Search

Rhinolophus affinis Horsfield, 1823 Intermediate horseshoe bat FA — 48.8–54.8 mm, mass — 9.0– 15.3 g. Fortyseven males and 55 females were captured from Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Henan, Sichuan and Yunnan. The FMAXE values for echolocation calls are very variable, ranging between 70.0 to 88.5 kHz at different sites. Individuals from Hainan, Guangdong and Guangxi called at relatively low frequencies (70.0 to 74.3 kHz), those from Yunnan called at 82.6 to 83.7 kHz, while those from Jiangxi called at higher frequencies, 88.1 to 88.5 kHz. In Fujian, bats called at 71.9 to 86.1 kHz. Even in the same cave bats called at very different frequencies. For example, in Jinkuang Cave (Fujian), 10 bats were captured, of which seven called at 71.9 to 73.2 kHz, while another three bats called at 85.7 to 86.1 kHz. This raises the possibility that cryptic species may be present, and this is currently under investigation using molecular phylogenetic methods. Call frequencies for this species in Malaysia were previously reported as 77.6 kHz (FA 49.3 mm) (Kingston et al., 2000) and 76 kHz (FA 51 mm) (Heller and Helversen, 1989). In China R. affinis is most easily confused with R. sinicus, from which it is best distinguished by its straight-sided lancet and the long second phalanx of the third digit (66.3–80.4% of the length of the metacarpal: Csorba et al., 2003). Rhinolophus affinis is also typically a larger species, though overlap occurs with R. sinicus at forearm lengths between 50–53 mm. There is extensive overlap in call frequency, but only a small overlap in forearm length between R. affinis and R. sinicus (Fig. 3). The bats calling at R. affinis from Guangdong, although one R. sinicus called at 73.4 kHz. Our molecular studies suggest that unequivocal separation can be achieved by sequencing the control region of mtDNA (authors’ unpublished data), though this assumes an absence of introgression. Previous records from China: Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Henan, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003; Yu et al., 2006). Ecological Notes All roosts were found in caves except for one tree roost where a single individual was located. Numbers were typically in single figures, although up to 21 bats were recorded at one site. Although widespread, this species was not abundant., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on pages 73-75, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["KINGSTON, T., G. JONES, A. ZUBAID, and T. H. KUNZ. 2000. Resource partitioning in rhinolophoid bats revisited. Oecologia, 124: 332 - 342.","HELLER, K. - G., and O. V. HELVERSEN. 1989. Resource partitioning of sonar frequency bands in rhinolophoid bats. Oecologia, 80: 178 - 186.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp.","YU, Y., H. X. NIU, Y. M. WANG, and Q. W. LU. 2006. Karyotype analysis of two Rhinolophus species from Henan. Sichuan Journal of Zoology, 25: 739 - 742. [in Chinese with English abstract]."]}

Rhinolophus rex G. M. Allen, 1923 King horseshoe bat Rhinolophus paradoxolophus (Bourret, 1951) Bourret’s horseshoe bat These taxa appear to be very closely related and there has been some disagreement in the literature regarding whether or not they represent discrete species. For these reasons they are considered together here. Rhinolophus rex has previously been separated from R. paradoxolophus on the basis of small differences in external, cranial and dental measurements with the former considered to be the fractionally larger species. For example, R. paradoxolophus has a forearm length of 50.5–57 mm, R. rex 56.5–63 mm (Csorba et al., 2003). In our surveys, several bats captured in Guangxi had forearm lengths that would classify them as R. paradoxolophus, while our Yunnan bat had a forearm length that fits the measurements for R. rex. Despite these size differences, these bats called at similar call frequencies. Francis (in Eger and Fenton 2003) record- ed R. paradoxolophus at 22–25 kHz in Lao PDR, and hence it appears that the call frequencies used by R. paradoxolophus and R. rex are identical. Eger and Fenton (2003) recorded R. paradoxolophus at 43 kHz in China, but presumably measured the third harmonic of a signal with a fundamental at about 14 kHz. We consider that the small differences in body size are inadequate descriptors of taxonomic distinctiveness between R. paradoxolophus and R. rex, and given that their echolocation calls are very similar we suggest they are probably the same taxon. Rhinolophus paradoxolophus occurs at more southerly locations than R. rex, and the forms are probably best recognized as geographical races (subspecies). Because R. rex (1923) was named before R. paradoxolophus (1951) we suggest that the taxa are synonymised under the name R. rex and considered as one species. An account