Taxonomy of Rhinolophus simplex 
Table 7 (continued) 
25 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.025 
0.006 
0.010 
0.002 
0.000 
0.003 
0.029 
0.000 
0.000 
0.002 
0.021 
0.002 
0.000 
0.004 
0.020 
0.030 
0.030 
0.032 
0.057 
0.157 
0.166 
0.150 
0.193 
SUMBA 
FLORES 
LEMBATA 
ALOR 
0.000 
0.006 
0.000 
0.035 
0.028 
0.030 
0.169 
0.164 
0.160 
0.151 
TIMOR 
SEMAU 
ROTI 
SAVU 
variability at two loci, ldh-2 and Pep-D, while the 
Bali-Nusa Penida-Savu cluster is largely due to 
Acon-2 allele frequency differences. 
Hill (1983) considered that the form parvus was 
very similar to R. madurensis Andersen, 1918 from 
Madura I., a view supported by Bergmans and van 
Bree (1986) who considered parvus synonymous 
with R. celebensis madurensis. We have been unable 
to examine specimens of the form madurensis, but if 
parvus is indeed synonymous with R. celebensis, 
then it brings into question the distinction between 
other species in the ferrumequinum group (sensu 
Tate and Archbold 1939). 
We have not examined in depth the taxonomic 
relationships between all the forms of R. 
megaphyllus (sensu Hill, 1992). Our conclusions, 
then, with respect to the specific status of the 
forms, R. simplex ( simplex, keyensis, parvus and 
Pes length 
Figure 11 Plot of forearm length versus pes length for R. simplex subspecies, R. megaphyllus (□) and R. borneensis. 
Other taxa codes as for Figure 1. 
