Taxonomy of Rhinolophus simplex 
21 
Pes length 
Figure 8 Plot of snout to vent length versus pes length for subspecies of R. simplex. Subspecies codes as for Figure 1. 
Diagnosis 
Rhinolophus s. keyensis differs from R. s. simplex as 
diagnosed earlier for this subspecies. 
It differs from R. s. parvus in averaging larger in 
all skull, dentary and most external characters (see 
Table 1). With the following characters it is 
absolutely larger: ear length, forearm length, 
maximum anterior noseleaf breadth, basal sella 
length, vertical sella height, vertical sella breadth, 
greatest skull length, rostrum length and M 1 width 
(see Table 1). 
It differs from R. s. amiri subsp. nov. in averaging 
larger in most skull, dentary, dental and external 
characters (see Table 1). With a number of 
characters it is absolutely larger, for example: 
forearm length, vertical sella height, greatest skull 
length, zygomatic width, cranial width and C'M 3 
length (see Table 1). 
Description 
Apart from differences described in the diagnosis 
of R. s. simplex, R. s. keyensis is very similar to that 
species. In the two specimens of R. s. keyensis 
available to us, the juncture of the supraorbital 
ridge is just posterior to the orbital cavity mid 
point, supraorbital length greater than nasal 
inflation breadth (Figure 9); median anterior rostral 
swellings inflated; anterior upper premolar in 
contact with both canine and posterior premolar; 
lower vestigial premolar extruded from toothrow 
but still in contact with adjacent premolars - in 
WAM 42642 the anterior and posterior premolars 
are not in contact, whereas in WAM M42643 they 
are in solid contact. 
The form of the basiphenoid, palate and dentition 
is similar to R. s. simpex. 
Externals 
The external characters similar to R. s. simplex 
but anterior noseleaf wider (9.2 v. 8.1). The vertical 
sella taller (4.5 v. 3.9) and wider (2.4 v. 2.0) with a 
slightly wider mid part than R. s. simplex, smoothly 
rounded at apex. 
Pelage and skin colour and baculum 
As described for R. s. simplex. 
Distribution 
Kai Kecil I. 
Remarks 
This form is only weakly separated from R. s. 
simplex; the subspecific distinction resting solely on 
the shape and size of its sella. In all other 
characters it appears to be very close to R. s. 
simplex, as attested to by its closeness to that 
subspecies in discriminant function space (Figures 
