Search

Rhinolophus affinis HORSFIELD, 1823 In the original description of the species HORSFIELD (1823) indicated no type specimen. Beside a specimen (labelled as holotype) stored in the BM(NH), JENTINK (1887) listed two more specimens in the RMNH, Leiden marked as types. However, the two RMNH individuals (RMNH 25236, cat. ost. b and RMNH 25237, cat. ost. c) represented by skulls only, proved to be Hipposideros larvatus. The possible reason of the confusion should be the fact, that HORSFIELD worked with the two species in question at the same time (the descriptions appeared in the same book). Since there was no holotype designation in HORSFIELD's work, these three specimens are regarded as syntypes; consequently, the BM(NH) specimen (No. 79.11.21.70) as the only R. affinis is designated herein as lectotype., Published as part of Csorba, G., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on page 221, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3839717

Rhinolophus thomasi septentrionalis SANBORN, 1939 The taxon septentrionalis once was described and later widely accepted as a subspecies of thomasi, differing from the nominotypical race by its larger size and slightly extruded anterior upper premolars (SANBORN 1939). The holotype of septentrionalis (FMNH 33291) and other specimens from Yunnan stored in the FMNH and USNM agree in every respect with each other. However, it is much bigger in external measurements than thomasi and latifolius (FA 51.1-55.5 against 40.5-48.0; SL 19.79-20.98 against 17.87-19.98; andC M 3 7.65-8.40 against 6.82-7.67 mm), and has strong, widely based, long canines. These differences support the view, that septentrionalis differs from R. thomasi at specific level. The taxon sinicus was described as a subspecies of R. rouxi by ANDERSEN (1905) who separated it on the basis of its smaller skull and toothrow measurements. As ANDERSEN remarked, the general size of sinicus as is the smallest example of the typical form of R. rouxi. This taxonomical position of sinicus was generally accepted, but T H O M A S (1997) in her detailed work, based on phenetic analysis and DNA techniques, verified that sinicus represents a distinct species occuring in the Himalayas, Myanmar, northern Vietnam and southern China. Nevertheless, the relation and the specific boundary between R. sinicus and R. thomasi is unclear. The extremely hastate, excessively shortened lancet thought to be diagnostic for R. thomasi (ANDERSEN 1905, CORBET & HILL 1992, K O O P M A N 1994) is not clearly expressed in all specimens of that species, while a similar shortening of lancet can be found in several R. sinicus. The types of both species are unusually small specimens and almost all subsequently collected individuals are larger. It means that although the type of R. sinicus is much larger than the type of R. thomasi (therefore justifies the distinctness on species level), it overlaps in size with the majority of the known R. thomasi specimens (determined hereby the slender upper and lower canine only). On average, R. sinicus is much bigger than R. thomasi. The form septentrionalis is therefore better referable to R. sinicus; the large external measurements (the forearm length is over 50 mm) validate the subspecific separation within the species., Published as part of Csorba, G., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on pages 221-223, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3839717, {"references":["SANBORN, C. C. (1939): Eight new bats of the genus Rhinolophus. - Publications of the Field Museum of Natural History Zoological Series 24: 37 - 43.","K O O P M A N, K. F. (1994): Chiroptera: Systematics. Handbook of Zoology. Mammalia, part 60. - Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 217 pp."]}

The description of this taxon as a subspecies of R. lepidus from Upper Burma (Myanmar) was published by O L D F I E L D THOMAS on behalf of ANDERSEN (1918), based on the short notes of the latter. The diagnostic characters of shortridgei ("skull and teeth averaging larger") appeared only in the key given for the species and subspecies of the pusillus-group but even without comparison of the measurements with the other named forms. According to SlNHA (1973) shortridgei differs from R. lepidus lepidus in having a longer hind foot (55-63% of the tibia, against 45.8-47.5%) and longer mandible. However, investigation of the type skull (BM(NH) 18.8.3.1) and other specimens (housed in the collection of USNM, FMNH, HNHM) revealed well-defined differences as compared with the other subspecies of R. lepidus; upper canines are strong, wide-based; sagittal crest extending posteriorly to the lambda and skull length is over 17 mm. Consequently, the taxon shortridgei is considered as a full species., Published as part of Csorba, G., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on pages 219-220, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3839717, {"references":["SlNHA, Y. P. (1973): Taxonomic studies on the Indian horseshoe bats of the genus Rhinolophus Lacepede. - Mammalia 37 (4): 603 - 630."]}

