1905.] OF THE GEXUS RHINOLOPHUS. 93 



(compared with the fourth metacarpal) ; the excessively short 

 tail ; and the smaller hind foot. 



Phylogenetically, Eh. stheno is evidently more closely connected 

 with Bh. nereis than with any other hitherto known Bat. To call 

 the resemblance between these two species (in III.-, IV. ^ the tail) 

 " convergence," would be a phrase only, not an explanation. There 

 can scarcely be any doubt that the type of Rhinolo2yhus to which 

 the now existing Rh. horneensis belongs, sent off a branch west- 

 loards ; a part of this branch, isolated on the Anambas Islands, 

 develojDed into Rh. nereis ; another pai-t, in the Malay Peninsula, 

 into Rh. stheno (cf. the diagram on p. 120). 



11. Rhinolophus rouxi Temm. (Plate III. fig. 9 a, b, c, d.) 



Diagnosis. Allied to Rh. horneensis, but larger, and with con- 

 siderably longer metacarpals. Third metacarpal 34-38 mm. 

 Forearm 46-51*5 mm. 



Details. This is a large, continental representative of the 

 horneensis type, characterised chiefly by the much longer meta- 

 carpals and the shape of the lancet. In general size, the 

 continental Rh. rouxi bears the same relation to the insular 

 Rh. horneensis as the continental Rh. megaphylhis does to the 

 insular Rh. simplex. 



The sella is practically parallel-margined fi-om base to summit ; 

 not rarely some faint indication of a constriction at the middle 

 can be traced ; summit broadly rounded oft'. In simplex and its 

 closest allies the lancet is long and quite (or almost) cuneate ; 

 in horneeibsis there is some tendency towards a slight emargination 

 of the lateral margins of the lancet ; this tendency has been carried 

 almost to an extreme in rouxi : the lancet is hastate, i. e., abruptly 

 narrowed in the middle, the tip well developed and slender (not 

 abnormally shortened, as in thomasi) ; but still, individually 

 (though, as it seems, i-ather rarely), in rouxi, the lancet is less 

 abruptly narrowed, as an atavism towards a passed stage. The 

 ears are as in horneensis. 



Wing- structure almost on the simplex-horneensis stage, ?'. e., 

 III." almost always less than 1| the length of III.^ The rare 

 individual exception, that III." is equal to (or a mere trifle 

 more than) 1| the length of III.\ is of some interest as fore- 

 shadowing the next important step to be taken in the series of 

 evolution, viz., from roujxi to affinis, in which species III.-^ is 

 ahvays considerahly more than Ig the length of III.^ 



Plagiopatagium inserted on, or 1-4 mm. above, the tarsus, i. e., 

 there is evidently some tendency to draw the insertion of this 

 membrane aioay from the ankle-joint, a little higher up on the 

 tibia ; compare with this Rh. affinis. The proportionate length 

 of the tail is as in horneensis. 



STcidl. The skull of Rh. rouxi is larger than that of horneensis, 

 but I fail to find anj^ appreciable diflference in the shape — a 

 strong evidence of the very close relationship between the two 

 species. The individual variation in the size of the skull, in 