of the biology of R. paradoxolophus is given by Eger and Fenton (2003). Rhinolophus rex FA — 51.6–57.3 mm, mass — 10.8–14 g. Four males and 10 females were captured in Guangxi, Guizhou and Yunnan. Rhinolophus rex calls at a very low frequency, FMAXE 23.7–26.4 kHz, with calls dominated by the second harmonic. Previous records from China (for R. rex): Chongqing, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes This species is restricted to southern provinces where it is only encountered in small numbers in caves. Echolocation calls are audible at close range to the unaided ear., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on pages 78-79, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, 1844 Blyth’s horseshoe bat Rhinolophus osgoodi Sanborn, 1939 Osgood’s horseshoe bat We consider these taxa together because it is not clear whether or not they are in fact conspecific (Corbet and Hill, 1992; Simmons, 2005). Csorba et al. (2003) consider R. osgoodi as a distinct species on the basis of lancet shape, its short upper canine and long palatal bridge, but recognise that specific distinctness of this taxon has not been accepted widely in the past. Rhinolophus osgoodi has only previously been recorded from one site (Nguluku, north of Likiang) in Yunnan. Osgood (1932) initially considered this taxon to be a subspecies of R. lepidus, and its specific status was introduced by Sanborn (1939) on the basis of its relatively long forearm and small cranial measurements. One male was captured in Fumin County, Yunnan on 4 November 2005, FA 43 mm, FMAXE 92 kHz. One female (FA 45.4 mm, FMAXE 95.2 kHz) was netted in Dali County, Yunnan Province on 4 September 2003. The Dali bat had a relatively long upper canine more typical of R. lepidus than R. osgoodi (Csorba et al., 2003), despite being captured close to the type locality for R. osgoodi. The similarities in forearm length and call frequencies of these bats suggest they may belong to the same taxon. Pottie et al. (2005) reported that R. lepidus in Singapore calls at 97.8 kHz, and had a FA of 39.9 mm, whereas this species in Malaysia calls at around 100 kHz and has a FA that ranges from 37.0– 43.9 mm (Kingston et al., 2000). More work is warranted to determine if R. osgoodi is distinct from R. lepidus. Previous records from China (R. lepidus): Anhui, Fujian, Guangxi, Guangdong, Guizhou, Hainan, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Rhinolophus osgoodi: Yunnan. Ecological Notes Seldom encountered and appeared to be rare and not widespread. Records were from caves., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on pages 76-77, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["SANBORN, C. C. 1939. Eight new bats of the genus Rhinolophus. Publications of the Field Museum of Natural History Zoology, 24: 37 - 43.","SIMMONS, N. B. 2005. Order Chiroptera. Pp. 312 - 525, in Mammal species of the World: a taxonomic and geographic reference, 3 rd edition (D. E. WILSON and D. M. REEDER, eds.). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2142 pp.","OSGOOD, S. I. 1932. Mammals of the Kelley-Roosevelts and Delacour Asiatic expeditions. Publications of the Field Museum of Natural History Zoology, 18: 193 - 339.","POTTIE, S. A., D. J. W. LANE, T. KINGSTON, and B. P. Y. - H. LEE. 2005. The microchiropteran bat fauna of Singapore. Acta Chiropterologica, 7: 237 - 247.","KINGSTON, T., G. JONES, A. ZUBAID, and T. H. KUNZ. 2000. Resource partitioning in rhinolophoid bats revisited. Oecologia, 124: 332 - 342.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Rhinolophus stheno K. Andersen, 1905 Lesser brown horseshoe bat FA — 41.8–47.1 mm, mass — 10.3 ± 1.4 g (n = 6). Four males and three females were captured in Yunnan Province. These were the first records of R. stheno from China, and a detailed description was given in Zhang J. S. et al. (2005). The echolocation calls indicated that the FMAXE of R. stheno was about 87.2 kHz, while Robinson (1996) reported 85–90 kHz (FA 46 mm), and Kingston et al. (2000) documented 86.1 kHz (FA 48.8 mm), both in Malaysia. Soisook et al. (2008) recently elevated R. microglobosus to species status and consider it distinct from R. stheno in Southeast Asia. Whereas R. stheno typically echolocates with FMAXE of 85–88 kHz, R. microglobosus calls at 92–101 kHz. Rhinolophus stheno had forearm lengths between 43.2–48.1 mm, whereas R. microglobosus was smaller on average (FA — 41.4–46.3 mm). Rhinolophus stheno was found in the Thai-Malaysian peninsular and central Vietnam, with R. microglobosus distributed further north, also in Myanmar, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Lao PDR and hence closer to the border with China (Soisook et al., 2008). Nonetheless, our echolocation call frequency measurements are consistent with the Chinese bats being R. stheno rather than R. microglobosus. Ecological Notes These records were the first for China: the bats were roosting in caves., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 80, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["ROBINSON, M. F. 1996. A relationship between echolocation calls and noseleaf, widths in bats of the genera Rhinolophus and Hipposideros. Journal of Zoology (London), 239: 389 - 393.","KINGSTON, T., G. JONES, A. ZUBAID, and T. H. KUNZ. 2000. Resource partitioning in rhinolophoid bats revisited. Oecologia, 124: 332 - 342.","SOISOOK, P., S. BUMRUNGSRI, C. SATASOOK, V. D. THONG, S. S. H. BU, D. L. HARRISON, and P. J. J. BATES. 