1,721,022 research outputs found
Figs 12-13 in Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera)
No full textFigs 12-13. Frontal views of noseleaves: 12 = R. sinicus (HZM 23.28155), 13 = /?. thomasi (BMNH 90.4.7.10, holotype). Scale = 3 mmPublished as part of Csorba, G ., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on page 223, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.383971
Figs 1-3 in Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera)
No full textFigs 1-3. Lateral views of rostral parts of skulls from the original type series of R. pusillus: 1 = RMNH 35181,2 = RMNH 35177 lectotype. 3 = R. borneensis (MNB 2533.1, holotype). Scale = 3 mmPublished as part of Csorba, G ., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on page 219, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.383971
Rhinolophus affinis Horsfield 1823
No full textRhinolophus affinis HORSFIELD, 1823 In the original description of the species HORSFIELD (1823) indicated no type specimen. Beside a specimen (labelled as holotype) stored in the BM(NH), JENTINK (1887) listed two more specimens in the RMNH, Leiden marked as types. However, the two RMNH individuals (RMNH 25236, cat. ost. b and RMNH 25237, cat. ost. c) represented by skulls only, proved to be Hipposideros larvatus. The possible reason of the confusion should be the fact, that HORSFIELD worked with the two species in question at the same time (the descriptions appeared in the same book). Since there was no holotype designation in HORSFIELD's work, these three specimens are regarded as syntypes; consequently, the BM(NH) specimen (No. 79.11.21.70) as the only R. affinis is designated herein as lectotype.Published as part of Csorba, G., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on page 221, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.383971
Rhinolophus philippinensis Waterhouse 1843
No full textRhinolophus philippinensis montanus GOODWIN, 1979 G O O D W I N (1979) discussed the differences between his new montanus and the other subspecies of R. philippinensis, and noted its much smaller size, differently shaped sella and connecting process, more pronounced nasal swellings and more crowded situation of the small premolars. Investigation of the known speci mens (holotype, paratype and two more individuals collected together the types, A M N H 237811-237814) has shown that these differences are definitely beyond intraspecific variation of R. philippinensis and leave no doubt that montanus is a distinct species. The external appearence of the noseleaf of montanus is intermediate between R. philippinensis and R. macrotis. As already ANDERSEN (1907) noted, R. macrotis is an example of "a type of low level of evolution which has no closer relative than the primitive forms of the Rh. philippinensis group" and "the sella of macrotis might properly be described as that of a philippinensis deprived of its lateral expansions; the shape of the connecting process and lancet also point towards relationship with philippinensis ". The noseleaf features of the much later described R. montanus are filling this gap. *Published as part of Csorba, G., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on pages 223-225, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.383971
Rhinolophus lepidus subsp. shortridgei K. Andersen 1918
No full textThe description of this taxon as a subspecies of R. lepidus from Upper Burma (Myanmar) was published by O L D F I E L D THOMAS on behalf of ANDERSEN (1918), 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.Published as part of Csorba, G., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on pages 219-220, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.383971
Rhinolophus borneensis Peters 1861
No full textThe confusing history of the name borneensis was reviewed in detail by A N DERSEN (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- cality of R. borneensis is also Labuan (the Malayan island off Borneo, not in Java), and according to PETERS (1871) its type is deposited in the Berlin Museum, the MNB 2533.1 and 2533.2 specimens are undoubtedly the mis-labelled types of R. borneensis.Published as part of Csorba, G., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on pages 220-221, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.383971
The definition of Harpiola (Vespertilionidae : Murininae) and the description of a new species from Taiwan.
No full text
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Rhinolophus thomasi subsp. septentrionalis Sanborn 1939
No full textRhinolophus 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; andC 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.Published as part of Csorba, G., 2002, Remarks on some types of the genus Rhinolophus (Mammalia, Chiroptera), pp. 217-226 in Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 94 on pages 221-223, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.383971
- …
