Rhinolophus rouxii Temminck 1835
Creators: name: Thomas, Nikky M.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2000
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Chiroptera
Rhinolophidae
Rhinolophus
Rhinolophus rouxii

description: <i>Rhinolophus rouxii</i> Temminck, 1835 Rufous horseshoe bat. <i> <i>Rhinolophus</i> rouxii</i> Temminck, 1835: 30 b; Calcutta and Pondicherry, India. <i>Rhinoloph&amp;imath;&amp;imath;s rubidus‘</i> Kelaart, 1850: 209; Kaduganava, Sri Lanka. Rhinolophus fulvidus Blyth, 1851: 182 (error for rubidus Kelaart). <i>Rhinolophus cínerascens</i> Kelaart, 1852: 13; Fort Frederick, Sri Lanka. <i> <i>Rhinolophus</i> rammanika</i> Kelaart. 1852: 14; Amanapoora Hill. Kaduganava, Sri Lanka. <i> <i>Rhinolophus</i> petersií</i> Dobson, 1872: 337; India “precise locality not known ” External characters (measurements included in Table 4): A medium-sized Rhinolophid, with an average forearm length of 48.5 mm (range 44.6-52.3 mm). The ears are larger than in <i>R</i>. <i>sínic&amp;imath;&amp;imath;s</i> averaging 19.7 mm (14.5 -24.0 mm). The noseleaf is longer and broader, averaging 13.6 mm in greatest height and 8.5 mm in greatest width. The lancet is tall and narrowly pointed with relatively straight sides (Fig. 6b). The base of the sella is narrow in frontal view. In side view, the superior connecting process of the sella is more rounded than in <i>R</i>. <i>sinicus</i>, and the base does not project downwards. In the wing, <i>R</i>. <i>rouxii</i> has a longer forearm and longer metacarpals than in <i>R</i>. <i>sínícus</i>, however, the phalanges are shorter by an average of 4.5 %. The pelage is soft and silky, and ranges from orange to buffy brown. Empirical evidence suggests a seasonal bias in colour with orange and rufous tints predominating from October to April and the paler phases being more common from May to September (Bates &amp; Harrison 1997). Cranial and dental characters: The skull is more robust than in <i>R</i>. <i>sínicz&amp;imath;s</i>, with condylocanine length averaging 19.1 mm (17.5 -20.9 mm) (Table 4). The skull is relatively broad, having a zygomatic breadth averaging 11 1 mm and a mastoid breadth of 10.2 mm. The palate is longer than in <i>R</i>. <i>síníc&amp;imath;&amp;imath;s</i>, its anterior border is at a level of the mesostyle of the &amp;filig;rst upper molar (ml); it averages 2.4 mm in length (Fig. 7 b). The dentition is relatively robust, having upper and lower toothrows which average 8.6 mm and 9.3 mm respectively. The upper canine is not in contact with the second upper premolar (pm4) and the &amp;filig;rst upper premolar (pmz) is usually situated in the toothrow. The second lower premolar (pm3) is usually situated in the toothrow. Bacular morphology‘ The shaft of the baculum is long, parallel-sided and generally straight, thickening towards the base, as in <i>R</i>. <i>sínicus</i>. The base is slightly expanded, and the tip is simple and unexpanded (Fig. 8 b). Bacula examined were found to be slightly longer and broader than in <i>R</i>. <i>sinicus</i>, averaging 2.3 mm and 0.7 mm