136 
THE MAMMALS OF EGYPT. 
TAPHOZOUS. 
Taphozous, E. GeofFr. St.-Hil. Descr. de PEgypte^ Hist. Nat. ii. 1818^ p. 126. 
Premaxillaries cartilaginous; uppei incisors deciduous. Muzzle conical, broad 
posteriorly ; nostrils valvular, circular, with projecting inner margin. A deep hollow 
on the frontal region between the eyes. Eyes rather large. Crown of the head 
slightly elevated. Ears separate, the inner margin rising between the frontal 
hollow and the eye, the outer margin from a small lobe behind the mouth but at a 
lower level. Tragus short, expanded above, its sides more or less concave. Front of 
lower lip with a naked triangular area traversed mesially by a more or less marked 
groove. A glandular sac between the angles of the lower jaw, present in the majority 
of the species, but only fully developed in adult males, rudimentary in females ; this sac 
is absent in some species, in which its place may be taken by the openings of small 
glandular pores, associated with which are long hairs producing a kind of beard. The 
tail perforates the interfemoral membrane about the middle, three or four vertebra; 
extending beyond it, but retractile into the membrane. 
Dentition : i. c. |, pm. §, m. | = 30. 
Distribution. —Ethiopian, Oriental, and Australian Eegions, and the southernmost 
part of the Palsearctic Eegion. 
Monticelli ^ believed that he had found in the size of the feet of the species of 
Taphozous a constant character which enabled the two sections of the genus to be easily 
distinguished, the two sections being the subgenera Taphozous and Taphonycteris. In 
the first of these, however, he included two subgroups, one with very long feet and 
the other with very small feet; but how the first of these is to be readily distinguished 
by its feet from the second subgenus, Taphonycteris, in which the feet are characterized 
as being large, is difficult to understand. This was offered as an improvement on 
Dobson’s system of division, which was established on the presence or absence of a 
radio-metacarpal pouch in the two groups. This arrangement was not based on a 
question of degree in the development of the pouch, but on its presence or absence ; 
whereas Monticelli’s supposed improvement rested on the feet being small, large, or 
very large, terms extremely difficult to define, so as to convey a clear understanding of 
the limits of the respective terms. A similar difficulty exists in defining the degree of 
development of the gular sac when present in the different species. Difficulties of this 
kind bring out the artificiality of the so-called synopsis whenever there is an inter¬ 
gradation of specific characters, resulting from the slight divergences in those groups 
of individuals which we denominate species. 
1 Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (6) iii. p. 488. 
