Mr. K. Andersen on African Rliiuoloplii. 457 



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

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

 majores quam in R. capensi, sed forma vix differunt " ; the 

 size o£ the ears is tlie same as in Rh. capensis : (4) '^ de- 

 scriptio prosthematis nasi Rh. euryalis Blasii, exaete in 

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

 nasi simillimum eodem in R. ferro equina " ; 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. ferruni-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 : (6) " 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 proximos, non plane contiguos," 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 p\ as in Rh. 

 capensis : (8) the lower j?^ 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 

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

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

 If in ever]} case where Sundevall writes Rh. capensis, I 

 substitute Rh. augur, the whole is perfectly correct. What, 

 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. 



