104 MR, K. ANDERSEN ON BATS [| May 16, 
13d. RHINOLOPHUS AFFINIS SUPERANS, subsp. n. 
Rhinolophus afinis (pavtim) Peters, MB. Akad. Berlin, 1871, 
p- 306 ; Dobson, 1. s. e. 
Diagnosis. External characters: As macrurus, but with short 
tail. Cranial: skull rather long; nasal swellings still broader 
than in macrurus; brain-case broad ; tooth-rows rather long. 
Type. 9 ad. (in alcohol). Pahang, Malay Peninsula. Pre- 
sented by the Selangor Museum. Brit. Mus. no. 0.7.3.2. 
Distribution. Lower Siam (Trong); Malay Peninsula (Pahang) ; 
Sumatra. 
Remarks. A specimen from Sumatra is in every respect, cranial, 
dental, and external, indistinguishable from those from Pahang 
and Trong (the latter sent for identification by the United States 
National Museum). 
13. RHINOLOPHUS AFFINIS NESITES, subsp. n. 
Rhinolophus affinis Gerrit 8. Miller, Jr., Proc. Wash. Ac. Sci. 
iii. (1901) p. 135. 
Diagnosis. External characters: As superans, but smaller, and 
with shorter tibia. Cranial characters unknown. 
Type. Qad.(inalcohol). Bunguran Isl., N. Natunas, Aug. 24th, 
1900. Collected by Dr. W. L. Abbott. Un. St. Nat. Mus. 
no. 104753. 
Remarks. This is evidently an offshoot of the Malacca form, 
Rh. a. superans, isolated on the outlying N. Natunas, and 
developed into a well-marked race (or species). It still shows 
some of the chief characters of swperans: the large ears, broad 
horse-shoe, and short tail; but, to judge from the metacarpals 
(the forearms are broken), it is decidedly smaller, it would seem 
still a little smaller than RA. a. tener, and the tibia is very short. 
The skull is so much damaged that I have only been able to 
examine the teeth and the lower jaw. 
13. RHINOLOPHUS AFFINIS Horsf., TyPrIcus. 
Rhinolophus affinis Horsf., Zool. Res. Java (1824), pl. [7], 
figs. A, B. 
Rhinolophus affinis (partim) Peters, |. s. c. (1871); Dobson, 
1. s. ec. (1878). 
T am unable to give a definite diagnosis of this, the “ typical,” 
form of Rh. affinis, having seen only one very old skin (the type) 
and a fragment of the skull, representing the facial portion and 
the tooth-rows. But these are sufficient to show, first of all, of 
course, the specific characters (pandurate sella, lengthened IIT.’, 
dentition, &c.); secondly, that this form is quite different from 
any of its next neighbours, on Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula 
(superans), on the N. Natunas (nesiées), or on Lombok (princeps). 
The horse-shoe seems, allowing for some shrinkage, to be quite 
as narrow as in 2h. a. himalayanus ; the nasal swellings, too, are 
as narrow as in himalayanus and tener. But, although the 
