186 Mr. 0. Thomas o?i the Oenus Chiroderma. 



Dr. Bitchner could have overlooked the marked differences 

 in the palate and interparietal had they also been present in 

 liis species ; so that I suppose S. concotor agrees with S. sub- 

 tilis in these respects. 



As to the structure of the teeth, all the members of the genus 

 seem to have the small fifth cusp on 'hJ., which is stated by 

 Dr. Biichner not to be present in S. suhtilis ; for in three 

 specimens of that species in the Museum, from widely different 

 localities, I find it clearly visible, although smaller than in 

 8. Leathemi. I presume, therefore, that Dr. Biichner had 

 under examination only specimens with worn dentition. 



JVIajor Leathern is to be congratulated on his discovery of 

 this interesting little animal, the first representative of its 

 genus found within British Indian territory. 



XXVII. — Further Notes on the Genus Chiroderma. 

 By Oldfield Thomas. 



The following points with regard to the Chii-opterous genus 

 Chiroderma have arisen out of the publication of Dr. H. 

 Winse's ' Bats of Laeoa Santa ' * and of Dr. H. Allen's 

 remarks on the genus in connexion with the description of 

 his Vampyrops zarhinus f. 



In the first place, my own remarks on the genus itself seem 

 to have been unaccountably misunderstood by the latter 

 author, for, far from '' claiming that Chiroderma is not 

 distinct ixovaVampyropSj'' I maintained, in the paper criticized 

 by him |, that it was a perfectly distinct genus, and gave it a 

 place in the synopsis of genera on p. 170, although at the 

 same time two species referred by Dr. Dobson to Chiroderma 

 were transferred to Vampyrops. Nor do I by any means 

 '' acknowledge that the nasal cleft disappears in old indivi- 

 duals," as Peters's statement to this effect was not accepted in 

 my paper and was explained away in the last paragraph of 

 p. 169. 



One mistake in my paper, however, I should like to correct 

 more prominently than I have hitherto done, namely as to the 

 spelling of the new species there described. This should be 

 Va7npyrops Caraccioli, instead of V. Caracciolce, the mistake 

 having been due to a misconception as to the name of the 

 discoverer, Mr. Caracciolo, whose proper name is now well 



* ' Jordfuudue og uulevende Flagermus fra Lagoa Santa, Minas Geraes 

 — E Mus. Lundii; 1892. 



t Proc. Ac. Philad. 1891, p. 400. 



^ Ann. & i\rag. Nat. Hist. (G) iv. p. 107 (1889). 