2008. A taxonomic review of Rhinolophus stheno and R. malayanus (Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae) from continental Southeast Asia: an evaluation of echolocation call frequency in discriminating between cryptic species. Acta Chiropterologica, 10: 221 - 242."]}

Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Schreber, 1774) Greater horseshoe bat FA — 56.5–62.0 mm, mass — 16.5–32.6 g. A widespread bat in China: we captured bats in Beijing, Guangxi, Henan, Hubei, Jiangxi, Jilin, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, Tianjin and Yunnan. Bats assigned to R. ferrumequinum in China have lower call frequencies and longer forearms (72.0–83.5 kHz, 56.5–62.0 mm, respectively) than those sampled in continental Europe and the UK (81–84 kHz, 50.6–59.0 mm FA in UK — Heller and Helversen, 1989; Jones and Rayner, 1990; Park et al., 2000; Andrews and Andrews, 2003; Ransome 2008). Genetic analyses of microsatellite loci and mitochondrial DNA reveal deep divisions among populations within China, and also between the Chinese populations and those from the Middle East and Europe (Rossiter et al., 2007; Flanders et al. 2009). Bats from southwest China typically emitted echolocation calls with FMAXE at 72.0 kHz to 73.9 kHz (Yunnan and Sichuan, respectively), while those from east China are higher again (♂♂ 74.8–76.8 kHz; ♀♀ 76.4–77.1 kHz). Moreover, bats from Japan that are usually considered a discrete subspecies (R. f. nippon) show a further decrease in call frequency (ca. 65 kHz — Taniguchi, 1985; Fukui et al., 2004) and are typically larger than most bats on the Chinese mainland. In conflict with this general trend was one bat from Jilin that emitted echolocation calls at 65 kHz and also appeared to show greater mtDNA sequence affiliation to the bats from Japan. Hence it is likely that the nippon lineage has recolonised China from Japan (Flanders et al., 2009). Such large differences in call frequency and corresponding genetic distinctiveness suggest that populations of this species in China might warrant taxonomic revision. Previous records from China: Anhui, Beijing, Fujian, Gansu, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hebei, Henan, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Jilin, Liaoning, Ningxia, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Shandong, Shanghai, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes Although widespread, the species was rarely encountered in large numbers. It was always found in caves. Breeding was confirmed in Du Cave, Tianjin where young were noted during late June. The species appears to eat mainly moths and beetles, as in Britain (Jones, 1990). Analysis of 60 droppings from Beijing collected in August 2003 revealed average percentage volumes of 96.9% moths, 2.7% beetles, 0.4% dipterans., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on pages 75-76, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["HELLER, K. - G., and O. V. HELVERSEN. 1989. Resource partitioning of sonar frequency bands in rhinolophoid bats. Oecologia, 80: 178 - 186.","JONES, G., and J. M. V. RAYNER. 1990. Foraging behavior and echolocation of wild horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and R. hipposideros (Chiroptera, Rhinolophidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 25: 183 - 191.","PARK, K. J., G. JONES, and R. D. RANSOME. 2000. Torpor, arousal and activity of hibernating greater horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Functional Ecology, 14: 580 - 588.","RANSOME, R. D. 2008. Greater horseshoe bat. Pp. 298 - 306, in Mammals of the British Isles: handbook, 4 th edition (S. HARRIS and D. W. YALDEN, eds.). The Mammal Society, Southampton, 800 pp.","ROSSITER, S. J., P. BENDA, C. DIETZ, S. ZHANG, and G. JONES. 2007. Rangewide phylogeography in the greater horseshoe bat inferred from microsatellites: implications for population history, taxonomy, and conservation. Molecular Ecology, 16: 4699 - 4714.","TANIGUCHI, I. 1985. Echolocation sounds and hearing of the greater Japanese horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum nippon). Journal of Comparative Physiology, 156 A: 185 - 188.","FUKUI, D., N. AGETSUMA, and D. A. HILL. 2004. Acoustic identification of eight species of bat (Mammalia: Chiroptera) inhabiting forests of southern Hokkaido, Japan: potential for conservation monitoring. Zoological Science, 21: 947 - 955.