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 : 93-98

11. Rhinolophus rouxi Temm.

(Plate III. fig. 9 a, b, c, d.)

Diagnosis. Allied to Rh. borneensis , but larger, and with considerably longer metacarpals. Third metacarpal 34-38 mm. Forearm 46-51'5 mm.

Details. This is a large, continental representative of the borneensis type, characterised chiefly by the much longer metacarpals and the shape of the lancet. In general size, the continental Rh. rouXi bears the same relation to the insular Rh. borneensis as the continental Rh. megaphyllus does to the insular Rh. simpleX .

The sella is practically parallel-margined from base to summit; not rarely some faint indication of a constriction at the middle can be traced; summit broadly rounded off. In simpleX and its closest allies the lancet is long and quite (or almost) cuneate; in borneensis there is some tendency towards a slight emargination of the lateral margins of the lancet; this tendency lias been carried almost to an extreme in rouXi : the lancet is hastate, i. e., abruptly narrowed in the middle, the tip well developed and slender (not abnormally shortened, as in thomasi ); but still, individually (though, as it seems, rather rarely), in rouXi , the lancet is less abruptly narrowed, as an atavism towards a passed stage. The ears are as in borneensis .

Wing-structure almost on the simpleX-borneensis stage, i. e., III.2 almost always less than lg the length of III.1 The rare individual exception, that III.2 is equal to (or a mere trifle more than) 4 the length of III.1, is of some interest as foreshadowing the next important step to be taken in the series of evolution, viz., from rouXi to affinis , in which species III.2 is always considerably more than lg the length of III.1

Plagiopatagium inserted on, or 1-4 mm. above, the tarsus, i. e., there is evidently some tendency to draw the insertion of this membrane away from the ankle-joint, a little higher up on the tibia; compare with this Rh. affinis . The proportionate length of the tail is as in borneensis .

Skull. The skull of Rh. rouXi is larger than that of borneensis , but I fail to find any appreciable difference in the shape—a strong evidence of the very close relationship between the two species. The individual variation in the size of the skull, in rouXi , is rather considerable (as is also the variation in the ex­ ternal dimensions of this Bat); but among 8 skulls of the typical form of rouXi , from localities so many and so distant inter se as to represent practically the whole area covered by this form, I do not find any so small as the largest among 1 skulls of borneensis (and b. spadiX); in so far there is no difficulty in discriminating them. The tooth-rows, too, in rouXi , are longer. As to the small S. Chinese race of rouXi (described below), the skull has the same length as the largest of borneensis , but the brain-case is decidedly broader, the zygomatic and maxiliar width greater.

Dentition (19 skulls). p3, most often, quite external (12 skulls); not rarely half in row, or | in row (6 skulls); in one aged individual (teeth much worn) p. s is wanting, on both sides of the mandible, and the alveoli have disappeared. Cingula of p2 and p(, most often, in contact or separated by a very narrow, sometimes almost hairfine, interspace (13 skulls); in the remaining (6) individuals, distinctly separated, but the width of the interspace is not always quite the same on both sides of the mandible.

The upper canine and p1 are, with rare exceptions, distinctly separated, p2 completely in the tooth-row (17 skulls, out of 19), as in all the foregoing species. The size of p2 and, therefore, the width of the interspace between c and p4 vary, however, to a certain extent; but in no instance is the width of the interspace as broad as (p2 as well developed as) in simpleX : this is a thing of the past. As to the remaining two skulls (Ceylon, Nepal), the interspace is very narrow, / r half eXternal. This is the first time we have to note instances of p2 not being completely in the tooth-row.

As a general conclusion: — (1) In Rh. rouXi p3 lias arrived so far on its way towards disappearance as to be, generally, external; but still, not rarely, the individual variation falls back to a former stage: p.t partly in the tooth-row; and in some aged individuals the dentition (p3 disappeared) points forwards to subsequent stages in the series of evolution: Rh. ferrum-equinum (p3 rather often lost) and Rh. acrotis (p3 always lost). (2) As to p2 in rouXi , it is generally in the row, rarely half external; this latter, again, points forwards towards subsequent stages: thomasi , ferrum-equinum , and acrotis (p2 always external, or lost).

Distribution. From S. China through the Himalayas to the Indian Peninsula and Ceylon.