respectively. Distribution. <i>R</i>. <i>rouxii</i> ranges from Sri Lanka, throughout peninsular India to southern Myanmar (Fig. 9). For a full listing of localities see Bates &amp; Harrison (1997 &amp; in press). Variation (Table 4): Specimens from Sri Lanka are currently referred to <i>R</i>. <i>rouxii</i> <i>rubidus</i> (Bates &amp; Harrison 1997). This taxon is smaller in body and skull size than <i>R</i>. <i>rouxíí</i> <i>rouxíi</i> from peninsular India and Myanmar, but not as small as <i>R</i>. <i>sinicus</i>. Noseleaf morphology shows Sri Lankan individuals to have, on average, wider noseleaves covering most of the muzzle, whereas in <i>R</i>. r. <i>rouxíi</i> from peninsular India and Myanmar the noseleaf is relatively narrow. Cranial characters of Sri Lankan individuals also average smaller, particularly condylocanine length, zygomatic and mastoid breadths, width across the canines and mandibular length. The upper and lower toothrows however, are relatively long averaging almost the same in both Indian and Sri Lankan individuals. Although the bacula of Sri Lankan individuals are longer, the morphology is comparable. Specimens examined. (S) denotes inclusion in discriminant analysis, (D) denotes inclusion in molecular analysis. Sri Lanka: lngiriya, HZM. 28.28555, HZM. 35.28562, HZM. 36.28563, HZM. 37.28564; Kalutara, BM. 20.9.26.2, BM. 20.9.26.3 (S), BM. 20.9.26.4 (S), BM. 20.9.26.5 (S), BM. 20.9.26.6, BM. 20.9.26.7 (S), BM. 20.9.26.8, BM. 20.9.26.9 (S), BM. 20.9.26.10 (S), BM. 20.9.26.11, BM. 20.9.26.12 (S), BM. 66.5508 (S), BM. 66.5509, BM. 66.5510, BM. 66.5511, BM. 66.5512, BM. 66.5513, BM. 66.5514, BM. 6615, BM. 66.5516 (S); Matale, HZM.48.29287 (S,D), HZM. 54.29330 (S,D), HZM. 74 (S, D), HZM. 75 (S,D); Monaragala, HZM.29.28556, HZM.32.28559, HZM.33.28560, HZM.40.28567; Pussahena, HZM.l 6.27473 (S), HZM.l 7.27474 (S), HZM.l 8.27475 (S), HZM.l 9.27476 (S); Ruwanwella, HZM.l 9.27476 (S), HZM. 20.27477 (S); Wellawaya, HZM. 38.28565. India: Asgani, BM. ll.7.l 8. l (S); Barchi, BM. 12.11.28.7 (S); Benhope, BM.25. <i>lO</i>. l.2, BM.25.10. l.3; Bombay, CG.l 962 -345 A (S), CG.l 962 -345 B (S), CG. 1962 - 345 C (S), CG.l 962 -345 D (S), CG. 1962 - 345 E (S), CG. 1962 - 345 F (S), CG.l 962-345G (S); Coonor, BM. 85.3.20.1 (S); Colva, HZM.27.28159 (S, D); Dandeli, BM. l2. ll. 28.6; Devikop, BM. 12.6.29.16 (S), BM.l 2.6.29.17(S), BM. 12.6.29.l8 (S), BM. l 2.6.29.19 (S); High Wavy Mountains, MM. 20 (S), HZM.24.28156 (D), HZM.25.28157, HZM.26.28158 (D), MM.l 20; Jog Falls, HM. 93.18.1 (S), HM. 93.18.2 (S), HM. 93.18.3 (S), HM. 93.18.4 (S), HM. 93.18.5 (S), HM. 93.18.7 (S), HM. 93.18.8 (S), HM. 93.18.9 (S); Kamala, CG.l985 - l5 l 0 (S), CG. 1985 - 1513 (S), CG. l985 - l5l 4 (S); Kodura, BM. 30.5.24.53 (S), BM. 30.5.24.54 (S), BM. 30.5.24.55; Mahableshwar, IN. 71, Mysore, MM. 24 (S), MM. 25 (S), MM. 30 (S), BM.13.4.l 1. l 3, BM.l 3.4. l 1.9, BM.13.4.1 l.l 0 (S), BM. l3.4. l 1.ll, BM.l 3.4. l1.12, BM.13.4. l1.l 3 (S), BM.l 3.4. l 1.14, BM. 13.4.ll.l 5, BM. 13.4.11.16 (S), BM.l 3.4.1l. 17, BM.l 3.4.ll 18 (S), BM. 13.11.28.7 (S), BM. l 8.8.3.18, BM.l 8.8.3.l 9 (S), BM.l 8.8.3.20, BM. l8.8.3.21 (S), BM.l 