Rhinolophus rufus Peters, 1861
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.1869.1.1 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E787D2-8927-FF83-FF06-8AECC3B8FBA7 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Rhinolophus rufus Peters, 1861 |
status |
|
Rhinolophus rufus Peters, 1861 View in CoL
Peters, W. C. H. (1861) Über die von Hrn. F. Jagor bisher auf Malacca, Borneo, Java und den Philippinen gesammelten Säugethiere aus den Ordnungen der Halbaffen, Pelzflatterer und Flederthiere. Monatsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1861: 710 [706–713].
Valid name: Rhinolophus subrufus Andersen, 1905
Holotype: ZMB 2532 View Materials , body in alcohol, skull extracted, male; Paracali, Luzon, Philippines; collected by F. Jagor, between 1857 and 1861.
? Paratype: ZMB 2271 View Materials , skin; Philippines; donated by Gray , ex BMNH, sub Rhinolophus euryotis .
Comment: Andersen (1905: 284) pointed out that the species name “ rufus ” is preoccupied by Rhinolophus luctus var. rufus [or rufa] Eydoux & Gervais, 1836. Peters knew the description of Eydoux & Gervais (1836), but believed the name “ rufus ” to be available in the genus Rhinolophus since these authors described only a variety. Andersen (1905) described Rhinolophus subrufus as new on the basis of a specimen from Manila (Luzon, Philippines) assuming that this was the same species described by Peters 1861 as Rhinolophus rufus . Lawrence (1939: 46) proved that “ var. rufa ” of Eydoux & Gervais is morphologically clearly distinguishable both from Rhinolophus luctus Temminck, 1835 and from Andersen’s subrufus and must be regarded as separate species. Lawrence does not mention Peters’ rufus .
During the present investigation two specimens have been examined: The holotype ZMB 2532 and a further specimen ZMB 2271 from the Philippines. ZMB 2271 was considered by Peters as Rhinolophus rufus , since he corrected the former catalogue entry (“ Rhinolophus euryotis Temm ”) and marked it with a type asterisk. This correction may have taken place after Peters´ publication (1861), therefore it is uncertain whether it really represents a paratype.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.