Rhinolophus affinis Horsf.
Creators: name: Andersen, Knud
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 1905
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy

description: 13. Rhinolophus affinis Horsf. (Plate figs. 11-13.) <i>Diagnosis.</i> Sella pandurate, p2 in the tooth-row. Forearm 50-56 mm. <i>Details.</i> This species marks an important progress in development <i>as</i> compared with <i>Rh. rouXi.</i> It is the base of the <i>ferrumequinum</i> section. The chief modifications are four: in the shape of the sella; in the structure of the wings; in the size of the animal; in the shortening of the palatal bridge. <b>In</b> the <i>borneensis-rouXi</i> type the sella is practically parallel- margined; in <i>affinis</i> it is pandurate, <i>i. e.</i> the lateral margins concave, as in ferrum-equinum, though generally to a slightly less degree. In <i>simpleX</i> and its closest relations the lancet is almost cuneate; in <i>borneensis</i> there is a tendency towards emargination of the lateral margins; in <i>rouXi</i> this tendency is carried to an extreme; in <i>affinis</i> the lancet falls back to the former Throughout the whole series of forms reviewed above, with the exception of the somewhat aberrant <i>Rh. nereis, stheno,</i> and <i>thomasi,</i> the wings have remained at the same primitive stage. no length <i>ening of</i> the second phalanx of the third finger. In <i>affinis</i> this phalanx has considerably increased in length, being always more than, and with very rare exceptions <i>considerably</i> more than, U the length of the first phalanx, a peculiarity which is preserved in the subsequent stage of evolution: <i>ferrum-equinum.</i> The aberrant species just alluded to, viz. <i>Rh. nereis, stheno,</i> and <i>thomasi,</i> are, from this point of view, of especial interest, as being Bats of the <i>rouXi</i> type which already show the wing-structure characteristic of the more highly developed <i>affinis.</i> <i>Rh. affinis</i> is larger than <i>rouXi</i>; but small <i>affinis</i> have the same length of the forearm as very large <i>rouXi.</i> In such cases, <i>Rh. affinis,</i> provided the specimens examined are fresh or preserved in spirit, can, of course, easily be discriminated by the shape of the sella and the length of III."; if preserved as dried skins (in which the shape of the sella is often difficult to recognise), still the latter character remains unchanged. <i>Colour.</i> The many forms in which this species is differentiated seem to agree, rather closely, in colour:— () Darker individuals: &amp;male; ad., Darjeeling <i>{Rh. a. himalayanus);</i> Oct. 22nd; teeth unworn; skin:—Upper side “ mars-brown <i>”</i> with a rather strong hue of <i>“</i> drab <i>”</i>; no horse-shoe patch; base of hairs “ ecru-drab <i>”</i>; under side “ broccoli-brown." Still darker is a &amp;male; ad. from Lombok <i>{Rh. a. qrrinceps')</i>; teeth somewhat worn; in alcohol; unfaded: <i>—“</i> Prout’s brown <i>”</i> above, base of hairs “wood-brown <i>”</i>; under side almost “tawny-olive. <i>”</i> (2) Light-coloured individuals: &amp;male; <b>ad</b>., Nanking <i>{Rh. a. himalayanus')</i>; July 5th; teeth somewhat worn; skin:—Extremely light. Above light “ clay, <i>”</i> almost “ ochraceous-buff, <i>”</i> hinder back somewhat darker; a rather distinct, <i>“</i> mars-brown <i>”</i> horseshoe patch; base of hairs <i>“</i> cream-buff ”; under side very light, almost <i>“</i> cream-buff.” <i>—</i> A spirit specimen (&amp;male; ad.) from the same locality (June 15th) is quite of the same colour. <i>Skull.</i> The <i>essential</i> characters as in <i>rouXi,</i> proving that <i>Rh. affinis</i> originated from a Bat of that type, The skull is generally larger, and the gap in front between the maxillary bones wider. Chief character: the <i>exceedingly</i> short palatal bridge, as a rule only | the length of the maxiliar tooth-row, or <i>even less</i>; in <i>rouXi,</i> with very rare exceptions, decidedly more than sometimes almost 5. The teeth, too, are slightly larger. <i>Dentition.</i> p3 external and extremely small; but, as a rare exception, this premolar may still, in this comparatively highlydeveloped species, show some tendency towards the tooth-row (one skull, out of 19), or be halfway in row (one). p <i>„</i> and p <b>4</b> generally quite, or almost, in contact (14 skulls); in tbe remaining somewhat more distinctly separated, p2 always in the tooth-row, extremely small, and the interspace between the canine and p4 rather narrow. In no less than five skulls there is an <i>exceedingly</i> narrow, in most cases almost hair-fine, interspace between p- and <b>p</b> * (the formel' place of p3). <i>Distribution.</i> From the N.W. Himalayas to S. China; through <b>Indo-China</b>, the Malay Peninsula, and N. Natunas, to Sumatra, Java, and Lombok. <i>Technical name.</i> The type of <i>Rh. affinis</i> is in the British Museum. From the original description it would have been quite impossible to identify the species. <i>Remarks.</i> Of all the races of <i>Rh. affinis,</i> the Himalayan form <i>{Rh. a. himalayanus)</i> is the most ordinary-looking: in the horse-shoe, the ears, the nasal swellings, the brain-case. There can hardly be any doubt that <i>the affinis type originated in the Himalayas,</i> and from there spread eastwards to S. China, southeastwards through Indo-China, as far as Lombok. <i>Geographical races.</i> There are, at least, seven forms of <i>Rh. affinis,</i> differing in certain cranial characters, in the size of the ears and horse-shoe, in the length of the tail and tibia, in general size, and in geographical habitat. Some of these forms may be called distinct species by other authors.
description: Published as part of <i>Andersen, Knud, 1905, On some Bats of the Genus Rhinolophus, with Remarks on their Mutual Affinities, and Descriptions of Twenty-six new Forms., pp. 75-145 in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 2</i> on pages 101-103, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3757451