162 THE ZOOLOGIST. 



Another species, called by Bell the Particoloured Bat, 

 Vespenigo discolor, Natterer, has been included in the British 

 list on the strength of a single example in the British Museum, 

 which was taken many years ago at Plymouth by Dr. Leach.* 

 To this, however, we maj^ add that Mr. John Hancock has a 

 second example of this species which was captured in Yarmouth 

 Koads in 1834. t 



Bechstein's Bat, Vespertilio bechsteini, Leisler, is of quite as 

 rare occurrence in this country, being, as Bell states (p. 52), 

 ' only known as British from the occurrence of specimens taken 

 by Mr. Millard in the New Forest, and now in the British 

 Museum." We have the excellent authority of our old friend 

 Mr. Bond for stating that two specimens of Bechstein's Bat have 

 been taken at Preston, near Brighton. The impression that it 

 had also been met with at Godstow in Berkshire (Zool. 1884, 

 p. 483) has been corrected by Mr. J. E. Kelsall (Zool. 1885, p. 146), 

 who identified the specimen in question as V. nattereri. 



Of the fifteen British species above referred to, fourteen only 

 are noticed by Bell. The fifteenth is Vespertilio dasycneme, Boie, 

 which is reported to have been captured on the banks of 

 the Stour. X It is thus described by Dr. G. E. Dobson, 

 whose valuable Catalogues of Asiatic Chiroptera, and of the 

 Collection of Bats in the British Museum form the latest and 

 best text-books on this subject: — 



" Vespertilio dasycneme, Boie, Isis, 1825, p. 1200. The ears 

 are comparatively shorter than in V. daubentonii ; laid forwards 

 they do not reach the end of the nose; tlie inner margin of the 

 ear is straight in its lower ascending portion for about one-third 

 its length, then regularly convex to the tip, which is obtusely 

 rounded off; the outer margin is straight beneath the tip for 

 about one-third of its length, becaming gradually convex and 



ecan 



remark that " Mr. Blake Kuox also has received Irish specimens." We 

 confess, however, to have cousideraLle misgivings whether the species in 

 any of these cases has been correctly determined, and we should be very 

 glad if any reader of these lines could enable us to clear up the uncertainty 

 with which the subject is attended. 



=■■ Cf. Hep. Plymouth Inst. p. 43, and Bellamy, Nat. Hist. S.Devon, p. 193. 



t Cf. Trans. Norfolk Nat. Soc. 1873 - 74, p. 80. 



I Cf. Buckton, Proc. Linn. Soc. 1853, p. 260, where the species is 

 treated as a variety of V. daubentonii. Tomes (Zool. 1854, p. 4361) 

 considered it to be dasycneme. 



