268 W. T. Blanfovd— iVo/e5 07i India^i Cliiroptera. [No. 3, 



However Gray's paper led to a wide use of the term in an erroneous 

 sense, and, when, therefoi'e, Peters, in 1866, examined Leach's original 

 type and found it to be an immature example of the form then generally 

 known as Nycticejus temmincki^ with milk teeth, it is unfortunate that 

 the name Scotophilus was not abandoned, as it might well have been, for 

 Leach's description was erroneous and misleading. 



Dobson has recapitulated the facts above mentioned (P. Z. S. 1875, 

 p. 368), and I believe he was precisely of the same opinion as myself, but 

 rather than propose a new name he accepted Scotophilus. But this has 

 led to another difficulty. The specific name temminchi, applied by Hors- 

 field to one of the commonest, most widely spread, and best known of 

 oriental bats, could scarcely be dropped vs^ithout inconvenience, so the 

 common yellow^ bat stands in Dobson's works as Scotophilus tetnminckii. 

 If, however, the examination of the type is sufficient for the identification 

 of the genus, the species may be determined in the same manner. This 

 Dobson acknowledges, but gets over the difficulty by leaving the ques- 

 tion of the adult form to which the young type belongs open. 



Now it is true that in many genera of bats it would be very difficult, 

 perhaps impossible, to identify the young, but the present is not one of 

 those instances. There are but two other species that have the same 

 peculiar aud unmistakable tragus as S. temminchii, viz., S. borbonicus 

 and S. gigas both African, In both of these the upper incisors have a 

 very differently formed cingulum. By cutting down slightly on the gum 

 the permanent incisors have been examined in Leach's type by Mr. 

 Oldfield Thomas, and shewn, as was anticipated, to be those of S. tem- 

 mincki. It was of course much more probable that Leach's specimen 

 should belong to this very common Indian and Malay form than to a 

 comparatively rare African species. If, therefore, we are guided by type 

 specimens, the specific name kuhli has priority over temmincM, and we 

 must abandon a well known specific name for an unknown one. The 

 only alternative is to discard the genus Scotophilus, and this is now 

 scarcely practicable. The species must therefore stand in future as 

 Scotophilus kuhli. 



Scotophilus ornatus. 



Nycticejus nivicolus, Hodgson (A. M. N. H. 1855, XVI, p. 44), proves 

 by a comparison of his MS. drawings with specimens of Scotophilus orna^ 

 tus (Blyth) to be that species. Blyth's name has priority. 



S. ornatus, according to Jerdon, is found at low elevations in warm 

 Himalayan valleys, whilst the name of Nycticejus nivicolus indicates a 

 very diiferent habitat. But Hodgson only knew that the bat named by 

 him came from the interior of the Sikkim Himalaya, near snow, and it^ 



