Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 94. (Budapest 2002)

Csorba, G.: Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera)

Figs 4-5. Antero-Iateral views of skulls: 3 = R. lepidus refulgens (BMNH 98.11.29.2, holotype), 4 = R. shortridgei (BMNH 18.8.3.1, holotype). Scale = 3 mm 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. Rhinolophus borneensis PETERS, 1861 The confusing history of the name borneensis was reviewed in detail by ANDERSEN (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 für 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-