Rhinolophus rouxi Temm.
Creators: name: Andersen, Knud
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 1905
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Chiroptera
Rhinolophidae
Rhinolophus
Rhinolophus rouxi

description: 11. Rhinolophus rouxi Temm. (Plate fig. 9 <i>a, b, c, d.)</i> <i>Diagnosis.</i> Allied to <i>Rh. borneensis,</i> but larger, and with considerably longer metacarpals. Third metacarpal 34-38 mm. Forearm 46-51'5 mm. <i>Details.</i> This is a large, continental representative of the <i>borneensis</i> type, characterised chiefly by the much longer metacarpals and the shape of the lancet. In general size, the continental <i>Rh. rouXi</i> bears the same relation to the insular <i>Rh. borneensis</i> as the continental <i>Rh. megaphyllus</i> does to the insular <i>Rh. simpleX.</i> 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 <i>simpleX</i> and its closest allies the lancet is long and quite (or almost) cuneate; in <i>borneensis</i> 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 <i>rouXi</i>: the lancet is <i>hastate,</i> i. e., abruptly <i>narrowed</i> in the middle, the tip well developed and slender (not abnormally shortened, as in <i>thomasi);</i> but still, individually (though, as it seems, rather rarely), in <i>rouXi,</i> the lancet is less abruptly narrowed, as an atavism towards a passed stage. The ears are as in <i>borneensis.</i> Wing-structure almost on the <i>simpleX-borneensis</i> stage, <i>i. e.,</i> III.2 almost always <i>less</i> than lg the length of III.1 The rare individual exception, that III.2 is equal to (or a mere trifle more than) <b>4</b> 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 <i>rouXi</i> to <i>affinis,</i> in which species III.2 is <i>always considerably more</i> than lg the length of III.1 Plagiopatagium inserted on, or 1-4 mm. above, the tarsus, <i>i. e.,</i> there is evidently some tendency to draw the insertion of this membrane <i>away</i> from the ankle-joint, a little higher up on the tibia; compare with this <i>Rh. affinis.</i> The proportionate length of the tail is as in <i>borneensis.</i> <i>Skull.</i> The skull of <i>Rh. rouXi</i> is <i>larger</i> than that of <i>borneensis,</i> but I fail to find any appreciable difference in the shape—a strong evidence of the <b>very</b> close relationship between <b>the</b> two species. The individual variation in the size of <b>the</b> skull, in <i>rouXi,</i> 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 <i>rouXi,</i> from localities so many and so distant <i>inter se</i> as to represent practically the whole area covered by this form, I do not find any so small as the <i>largest</i> among 1 skulls of <i>borneensis</i> (and <i>b. spadiX)</i>; in so far there is no difficulty in discriminating them. The tooth-rows, too, in <i>rouXi,</i> are longer. As to the small S. Chinese race of <i>rouXi</i> (described below), the skull has the same length as the <i>largest</i> of <i>borneensis,</i> but the brain-case is decidedly broader, the zygomatic and maxiliar width greater. <i>Dentition</i> (19 skulls). p3, most often, quite external (12 skulls); not rarely half in row, or | in row (6 skulls); in one <i>aged</i> individual (teeth much worn) p. <i>s</i> 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 <i>no</i> instance is the width of the interspace as broad as (p2 as well developed as) in <i>simpleX</i>: this is a thing of the past. As to the remaining two skulls (Ceylon, Nepal), the interspace is very narrow, / <i>r half eXternal.</i> This is the first time we have to note instances of p2 not being <i>completely</i> in the tooth-row. As a general conclusion: <i>—</i> (1) In <i>Rh. rouXi</i> p3 lias arrived so far on its way towards disappearance as to be, generally, external; but still, not rarely, the individual variation <i>falls back</i> to a former stage: p.t partly in the tooth-row; and in some aged individuals the dentition (p3 disappeared) <i>points forwards</i> to subsequent stages in the series of evolution: <i>Rh. ferrum-equinum</i> (p3 rather often lost) and <i>Rh. acrotis</i> (p3 always lost). (2) As to p2 in <i>rouXi,</i> it is generally in the row, rarely half external; this latter, again, points <i>forwards</i> towards subsequent stages: <i>thomasi, ferrum-equinum,</i> and <i>acrotis</i> (p2 always external, or lost). <i>Distribution.</i> <b>From</b> S. China through the Himalayas to the Indian Peninsula and Ceylon. . <i>Technical name.</i> As <i>Rh. rouXi</i> has for many years been completely confused with <i>Rh. affinis,</i> some remarks are necessary to pròve that the name <i>rouXi</i> belongs to the species here under consideration. The type locality of <i>Rh. rouXi</i> is “ Calcutta <i>”</i> *; 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 <i>9 ~ 9</i> <b>f</b> * Temminck, <i>l oc.</i> infra <i>cit.,</i> p. 30 <i>c;</i> Jentink, 6 Catalogue systématique des Mammifères/ Mus. <i>d’hist</i>. nat. Pays-Bas, xii. (1888) p. 161 (under Rh. affinis). in the original description as given by Temminck are the following:— (1) In <i>“</i> taille, forme du corps, des oreilles et des follicules accessoires du nez” very much like Java specimens of <i>Rh. affinis</i> 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, <i>”</i> as compared with <i>affinis.</i> As measurements Temminck gives:—Of <i>rouxi</i>: forearm “ 1 pouce 0 lignes ” (49 <i>‘</i> 5 mm.), expanse of wings “ <b>0</b> pouces. <i>”</i> Of <i>affinis'.</i> forearm “ 1 pouce 0 lignes, <i>”</i> expanse <i>“</i> 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 <i>rouXi</i> is smaller than <i>affinis</i> (which is quite correct), gives precisely the same measurement of their forearms, though, at the same time, a considerably larger “ expanse <i>”</i> of the latter species. But just that is the salient point. As a matter of fact, the two species <i>can</i> have the forearm of exactly the same length (very large <i>rouXi,</i> and small <i>affinis};</i> but also in that case, <i>the eXpanse of</i> Rh. affinis <i>is always markedly larger than that of</i> Rh. rouxi, for the obvious reason that in the former species the second phalanx of the third (longest) finger is always <i>absolutely</i> longer than in the latter. (<b>3</b>) A red, a dark, and an intermediate phase of <i>rouXi</i> were known to Temminck. I have the same phases before me. That similar phases occur in <i>Rh. borneensis</i> has no bearing on the present technical question; <i>borneensis</i> lives far away from <i>“</i> Calcutta.” The “phases <i>”</i> of <i>Rh. affinis</i> are different. (4) <i>“</i> Les molaires de la mâchoire supérieure sont en même nombre que dans l' <i>affinis,</i> celles de l’inférieure en compte cinq, ou une de moins, par le manque total de la petite dent dont l' <i>affinis</i> est pourvu, et qui forme la sixième molaire. <i>”</i> Since Temminck emphasises the “ manque total <i>”</i> of p3, I suppose that he has not overlooked this small tooth, but has examined a (probably aged) individual in which it was wanting (<i>cf</i>. the specimen mentioned above). The word “ sixième <i>”</i> is, of course, a lapsus for “ cinquième ” (Temminck counted the <i>“</i> molars <i>”</i> from behind forwards). To sum up:—There can be no doubt that Temminck’s <i>Rh. rouXi</i> is the Bat here under consideration, being a species (1) bearing much resemblance to <i>Rh. affinis</i>; (2) of almost the same size, but with a markedly smaller expanse of wings; (<b>3</b>) with a red, a dark, and an intermediate phase; and (4) inhabiting the Continent of India. “ <i>Rh. petersi.</i> ” <i>—</i> The original description of <i>Rh. petersi</i> is meagre ami vague; the figures of the head and nose-leaves published four <i>years</i> 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:— (<i>«</i>) As to the identification <i>of’</i> “ <i>h. petersi,”</i> in the <i>original</i> sense of the term, there are <i>only</i> Rh. <i>acuminatus</i> 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 <i>acuminatus</i> 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 <i>“ Bh. petersi</i> as given by Dobson in 187'2 and 1876, 7. <i>e.</i> at the time <i>when he had access to the type specimen,</i> are the following (the italics are mine)—(1) The nose-leaves are “as in <i>Bh. acuminatus.</i> except the upper border of the posterior connecting process, which is <i>much less acute."</i> This statement alone would be sufficient. In <i>acuminatus</i> the shape of the sella and lancet is very much as in <i>rouXi,</i> but the connecting process, both in <i>acuminatus</i> and in <i>all</i> its allies <i>(sumatranus, calypso, audaX),</i> is <i>projecting</i> and <i>pointed;</i> there is, in this respect, no <i>difference</i> between the species of the <i>acuminatus</i> 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 <i>acuminatus</i> belongs) declares his <i>Rh. petersi</i> to be very different from <i>acuminatus,</i> it may safely be said that it has nothing to do with that group. Dobson had evidently before him an example of <i>Bh. rouXi</i> with a <i>slightly raised</i> connecting process (<i>“</i> much less acute’’than in <i>acuminatus)</i>; such individuals are by no means rare; there are several in the British Museum, and the peculiarity is <i>purely</i> 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 <i>Rh. acuminatus</i> 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, <i>’</i> however bad it is, can scarcely represent the shape of the connecting process in <i>acum inatus.</i> Dobson has, no doubt, called the attention of his artist to the connectingprocess of the specimen to be figured as <i>Bh. petersi,</i> and the artist, in due obedience, has made his best to “ emphasise <i>”</i> that point: this may account, I think, for the process being somewhat more exao-o-erated than in ordinary individuals of <i>rouXi;</i> but it is still not the process of an <i>acuminatus.