262 W. T. Blanford — Notes on Indian Chlroptera. [No. S, 



naturally be supposed that there could be no question about tbe identi- 

 fication of Hodgson's type also. Yet, strange to say, Hodgson's B. suhba- 

 dins belonged, not only to a different species, but to a distinct genus. 

 A comparison of the description and measurements by Hodgson quoted 

 b}^ Blyth together with his own (J. A. S. B. XIII, p. 486) would alone 

 cause suspicion. No true Rhinolophus can be said to have the " nasal 

 appendage quadrate," and it would be remarkable if Blyth's measure- 

 ment of the tail should be only f inch when Hodgson found it to be IJ 

 inches. In fact, Hodgson's R. subhadius was Hipposideros hicolor or per- 

 haps H. amboinensis. It was referred to Hipposiderus by Hodgson him- 

 self in 1847 (J. A. S. B. XVI, p. 896) and by Gray in the 1846 British 

 Museum Catalogue of Hodgson's collections (p. 3), and that this refer- 

 ence is correct is shewn by Hodgson's drawings. Evidently, in this 

 case, Hodgson had one specimen drawn and sent another, which proved 

 to belong to a distinct form, to the Asiatic Society's Museum in Calcutta. 



But this is not all that has to be to be told about R. minor. Blyth 

 at the same time that he described R. subbadius gave an account of 

 another allied form which he called R. lepidus. The principal difference 

 between the two was the form of the posterior nose-leaf, the sides of 

 which were but slightly emarginate towards the tip in R. subbadius, but 

 " so considerably emarginated " in R. lepidus that the tip appeared " as 

 a narrow terminal prolongation, one-sixteenth of an inch in length." 



In one of the brief notes, often full of suggestion, that Blyth was 

 in the habit of attaching to his zoological reports, and which, for want 

 of a complete index, are so often forgotten, both R. subbadius and R. 

 lepidus were shewn (J. A. S. B. XXT, p. 847) to be varieties of R. 

 Tninor, Horsfield, differing only in colour. Again in the same volume, p. 

 361, R. subbadius was identified with R. minor. But before his Catalogue 

 of Mammalia was written, Blyth had either forgotten his previous re- 

 marks or changed his opinions, for in that work, whilst R. lepidus was 

 assigned to R. rouxi (R. affinis), R. subbadius was left as a distinct 

 species (1. c. pp. 24, 25). Curiously enough, although under R. rouxi 

 in that catalogue there is a reference to " R. minor (?) apud nos, J. A. S. 

 XXI, 486," the page is incorrect. 



In 1872 (J. A. S. B. XLI, Pt. IT, p. 337), Dobson described a horse- 

 shoe bat as R. garoensis. This species, which was kept distinct in both 

 the Monograph and Catalogue, was shewn in them to differ from R. 

 minor only in having the margins of the posterior nose-leaf straight in- 

 stead of concave, in short it was R. subhadius of Blyth with the posterior 

 nose-leaf slightly more triangular. Finally, in 1880 (Report Brit. Assoc. 

 p. 175), Dobson united E. garoensis and R. minor , thus arriving at the 

 s ame conclusion as Blyth had reached 28 years before. 



