Rhinolophus rouxi Temm.

Andersen, Knud, 1905, On some Bats of the Genus Rhinolophus, with Remarks on their Mutual Affinities, and Descriptions of Twenty-six new Forms., Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 2, pp. 75-145 : 98-99

11b.. Rhinolophus rouxi Temm. , typicus.

Rhinolophus Rouxii Temminck , Mon. Mamin, ii. 8e monogr. (1835) p. 30 6.

Rhinolophus rubidus , cinerascens, rammanika Kelaart, Prodr. Faunae Zeylanicae (1852), pp. 13, 14.

Rhinolophus Rouxii (partim) Peters, MB. Akad. Berlin, 1871, p. 308.

Rhinolophus petersii Dobson, J. A. S. B. xli. pt. ii. (1872) p. 337 (nec Dobson, 1878, 1880); Blanford, Fauna Brit. India, Mamm. pt. ii. (1891) p. 275 (partim).

Rhinolophus minor (non Horsf.) Hutton, P. Z. S. 1872, p. 698.

Rhinolophus affinis (partim, nec Horsf.) Dobson, Cat. Chir. Brit. Mus. (1878) p. 113.

Diagnosis. Skull larger, tooth-rows longer. Forearm 46-51 •5mm.

Colour.— (1) Specimens from Nepal and Darjeeling. (« ■) Dark phase’, one ad.; Nepal; teeth unworn; skin: — Upper side “ marsbrown ”; horse-shoe patch on back distinguishable, though somewhat obliterated; base of hairs light “ drab, ” almost “ ecru-drab ”; under side “ drab, ” with a tinge of “ russet ”; sides of body somewhat darker. With this skin agree in colour another adult specimen from Nepal (teeth somewhat worn; skin) and a ♀ ad. from Darjeeling (in alcohol).

(6) Light ‘ phase: one ad.; Darjeeling; teeth slightly worn; skin: — Above inclining to “ clay ”; a strongly marked, deep brown horse-shoe patch; base of hairs and fur of under side almost 1 cream-bufi. ”

(2) Specimens from Ceylon and S. India.—(«) Dark phase: three adult individuals; Ceylon; teeth rather slightly worn; skins: — Upper side a shade of brown, darker and duller than “mars-brown ”; horse-shoe patch more oi * less effaced; base of hairs “ drab, ” with a tinge of “ ecru-drab ”; under side “ woodbrown ” or light “ drab.” This is Kelaart’s Rh. cinerascens.

A skin (ad., January, teeth unworn) from Sirzi, Kanara, comes extremely near to the last-mentioned specimen, being only a little darker. A spirit-specimen from Nilghiri seems to be of very much the same colour.

(6) Intermediate stage: ♂ ad.; January; Sirzi, Kanara; teeth unworn. Upper side between “russet ” and “ r---- 1 mars-brown -------- ” ”; base of hairs “ ecru-drab ”; under side almost “ clay. ” This is Kelaart’s Rh. rammanika.

(c) Red phase: one ad.; Ceylon; teeth worn; skin: — Above light “hazel” with a tinge of “ orange-rufous ”; horse-shoe patch almost obliterated; base of hairs and under side of body light “ orange-rufous. ”— This is Kelaart’s Rh. rubidus .

A skin (♂ ad., February, teeth unworn) from Jellapur, Kanara, represents the extreme of light colour: upper side next to “ tawnyochraceous ”; base of hairs and fur of under side almost “ orangeochraceous. ”

Conclusions The dark phase in specimens from the Himalayas (Nepal, Darjeeling) is of a richer brown, more tinged with russet, than in specimens from Ceylon and S. India (Kanara, Nilghiri). The light phase, in specimens from the Himalayas, seems to be more inclining to “ clay ”; in specimens from Ceylon and S. India more “ hazel ” or “ tawny-ochraceous. ” I do not think the series examined affords evidence conclusive enough to justify the separation of a Himalayan “ race ” and a southern (Ceylonese and S. Indian) “ race. ” In all the other characters (external, cranial, dental; variation in general size) there is no appreciable difference. If they were to be separated subspecifically, the southern form would have to stand as “ Rh. rouXi rubidus Kelaart , ” the Himalayan as “ Rh. rouXi typicus. ”

Measurements. On p. 100.

Distribution. Himalayas (Darjeeling, Nepal, Masuri). S. India (Nilghiri, Kanara) and Ceylon.

Remarks. Of the two forms here recognised, Rh. rouXi sinicus and Rh. rouXi typicus, the former, as coming nearest to h. borneensis , is no doubt the more primitive. The rouXi -type, therefore, has spread from an eastern point of the continent westwards, through the Himalayas, down the Indian Peninsula, to Ceylon.