Rhinolophus thomasi, K. Andersen, 1905

Burgin, Connor, 2019, Rhinolophidae, Handbook of the Mammals of the World – Volume 9 Bats, Barcelona: Lynx Edicions, pp. 280-332 : 326

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.3748525



persistent identifier


treatment provided by


scientific name

Rhinolophus thomasi


94 View On . Thomas’s Horseshoe Bat

Rhinolophus thomasi View in CoL

French: Rhinolophe deThomas /German: Thomas-Hufeisennase / Spanish: Herradura de Thomas

Taxonomy. Rhinolophus thomasi K. Andersen, 1905 View in CoL ,

Karin Hills, Burma [= Myanmar]. ”

Rhinolophus thomasi is included in the rouxii species group and appears to be sister to R. sinicus septentrionalis , which is likely a distinct species pending revision. Two subspecies are sometimes recognized. Here considered to be monotypic until further studies validate the existence of either subspecies.

Distribution. S China, E Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam. View Figure

Descriptive notes. Head—body 48—50 mm, tail 18—28 mm, ear 16—24 mm, hindfoot 8—10 mm, forearm 40-48 mm; weight 7—11 g. Dorsal pelage is rich brown with a russet tinge (hairs light yellow basally with medium brown tips); ventral pelage is slightly paler. Ears are small. Noseleaf has a short lancet, with an almost rudimentary tip in some cases; connecting process is rounded, as in the Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat ( R.rouxii ); sella is virtually parallel-sided with a broadly rounded-off tip; horseshoe is moderately wide (7-2-8- 9 mm) but does not cover the muzzle completely, and welldeveloped lateral leaflets are usually present. Lower lip has three mental grooves. Baculum is lightly built with double curvature, making an elongated S-shape; basal cone is dorso-ventrally flattened and smaller than in the Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat; basal emargination is deeper ventrally than dorsally; shaft is laterally compressed, and its proximal ventral constriction is adjacent to the basal cone. Skull is relatively robust (zygomatic width is much greater than mastoid width); anterior median swellings are small; posterior swellings are more developed than the anterior ones; rostral profile is clearly sloped rearward; sagittal crest is moderately high; frontal depression is shallow to moderately deep; supraorbital crests are obliterated or well demarcated. C1 is moderately long; P2 is small and partially to completely extruded from the tooth row; C1 and P4 are touching or separated, depending on how extruded P2 is; P3 is small and completely extruded from the tooth row; P2 and P are touching or nearly so.

Habitat. Often associated with limestone areas, and has been recorded in dry forests and disturbed areas. Reported at elevations of 400-1100 m.

Food and Feeding. No information.

Breeding. Pregnant females have been recorded in late March and April, in Vietnam.

Activity patterns. Thomas’s Horseshoe Bat roosts in caves. Call shape is FM/CF/FM with peak F reported at 76-77 kHz in males and 83-85-5 kHz in females, in Laos.

Movements, Home range and Social organization. Thomas’s Horseshoe Bats roost in colonies.

Status and Conservation. Classified as Least Concern on The IUCNed List. Thomas’s Horseshoe Bat is widespread and does not seem to be facing any major threats, although it may be locally threatened by roost disturbance. Cave destruction in some regions has negatively affected this species, causing local population declines.

Bibliography. Bates, Bumrungsri & Csorba (2008f), Bates, Thi Mar-Mar eta/. (2004), Csorba eta/. (2003), ran ­ cis (2008a), Kruskop (2013a), Smith & XieYan (2008), Stoffberg eta/. (2010), Zhang Lin et al. (2018).














Rhinolophus thomasi

Burgin, Connor 2019

Rhinolophus thomasi

K. Andersen 1905
GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF