Rhinolophus subbadius Blyth.
Creators: name: Andersen, Knud
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 1905
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy

description: 21. Rhinolophus subbadius Blyth. <i>Rhinolophus subbadius</i> Blyth, J. A. S. B. xiii. pt. i. no. 150 (June 1844) p. 486. <i>Rhinolophus garoënsis</i> Dobson, J. A. S. B. xli. pt. ii. no. 4 (Dec. 22, 1872) p. 337; id., Mon. Asiat. Chir. (1876) p. 48, textfigs. <i>a-c</i>; id., Cat. Chir. Brit. <i>Mus</i>. (1878) p. 115. * I have examined a paratype of Gerrit S. Miller’s <i>Rh. minutus</i> (Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci. 1900, p. 235), the type of which is from the Anambas Islands. It is an offshoot of the <i>m</i> mor-type, but undoubtedly a distinct species, differing from <i>Rh. minor</i> (from Darjeeling) in having the brain-case decidedly higher in front, giving the skull, in side view, a very characteristic outline. The name <i>minutus</i> is, however, preoccupied by Montagu’s “ <i>Vespertilio minutus,"</i> which is the British form of <i>Rh. hipposiderus. Mr</i>. Miller will rename the Anambas species. <i>Diagnosis.</i> Subbadius-type (cf. p. 123). The smallest species in the genus: forearm 34 <i>’</i> 2 mm. <i>Details.</i> The very characteristic shape of the connecting process, formed as a long, sharply pointed, slightly curved 1 horn, <i>”</i> prevents the confusion of this (and the next-following) species with any of the foregoing forms. Also the shape of the lancet is peculiar: short, broad, almost as an equilateral triangle; but 1 doubt that this character, in a large series, will prove to be quite as safe a guide for the discrimination of the species as the shape of the connecting process; there is, in all species of <i>Rhinolophus,</i> a little more individual variation in the lancet than in other parts of the nose-leaves. The sella is, essentially, of the minor-type (not as in <i>gracilis),</i> much broader at base than at summit; below the constriction the margins are almost parallel, above the constriction slightly converging; <i>the summit somewhat more subacute *</i> than in any of the foregoing species; tip of sella bent forwards. Plagiopatagium inserted a trifle above the ankle. The colour (a little faded) is probably not <i>very</i> different from that of <i>Rh. lepidus.</i> <i>Skull.</i> Unknown. I have seen a small fragment only; it seems to be of the minor-type. <i>Dentition</i> (one example). p3 external. p2 and p4 in contact, p2 in row; cusp small, but distinct. <i>Measurements.</i> On p. 132. <i>Distribution.</i> Nepal (type locality). Garo Hills t. (The only example of this species in the British Museum is without exact indication of locality.) <i>Technical name.</i> Hodgson’s “ <i>Vespertilio subbadia ”</i> (J. A. S. B. X. pt. ii. (Nov. 1841) p. 908), from the “Central Region of the Himalayas, <i>”</i> is a nomen nudum (no word of description). The head of this Bat is figured in his unpublished drawings (pl. 8. fig. 3); it is not a <i>Rhinolop&gt;</i> hus, but a <i>Hipposiderus,</i> probably <i>H. bicolor</i> or an allied form. * I emphasise this peculiarity (and, on the whole, enter into a detailed description of the sella), because it is this “ pattern ” of sella which has been carried to an extreme in some of the Ethiopian and W. Palaearctic representatives of the <i>subbadiustype (Rh. empusa</i> and <i>blasii-,</i> cf. the “General Remarks,” pp. 136-37). t In Dobson’s <i>c</i> Monograph <i>’</i> and c Catalogue ’ (1. s. c.) <i>Rh. garoënsis (= subbadius)</i> is recorded from Masuri. The species is very likely to occur there, only it must be said that till now there is no proof. Its alleged occurrence in Masuri can be traced back to two examples in the British Museum (Capt. Hutton) identified by Dobson with <i>Rh. garoënsis.</i> They are, however, <i>Rh. monticola,</i> differing in all important points (process, lancet, size) from his own original description of <i>garoënsis.</i> Quite as in the case of <i>Rh. petersi:</i> as Dobson had no longer access to the type, he lost the precise idea of it. Still later (Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1880, pp. 175-76) he gave up the separation of <i>Rh. garoënsis</i> as a distinct species, and then we arrive at the stage when all small Indian and E. Palaearctic <i>Rhinolophi</i> with a projecting process were called <i>Rh. minor,</i> irrespective of differences in the skull, the process, the sella, lancet, general size, and geographical habitat. What led Dobson to this conclusion was the fact that the position of the lower p3 varies in individuals from the same locality (which, however, also is the case in all the more primitive species of the <i>simpleX</i> group, as high up in the series as <i>Rh.</i> affinis <i>),</i> and he was quite right in arguing that, from an exclusively taXonomic point of view, this character had no value; but he overlooked the other and more important characters by which the members of his composite species differ from each other, Blyth’s <i>Rh. subbadius</i> (1844) from Nepal, erroneously believed by himself to be the same as Hodgson’s <i>V. subbadia,</i> is a genuine <i>Rhinolophus.</i> The following analysis of the original description will make it evident that it is the species here under consideration: (1) The connecting process is stated to be “ conspicuously developed, and pointed <i>”</i>; one of the chief characters of <i>subbadius.</i> (2) The lancet is but “ slightly emarginated towards the point <i>”</i>; also one of its principal characters; for the salient point in the sentence is the word “ slightly, <i>”</i> as proved by a comparison with the immediately subsequent description of <i>lepidus,</i> in which the lancet is called “ considerably emarginated towards the tip. <i>”</i> (3) Forearm “ 11 inches <i>”</i> (34'8 mm.); third finger “ 14- inches <i>”</i> (47 <i>’</i> 6 mm.); these measurements, as being smaller than in any other species, and like those of the individual before me (forearm 34 <i>’</i> 2, third finger 46'4 mm.), settle the identification beyond all doubt. <i>Rh. garoënsis.—</i> Dobson’s <i>Rh. garoënsis</i> (1872) is evidently the same species as Blyth’s <i>Rh.</i> subbadius <i>*</i> (to which there is no reference in Dobson’s ‘ Monograph ’ or ‘ Catalogue ’). The two authors emphasise the same points:—(1) The connecting process is described by Dobson as <i>“</i> forming an acutely pointed elevation. <i>”</i> (2) The lancet is a “broad, triangular, pointed process, <i>”</i> or, as he says in his ‘ Monograph,’ “ almost an equilateral triangle <i>”</i>; both of these features are the same as already pointed out by Blyth. (3) The Bat is said to be “ probably the smallest known species of the genus, <i>”</i> the forearm measuring only 1'3 in. (33 mm.). (4) Width of horse-shoe 0 <i>’</i> 2 in. (5T mm.); a very narrow horse-shoe is also characteristic of the species (5'5 mm., as measured by myself). In the type of <i>garoënsis</i> p3 is, according to Dobson, in the toothrow; this is of no importance for the identification; the position of this tooth is “ vacillating <i>”</i> in the whole <i>lepidus</i> section.
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 129-131, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3757451