. Technical name. As Rh. rouXi has for many years been completely confused with Rh. affinis , some remarks are necessary to pròve that the name rouXi belongs to the species here under consideration. The type locality of Rh. rouXi is “ Calcutta ” *; the types (in the Leiden Museum) were collected by the French naturalist, M. Roux. There is in the Tomes Collection (British Museum') a skin also collected by Roux. The essential points

9 ~ 9 f

in the original description as given by Temminck are the following:—

(1) In “ taille, forme du corps, des oreilles et des follicules accessoires du nez” very much like Java specimens of Rh. affinis Horsf. It may be said so; the difference in the shape of the sella is not easily ascertained in dried skins.

(2) “ Des proportions moins grandes, ” as compared with affinis . As measurements Temminck gives:—Of rouxi : forearm “ 1 pouce 0 lignes ” (49 ‘ 5 mm.), expanse of wings “ 0 pouces. ” Of affinis'. forearm “ 1 pouce 0 lignes, ” expanse “ 1 à 2 pouces.” 49'5 mm. is one of the commonest measurements of the forearm in the series before me. It looks a little contradictory that Temminck, having stated that rouXi is smaller than affinis (which is quite correct), gives precisely the same measurement of their forearms, though, at the same time, a considerably larger “ expanse ” of the latter species. But just that is the salient point. As a matter of fact, the two species can have the forearm of exactly the same length (very large rouXi , and small affinis }; but also in that case, the eXpanse of Rh. affinis is always markedly larger than that of Rh. rouxi , for the obvious reason that in the former species the second phalanx of the third (longest) finger is always absolutely longer than in the latter.

(3) A red, a dark, and an intermediate phase of rouXi were known to Temminck. I have the same phases before me. That similar phases occur in Rh. borneensis has no bearing on the present technical question; borneensis lives far away from “ Calcutta.” The “phases ” of Rh. affinis are different.

(4) “ Les molaires de la mâchoire supérieure sont en même nombre que dans l' affinis , celles de l’inférieure en compte cinq, ou une de moins, par le manque total de la petite dent dont l' affinis est pourvu, et qui forme la sixième molaire. ” Since Temminck emphasises the “ manque total ” of p3, I suppose that he has not overlooked this small tooth, but has examined a (probably aged) individual in which it was wanting (cf. the specimen mentioned above). The word “ sixième ” is, of course, a lapsus for “ cinquième ” (Temminck counted the “ molars ” from behind forwards).

To sum up:—There can be no doubt that Temminck’s Rh. rouXi is the Bat here under consideration, being a species (1) bearing much resemblance to Rh. affinis ; (2) of almost the same size, but with a markedly smaller expanse of wings; (3) with a red, a dark, and an intermediate phase; and (4) inhabiting the Continent of India.

“ Rh. petersi. ” — The original description of Rh. petersi is meagre ami vague; the figures of the head and nose-leaves published four years later are badly drawn; the type specimen (in the Calcutta Museum) has no indication of locality. This may sufficiently account for the fact that no technical name in the genus lias been the source of more confusion. I therefore think it of some use to give a brief sketch of its rather complicated history in literature:—

