1888.] W. T. Blamiord— Notes on Indian Chiroptera. 265 



fore " Hab. Australia." This view is confirmed by tbe fact that a single 

 specimen of N. geoffroyi, not two, presented in 1845 by the Sydney In- 

 stitution, was found by Dobson in the Indian Museum (containing the 

 specimens of which Blyth's Catalogue was a list) and recorded by 

 him in the Catalogue of specimens printed as an Appendix to his 

 Monograph of Asiatic Chiroptera, p. 220. The Hab. Europe, Hima- 

 laya, and record of two specimens from Masuri presented by Captain 

 Hutton in 1844 must have referred to some other bats, and, as 116 

 A. in the same Catalogue of Dobson is identified with Synotus dar- 

 jelinensis, whilst in Anderson's Catalogue 116 A. and B. are both 

 referred to that species, it is, I think, manifest that the reference belongs 

 to the species preceding NyctopJiilus, namely, to Barhastellus communis, 

 with which, until Dobson pointed out the difference, Synotus darjelinensis 

 was supposed to be identical. 



Vesperugo nasutus. 

 The locality of this bat is given as Shikarpur, Sind The specimen 

 was obtained, I believe, so far as my memory serves, in the Shikarpur 

 collectorate, not near the town, but across the Indus, a short distance 

 east of Rori. 



Vesperugo imbricatus. 

 There is, in the British Museum, a skin of this species sent byBlyth 

 and labelled Calcutta. The specimen is in all probability Indian. 



Vesperugo mordax. 



Dobson, in his " Report on Accessions to our Knowledge of the 

 Chiroptera during the years 1878 — 1880," published in the Report of the 

 British Association, 1880, p. 184, shews why the eastern form of V. 

 maurus (or rather perhaps V. savii) should be distinguished under the 

 name of F. mordax, Peters (M B. Akad. Berlin, 1866, p. 402). 



In the British Museum collection there is a skin of this species 

 labelled V. maderaspatanus, Elliot. This is probably the Scotophilus 

 maderaspatanus of Gray's " List of the Specimens of Mammalia in the 

 Collection of the British Museum," 1843, p, 29, a species that, like many 

 others in the same list, has never, to the best of my belief, been described. 

 The name is in all probability wrongly attributed to Elliot. 



Vesperugo ceylonicus. 

 Dobson, in his Catalogue, p. 222, describes a species of bat as V. 

 indicus from two Mangalore specimens, and records the existence of a 

 third specimen, labelled Madras (but very probably from the Malabar 

 coast), in the British Museum collection. He also calls attention to the 

 fact that Scutophiltis ceylonicus, Kelaart, " may be identical, as the de- 



