![Thumbnail: [Volume 25, 1892 page 50]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_25/thumbnails/rsnz_25_00_0083_0050_ac_02.gif)
Art. VII.—Note on the Bats of New Zealand.
[Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, 26th October, 1892.]
As there has hitherto been some confusion in the nomenclature of the two species of bat inhabiting New Zealand, I think it would be well to place on record in our Transactions the following remarks on the subject by Mr. Oldfield Thomas, of the British Museum, as contributed to the “Annals and Magazine of Natural History” for December, 1889:—
“It has always been a subject of regret that, owing to Gray's error in ascribing* to Forster's Vespertilio tuberculatus a specimen of the long-eared bat of New Zealand, which he then described and made the type of the genus Mystacina, the specific names of the two New Zealand bats should have been identical, an identity particularly inconvenient to writers on the fauna of that country. It is therefore with some pleasure that I am now able to point out that the names of the two species should, after all, not both be tuberculatus.
“The Mystacina unquestionably should bear that name; but in the case of the other species, referred in modern times to the genus Chalinolobus, the name tuberculatus has not the priority of publication, although dating in manuscript from the last century. It is now universally recognised that manuscript names do not confer priority, and before Forster's description of 1772–74 was published by Lichtenstein in 1844† a second name had been given to the bat by Dr. Gray, who described a specimen from South Australia as Scotophilus morio,‡ and under the latter short and convenient specific name the Chalinolobus should certainly stand.
“Instead, therefore, of Chalinolobus tuberculatus and Mys
[Footnote] * Voy. “Sulphur,” Mamm., p. 23 (1843).
[Footnote] † Forst. Descr. Anim., ed. Licht., p. 62 (1844).
[Footnote] ‡ Gray's Austr., App. ii., p. 405 (1841).
![Thumbnail: [Volume 25, 1892 page 51]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_25/thumbnails/rsnz_25_00_0084_0051_ac_02.gif)
tacina tuberculatc, we shall have Chalinolobus morio and Mystacina tuberculata as the two bats of New Zealand, both of them being represented by their type specimens in the National Collection.
“In this connection it may be pointed out that Chalinolobus signifer, Dobs.,* from Queensland, is in all probability the same as Ch. morio, its distinguishing character—the transverse cutaneous lobule on the muzzle—being a mark of old age, especially developed in the male sex, and not of specific distinctness. A male specimen from one of the outlying islands round Stewart Island, New Zealand, recently presented to the Museum by Mr. Charles Traill, has this lobule quite as well marked as in the type of Ch. signifer, and all the other fully adult specimens of Ch. morio in the Museum show some trace of the same lobule, while in immature individuals no sign of it is present.”
Memo.—Since communicating the above to the Society, I have received an interesting letter from Mr. R. Caldwell, one of the District Surveyors, which I am anxious to place on record in our Transactions, because it so completely confirms the accounts which I have often received from the older Maoris that both of our species of bat live in communities inhabiting the cavernous interior of some dead and hollow tree, congregating there in hundreds or thousands, and clinging to the sides in successive tiers, packed so closely as to occupy the entire surface. Most unfortunately, in the instance mentioned by Mr. Caldwell the fire took possession of the tree, which was in a very dry and combustible state, and the whole colony perished in the conflagration. The numbers that escaped when their home was invaded would probably establish themselves in another similar situation on the same wooded range, which lies, I understand, about five miles to the westward of Carterton:—
“A fact that has come under my observation in connection with bats may interest you; I therefore take the liberty of sending you some particulars. I left Carterton, together with two companions, for a walk into the hills at the right-hand side of the Waiohine, going by way of the Belvedere Road. We got fairly into the hills about 10 a.m., and climbed a high range covered with black-birch. Getting warm, we sat down on the moss to rest. Then my attention was attracted by a smell of a kind I had not noticed in the bush before, and one that reminded me of a flying-fox camp in Queensland. I followed the smell for some distance to a large birch-tree with an opening about 4ft. from the ground. I had evidently traced the smell to its source, for at the opening it was fairly
[Footnote] * Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. [4], xvii., p. 289 (1876).
![Thumbnail: [Volume 25, 1892 page 52]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_25/thumbnails/rsnz_25_00_0085_0052_ac_02.gif)
stifling. I could see nothing, so I lighted a bunch of dry leaves, and thrust it through the opening into the tree. As I did this a bat flew out in my face, another, and another. The smoke increased, and the bats streamed out in hundreds. I have no means of computing the number, but one of my men, having a small switch in his hand, kept striking at the stream, the result of which I afterwards counted. There were exactly a hundred bats killed. For one killed at least ten must have passed and flown away. Large numbers dropped down in clusters through the blazing opening. I had no idea there were so many bats in the Wairarapa, and would not have believed it had I not seen them. I have never seen in New Zealand such another collection.”