NEW OR LITTLE-KNOWN HATS 



175 



of the tooth not less than ^ of Upper canine and p^ widely 

 separated. 



Affinities, — Rh. fallax is closely related to Rh. mega- 

 phyllus from the Australian Continent and the Louisiade Arclii- 

 pelago. In all important respects the two species are on the same 

 level of development. But externally Rh. fallax is readily distin- 

 guished by its broader horse-shoe. The small cranial differences 

 between the two species have already been mentioned. The den- 

 tition is on a similarly primitive stage as in Rh. megaphyllus , 

 showing the same broad interspace between the upper canine and 

 pS and the same comparatively well developed p^. 



In my geographical review of the species and subspecies of 

 Rhinolophus I wrote, a few months ago (^j : — « As yet no 

 species is known from New Guinea, although the genus is repre- 

 sented both east (Louisiade Archipelago), south (Australia, Key 

 Islands) , and west (Moluccas) of the island » . This gap in our 

 knowledge is filled up by the discovery of Rh. fallax. 



The Key Islands are, so far as hitherto known, inhabited by 

 three species: Rh. keyensis, Rh. achilles, and Rh. euryofis; 

 Australia by one only, Rh. megaphyllus. It is not improbable 

 that those groups of the genus, viz. the philippinensis and 

 arcuaius groups, to wdiich Rh. achilles and Rh. euryoiis belong 

 reach their extreme southeastern limit in the Key Islands, Timor 

 Laut, and Aru Islands, and it might therefore, a priori, be antici- 

 pated that wlien once a species of Rhinolophus was discovered 

 in New Guinea, it would, like Rh. keyensis and Rh. megaphyllus, 

 be a very primitive representative of the Rh. simplex group. 

 Tliis has now pro\'ed to be the case. 



We are now able to trace the modifications of the simplex 

 type from Lombok ( Rh. simplex), through New Guinea ( Rh. fallax), 

 to Australia (Rh. megaphyllus f. typica) , and the Louisiade 

 Archipelago (Rh. megaphyllus monachus). But we still lack 

 all knowledge of those representatives of the same type w^hich 

 undoubtedly inhabit the chain of islands east of Lombok, viz. 

 Sumbawa, Sumba, Flores, Timor, Timor Laut, and the Aru 

 Islands. 



Knud Andersen, « A List of the Species and Subspecies of the Genus Rhino- 

 lophus , with some Notes on their Geographical Distribution » ; Ann. & Mag. Nat. 

 Hist. (7) XVI. p. 653 (Dec. 1905). 



