (4) " de- 

 scriptio prosthcmatis nasi Rli. euryalis Blasii, exacte in 

 sp. nostra quadrat/' whereas in Rh. capensis " prosthema 

 nasi simillimum eodem in R. ferro equino " ; but it is a 

 chief character of Rh. capensis that the sella is very much of 

 the same form as in Rh. euryale, widely different from that 

 of Rh. ferrum-equinum : (5) the 5th metacarpal is stated 

 to be of the same length as the 4th, whereas in Rh. capensis 

 it is " paullulum longior " ; the length of the 5th metacarpal, 

 compared with the 4th, is in Rh. capensis exactly as in the 

 type of Rh. auritus : (G) '' dentes multo minores quam in 

 R. capensi et totum cranium paullo minus, gracilius " ; the 

 skull of the type is incomplete; the length of the upper 

 and lower tooth-rows and of the mandible exactly as in 

 Rh. capensis: (7) the upper p~ is placed "paullulum inter 

 dentes 2 proxiraos, non plane coutiguos." whereas in Rh. 

 capensis it is "omnino externus, dentibus 2 proximis 

 perfecte contiguis " ; there is in Rh. auritus a very narrow 

 interspace between the upper canine and /j\ as in Rh. 

 capensis : (8) the lower p^ is present in Rh. auritus, in. 

 Rh. capensis "plane deesse videtur'' ; the presence or 

 absence of the p^ varies in Rh. capensis according to the 

 age of the individual. 



Although, as proved by the above, Rh. auritus is identical 

 with Rh. capensis, the eminent Swedish zoologist was, never- 

 theless, quite right in pointing out all the differences as just 

 enumerated. According to his own statement [loc. cit.) 

 Sundevall had, for comparison with his Rh. auritus, two 

 specimens of Rh. capensis. But these latter cannot have 

 been Rh. capensis. All that he says about them (vide 

 svpjra) tends to prove, in my opinion to evidence, that they 

 were the species recently described by me as Rh. augur *. 

 If in every case w^here Sundevall writes Rh. capensis, I 

 substitute Rh. augur, the whole is perfectly correct. ^Vhat, 

 however, raises this assumption almost to certainty are 

 the statements quoted above under (3), (4), (5), (6), and 

 (7) ; they cannot possibly bear on Rh. capensis, but they 

 are admirable when taken as a description of Rh, augur. 



* Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist., Nov. 1904, p. 380. 



