Rhinolophus affinis Horsfield, 1823

Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1), pp. 71-88 : 73-75

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.3161/150811009X465703



persistent identifier


treatment provided by


scientific name

Rhinolophus affinis Horsfield, 1823


Rhinolophus affinis Horsfield, 1823 View in CoL

Intermediate horseshoe bat

FA — 48.8–54.8 mm, mass — 9.0– 15.3 g. Fortyseven males and 55 females were captured from Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Henan, Sichuan and Yunnan. The FMAXE values for echolocation calls are very variable, ranging between 70.0 to 88.5 kHz at different sites. Individuals from Hainan, Guangdong and Guangxi called at relatively low frequencies (70.0 to 74.3 kHz), those from Yunnan called at 82.6 to 83.7 kHz, while those from Jiangxi called at higher frequencies, 88.1 to 88.5 kHz. In Fujian, bats called at 71.9 to 86.1 kHz. Even in the same cave bats called at very different frequencies. For example, in Jinkuang Cave (Fujian), 10 bats were captured, of which seven called at 71.9 to 73.2 kHz, while another three bats called at 85.7 to 86.1 kHz. This raises the possibility that cryptic species may be present, and this is currently under investigation using molecular phylogenetic methods. Call frequencies for this species in Malaysia were previously reported as 77.6 kHz (FA 49.3 mm) ( Kingston et al., 2000) and 76 kHz (FA 51 mm) ( Heller and Helversen, 1989).

In China R. affinis is most easily confused with R. sinicus , from which it is best distinguished by its straight-sided lancet and the long second phalanx of the third digit (66.3–80.4% of the length of the metacarpal: Csorba et al., 2003). Rhinolophus affinis is also typically a larger species, though overlap occurs with R. sinicus at forearm lengths between 50–53 mm. There is extensive overlap in call frequency, but only a small overlap in forearm length between R. affinis and R. sinicus ( Fig. 3 View FIG ). The bats calling at <75 kHz were R. affinis from Guangdong, although one R. sinicus called at 73.4 kHz. Our molecular studies suggest that unequivocal separation can be achieved by sequencing the control region of mtDNA (authors’ unpublished data), though this assumes an absence of introgression.

Previous records from China: Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Henan, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang ( Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003; Yu et al., 2006).

Ecological Notes

All roosts were found in caves except for one tree roost where a single individual was located. Numbers were typically in single figures, although up to 21 bats were recorded at one site. Although widespread, this species was not abundant.













GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF