1905.] OF THE GENUS RHINOLOPHUS. 117 



point. The geographical line separating the two branches coin- 

 cides with the line separating the " Austro- Malayan " from the 

 " Inclo- Malayan " subregion (Celebes being a part of the latter). 

 The eastern branch is, as yet, represented by four known species 

 Rli. simplex, mega/phyllus, trimcatus, and nanus. The Avestern by 

 all the others. 



The further evolution, from horneensis to /err um-equinum, has 

 been discussed above, and is summed up, in the briefest possible 

 form, in the subjoined diagram (p. 120). But the sketch of this 

 group would be deprived of some of its most instructive features 

 if the Ethiopian species were left quite out of consideration. They 

 belong to thi^ee closely related types : — 



(1) Ethio2nan species of the borneensis-stheno-rouxi typ)e. — 

 Far south in Africa, in Bechuanaland and Mashonaland, we find 

 two small species, Rh. clenti and simulator, described quite 

 recently*. They are the Ethiojnan rep>resentatives of the horneen- 

 sis tyjye : the same general shape of the skull ; essentially the same 

 dentition ; the same parallel-margined sella, with a faint or 

 almost imperceptible constriction at the middle ; the same style 

 of connecting process ; the same proportionate length of the 

 foui'th and fifth metacarpals ; even the same length of the tail, &c. 

 But there are, in these species, three characters of especial in- 

 terest, becavxse they enable us to determine still more precisely 

 their phylogenetic place : the nasal swellings (side view) are more 

 projecting than in horneensis, but less than in stheno ; III.' is 

 lengthened, and IV.^ somewhat shortened, as in this species,— 

 proving that they have originated from a Bat vjhich had already 

 traversed a p>art of the distance sep>arating horneensis and 

 stheno. The dentition is on a slightly higher level than in 

 horneensis and stheno, the only diflerence being that p^, although 

 still in the tooth-row (as in the Oriental species), shows a distinct 

 tendency toivards the external side. 



In the extreme south of Africa (Cape Colony) we find a species,. 

 Rh. capensis, which, quite superficially, looks like an enlarged 

 Rh. simidator. It is an African rep)rese)itative of Rh. roicxi : the 

 skull is to such a degree that of rouxi that it would be hard to find 

 any tangible diflerence, even the measurements being practically 

 the same (on an average smaller than in rouxi) ; the nose-leaves 

 (sella, process, lancet) are the same ; proportionate length of 

 fourth and fifth metacarpals, of tail and tibia, the same. But 

 the dentition is somewhat more advanced : p" is generally ex- 

 ternal, but still, very often, a quite distinct interspace between 

 the canine and p^ indicates its former j)lace ; III.^ is somewhat 

 lengthened. In short: Rh. capensis is a "J?A. rouxi " which in 

 the wing-structure has taken a course toumrds, in the dentition 

 very slightly heyond, the affi7iis-st,a,ge. 



(2) Ethiojyian sj^ecies of the afiinis-i^/i^e. — On the coasts of the 

 Bed Sea we find a species, Rh. clivosus, first made known by 

 Cretzschmar from Mohila in Arabia ; I have seen examples from 



* Thomas, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (7) xiii. (190i) p. 386; Andersen, op. cit. (7) 

 xiv. (1904) p. 384. 



