86 MR. K. ANDERSEN ON BATS [May 16, 
same island in the British Museum*, As, however, i. borneensis 
has for many years been completely confused not only with several 
more or less closely related species, but also with the widely 
different Rh. minor, the following remarks may not be out of place 
here :— 
The salient point in the original description of Rh. borneensis, 
as given by Prof. Peters (loc. infra cit.), is this: “Sattel....an 
dem vordern obern Hade abgerundet, die hintere, zusammenge- 
driickte Spitze [7. ¢. the posterior connecting process] kaum héher, 
abgerundet.” have emphasised the last three words, because they 
clearly prove that 2h. borneensis belongs to what here is called the. 
simplex group (connecting process low and rounded off), and has. 
nothing to do with Ah. minor or its allies (connecting process pro- 
jecting and pointed). But ten years later (MB. Akad. Berlin, 
1871, p. 306), Peters himself believed Rh. borneensis to be identical 
with Rh. minor, described by Horsfield so long ago as 1824. 
The reason was, beyond all doubt, this: to identify Horsfield’s 
Bats without an examination of the types is, in most cases, 
impossible ; and Peters had not seen the type of Rh. minor (then 
in the Indian Museum, London, now in the British Museum), 
but only the bad figure in the ‘ Researches in Java’; as, further- 
more, the two species in many respects (size, wings, sella, ears, 
&e.) are, externally, puzzling alike, the mistake is easily explained. 
Thus, according to Peters, there were two small Indo-Malayan. 
Rhinolophi: the one, with a low and rounded connecting process,, 
he called Rh. minor, Horsf. (synonym: Rh. borneensis, Peters) ; 
the other, with a projecting and pointed connecting process, he 
identified with Temminck’s 2h. pusillus, stated to be from Java.. 
Under these circumstances, a quite reasonable conclusion: we 
had a name for either “species,” and perfectly clear diagnoses. 
Dobson, who examined the type of Ah. minor, states, quite 
correctly, that the connecting process is projecting and pointed ; 
when, nevertheless, he put Rh. borneensis down in the list of 
“synonyms” to Lh. minor, he must have overlooked the most 
important point in Peters’s description of borneensis, the shape of 
the connecting process. Dobson, therefore, called the small Indo- 
Malayan Rhinolophus with pointed process Rh. minor (synonym : 
Rh, borneensis): thus, the names were the same as employed by 
Peters, but the diagnosis exactly the reverse ; Temminck’s “ih. 
pusillus he identified with Fh. hipposiderus (sic); and as to the 
small Indo-Malayan Rhinolophus with rounded process (the true 
borneensis) he put it down under Lh. affinis, Horsf. (!), with 
which species he alsc united the very different Rh. rowwi, Temm., 
at the same time keeping a genuine Rh. rowaxi separate as 
Rh, petersi. This accumulation of errors and wrong identifications 
* On one point there is a discrepancy between Peters’s description of Rh. borneensis 
and the series before me: according to Peters the length of the forearm is 37 mm.; 
in the smallest (adult) specimen I have seen, it measures 41°2 mm. I am informed 
by Prof. Matschie, who kindly re-examined the type for me, that Peters’s statement 
must be a mispr int ora slip of the pen; the forearm of the type specimen (a rather 
young, but apparently full-grown individual) measures 41 mm. 
