Rhinolophus thomasi septentrionalis SANBORN, 1939

Csorba, G., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94, pp. 217-226 : 221-223

Rhinolophus thomasi septentrionalis SANBORN, 1939

The taxon septentrionalis once was described and later widely accepted as a subspecies of thomasi , differing from the nominotypical race by its larger size and slightly extruded anterior upper premolars ( SANBORN 1939). The holotype of septentrionalis (FMNH 33291) and other specimens from Yunnan stored in the FMNH

and USNM agree in every respect with each other. However, it is much bigger in external measurements than thomasi and latifolius (FA 51.1-55.5 against 40.5-48.0; SL 19.79-20.98 against 17.87-19.98; and C M 3 7.65-8.40 against 6.82-7.67 mm), and has strong, widely based, long canines. These differences support the view,

that septentrionalis differs from R. thomasi at specific level.

The taxon sinicus was described as a subspecies of R. rouxi by ANDERSEN (1905) who separated it on the basis of its smaller skull and toothrow measurements. As ANDERSEN remarked, the general size of sinicus as is the smallest example of the typical form of R. rouxi . This taxonomical position of sinicus was generally accepted, but T H O M A S (1997) in her detailed work, based on phenetic analysis and DNA techniques, verified that sinicus represents a distinct species occuring in the Himalayas, Myanmar, northern Vietnam and southern China.

Nevertheless, the relation and the specific boundary between R. sinicus and R. thomasi is unclear. The extremely hastate, excessively shortened lancet thought to be diagnostic for R. thomasi (ANDERSEN 1905, CORBET & HILL 1992, K O O P M A N 1994) is not clearly expressed in all specimens of that species, while a similar shortening of lancet can be found in several R. sinicus . The types of both species are unusually small specimens and almost all subsequently collected individuals are larger. It means that although the type of R. sinicus is much larger than the type

of R. thomasi (therefore justifies the distinctness on species level), it overlaps in size with the majority of the known R. thomasi specimens (determined hereby the slender upper and lower canine only). On average, R. sinicus is much bigger than R. thomasi .

The form septentrionalis is therefore better referable to R. sinicus ; the large external measurements (the forearm length is over 50 mm) validate the subspecific separation within the species.