130 MR. K. ANDERSEN ON BATS [May 16, 



Diagnosis. Subbadiics-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, broad, almost as an equilateral triangle ; but I 

 doubt that this character, in a large series, will prove to be qiiite 

 as safe a guide for the discrimination of the species as the shape of 

 the connecting process ; there is, in all species of Rhinolo2)hus, a 

 little more individual variation in the lancet than in other parts 

 of the nose-leaves. The sella is, essentially, of the minor-tj-^e, 

 (not as in gracilis), mvich broader at base than at summit ; below 

 the constriction the margins are almost parallel, above the con- 

 striction slightly convei'ging ; the summit somewhat more suhacute * 

 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 veiy different from 

 that of Rh. lepidus. 



Skull. Unknown. I have seen a small fragment only ; it seems 

 to be of the minor-type. 



Dentition (one example). Pg external, p, and p^ in contact, p^ 

 in row ; cusp small, but distinct. 



Measurements. On p. 132. 



Distribution. Nepal (type locality). Garo Hills t. (The only 

 example of this species in the British Museum is without exact 

 indication of locality.) 



Technical name. Hodgson's " Vespertilio subbadia " (J. A. S. B. 

 X. pt. ii. (Nov. 1841) p. 908), fi-om the "Central Eegion of the 

 Himalayas," is a nomen nudum (no word of description). The 

 head of this Bat is figured in his unpviblished drawings (pi. 8. 

 fig. 3) ; it is not a Rhinolophus, but a Hipposiderus, probably 

 H. bicolor or an allied form. 



* I emphasise this peculiarity (and, on the whole, enter into a detailed description 

 of the sella), because it is this " pattern " of sella which has been carried to an 

 extreme in some of the Ethiopian and W. Palajarctic representatives of the subbadius- 

 type {JRh. empusa and blasii ; cf. the " General Remarks," pp. 136-37). 



t In Dobson's ' Monograph ' and ' Catalogue ' (1. s. c.) BJi.c/aroensis (= subhadius) 

 is recorded from Masuri. The species is very likelj' 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. garoensis. They are, however, Bh. monticola, differing in all im- 

 portant points (process, lancet, size) from his own original descrii^tion of garoensis. 

 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. garoensis as a distinct species, and then we arrive at the stage 

 when all small Indian and E. Patearctic 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 ps varies in individuals from the same localitj' 

 (which, however, also is the case in all the more primitive species of the simple.v group, 

 as high up in the series as Rh. affinis), and he was quite right in arguing that, from an 

 exclusively ta.vonomic point of view, this character had no value ; but he overlooked 

 the other and more important characters hy which the members of his composite 

 species differ from each other. 



