NEW SPECIES OF SCOTOPHILUS 87 



specimen with which it was compared, an example of S. schlief- 

 feni. Finally in 1887 D.' H. Noack, when determining (i) a 

 bat from Marungu, Central Africa, thinking (and as I believe 

 rightly) that he had before him a true Scotojphilus, described it 

 as new under the name of S. minimus, but his detailed description 

 leaves no doubt as to its identity with S. schlieffeni, with which 

 be naturally did not compare it, owing to the latter form being 

 referred to Vesperugo in D.'' Dobson's classical work. 



Now this animal, round whose history so much confusion has 

 gathered, has distinctly the general facies of Scotophilus; it has 

 ordinarily no minute anterior upper premolar , and the corre- 

 sponding tooth in the lower jaw is as small and almost as much 

 crushed in between its neighbours as is the case in several of 

 what are admittedly Scotophili. It is true that it has occasio- 

 nally an anterior upper premolar, but this only occurs in one (^) 

 of the many specimens known to science, and may be simply an 

 individual variation, perhaps due to atavism. In fact M.*' Dobson's 

 own reference of a specimen of it to " Scotophilus „ pallidus , 

 and J)}' Noack's description of it as « Scotophilus » minimus as 

 already referred to, both strongly support this view. 



But even if S. schlieffeni is a Scotophilus, it by no means fol- 

 lows that S. alhofuscus is, for the latter is still further away 

 from the typical members of the genus , owing to its long and 

 uncrowded anterior lower premolars, which agree more with 

 those of the true Vesperugo or of Scotozous dormeri. In fact it 

 stands in regard to the latter form just wliere Vesperus does 

 to Vesperugo, Glauconycteris to Chalinolohus, and Dasypterus to 

 Atalapha, differing, so far as dentition is concerned, only by the 

 absence of the minute upper premolars. But whatever may be 



(1) Zool. J. B. II, p. 280, 1887. 



Q) I have to thank Prof. Milne Edwards for the loan of the two specimens of 

 S. schlieffent referred to on p. 244 of Dobson's Catalogue as being in the Paris 

 Museum. In only one of these specimens however can I find the minute upper pre- 

 molars present. The mouth of the other one contained a large number of grains of 

 sand, and I suspect that D.f Dobson, who expected to find the tooth present, as in 

 Scotozous dormeri , mistook one of these grains for a tooth , a mistake that will 

 be readily pardoned by any one who knows the difficulty of searching for these mi- 

 nute structures. 



