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

description: 11b.. <i>Rhinolophus rouxi</i> Temm., <i>typicus</i>. <i> <i>Rhinolophus</i> Rouxii</i> Temminck, Mon. Mamin, ii. 8e monogr. (1835) p. 30 6. <i>Rhinolophus rubidus, cinerascens, rammanika</i> Kelaart, Prodr. Faunae Zeylanicae (1852), pp. 13, 14. <i>Rhinolophus Rouxii</i> (partim) <b>Peters</b>, MB. Akad. Berlin, 1871, p. 308. <i>Rhinolophus petersii</i> Dobson, J. A. S. B. xli. pt. ii. (1872) p. <b>337 (nec</b> Dobson, 1878, 1880); Blanford, Fauna Brit. India, <b>Mamm</b>. pt. ii. (1891) p. 275 (partim). <i>Rhinolophus minor</i> (non Horsf.) Hutton, P. <i>Z</i>. S. 1872, p. 698. <i>Rhinolophus affinis</i> (partim, nec Horsf.) Dobson, Cat. Chir. Brit. <b>Mus</b>. (1878) p. 113. <i> <i>Diagnosis</i>.</i> Skull larger, tooth-rows longer. <b>Forearm</b> 46-51 •5mm. <i>Colour.—</i> (1) <i>Specimens from Nepal and Darjeeling. («</i> ■ <i>) <i>Dark</i> phase’,</i> one <b>ad.; Nepal</b>; teeth <b>unworn</b>; skin: <i>—</i> Upper side “ <b>marsbrown</b> <i>”</i>; horse-shoe patch on back distinguishable, though somewhat obliterated; base of hairs light “ drab, <i>”</i> almost “ <b>ecru-drab</b> <i>”</i>; under side “ drab, <i>”</i> <b>with</b> a tinge of “ russet <i>”</i>; sides of body <b>somewhat darker. With</b> this skin agree in <b>colour</b> another adult specimen from Nepal (teeth somewhat worn; skin) and a &amp;female; ad. from <b>Darjeeling</b> (in alcohol). * Blanford, J. <b>A</b>. S. B. lvii. <b>pt</b>. ii. <b>no. 3</b> (1888) p. <b>261.</b> <b> <i>f</i> For the exact position of this locality, see</b> <i>‘</i> <b>Ibis</b>,’ 1899, p. 289. (6) <i>Light</i> ‘ <i>phase:</i> one ad.; Darjeeling; teeth slightly worn; skin: <i>—</i> Above inclining to “ clay <i>”</i>; a strongly marked, deep brown horse-shoe patch; base of hairs and fur of under side almost 1 cream-bufi. <i>”</i> (2) <i>Specimens from Ceylon and S. India.—(</i> « <i>) Dark phase:</i> three adult individuals; Ceylon; teeth rather slightly worn; skins: <i>—</i> Upper side a shade of brown, darker and duller than “mars-brown <i>”</i>; horse-shoe patch more <i>oi</i> * less effaced; base of hairs “ drab, <i>”</i> with a tinge of “ ecru-drab ”; under side “ woodbrown <i>”</i> or light “ drab.” This is Kelaart’s <i>Rh. cinerascens.</i> A skin (ad., January, teeth unworn) from Sirzi, Kanara, comes extremely near to the last-mentioned specimen, being only a little darker. A spirit-specimen from Nilghiri seems to be of very much the same colour. (6) <i>Intermediate stage:</i> &amp;male; ad.; January; Sirzi, Kanara; teeth unworn. Upper side between “russet <i>”</i> and <i>“</i> r---- 1 mars-brown -------- <i>”</i> ”; base of hairs “ ecru-drab <i>”</i>; under side almost “ clay. <i>”</i> This is Kelaart’s <i>Rh. rammanika.</i> (<i>c</i>) <i>Red phase:</i> one ad.; Ceylon; teeth worn; skin: <i>—</i> Above light “hazel” with a tinge of <i>“</i> orange-rufous <i>”</i>; horse-shoe patch almost obliterated; base of hairs and under side of body light <i>“</i> orange-rufous. <i>”—</i> This is Kelaart’s <i>Rh. rubidus.</i> A skin (&amp;male; ad., February, teeth unworn) from Jellapur, Kanara, represents the extreme of light colour: upper side next to “ tawnyochraceous <i>”</i>; base of hairs and fur of under side almost <i>“</i> orangeochraceous. <i>”</i> Conclusions The dark phase in specimens from the Himalayas (Nepal, Darjeeling) is of a richer brown, more tinged with russet, than in specimens from Ceylon and S. India (Kanara, Nilghiri). The light <i>phase</i>, in specimens from the Himalayas, seems to be more inclining to “ clay ”; in specimens from Ceylon and S. India more “ hazel <i>”</i> or “ tawny-ochraceous. <i>”</i> I do not think the series examined affords evidence conclusive enough to justify the separation of a Himalayan “ race <i>”</i> and a southern (Ceylonese and S. Indian) “ race. <i>”</i> In all the other characters (external, cranial, dental; variation in general size) there is no appreciable difference. If they were to be separated subspecifically, the southern form would have to stand as “ <i>Rh. rouXi</i> <i>rubidus</i> Kelaart, <i>”</i> the Himalayan as “ <i>Rh. rouXi typicus.</i> ” <i>Measurements.</i> On p. 100. <i>Distribution.</i> Himalayas (Darjeeling, Nepal, Masuri). S. India (Nilghiri, Kanara) and Ceylon. <i>Remarks.</i> Of the two forms here recognised, <i>Rh. rouXi sinicus</i> and <i>Rh. rouXi typicus,</i> the former, as coming nearest to <i>h. borneensis,</i> is no doubt the more primitive. The <i>rouXi</i> -type, therefore, has spread from an eastern point of the continent westwards, through the Himalayas, down the Indian Peninsula, to Ceylon.
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 98-99, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3757451