454 Mr. K. Andersen on African Rhinoloplii. 



Rhinolophus acrotis and jR^. Andersoni. 



Rk. acrotis *. — There is a type ( S ad.) and a topotype f 

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

 seum, labelled "No. 986; Kereu, v. Heuglin ; 1862.'' 

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

 to Tth. cUvosus, Cveiz?,c\\.^ (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 nose-leaves, the ears, the structure of the wings and 

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

 .topotype oi Rh. acrotis lack every trace of the lower 7;3 and 

 upper p"^. 'J'here is, however, a certain difference in the 

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

 other specimens in the British Museum) of Rh. Andersoni is 

 an immature individual. But the topotype of Rli. 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 foi'mer in Erytrea, the latter in the Eastern 

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

 able to keep them distinct as subspecies so long as it remains 

 unproved that the obvious difference in size falls within 

 the limits of individual variation. According to this, the 

 nomenclature of the forms in question would be : — 



Rh. acrotis, v. Hengliu (1861), type, in the Stuttgart Museum, from 



Keren, Erytrea, about 15° 45' N., 38° 30' E. 

 Rh. acrotis Andersoni, Thomas (1904), type, in the British Museum, 



from the Eastern Egyptian Desert, about 22° N., 35° E. 



* Von Heuglin, " Beitrjige zur Fauna der Siiugethiere N.O.-Afrika's," 

 N. Act. Ac. Cies. Leop.-Car. xxix. (]8(Jl) p. 10. 



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

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

 pert), .since they are the same f.):ecies, taken by the same collector iu 

 the same locality. As, however, v. Heuglin, in the paper ju.^t referred to 

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

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

 type." 



X Peters, MB. Akad. Berlin, 1871, p. 311. 



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

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

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



II Oldfield Thomas, Ann. & Mng. Nat. Hist. (7) xiv., Aug. 1904, p. 156. 



