L. Forró szerk.: Miscellanea Zoologica Hungarica 7. 1992 (Budapest, 1992)

Topál, Gy.; Csorba, G.: The subspecific division of Rhinolophus luctus Temminck, 1835, and the taxonomic status of R. beddomei Andersen, 1905 (Mammalia, Chiroptera)

MISCELLANEA Tomus 7. ZOOLOGICA 1992. HUNGARICA p. 101-116 The subspecific division of Rhinolophus luctus Temminck, 1835, and the taxonomic status of R. beddomei Andersen, 1905 (Mammalia, Chiroptera) by Gy. Topái and G. Csorba (Received June 22, 1992) Abstract: The subspecific division of Rhinolophus luctus Temminck, 1835 is reviewed, and the taxonomic status of Rhinolophus luctus beddomei (Andersen, 1905) is discussed. Specimens in the Bombay Natural History Society, The Natural History Museum, London, and a recently collected Vietnamese animal are statistically analysed. The South-Indian Rhinolophus beddomei is regarded as different from Rhinolophus luctus at specific level. Keywords: taxonomy, systematics, morphometries, Oriental Region, Rhinolophus. Introduction The species Rhinolophus luctus Temminck, 1835 is the largest known form in its genus. It is also among the rarest horseshoe bats due to its solitary habits, found singly or in pairs, and therefore it is rare in collections. Besides this species, a number of closely related forms have been made known to science during the past century and a half. The typical race comes from Java and another form described as a separate species R. mono Gray, 1842 from Singapore. The apparently most common form with the most extended range, R. I. pemiger Hodgson, 1843 was named from Nepal. Later, several other forms were described from 1905 onwards. Andersen (1905a, 1905b, 1918) introduced R. lanosus from NW Fokién, China, R. geminus from Java, R. morio foetidus from Borneo, R. beddomei from Mysore, India, R. beddomei sobrinus from Sri Lanka. Andersen (1905a) noted that R. geminus was much nearer the Himalayan form (R. pemiger) than to R. luctus living in Borneo and the Malay Peninsula. He also remarked under R. luctus p. 252: "If by further examination Java specimens should prove to differ from Borneo-Malacca form, the former will have to stand as Rh. luctus, the latter as Rh. morio Gray", further: "in every other respect" (other than colour) "Rh. morio is indistinguishable from Selangor and Borneo specimens". G. Allen (1928) described R. lanosus spurcus from Hainan, China. He gave for the skull measurements of R. I. spurcus (p.3) about as great values as those of true R. I. pemiger when he stated them to be greater than those of R. lanosus. Sanborn (1939) published R. formosae from Taiwan. Chasen (1940) synonymized R. I. geminus with R. luctus and confined the latter to Java and part of Sumatra, and regarded both R. morio (distributed in the Malay Peninsula and part of Sumatra), and R. foetidus (Borneo) as separate subspecies of R. luctus. Tate (1943), Tate & Archbold (1939) appeared to regard all named forms as subspecies of R. luctus (see also Ellerman & Morrison-Scott 1951,