1 908.J DR. KNUD ANDERSEN ON BATS. 239 



as a differential character between the two large species oiArtiheus 

 (see pp. 235 and 253 of this paper), so that Dobson's way of settling 

 the question was exceedingly unsafe. That, nevertheless, the con- 

 clusion was right is proved by the following information kindly 

 forwarded to me by Dr. W. Leisewitz, Munich (in litt., 15 Sept. 

 1906):— ^ ^ 



The register of the Munich Museum ("Zoologische Sammlung 

 des Bayerischen Staates ") for 1830 has this entry: " JSTo. 65, 

 Phyllostoma plmiirostrimi (Sp.), 1 Exemplar"; the specimen is 

 labelled " Bahia. Spix coll." ; this settles the question as to the 

 number of typical specimens ; there is one only. When Wagner 

 mentioned three typical examples, the reason was, I am informed 

 by Dr. Leisewitz, probably that Spix brought back from Bahia 

 not only one Ph. planirostre but also two " Ph. 2)e)-spiciUaUim " 

 (i. e. A. jamaicensis liturcUus of the present paper), both of 

 which latter are also in the Munich Museum ; Wagner evidently 

 considered aU three examples to be one species {A . planirostris 

 and jamaicensis are difficult to discriminate externally), and his 

 statement that ''planirostre" has § molars is undoubtedly taken 

 from one of the two A . jamaicensis, not from the true type of 

 Ph. planirostre. — This latter has. Dr. Leisewitz writes, a distinct 

 m- on both sides of the upper jaw ; the anterior margin of the 

 horseshoe is (as said by Spix) free ; the forearm measures 58-5, 

 third metacarpal 57, first phalanx of third digit 177, second 

 phalanx of third digit 28-5 mm. This settles, beyond all doubt, 

 the identification of Spix's type : it is Ph. planirostris planirostris 

 of this paper, not A. jamaicensis lituratus (molars |, forearm 

 64-76 mm.), the only other large form of Artiheus known from 

 Bahia. — There remains Peters's wrong statement about the 

 number of molars of the " type " (| according to Peters, not f as 

 in fact is the case) : On Oct. 17, 1865, Siebold sent Spix's 

 Ohiroptera to Peters for inspection, among these the type of 

 Ph. pkmirostre and one example of ''A. jMrspicillatus L." {A. jamai- 

 censis lituratus Licht.) ; in the list accompanying the specimens, 

 Siebold unfortunately entered these two bats as " 2 Phijll. jdani- 

 rostre, Bahia." When, therefore, Peters wrote that Spix's type 

 of Ph. planirostre has | molars only, he no doubt examined the 

 wrong specimen {A. j. lituratus), not the true type; this ex- 

 planation is further strengthened by the fact that "the true type 

 (Dr. L. writes) shows no trace of having had the mouth opened 

 for examination of the molars ; finally, when Peters wrote that 

 there is only '^ ein einziges Originalexemplar," it was,/roHi his 

 sta7idpoint, a mistake, for on sending Spix's bats back to Munich 

 he wrote (letter dated 10 Dec. 1865): " 2 St. Artiheus jMrsjncil- 

 latus Geoffr.= Phyll. plani7^ost7'e Spix! Original." 



As a final result : there is one type only of Spix's Ph. planirostre 

 still in the collection of the Munich Museum ; this specimen has 

 f molars, and the forearm 58-5 mm. : both facts are decisive 

 evidence that it is the bat called A. p. planirostris in this paper ; 

 Wagner's and Peters's statement that it has | molars is a' 



Proc. Zool. Soc— 1908, No. XVI, 16 



