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

description: on Rhinolophus simplex (<i>Group</i>. <i>The place of origin.—</i> Of all the existing forms, the Australian <i>Rh. megaphyllus</i> is one of the most primitive in dentition. But it is very unlikely that the Australian Continent has been the place of origin of the group. <i>Rh. megaphyllus</i> is the only Australian species of the whole <i>genus;</i> this might suggest the assumption that it is an immigrant into the country, rather than an ancient inhabitant: secondly, Australia is the extreme eastern border for the group (as well as for the genus), no species being known from the islands to the east of the Continent; it would probably not be so, if Australia had been a centre of dispersal for the group: thirdly, <i>megaphyllus</i> has at least two characters which certainly are not primitive—the large nose-leaves, and (probably as a consequence of that) the rather broad nasal swellings: fourthly, <i>megaphyllus</i> looks extremely like an enlarged, <i>continental</i> representative of the Lombok species, <i>Rh. simpleX</i> (just as <i>Rh. rouXi</i> is the larger, continental representative of <i>Rh. borneensis).</i> These arguments seem to support the conjecture that, not the Australian Continent, but the <i>“</i> Indo­ Australian Transitional Tract, <i>”</i> now broken up into numerous larger and smaller islands, and still inhabited by such <i>very</i> primitive forms as <i>simpleX,</i> truncatus, <i>nanus, celebensis,</i> and <i>borneensis,</i> has been the centre from which the group spread eastwards and westwards. <i>Differentiation</i> t. <i>—</i> The ancestral species seems to have divided into two branches, an eastern and a western. In the eastern, more primitive branch the sagittal crest does not reach quite so far forwards as a point corresponding to the middle of the orbit; in the western the temporal fossa is comparatively a little wider, and the sagittal crest produced forwards more or less beyond that point. The geographical line separating the two branches coincides with the line separating the “ Austro-Malayan <i>”</i> from the <i>“</i> Indo-Malayan <i>”</i> subregion (Celebes being a part of the latter). The eastern branch is, as yet, represented by four known species- <i>Rh. simpleX, megaphyllus,</i> truncatus, and <i>nanus.</i> The western by all the others. * The type of <i>A</i> 7z. /. <i>obscurus,</i> in the Madrid Museum, is from Valencia, Spain. As will be seen, I take the name in a wider sense. Valencia specimens were separated by Prof. Cabrera, as a distinct subspecies, mainly on account of <i>a</i> difference in the ratio between the length and breadth of the horse-shoe. In a large series of <i>ferrum-equinum</i> from Europe and W. Asia there is, however, no small, and quite ndividual, variation in this respect. f Compare the diagram on p. 120. The further evolution, from <i>borneensis</i> to <i>ferrum-equinum,</i> has been discussed above, and is summed up, in the briefest possible form, in the subjoined diagram (p. 120). But the sketch of this group would be deprived of some of its most instructive features if the Ethiopian species were left quite out of consideration. They belong to three closely related types:— (1) <i>Ethiopian species of the</i> borneensis-stheno-rouxi <i>type.—</i> Far south in Africa, in Bechuanaland and Mashonaland, we find two small species, <i>Rh. denti</i> and <i>simulator,</i> described quite <i>recently They are the Ethiopian representatives of the</i> borneensis <i>type</i>: the same general shape of the skull; essentially the same dentition; the same parallel-margined sella, with a faint or almost imperceptible constriction at the middle; the same style of connecting process; the same proportionate length of the fourth and fifth metacarpals; even the same length of the tail, &amp;c. But there are, in these species, three characters of especial interest, because they enable us to determine still more precisely their phylogenetic place: the nasal swellings (side view) are more projecting than in <i>borneensis,</i> but less than in <i>stheno</i>; III.2 is lengthened, and <b>IV</b>.1 somewhat shortened, as in this species, <i>—</i> proving that <i>they have originated from a Bat which had already traversed a part of the distance</i> separating borneensis <i>and</i> stheno. The dentition is on a slightly higher level than in <i>borneensis</i> and <i>stheno,</i> the only difference being that p2, although still in the tooth-row (as in the Oriental species), shows a distinct tendency <i>torvards</i> the external side.