8.8.3.22; Savantvadi, BM.ll. 7.18.2 (S), BM. ll. 7. l8.3 (S), BM. 11.7.18.4 (S); Shevaroy Hills, BM. 30.5.24.44 (S), BM. 30.5.24.45 (S), BM. 30.5.24.46 (S), BM. 30.5.24.47, BM. 30.5.24.48 (S), BM. 30.5.24.49, BM. 30.5.24.50, BM. 30.5.24.51 (S); Sirsi, BM. 0.4.1.6, BM. 0.4.1.7 (S), BM.0.4.l. 8 (S), BM. 12.11.28.8 (S), BM.l 2.1 l.28.9 (S), BM. 12. ll. 28.l 0, BM. l2.11.28.11 (S), BM. 12.11.28.12, BM.l 2.11.28.l 3 (S); Supa, BM. 12.11.28.14 (S), BM.12.1 l.28.l 5 (S); Talewadi, IIZM.lo. 25680 (S), HZM.ll.25681 (S), HZM.12.25682 (S), IN. 61 (S), IN. 64 (S), IN. 65 (S); Udyagiri, HM. 92.86.1 (S), HM. 92.86.2 (S), HM. 92.86.3 (S), HM. 92.86.4 (S), HM. 92.86.5 (S), HM. 92.86.6 (S), HM. 92.86.7 (S), HM. 92.86.8 (S), HM. 92.86.9 (S), HM. 92.86.10 (S). Myanmar: Toungoo, BM. 27.11.18.4 (S). Habits: <i>R</i>. <i>rouxii</i> is a forest species which is restricted to areas with relatively high rainfall. It is common in the Ghats, Kanara and Konkan regions of India (Brosset 1962) and in the lowlands of Sri Lanka (Phillips 1980). <i>R</i>. <i>rouxíí</i> favours caves and tunnels for diurnal roosting sites, with colony sizes varying from a few individuals to several hundred. <i>R</i>. <i>rouxii</i> is often found to roost sympatrically with <i>Hípposideros speorzls'</i> and other species ofHipposiderid bat. Brosset (1962) observed sexual segregation occurring for part of the year, with the males living alone or in small groups and the females gathering in large colonies of several hundred individuals. The diet is probably primarily composed of grasshoppers, moths (Brosset 1962); beetles, termites, mosquitos and other Diptera (Phillips 1980).
description: Published as part of <i>Thomas, Nikky M., 2000, Morphological and mitochondrial-DNA variation in Rhinolophus rouxii (Chiroptera), pp. 1-18 in Bonner zoologische Beiträge 49 (1)</i> on pages 11-14, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3759227
description: {"references": ["Temminck, C. J. (1835): Monographies de mammalogie, tome 2. - Leiden and Paris, 3 E PP-", "Kelaart, E. F. (1850): Description of new species and varieties of mammals found in Cey- Ion. J. Ceylon Brch R. Asiat. Soc. 2: 208 - 215.", "Blyth, E. (1851): Report on the Mammalia and more remarkable species of bird inhabiting Ceylon. B J. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 20: 153 - 185.", "Kelaart, E. F. (1852): Prodromus faunae zeylanicae; contributions to the zoology of Ceylon. - Colombo, 197 pp.", "Dobson, G. E. (1872): Brief descriptions of five new species of Rhinolophine bats. JI R. Asiat. Soc. Beng: 41. 336 - 338.", "Bates, P. J. J. &amp; D. L. Harrison (1997): Bats of the Indian Subcontinent. - Harrison Zoological Museum Publications.", "Allen, G. M. (1938): The mammals of China and Mongolia. - American Museum ofNatural History, New York.", "Brosset, A. (1962): The bats ofcentral and western India, Part II. - J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 59: 583 - 624.", "Phillips a, W. W. A. (1 1980 980) $: Manual of the mammals of Sri Lanka. Part l. - Wildlife an Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka, 116 pp."]}