Dr. Nagy I. Zoltán szerk.: Fragmenta Mineralogica Et Palaentologica 9. 1979. (Budapest, 1979)

Hórvölgy. From this youngest Middle Pleistocene locality there were collected avery small number of remains (5 upper teeth and 6 mandibular fragments) of the Great Horseshoe Bat. Recent comparative material. The recent populations or specimens studied are mostly in the collection of the Hungarian Natural History Museum (HNHM) as follows. Rh. f. fer rumequinum : Dalmatia (14) Carpathian Basin, South (25), Carpathian Basin, North (60), Haditha, Iraq (3), Rh. f. irani

: Djebel, Iraq (1), "Asia Minor" (1), Rh. f. proximus

: Bambzoo Cave, Kashmir, India (1). Rh, f. mikadoi: Yokohama, Japan (1); Rh. f. nippon: Japan (1) (latter in the collection of Museum of Humboldt University Berlin). I have studied and measured all the fossil and recent specimens listed above. I used 30 cranial, maxillary and 23 mandibular measurements. Some of them were plotted on scatter diagrams, see figs. 1-4. I give the data of all statistically considered measurements in tables 1-4: number of specimens, mean, range, variance, standard deviation, two standard errors. Modified Dice-Leraas diagrams in figs. 5-8 also shown. I give the drawings of important characters, mostly those of new taxa, see plates 1-12. THE ORIGIN OF THE RH. FERRUMEQUINUM GROUP According to K. ANDERSEN's views the Rh. ferrumequinum "section" originates from the Rh. affinis stem of the simplex group (see, ANDERSEN 1905). In my opinion the question of origin is probably more complicated. It is true that the species Rh. affinis has a more simple and more ancient type of dentition, however, it well might be a separate branch and not "the base of the ferrumequinum section". There are indications for this in the length and shape of the bony palate or palatal bridge in members of these two groups. The few remains of Pliocene forms of the ferrumequinum group show even longer palatal bridge than that of the recent Rh. ferrumequinum

. Thus, hard to imagine the origin as from an animal with a very short palate (as it is in Rh. affinis)

. I already questionmarked this kind of evolutionary lineage after studying the bacula of Rh. ferrumequinum and of two subspecies of Rh, affinis (TOPÁL, 1955, 1975). I could follow a rather interesting evolutionary sequence of the Rh. ferrumequinum group in the Carpathian Basin. The material studied here, however, came from at least two or rather three distinct origine. That is, in certain times - along with the new and new faunal waves - new populations came into the area, whilest the former one became extinct due to some extreme circumstances. Such thing might have happened at least once towards the end of Pliocene and once or twice during the Pleistocene. We have rather few real data from those remote times, but it is clearly known that during the Upper Pleistocene no any Rhinolophus have existed in the Carpathian Basin. COMPARISON AND RESULTS Upper C, (See fig. 5 A, B and table 1). As regards the studied Micoene and Pliocene materials, the available specimens of Rh. csakvarensis and Rh. grivensis are uniformly short and narrow as compared with others from Middle Pliocene. Their means of crosssection length or width, or both are significantly smaller than those of other populations, except the specimens from Osztramos Loc. 7. There are overlaps in cross-section length with specimens from Osztramos Loc, 9, Osztramos Loc. lc, Osztramos If and Csarnóta. There is more uniformity among populations from Podlesice and the younger Pliocene populations from Hungary in cross-section length, however the uniformity is less pronounced in crosssection width. In both characters the specimens from Osztramos Loc. 7 are significantly smaller than the others, except Osztramos Loc. 1. The cross-section width is significantly smaller in Csarnóta population than in Podlesice specimens. In this respect the small specimens from Osztramos Loc lc well fit to the Csarnóta material. The animals from Osztramos Loc. 3 are among those with shortest and narrowest upper canine, but with somewhat greater values than those of specimens from Osztramos Loc. 7. Among these Upper Pliocene and Lowest Pleistocene animals the Rh. macrorhinus TOPÁL 19 64 has the highest values. There is a sharp rise again both in cross-section length and width of the form from Osztramos Loc. 8. These measurements have significantly greater means as compared with the Upper Pliocene and Lower Pleistocene animals and really equal with the greater Middle Pliocene forms. On the other hand the cross-section length of upper canine of this animal (Osztramos Loc. 8)