</i> (3) The measurements of <i>petersi</i> are, without any exception, <i>perfectly</i> like those of several unquestionable specimens of <i>rouXi</i> measured by myself; there is not the slightest indication of a difference. (4) The type of <i>petersi</i> is from <i>“</i> India, precise locality unknown.” The <i>acuminatus</i> 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 <i>Bhinolophus</i> from those islands; so that, if <i>Rh. petersi</i> were a member of the <i>acuminatus</i> section, the type, <i>without locality,</i> would have been the only <i>Rhinolophus</i> 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 <i>Rh. petersi,</i> 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 <i>h. rouXi,</i> and far from the home of <i>Rh. acuminatv.</i> s and its allies. * Dobson, J. A. S. B. xli. pt. ii. (Dee. 22, 1872) p. 337: <i>id</i>., Monogr. Asiat. Chir. (1876) p. 49, text-figs, <i>a, b.</i> <i>f</i> Peters, MB. Akad. Berlin, 1871, p. 308. To describe a new species which subsequently proves to be an old one is no rare <i>occurrence</i>, 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, <i>”</i> caused in this case a series of confusions: <i>Rh. petersi</i> 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 <i>”</i> inaugurated the mistakes. When he had returned to London and was working out his ‘ Catalogue,’ Dobson had no longer access to the type of <i>Rh. petersi</i>; 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 <i>“</i> projecting <i>”</i> connecting process. So it came that he referred a specimen labelled “ Gold Coast <i>”</i> to <b>7i</b> /i. <i>petersi</i> ***§; for it is a genuine <i>acuminatums,</i> beyond all doubt from Java, and Dobson himself would scarcely have been able to tell why he called it <i>petersi</i> instead of <b>Two</b> years later, Dobson had for determination a collection of Bats belonging to the Gottingen Museum; among these he again believed he found a <i>Rh. petersi</i> t. I have had this example for inspection J; it is neither “ <i>Rh. petersi ”</i> nor <i>Rh. acuminatus,</i> but <i>Rh. sumatranus.</i> (6) In a paper on some Himalayan Bats, Capt. Hutton § records <i>Rh. petersi</i> from Masuri. All the Bats mentioned by <b>Hutton</b> were presented to the “ Indian Museum, <i>”</i> and are now in the British Museum. The two specimens labelled “ <i>Rh. petersi ”</i> are <i>Rh. monticola,</i> a species closely allied to <i>Rh. lejndzis ||.***</i> § * Dobson, Cat. Chir. Brit. Mus. (1878) p. <b>114.</b> t Dobson, “ On some new or rare Species of Chiroptera in the Collection of the Göttingen Museum, <i>”</i> P. Z. S. 1880, p. 462. <i>X</i> I am indebted to Geheimrat, Professor Dr. Ehlers, Göttingen, for the loan of this specimen. § Hutton, “On the Bats of the North-western Himalayas; with Notes and Corrections in Nomenclature by Prof. W. Peters,” P. Z. S. 1872, p. 700. II As Hutton’s article is one of the very few papers which give information respecting the <i>habits</i> of Himalayan Bats, and therefore has been <i>frequently</i> quoted by subsequent writers, I think it advisable to correct the following errors in the identifications <b>of</b> the four species of <i>Rhinolophus</i> dealt with in that paper:—“ <i>Rh.</i> affinis <i>”</i> (p. 696) is <i> <i>Rh</i>. pearsoni;</i> “ <i>Rh.</i> rouXi ” (p. 697) is <i> <i>Rh</i>. affinis;</i> “ <i>Rh. minor '7</i> (p. 698) is <i> <i>Rh</i>. rouXi</i> ; and, as pointed out above, “ Rif. <i>petersi ”</i> (p. 700) is <i> <i>Rh</i>. monticola.</i> <b>Hutton’s</b> Bats were (as also stated in his paper) determined, not by himself, but by <b>Prof</b>. Peters in Berlin. But the mistakes are so strange that they cannot, <b>certainly, be</b> due to Prof. Peters; an extensive confusion of labels must have occurred (I can rather easily, from Peters’s point of <b>view</b>, as laid down in his papers, guess the original arrangement of the labels), but the confusion had at all events <b>taken</b> place <i>before</i> <b>the</b> snecimens were returned to <b>Hutton.</b> <b> (<i>c</i></b> ) In Blanford’s ‘ Fauna of British India <i> ’ (loc. infra <i>citi</i>) 1th. petersi</i> is <b>recorded</b> 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 <b>specimen</b> is now in the British Museum. It is a <i>Rh. rouXi.</i> In short: <i>—</i> (1) For reasons given above I regard <b>Dobson’s</b> <i>Rh. petersi</i> (1872 and 1876) as a synonym of <i>1th. rouXi’,</i> (2) Dobson’s <i>Rh. petersi</i> (1878) is <i>Rh. acuminatus’,</i> (3) Dobson’s <i>Rh. petersi</i> (1880) is <i>Rh. sttmairanus;</i> (4) Hutton’s <i>1th. petersi</i> is <i>Rh. monticola</i>; (5) Blanford’s <i>Rh. petersi</i> is partly <i>Rh. monticela</i> (<b>Masuri</b>), partly <i>Rh. rouXi</i> (Nilghiri). <i>Geographical races.</i> There are, at least, two forms of <i>Rh. rouXi,</i> differing in size and geographical habitat.
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 93-98, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3757451