Rhinolophus minor Horsfield
Creators: name: Andersen, Knud
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 1905
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Chiroptera
Rhinolophidae
Rhinolophus
Rhinolophus minor

description: 18. Rhinolophus minor Horsf. <i>Rhinolophus minor</i> Horsfield, Zool. Res. Java (1824), pl. [7], figs. C, D. <i>Rhinolophus pusillus</i> Temminck, <b>Mon. Mamin</b>, ii. 8e monogr. (1835) p. 36, pl. 29. <i>fig</i>. 8, pl. 32. figs. 22, 23; Peters, MB. Akad. Berlin, 1871, p. 309. <i>Rhinolophus brevitarsus</i> Blyth, Cat. <b>Mamm</b>. Mus. Asiat. Soc. (1863) p. 24 (nomen nudum) (<i>“</i> vicinity of Darjeeling <i>”</i>). <i>Rhinolophus minor</i> (partim) Dobson, <i>ut supra</i> <i>.</i> <i>Diagnosis.</i> Skull and external characters: minor-type. Ears, tail, and tibia shorter. Forearm 37-38 mm. <i>Details.</i> This species differs from <i>Rh. cornutus</i> by the shorter ears, tail, and tibia <i>(cf.</i> measurements). The forearm is, at least on an average, shorter. <i>Colour.</i> &amp;male; ad., skin; Darjeeling; November; teeth unworn. General effect of the colour of the upper side very much as in <i>Rh. refulgens,</i> though perhaps not quite as dark; <i>base of hairs light, 11</i> ecru-drab <i>”</i>; under side “ ecru-drab, <i>”</i> darker on the hinder belly and flanks. <i>Dentition</i> (three skulls). p3 in row, almost in row, or external. po and p4 well separated, or almost in contact. p2 in row; a small cusp, pointing inwards. <i>Measurements.</i> On p. 128. <i>Distribution.</i> Darjeeling. Siam. Java <i>(cf.</i> remarks below). <i>Technical name.</i> Horsfield’s type of <i>Rh. minor</i> is in the British Museum. <i>Rh.</i> pusillus <i>*. —</i> The figure of the head of <i>Rh. pusillus,</i> as given by Temminck, proves that he had before him one of the small species of what is here called the <i>lepidus</i> group (shape of connecting process, of sella, &amp; <b>c</b>.). The only question is, therefore, to <i>which</i> species the name <i>pusillus</i> belongs. It would seem to be settled, beyond doubt, by Temminck’s statement that the types were brought from Java. But Dobson, who examined these types in the Leiden Museum, gave the rather astounding information that they are 1 undoubtedly specimens of <i>Rh. hipposiderus ”</i> ! t There is only one answer: if so, an interchange of labels has taken place in that Museum; for the Bat figured and described by Temminck as <i>pusillus</i> was certainly no <i>hipposiderus</i>; among all the small <i>Rhinolophi</i> existing it would be difficult to find a stronger to <i>Rh. pusillus,</i> in the shape of the connecting process, than <i>Rh. hipptosiderus.</i> * Temminck, ut supra; Dobson, Cat. <b>Chir</b>. Brit. Mus. (1878) p. <b>117</b>; id. Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1880, p. <b>175</b>; Peters, MB. Akad. Berlin, 1880, p. <b>23.</b> t This is the source of the statement that <i> <i>Rh</i>. hipposiderus</i> should occur in Java; there is no other foundation. <b>The</b> range of <i>Rh. hipposiderus</i> has its extreme eastern limit in Gilgit (N.W. Himalayas); there is not a single reliable record of that Bat from the whole of the Oriental Region; and the species therefore cannot possibly turn up again in Java. <i>Remarks.</i> From Java I have seen one old skin only (the type) and a fragment of the skull, representing the nasal swellings and the teeth. It is, of course, not sufficient to prove that the Java Bat is in all particulars identical with that from Darjeeling; but the nasal swellings, the teeth, the connecting process, the horseshoe, as well as the measurements of the wings and tibia, are the same. If not identical, they are, at all events, extremely closely related.
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 126-127, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3757451