Taphozous hargravei Ramsay, 1876b

Parnaby, Harry E., Ingleby, Sandy & Divljan, Anja, 2017, Type Specimens of Non-fossil Mammals in the Australian Museum, Sydney, Records of the Australian Museum 69 (5), pp. 277-420 : 389-390

Taphozous hargravei Ramsay, 1876b

Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 1(1): 81. (February 1876).

Common name. Yellow-bellied Sheath-tailed Bat.

Current name. Saccolaimus flaviventris ( Peters, 1867a) , following Jackson & Groves (2015).

? Holotype. M.2349 by subsequent determination by Troughton (1925). Female adult, study skin ( Fig. 52 ), skull not found and not sighted for decades. Collection date not stated, assumed to be 1875 based on original account. Registered on 16 December 1913 from the “old collection”, with the M Register entry written in pencil “skin,? skull” but no previous registration numbers indicated. Specimen obtained from Ralph Hargrave ( Ramsay, 1876b). The specimen is tied to cardboard with its dorsal side visible. An old label that probably predates Troughton’s curatorship is fixed to the rear of the cardboard, and states: “ Taphozous hargravei Ramsey [sic], with skull”, but the skull does not seem to be in the collection. The M Register entry against M.2349 states “Skin-147, Skull?”, implying either that the skull was not located when registered, or not located during a subsequent early 20th century inventory.

Condition. Study skin in reasonable condition: bald patches on the head, the right humerus is exposed.

Type locality. “Stanwell, near Bulli”, New South Wales ( Ramsay, 1876b).

Comments. Ramsay described external morphology and provided detailed external measurements for a “dried skin” that he stated to be “much mutilated”, which also suggests that Ramsay had a single specimen on which to describe the species. Likewise, Ogilby (1892) stated that the species is based on a dry skin “in very bad condition” and implied that the taxon was based on one specimen, although it is not clear whether Ogilby actually examined the specimen. Ramsay’s detailed description of the entire dentition suggests that he had examined an extracted skull but he did not provide cranial measurements. Ramsay did not cite any accompanying registration number as the AM did not assign specimen numbers at that time.

Troughton (1925) gives external and cranial measurements for a specimen (M.2349) he believed to be Ramsay’s original, and stated that Ramsay had mistakenly thought that the specimen was male. The condition of the study skin M.2349 ( Fig. 52 ) seems highly at variance with Ramsay’s statement concerning the condition of the skin and raises doubts about the correctness of Troughton’s attribution. The cranial measurements of the type given by Troughton (1925) imply an intact skull, but the skull has evidently not been sighted for decades.

Figures

Figure 52. Skin of AM M.2349, alleged holotype of Taphozous hargravei Ramsay, 1876b. Ventral surface obscured by board mount. (Photography by Sally Cowan).