Rhinolophus ferrum-equinum Schreb
Creators: name: Andersen, Knud
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 1905
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Chiroptera
Rhinolophidae
Rhinolophus
Rhinolophus ferrum-Equinum

description: 4 <i>e.</i> Rhinolophus ferrum-equinum Schreb., typicus. Le fer-à-cheval Daubenton, Mém. Acad. Roy. Sei. Belg. 1759, pp. 377, 382, pl. 15. <i>fig</i>. 4. <i>Vespertilio Ferrum equinum</i> (partim) Schreber, Säugthiere, i. (1775) pp. 174, 188, pl. 62 (the two upper figures). <i>Vespertilio equinus</i> (partim) P. L. S. Müller, Natursyst., Suppl. (1776) p. 20. <i>Vespertilio Ungula</i> (partim) Boddaert, Elenchus animalium, i. (1785) p. 71. <i>Vespertilio Ferrum equinum, a. major</i> Gmelin, Linn. Syst. Nat. i. (1788) p. 50. <i>Vespertilio Hippocrepis</i> (partim) Schrank, Fauna Boica, i. (1798) p. 64. <i>Rhinolophus uni-hastatus</i> Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Descr. de l’Égypte, ii. (1812) p. 132; id., Ann. Mus. d’Hist. Nat. xx. (1813) p. 257, pl. 5. <i>Rhinolophus ferrum-equinum</i> var. <i>germanicus</i> et var. <i>italicus</i> Koch, Jahrb. Ver. Naturk. Nassau, 1862-63, pp. 522, 523 *. <i>Rhinolophusferrum-equinum</i> (partim) Peters, MB. Akad. Berlin, 1871, p. 310; Dobson, Cat. Chir. Brit. <i>Mus</i>. (1878) p. 119. <i>Rhinolophus libanoticus, conchifer,</i> et <i>rufescens “</i> Ehrbg. et Lichtst. Mspt. <i>”</i> Peters, loc. cit. (1871) (nomina nuda). <i>Diagnosis.</i> Size moderate, horse-shoe rather narrow, tail long. Skull rather small and slender, with narrow nasal swellings and short tooth-rows. * Koch’s two “varieties <i>”</i> of <i>ferrum-equinum</i> must have been based on too small a material, or there must be some mistake in his statements. That individuals from S. Europe, <i>i. e</i>,, Europe S. of the Alps (his “ var. <i>italicus</i> ”), should, generally speaking, be larger than those from Europe N. of the Alps (his “ var. germanicus ” <i>),</i> is at all events not correct. The statement that var. <i>germanicus</i> is “ über den Rücken mehr braungrau oder aschgrau gefärbt,' <i>’</i> whereas var. <i>italicus</i> “stets in das Röthliche neigt, <i>’’</i> raises the suspicion whether Koch has not compared immature individuals from Germany with fully adults from Italy. <i>Details.—</i> (1) Compared with obscurus: the subjoined particulars will make the difference evident:— 59 specimens of the typical <b>form</b> have been examined from the following localities: <i>—</i> Transcaspia (1); Euphrates Valley (3); Syria (2); Galilee (2); Cyprus (2); N. Bulgaria (1); Transsylvania (31); Hungary (1); Moravia (2); Dalmatia (2); Turin (i); Genoa (1); Sicily (2); Switzerland (Tessin and Geneva * 7); Tübingen (1). <i>Forearm,</i> in these specimens, <i>on an average</i> 57 <i>’</i> 5 <i>mm.</i> In no less than 44, <i>i. e.</i> 75 per <i>cent</i>., the forearm measures 57 <i>mm. or more</i> (up to 60’3 mm.); in the remaining (and quite independent of the locality) less than 57 mm. (down to 53'5 mm.). Of obscurus 3 specimens have been examined from: <i>—</i> Troubate, <b>Hautes-Pyrénées</b> (8); Cintra, Portugal (1); Madrid (3); Valencia! (12); Minorca (5); Algeria (2). <i>Forearm,</i> in these specimens, <i>on an average 55'5 mm.</i> In no less than 25, <i>i. e.</i> 8 per cent., the forearm measures <i>less than</i> 57 mm. (down to 52"8 mm.); in the remaining between 57 and 58 mm. Although the series is smaller than that of the typical form, the facts here pointed out cannot be due to mere chance; the contrast is too well marked. As a conclusion: in the typical form the forearm measures generally 57 mm. <i>or more</i>; in obscurus almost always less than 57 mm.; maximum of obscurus is but a trifle larger than the average size of the typical form. (2) Compared with the eastern races: the proportionately longer tail prevents, in almost all cases, its confusion with any of these races. Thè skull is rather easily discriminated from that of tragatus and <i>regulus (cf.</i> measurements, p. 115), but I fail to find any point by which to distinguish it from the Japanese <i>nippon.</i> <i>British specimens.</i> <b>3</b> specimens have been examined. <i>Forearm on an average</i> 55.4 <i>mm.,</i> i. e., British specimens of <i>ferrum-equinum</i> are on an average of the same size as the extreme south-western (Spanish) race, <i>Rh.f. obscurus</i> t. Of the <b>3</b> specimens, 2 only have the forearm 57 mm. long or more (up to 58 mm., quite as in obscurus); all the others between 53"8 and 56"2 mm. These indications require, of course, <i>verification</i> by a much larger series §. <i>Dentition</i> (11 skulls). In seven skulls p3is present on both sides (teeth in very different stages of wear); in one, on one side only (teeth <i>worn</i>); in three (teeth almost unworn, or much worn) completely wanting (no alveoli), p2 is present in all the skulls examined, two of which are of very aged individuals. Cingula of the upper canine and p4 generally more or less overlapping, but in two skulls separated by an extremely small interspace. This dentition is almost exactly as in <i>nippon.</i> * For the loan of some Bats from the neighbourhood ot Geneva 1 am indebted to M. Ch. Mottaz. p <i>p o</i> <b>1</b> <i>f</i> A <b>very</b> elaborate table of measurements of fourteen Spanish specimens was kindly <i>sent</i> to me by Prof. <b>A</b>. Cabrera Latorre, Madrid. These are the only examples, dealt with in this paper, not examined by myself. J Compare with this <i>h.</i> hipposidertis minutes, below, p. 142. § <i>To keep</i> the typical form uninfluenced by the smaller British individuals, I exclude these latter from the table of measurements on p. 115. <i>Distribution.</i> From Transcaspia and the Euphrates Valley through Southern and Central Europe, exclusive of the Spanish Peninsula.
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 113-116, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3757451