1905. ] OF THE GENUS RHINOLOPHUS. 95 
in the original description as given by Temminck are the 
following :— 
(1) In “taille, forme du corps, des oreilles et des follicules 
accessoires du nez” very much like Java specimens of Zh. affinis 
Horsf. It may be said so; the difference in the shape of the 
sella is not easily ascertained in dried skins. 
(2) “ Des proportions moins grandes,” as compared with affinis. 
As measurements Temminck gives :—Of rowxi: forearm “1 pouce 
10 lignes” (49°5 mim.), expanse of wings “10 pouces.” Of affinis: 
forearm ‘1 pouce 10 lignes,’ expanse “11 & 12 pouces.” 
49-5 mm. is one of the commonest measurements of the forearm 
in the series before me. It looks a little contradictory that 
Temminck, having stated that rouxi is smaller than affinis (which 
is quite correct), gives precisely the same measurement of their 
forearms, though, at the same time, a considerably larger 
“expanse” of the latter species. But just that is the salient 
point. Asa matter of fact, the two species can have the forearm 
of exactly the same length (very large rowai, and small affinis) ; 
but also in that case, the expanse of Rh. aflinis is always markedly 
larger than that of Rh. rouxi, for the obvious reason that in the 
former species the second phalanx of the third (longest) finger is 
always absolutely longer than in the latter. 
(3) A ved, a dark, and an intermediate phase of rowaxi were 
known to Temminck. I have the same phases before me. That 
similar phases occur in Ah. borneensis has no bearing on the 
present technical question; borneensis lives far away from 
“ Calcutta.” The “phases” of Rh. affinis are different. 
(4) “Les molaires de la machoire supérieure sont en méme 
nombre que dans lafinis, celles de Vinférieure en compte cing, ou 
une de moins, par le manque total de la petite dent dont lafinis 
est pourvu, et qui forme la sixiéme molaire.” Since Temminck 
emphasises the “‘ manque total” of p,, I suppose that he has not 
overlooked this small tooth, but has examined a (probably aged) 
individual in which it was wanting (cf. the specimen mentioned 
above). The word “ sixiéme” is, of course, a lapsus for “cinquiéme” 
(Temminck counted the “molars” from behind forwards). 
To sum up:—There can be no doubt that Temminck’s RA. rowni 
is the Bat here under consideration, being a species (1) bearing 
much resemblance to 2h. affinis ; (2) of almost the same size, but 
with a markedly smaller expanse of wings ; (3) with a red, a dark, 
and an intermediate phase; and (4) inhabiting the Continent of 
India. 
“Rh. peterst.” —The original description of Rh. petersi is meagre 
and vague ; the figures of the head and nose-leaves published four 
years later are badly drawn; the type specimen (in the Calcutta 
Museum) has no indication of locality. This may sufficiently 
account for the fact that no technical name in the genus has been 
the source of more confusion. I therefore think it of some use to 
give a brief sketch of its rather complicated history in literature :— 
(a) As to the identification of *“ Rh. petersi,” in the original 