Rhinolophus philippinensis montanus GOODWIN, 1979 G O O D W I N (1979) discussed the differences between his new montanus and the other subspecies of R. philippinensis, and noted its much smaller size, differently shaped sella and connecting process, more pronounced nasal swellings and more crowded situation of the small premolars. Investigation of the known speci�� mens (holotype, paratype and two more individuals collected together the types, A M N H 237811-237814) has shown that these differences are definitely beyond intraspecific variation of R. philippinensis and leave no doubt that montanus is a distinct species. The external appearence of the noseleaf of montanus is intermediate between R. philippinensis and R. macrotis. As already ANDERSEN (1907) noted, R. macrotis is an example of "a type of low level of evolution which has no closer relative than the primitive forms of the Rh. philippinensis group" and "the sella of macrotis might properly be described as that of a philippinensis deprived of its lateral expansions; the shape of the connecting process and lancet also point towards relationship with philippinensis ". The noseleaf features of the much later described R. montanus are filling this gap. *, Published as part of Csorba, G., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on pages 223-225, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3839717, {"references":["G O O D W I N, R. E. (1979): The bats of Timor: systematics and ecology. - Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 163: 73 - 122."]}

The confusing history of the name borneensis was reviewed in detail by A N �� DERSEN (1905) who described it as "accumulation of errors and wrong identifications" which resulted in the fact that " Rh. borneensis has for many years been completely confused not only with several more or less closely related species, but also with the widely different Rh. minor " (= R. pusillus). One of the possible reason of the confusion should be the mis-matching of labels and/or skulls in the Museum f��r Naturkunde, Berlin (MNB). There are two skulls (in very bad condition) in the type collection of MNB (2533.1 and 2533.2) which certainly represent specimens of R. borneensis, although both labelled as " Rhinolophus minor, type, Labuan, Java ". On the other hand, the type of R. minor is in the BM (NH). Since the type lo- cality of R. borneensis is also Labuan (the Malayan island off Borneo, not in Java), and according to PETERS (1871) its type is deposited in the Berlin Museum, the MNB 2533.1 and 2533.2 specimens are undoubtedly the mis-labelled types of R. borneensis., Published as part of Csorba, G., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on pages 220-221, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3839717, {"references":["PETERS, W. (1871): Uber die Gattungen und Arten der Hufeisennasen, Rhinolophi. - Monatsberichte der Koniglichen Preuss Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 301 - 332."]}

Rhinolophus pusillus T E M M I N C K, 1834 The types of R. pusillus in the RMNH, Leiden caused a lot of mental labour. DOBSON (1878) investigated the types and concluded that they were "undoubtedly specimens of R. hipposide rus " which led to the statement that R. hipposideros should occur in Java. ANDERSEN (1905) later speculated that "an interchange of la�� bels has taken place in that Museum". The small specimens in the Leiden Museum were always kept in glass vials from the very beginning, with a little round label glued on the cork cover (C. SMEENK pers. comm.). Needless to say, these labels may have come off, so there was always the danger of specimens becoming mislabelled or interchanged. In fact, the type series in Leiden consists of five syntypes (RMNH 35177-35181), of which three represent R. hipposideros (RMNH 35178 [= Rh. hipposideros cat. syst, b] and 35179 [= Rh. hipposideros cat. syst, c] mounted specimens, skulls intact; RMNH 35181 [= Rh. hipposideros cat. ost. a] separate skull). One of the remaining two specimens (RMNH 35177 [= Rh. hipposideros cat. syst a, cat. ost. b]) consists of a skull of R. pusillus and a mounted skin of R. hipposideros', the another one (RMNH 35180 [= Rh. hipposideros cat. syst, d] mounted with skull intact) is with no doubt R. pusillus. These facts explain why DOBSON (1878) and JENTINK (1887) referred R. pusillus as a synonym of R. hipposideros, and make it clear that ANDERSEN (1905) was right when accepted T E M M I N C K ' S statement that the types of R. pusillus were brought back from Java. Since the cranial characters are widely used features in the group, from the syntypes representing genuine R. pusillus the RMNH 35177 specimen (a cleaned skull) is designated herein as lectotype; the skin of R. hipposideros bearing the same number is regarded as mis-labelled. The RMNH 35180 mounted specimen is the paralectotype of R. pusillus. The shape of the rostral profile of R. pusillus was desribed by CORBET and HILL (1992) as being nearly straight, almost horizontal (contrary to the up- ward-curving rostral profile of R. lepidus ). Taking into consideration of the lectotype specimen of the former and the variability of both species, this character is not typical or uniform, and cannot be used for distinction of the two species. The development of the posterior median swellings (which affects the shape of the rostral profil) is either a variable feature of both species or it has a taxonomical significance not fully understood as yet., Published as part of Csorba, G., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on pages 218-219, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3839717