126 MR. K. ANDERSEN ON BATS | May 16, 
in contact. p* in row; a small cusp, pointing inwards. In one 
specimen there is an extremely narrow space between p? and p* 
(the former place of p’). 
Measurements. On p. 125. 
Type. 9 ad. (skin). Gunong Igar, Perak, 2000 ft.; March 
1898. Presented by A. L. Butler, Esq. Brit. Mus. no. 98.11.29.2. 
Distribution. Malay Peninsula: Perak; Selangor. 
18. RuatNnoLorHus minor Horsf. 
Rhinolophus mimor Horsfield, Zool. Res. Java (1824), pl. [7], 
figs. C, D. 
Rhinolophus pusillus Temminck, Mon. Mamm. ii. 8° monogr. 
(1835) p. 36, pl. 29. fig. 8, pl. 32. figs. 22, 23; Peters, MB. Akad. 
Berlin, 1871, p. 309. 
Rhinolophus brevitarsus Blyth, Cat. Mamm. Mus. Asiat. Soe. 
(1863) p. 24 (nomen nudum) (“ vicinity of Darjeeling ”). 
Rhinolophus minor (partim) Dobson, wé supra. 
Diagnosis. Skull and external characters: minor-type. Ears, 
tail, and tibia shorter. Forearm 37-38 mm. 
Details. This species differs from Rh. cornutus by the shorter 
ears, tail, and tibia (ef. measurements). The forearm is, at least 
on an average, shorter. 
Colour. 3 ad., skin; Darjeeling; November; teeth unworn. 
General effect of the colour of the upper side very much as in 
Rh. refulgens, though perhaps not quite as dark; base of hairs 
light, ‘‘ecru-drab”; under side “ ecru-drab,” darker on the hinder 
belly and flanks. 
Dentition (three skulls). p, in row, almost in row, or external. 
p, and p, well separated, or almost in contact. =p? in row; a 
small cusp, pointing inwards. 
Measurements. On p. 128. 
Distribution. Darjeeling. Siam. Java (ef. remarks below). 
Technical name. Horsfield’s type of Rh. minor is in the British 
Museum. 
Rh. pusillus* —The figure of the head of Rh. pusillus, as given 
by Temminck, proves that he had before him one of the small 
species of what is here called the lepidus group (shape of connect- 
ing process, of sella, &c.). The only question is, therefore, to 
which species the name pusillus belongs. It would seem to be 
settled, beyond doubt, by Temminck’s statement that the types 
were brought from Java. But Dobson, who examined these types 
in the Leiden Museum, gave the rather astounding information 
that they are ‘ undoubtedly specimens of 2h. hipposiderus” ! + 
There is only one answer: if so, an interchange of labels has 
* Temminck, ut supra; Dobson, Cat. Chir. Brit. Mus. (1878) p. 117; id. Rep. 
Brit. Assoc. 1880, p. 175; Peters, MB. Akad. Berlin, 1880, p. 28. 
+ This is the source of the statement that Rh. hipposiderus should occur in Java; 
there is no other foundation. The range of Rh. hipposiderus has its extreme eastern 
limit in Gilgit (N.W. Himalayas); there is not a single reliable record of that Bat 
from the whole of the Oriental Region; and the species therefore cannot possibly 
turn up again in Java. 
