86. MKi K. ANDERSEN ON BATS . [May 16, 



same island in the British Museum *. As, however, Ith. borneensis 

 has for many years been completely confused not only with sevei-al 

 more or less closely related species, but also with the widely 

 different Rh. minor, the following remarks may not be out of place 

 here : — 



The salient point in the original description of Rh. borneensis, 

 as given by Prof. Peters {loc. infra cit.), is this : " Sattel .... an 

 dean vordern obei^n Ende abgerundet, die hintere, zusammenge- 

 drllckte Spitze [i. e. the jjosterior connecting process] kaitm hotter, 

 abgerundet J' I have emphasised the last three words, because they 

 clearly prove that Rh. borneensis belongs to what here is called the 

 simjilex group (connecting process low and rounded off), and has 

 nothing to do with Rh. minor or its allies (connecting process pro- 

 jecting and pointed). But ten years later (MB. Akad. Berlin, 

 1871, p. 306), Peters himself believed Rh. borneensis to be identical 

 with Rh. minor, described by Horsfield so long ago as 1824. 

 The reason was, beyond all doubt, this : to identify Horsfield's 

 Bats without an examination of the types is, in most cases, 

 impossible ; and Peters had not seen the type of Rh. minor (then 

 in the Indian Museum, London, now in the British Museum), 

 but only the bad figure in the ' Researches in Java ' ; as, further- 

 more, the two species in many respects (size, wings, sella, ears, 

 &c.) are, externally, puzzling alike, the mistake is easily explained. 

 Thus, according to Peters, there wei'e two small Indo- Malayan 

 Rhinolojihi : the one, with a low and rounded connecting pi'ocess, 

 he called Rh. minor, Horsf. (synonym : Rh. borneensis, Peters) ; 

 the other, with a projecting and pointed connecting process, he 

 identified with Temminck's Rh. 2>i('SiUus, stated to be from Java. 

 TJndei- these circumstances, a quite reasonable conclusion : we 

 had a name for either " species," and perfectly clear diagnoses. 



Dobson, who examined the type of Rh. minor, states, quite 

 correctly, that the connecting process is projecting and pointed ; 

 when, nevertheless, he put Rh. borneensis down in the list of 

 "synonyms "to Rh. minor, he must have overlooked the most 

 important point in Peters's descrij)tion of borneensis, the shape of 

 the connecting process. Dobson, therefore, called the small Indo- 

 Maiayan Rhinolojjhus with jiointed process Rh. minor (synonym : 

 Rh. borneensis): thus, the names were the same as employed by 

 Petei's, but the diagnosis exactly the reverse ; Temminck's Rh. 

 pusillus he identified with Rh. hijjposiderus (sic) ; and as to the 

 small Indo-Malayan Rhinoloj^hus with rounded process (the ti'ue 

 borneensis) he put it down under Rh. afjinis, Horsf. (!), with 

 which species he also luiited the very different Rh. rouxi, Temm., 

 at the same time keeping a genuine Rh. roiixi separate as 

 Rh. petei'si. This accumulation of errois and wrong identifications 



* On one point tlierc is a discrepanc.y between Peters's description of RIi. borneensis 

 and the series before me : according to Peters the length of the forearm is 37 mm. ; 

 in the smallest (adult) specimen I have seen, it measures 41'2 mm. I am informed 

 by Prof. Matschie, who kindly re-examined tlie type for me, that Peters's statement 

 must be a misprint or a slip of the pen ; the forearm of the type specimen (a rather 

 j'oung, but apparently full-grown individual) measures 41 mm. 



