124 MR. K. ANDERSEN ON BATS | May 16, 
as proved by Blyth’s description of the connecting process, “ still 
more developed [than in his Rh. subbadius| and obtusely angulated 
behind m3 the words “still more developed” mean, evidently, 
‘““bigeer,” not extremely slender as in suwbbadius. (2) The types 
were “ probably obtained in the vicinity of Calcutta”; one of the 
specimens in the British Museum is from the Ganges Valley, 
therefore in all probability from the very same locality as the types. 
(3) The colour, as described by Blyth, agrees very well with that 
of the specimens before me. (4) The forearm was stated to be 
“13 inches” (41°5 mm.); the longest finger “21 inches” 
(57°2 mm.); the tibia “above 3 inch” (above 16 mm.) ; 
these measurements are as in the British Museum examples: 
forearm 41:8-42 mm.; third finger 58°3-59'1 mm.; lower leg 
16-17 mm. These facts leave no room for doubt as to the 
identification of 2h. lepidus. 
16. RHINOLOPHUS MONTICOLA, sp. n. 
Rhinolophus petersi (errore*) Hutton, P. Z.8. 1872, p. 700. 
LRhinolophus minor (partim, nec Horsf.) Dobson, wt supra. 
Lhinolophus subbadius (non Hodgs., nec Blyth) Scully, J. A.S. B. 
lvi. pt. i. (1887) p. 244. 
Diagnosis. Skull and external characters: lepidus-type. Smaller: 
forearm about 37°5 mm. 
Details. This species differs from /h. lepidus in its narrower 
nasal swellings, somewhat smaller size, and considerably shorter 
metacarpals. The horse-shoe seems to be narrower. 
Colour. Unknown (faded in alcohol). 
Skull. As in Rh. lepidus, but somewhat smaller, and with 
narrower nasal swellings. 
Dentition (two skulls, one belonging to a quite young individual). 
p, im row (skull of an adult), or external (young). p, and p, well 
separated, or almost in contact. p* in row; a distinct cusp, 
pointing inwards. 
Measurements. On p. 125. 
Type. & ad. (inalcohol). Masuri. Collected and presented by 
Capt. Hutton. Brit. Mus. no. 79.11.21.151. 
17. RHINOLOPHUS REFULGENS, sp. n. (Plate IV. fig. 16a, 5, c.) 
Diagnosis. Skull and external characters, essentially of the 
lepidus-type. But brain-case somewhat higher in front, making 
the anterior slope of the sagittal crest, towards the postnasal 
depression, somewhat more abrupt. Forearm 40°6-41:5 mm. 
Details. Very nearly of the same size as 7h. lepidus, but meta- 
carpals, also proportionately, somewhat shorter; tibia shorter. 
The horse-shoe is, if anything, shghtly broader. 
* There is no doubt that this is anaccidental error. Prof. Peters (who determined 
Hutton’s Bats) cannot, possibly, have identified the specimen here under considera- 
tion (forearm 37°5 mm.) with “Rh. petersi” (forearm of type 51 mm.). As already 
pointed out above (p. 97, footnote), the labels must have been confused; the name 
“ Rh. petersi” was, probably, intended for Hutton’s examples of Rh. noua’. 