- In the extreme south of Africa (Cape Colony) we find a species,. <i>Rh. capensis,</i> which, quite superficially, looks like an enlarged <i>Rh. simulator. It is an African representative of Rh. rouXi</i>: the skull is to such a degree that of <i>rouXi</i> that it would be hard to find any tangible <i>difference</i>, even the measurements being practically the same (on an average smaller than in <i>rouXi</i>); the nose-leaves (sella, process, lancet) are the same; proportionate length of fourth and fifth metacarpals, of tail and tibia, the same. But the dentition is somewhat more advanced: p2 is generally external, but still, very often, a quite distinct interspace between the canine and p1 indicates its former place; III.2 is somewhat lengthened. In short: <i>Rh. capensis</i> is a <i>“ Rh. rouXi "</i> which in the wing-structure has taken a course <i>towards,</i> in the dentition very slightly <i>beyond,</i> the affinis-stage. (2) <i>Ethiopinan species of the</i> affinis-type. <i>—</i> On the coasts of the Red Sea we find a species, <i>Rh. clivosus,</i> first made known by Cretzschmar from Mollila in Arabia; I have seen examples from * Thomas, Ann. &amp; <i>Mag</i>. Nat. Hist. (7) xiii. (1904) p. 386; Andersen, <i>op. cit.</i> (7) xiv. (1904) p. 384. the African coast of the Gulf of Aden. <i>It is the closest eXisting relative of the Himalayan Rh. affinis:</i> the same shape of the skull; the same shape of the sella, of the connecting process, of the ears; the same structure of the wings (also the same lengthening of III.’); the same proportionate length of the tail. But it is more advanced in dentition: p3 is not only external (as in affinis' <i>),</i> but very often lost; p2, which in <i>affinis</i> is still in the tooth-row, is in <i>clivosus</i> external and very small. In short: <i>Rh. clivosus</i> is a <i>11 Rh. affinis ”</i> with <i>ferrum-equinum</i> dentition. The <i>clivosus</i> type has found its way very far into the Ethiopian Region. <i>Rh. clarlingi</i> *, from <i>Mazoe</i> to Angola, is a modification of this type (as proved by the skull), differing from <i>clivosus</i> in the more pronouncedly pandurate sella, the much broader horse-shoe, the much smaller ears, and, by far the most interesting, <i>in the shortening of the third metacarpal.</i> This last peculiarity is the same as that pointed out above, under <i>Rh. ferrumm equinum</i>: in the wing-structure <i>Rh. darlingi</i> differs from <i>Rh. clivosus</i> quite in the same way as <i>Rh. ferrum-equinum</i> from <i>Rh. affinis.</i> It is a suggestive fact to find this peculiarity so exactly copied by the South-African species. <i>Rh. acrotis</i> f from Egypt and Erythrea, is, externally, very similar to <i>Rh. clivosus</i>; also the wing-structure is the same. But the tendency, in <i>clivosus,</i> towards an obliteration of p3 and p2 has been further developed by <i>acrotis</i>: it has completely lost both of these teeth, thus being, in this particular respect, the highest member of the whole group. <i>Rh. acrotis</i> is a “ <i>Rh. affinis ”</i> with a dentition still more advanced than in <i>ferrum-equinum regulus.</i> (3) <i>Ethiopian species of the</i> ferrum-equinum <i>type.— Rh. augur +</i> is widely distributed, in several geographical races, over the southern part of the Ethiopian Region: the Orange River tract, Natal, the Lower Zambesi. <i>It is the closest eXisting relative of Rh. ferrum-equinum</i>; the skull, the nose-leaves, the wing-structure <b>are</b> the same; but the dentition is a trifle less advanced, and the ears are smaller. We find the <i>ferrum-equinum</i> type also further northwards in Tropical Africa (Mombasa): <i>Rh. cleckeni</i>; the skull and dentition, and all external characters of any importance, are as in augu <i>/r;</i> but the horse-shoe is broader. The area occupied by these two Ethiopian representatives of the /errwn-eg'mmww type extends, broadly speaking, from the Orange River to Mombasa. It is completely cut off from any other region inhabited by that type of Bat; it forms a large enclave bordered to the north and w’est by vast tracts where no representative of <i>ferrum-equinum</i> occui’s; <i>wTe</i> must go so far away from South and Equatorial Africa as the Euphrates Valley, Syria, and Algeria before meeting with the closest relatives of those Ethiopian species. Thus the question suggests itself, by which way the <i>ferrum-equinum</i> type reached Tropical Africa, and why its range there is now so peculiarly insulate. When * Andersen, Ann. &amp; <i>Mag</i>. Nat. Hist. (7) xv. (1905) p. 70. t Andersen, <i>op. cit.