138 MR. O. THOMAS ON THE [Feb. 20, 



there, as is shown by a specimen from that country presented to 

 the Museum by Capt. Shelley in 1881. 



5. EniNOLOPHrs hildebrandti, Pet. 

 a. Ad. al. c? . Zomba. 



Forearm 65 mm. ; ear, length 36 ; nose-leaf 25 x 13'5. 



This fa'ne Bat I had at first supposed to be new, owing to the 

 fact that Peters had only re-softened skins to describe, and these 

 scarcely showed its most remarkable characteristics, namely the 

 great size of the ears and nose-leaf, and the development of a dis- 

 tinct crenulate supplementary leaflet outside the horseshoe. Nor 

 did its describer observe that it is entirely without the minute 

 intermediate lower premolar which most of the species possess, but 

 which is also absent in R. cethiops. The British Museum, however, 

 contains one of Hildebrandt's typical specimens, and a comparison 

 with this proves the identity of the !\yasa example with it. The 

 discovery of H. hildehrandti in Nyasaland effects a great extension 

 of its range, as it was originally described from Taita, E. Africa. 



6. Ehinolophcs lakdeei, Mart. (?). 

 a. Ad. al. Zomba. 1/93. 



This specimen differs from typical R. landeri, and equally from 

 Peters's R. lobatus^, probably synonymous with it, in the much 

 greater breadth of the horizontal portion of tlie nose-leaf, which 

 entirely covers the muzzle. As, however, a specimen quite agreeing 

 with the true R. landeri was obtained on the Shire by Kirk and 

 Livingstone (specimen c of Dobson's Catalogue), I think it possible 

 that the difference above noted may be purely an individual one, 

 and not indicative of any local distinction. Further specimens 

 will, however, be necessary before this point can be properly 

 cleared up. 



7. Ehinolophus capexsis, Licht. 

 a. Ad. al. cJ • Zomba. 1/93. 



8. HiPPOSIDEBTJS CAFFEE, Sund. 



a. Ad. al. 2 • Zomba. 1/93. 



9. Vespeeus megalueus, Temm. 

 o. Ad. al. Zomba. 1/93. 



10. VESPEErGO NANUS, Pet. 

 a. Ad. al. Zomba. 1/93. 



1 Peters, ' Eeise n. Mossamb.' Siiug. p. 41 (1852). All reference to this species 

 ■was accicientallv omitted from Dobson's Catalogue, but in his supplementary 

 report of 1880 (Kept. Brit. Assoc. 1880, p. 10) it is included among the Ethiopian 

 species closely allied to and scarcely separable from R. ferriim-cquimun, as is 

 also the true R. landeri. Whatever may be the ultimate fate of the other forms 

 here thrown together by Dobson, there can, I think, be little doubt as to the 

 essential identity of B. lohatus with R. landeri. 



