130 MR. K. ANDERSEN ON BATS | May 16, 
Diagnosis. Subbadius-type (cf. p. 123). The smallest species in 
the genus: forearm 34°2 mm. 
Details. The very characteristic shape of the connecting process, 
formed as a long, sharply pointed, slightly curved ‘“ horn,” pre- 
vents the confusion of this (and the next-following) species with 
any of the foregoing forms. Also the shape of the lancet is 
peculiar : : short, ine bank almost as an equilateral triangle ; but I 
doubt that this character, in a large series, will prove to be quite 
as safea guide for the discrimination of the species as the shape of 
the connecting process ; there is, in all species of Rhinolophus, a 
little more individual variation in the lancet than in other parts 
of the nose-leaves. The sella is, essentially, of the minor-type 
(not as in gracilis), much broader at base than at summit; below 
the constriction the margins are almost parallel, above the con- 
striction slightly converging ; the summit somewhat more subacute * 
than in any of the foregoing species; tip of sella bent forwards. 
Plagiopatagium inserted a trifle above the ankle. 
The colour (a little faded) is probably not very different from 
that of Rh. lepidus. 
Skull. Unknown. I have seena small fragment only; it seems 
to be of the minor-type. 
Dentition (one example). p, external. p, and p, in contact. p* 
in row; cusp small, but distinct. 
Measurements. On p. 132. 
Distribution. Nepal (type locality). Garo Hillst. (The only 
example of this species in the British Museum is without exact 
indication of locality.) 
Technical name. Hodgson’s “ Vespertilio subbadia” (J. A. 8. B. 
x. pt. 11. (Nov. 1841) p. 908), from the ‘Central Region of the 
Himalayas,” is a nomen nudum (no word of description). The 
head of this Bat is figured in his unpublished drawings (pl. 8. 
fig. 3); it is not a Rhinolophus, but a Hipposiderus, probably 
H. bicolor or an allied form. 
* T emphasise this peculiarity (and, on the whole, enter intoa detailed description 
of the sella), because it is this “pattern” of sella which has been carried to an 
extreme insome of the Ethiopian and W. Palearctic representatives of the swbbadius- 
type (Rh. empusa and blasii; cf. the “General Remarks,” pp. 136-37). 
+ In Dobson’s ‘ Monograph’ and ‘ Catalogue’ (1. s. c.) Rh. garoénsis (= subbadius) 
is recorded from Masuri. The species is very likely to occur there, only it must 
be said that till now there is no proof. Its alleged occurrence in Masuri can be 
traced back to two examples in the British Museum (Capt. Hutton) identified by 
Dobson with Rh. garoénsis. They are, however, Rh. monticola, differing in all im- 
portant points (process, lancet, size) from his own original description of garoénsis. 
Quite as in the case of Rh. petersi: as Dobson had no longer access to the type, he 
lost the precise idea of it. Still later (Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1880, pp. 175-76) he gave up 
the separation of Rh. garcénsis as a distinct species, and then we arrive at the stage 
when all small Indian and H. Palearctic Rhinolophi with a projecting process were 
called Rh. minor, irrespective of differences in the skull, the process, the sella, lancet, 
general size, and geographical habitat. What led Dobson to this conclusion was 
the fact that the position of the lower pz varies in individuals from the same locality 
(which, however, also is the case in all the more primitive species of the simplex group, 
as high up in the series as Rh. affinis), and he was quite right in arguing that, from an 
exclusively taxonomic point of view, this character had no value; but he overlooked 
the other and more important characters by which the members of his composite 
species differ from each other, 
