Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph R. Hauser, Joseph Cooper and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Taxonomic Notes on Mexican Bats of the Genus Rhogeëssa
University of Kansas Publications Museum of Natural History
Volume 5, No. 15, pp. 227-232 April 10, 1952
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS, MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, A. Byron Leonard, Edward H. Taylor, Robert W. Wilson
Volume 5, No. 15, pp. 227-232 April 10, 1952
PRINTED BY FERD VOILAND, JR., STATE PRINTER TOPEKA, KANSAS 1952
TAXONOMIC NOTES ON MEXICAN BATS OF THE GENUS RHOGEËSSA
Five skins with skulls of _Rhogeëssa_, collected by J. R. Alcorn in the states of Sonora and Nayarit of western Mexico, were recently received at the Museum of Natural History of the University of Kansas. Two other specimens of the same genus, collected by Walter W. Dalquest in the state of Veracruz of eastern Mexico, also are in the Museum of Natural History. With the aim of applying names to these bats they were compared with materials in the United States National Museum (including the Biological Surveys collection) where there are approximately the same number of Mexican specimens of _Rhogeëssa_ as are in the Museum of Natural History.
The three kinds of _Rhogeëssa_ named from Mexico are as follows: _R. parvula_ from the Tres Marias Islands off the west coast of Nayarit; _R. tumida_ from Mirador, Veracruz, on the eastern slope of the Republic; and _R. gracilis_ from Piaxtla, Puebla, on the southern end of the Mexican Plateau.
Of _Rhogeëssa gracilis_ Miller (N. Amer. Fauna, 13:126, October 16, 1897) only three specimens are known; two are from Piaxtla, Puebla, and the third is from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Only the specimen from the Isthmus has a complete skull. The broken skull of the holotype is partly separated from the skin of the head and in such a manner as to reveal the teeth. The skull of the holotype seems to be broader (relative to its length) across the mastoids and posterior parts of the zygomata than in _R. tumida_ or than in _R. parvula_. My comparisons indicate that _Rhogeëssa gracilis_ has larger (longer and wider) ears than _R. parvula_ and _R. tumida_ and that it is specifically distinct from the two last mentioned kinds.