(«) As to the identification of’ “ h. petersi,” in the original sense of the term, there are only Rh. acuminatus section. I have not the slightest hesitation in referring the name as a synonym to the former species. As, however, Dobson himself later on applied the name to two Bats of the acuminatus section, it will only be necessary to give evidence, from his own description, that he was mistaken. The only important points in the description of “ Bh. petersi as given by Dobson in 187'2 and 1876, 7. e. at the time when he had access to the type specimen, are the following (the italics are mine)—(1) The nose-leaves are “as in Bh. acuminatus . except the upper border of the posterior connecting process, which is much less acute." This statement alone would be sufficient. In acuminatus the shape of the sella and lancet is very much as in rouXi , but the connecting process, both in acuminatus and in all its allies ( sumatranus , calypso , audaX), is projecting and pointed; there is, in this respect, no difference between the species of the acuminatus section, and there is also no appreciable individual variation. When, therefore, Dobson in this decisive point (the chief character of the whole group to which acuminatus belongs) declares his Rh. petersi to be very different from acuminatus , it may safely be said that it has nothing to do with that group. Dobson had evidently before him an example of Bh. rouXi with a slightly raised connecting process (“ much less acute’’than in acuminatus ); such individuals are by no means rare; there are several in the British Museum, and the peculiarity is purely individual. Dobson found, quite naturally, that this peculiarity recalled that shape of the connecting process which had been described, one year earlier, by Peters in a species called by him Rh. acuminatus and. consequently, he compared it, in his paper, with this latter species, at the same time emphasising that there was a considerable difference. (2) The figure (side view) in Dobson’s ‘ Monograph, ’ however bad it is, can scarcely represent the shape of the connecting process in acum inatus. Dobson has, no doubt, called the attention of his artist to the connectingprocess of the specimen to be figured as Bh. petersi, and the artist, in due obedience, has made his best to “ emphasise ” that point: this may account, I think, for the process being somewhat more exao-o-erated than in ordinary individuals of rouXi ; but it is still not the process of an acuminatus . (3) The measurements of petersi are, without any exception, perfectly like those of several unquestionable specimens of rouXi measured by myself; there is not the slightest indication of a difference. (4) The type of petersi is from “ India, precise locality unknown.” The acuminatus section is distributed over Sumatra, Engano, Java, and Lombok. When Dobson wrote his ‘ Monograph,’ there was not, in the Calcutta Museum, any specimen of any species of Bhinolophus from those islands; so that, if Rh. petersi were a member of the acuminatus section, the type, without locality, would have been the only Rhinolophus in the museum from any of those islands. This is, of course, not beyond the limits of possibility; but it is certainly much more likely that Rh. petersi, as also the vast majority of the Bats in the Calcutta Museum at Dobson’s time, came from some part of the Indian Peninsula or the Himalayas, the habitat of h. rouXi , and far from the home of Rh. acuminatv. s and its allies.

To describe a new species which subsequently proves to be an old one is no rare occurrence, and, as a rule, it does no very serious harm. But the strong emphasising of a purely individual peculiarity, combined with the circumstance that the type had no “ locality, ” caused in this case a series of confusions: Rh. petersi emerged, like a ghost, very unexpectedly at such different places as the Gold Coast, Sumatra, the Himalayas, and S. India. And, curiously enough, the author of the “ species ” inaugurated the mistakes. When he had returned to London and was working out his ‘ Catalogue,’ Dobson had no longer access to the type of Rh. petersi; he had his own short description only, and perhaps some private note. It is quite evident that, in these circumstances and occupied with the study of many other Bats, he lost the precise idea of the type specimen; he only kept in his memory, as its most important character, its “ projecting ” connecting process. So it came that he referred a specimen labelled “ Gold Coast ” to 7i /i. petersi ***§; for it is a genuine acuminatums, beyond all doubt from Java, and Dobson himself would scarcely have been able to tell why he called it petersi instead of Two years later, Dobson had for determination a collection of Bats belonging to the Gottingen Museum; among these he again believed he found a Rh. petersi t. I have had this example for inspection J; it is neither “ Rh. petersi ” nor Rh. acuminatus , but Rh. sumatranus .

(6) In a paper on some Himalayan Bats, Capt. Hutton § records Rh. petersi from Masuri. All the Bats mentioned by Hutton were presented to the “ Indian Museum, ” and are now in the British Museum. The two specimens labelled “ Rh. petersi ” are Rh. monticola , a species closely allied to Rh. lejndzis ||.*** §

(c) In Blanford’s ‘ Fauna of British India ’ (loc. infra citi) 1th. petersi is recorded from Masuri and from Nilghiri. The former statement is borrowed from Hutton’s paper. The latter is based on an example collected by W. Davison in Coonoor, Nilghiri. This specimen is now in the British Museum. It is a Rh. rouXi .

In short: — (1) For reasons given above I regard Dobson’s Rh. petersi (1872 and 1876) as a synonym of 1th. rouXi’, (2) Dobson’s Rh. petersi (1878) is Rh. acuminatus’, (3) Dobson’s Rh. petersi (1880) is Rh. sttmairanus; (4) Hutton’s 1th. petersi is Rh. monticola ; (5) Blanford’s Rh. petersi is partly Rh. monticela (Masuri), partly Rh. rouXi (Nilghiri) .

Geographical races. There are, at least, two forms of Rh. rouXi , differing in size and geographical habitat.