</i> (7) xiv. (1904) p. 454; (7) xv. (1905) p. <b>73.</b> + Andersen, <i>op. cit.</i> (7) xiv. (1904) p. 380. trying to answer this question, the following facts must be borne in mind: <i>—</i> Firstly, that all palaeontological evidence is wanting, which detracts from what we know about the affinities and distribution of the now existing representatives of these Bats. Secondly, that the <i>ferrum-equinum</i> type is unknown in Egypt, as well as in the whole region of the continent north of British East Africa, and that we have no reason, of any kind, to believe that it ever existed there. Thirdly, that we have to account not only for the distribution of 7? <i>A</i>. <i>augur</i> and <i>deckeni</i> as compared with the other members of the same section of the genus, but also for the presence in Tropical Africa of representatives of the <i>borneensis</i> and <i>rouXi</i> types, and, be it noticed, representatives which, without exception, are <i>more highly differentiated</i> than their Oriental allies. These facts, so far as tliey go, seem to allow of no other satisfactory explanation than this: the immigration of these Bats, as of so many other Oriental types in the Ethiopian fauna, has taken place by way of the broad tract of land which, as commonly supposed, in a geologically late period connected Southern Asia with the African continent. In the case of the <i>ferrum-equinum</i> type tins explanation would make it evident, why it, though vastly distributed in South and Equatorial Africa, is absent from the whole north of the continent with the exception of the extreme north-western (Mediterranean) coast-region, which it, no doubt, has reached from South-western Europe, since the Algerian race is subspecifically indistinguishable from the Spanish form (<i>h</i>. <i>f. obscurus).</i> In the case of the <i>borneensis</i> and <i>rouXi</i> types it would account for the fact that they are common to the Oriental and Ethiopian Regions, but absent from the whole of the Palaearctic Region. And it would also account for the presence of the genus <i>Rhinolophus</i> in the Ethiopian Region, for, as I shall have to show later on in this paper, all the Ethiopian representatives of the genus are undoubtedly of Oriental origin. Such being the case, I am able to draw up the following rough sketch of the history of <i>Rh. augur, deckeni,</i> and their Oriental and Palaearctic relatives The <i>ferrum-equinum</i> type has originated somewhere in South Asia; we find there the long series of more primitive forms which lead up to that type, whereas in the whole of the Ethiopian Region there is not any species with which it can be brought in genetic connection. The ancestral <i>11 ferrum-equinum</i> ” broke up into three branches: a south-western, a western, and an eastern. The south-western branch, which had spread directly from South Asia into the Ethiopian Region, was cut off from the main stem by the submergence of the connecting tract of land, and is now differentiated into two species—the southern <i>Rh. augur</i> and the northern <i>A</i> / <i>i</i>. <i>deckeni.</i> Both of them have retained at least two “ ancient ” characters: a slightly more primitive dentition (the upper canine and p4 often more or less separated; p2 sometimes half in row *) and a short tail. To the external difference between these two Ethiopian species, viz. a broad horse-shoe in <i>deckeni</i> and a narrow one in <i>augur,</i> we have a parallel <i>ferrum- equinum:</i> a broad horse-shoe in <i>nippon</i> and <i>tragatus,</i> a narrow one in the other races. The western branch spread over South and Central Europe: the dentition slightly more advanced, the tail lengthened. The third branch is now represented by what I have called the Eastern races of <i>ferrum-equinum</i>; all of them have retained the short tail; <i>nippon</i> (which, so far as the dentition is concerned, has remained on a relatively less advanced stage) leads through <i>tragatus</i> to <i>regulus,</i> in which the dentition has reached the highest stage of development found in any race of * 35 skulls of <i>Uh. augur</i> (all races) have been examined:—In <b>7</b> the upper canine and p4 are more or less separated, in 7 in contact, in 1 more or less overlapping ferrum-equinum.u.
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 116-120, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3757451