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Rhinolophus luctus Temminck, 1834 Woolly horseshoe bat FA 66.3–72.8 mm, mass 26.5–49.5 g. Six males and four females were captured in Fujian, Hainan, Hunan and Jiangxi provinces. The call frequency of R. luctus in China (32.6–34.9 kHz) is lower than that in Malaysia (FMAXE 42 kHz), while the forearm length shorter is in Malaysia (63.4 mm — Kingston et al., 2000). Pottie et al. (2005) reported that R. luctus called at 42.6 kHz in Singapore, but these authors did not collect individuals of this species, identifying them from their echolocation calls. Given the geographic variation in call frequency and forearm length, cryptic species may therefore be present in this taxon, although more work is needed to confirm this. Previous records from China: Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes This species was seldom encountered and was always found in small groups. All records were from caves., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 77, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["KINGSTON, T., G. JONES, A. ZUBAID, and T. H. KUNZ. 2000. Resource partitioning in rhinolophoid bats revisited. Oecologia, 124: 332 - 342.","POTTIE, S. A., D. J. W. LANE, T. KINGSTON, and B. P. Y. - H. LEE. 2005. The microchiropteran bat fauna of Singapore. Acta Chiropterologica, 7: 237 - 247.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Rhinolophus rex G. M. Allen, 1923 King horseshoe bat Rhinolophus paradoxolophus (Bourret, 1951) Bourret’s horseshoe bat These taxa appear to be very closely related and there has been some disagreement in the literature regarding whether or not they represent discrete species. For these reasons they are considered together here. Rhinolophus rex has previously been separated from R. paradoxolophus on the basis of small differences in external, cranial and dental measurements with the former considered to be the fractionally larger species. For example, R. paradoxolophus has a forearm length of 50.5–57 mm, R. rex 56.5–63 mm (Csorba et al., 2003). In our surveys, several bats captured in Guangxi had forearm lengths that would classify them as R. paradoxolophus, while our Yunnan bat had a forearm length that fits the measurements for R. rex. Despite these size differences, these bats called at similar call frequencies. Francis (in Eger and Fenton 2003) record- ed R. paradoxolophus at 22–25 kHz in Lao PDR, and hence it appears that the call frequencies used by R. paradoxolophus and R. rex are identical. Eger and Fenton (2003) recorded R. paradoxolophus at 43 kHz in China, but presumably measured the third harmonic of a signal with a fundamental at about 14 kHz. We consider that the small differences in body size are inadequate descriptors of taxonomic distinctiveness between R. paradoxolophus and R. rex, and given that their echolocation calls are very similar we suggest they are probably the same taxon. Rhinolophus paradoxolophus occurs at more southerly locations than R. rex, and the forms are probably best recognized as geographical races (subspecies). Because R. rex (1923) was named before R. paradoxolophus (1951) we suggest that the taxa are synonymised under the name R. rex and considered as one species. An account of the biology of R. paradoxolophus is given by Eger and Fenton (2003). Rhinolophus rex FA — 51.6–57.3 mm, mass — 10.8–14 g. Four males and 10 females were captured in Guangxi, Guizhou and Yunnan. Rhinolophus rex calls at a very low frequency, FMAXE 23.7–26.4 kHz, with calls dominated by the second harmonic. Previous records from China (for R. rex): Chongqing, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes This species is restricted to southern provinces where it is only encountered in small numbers in caves. Echolocation calls are audible at close range to the unaided ear.

RHINOLOPHIDAE During our surveys, 12 species of horseshoe bats were captured (for capture sites, measurements and status, see Table 1; for representative echolocation calls, see Fig. 2; see also Appendix), of which two represent new records for China: R. marshalli and R. stheno. We also captured bats that fit descriptions of R. siamensis, recognised as a distinct species in Smith and Xie (2008). Among these 12 species, R. ferrumequinum and R. pusillus are common and widespread in China., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 73, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["SMITH, A. T., and Y. XIE (eds.). 2008. A guide to the mammals of China. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 576 pp."]}

Rhinolophus macrotis Blyth, 1844 Big-eared horseshoe bat Rhinolophus siamensis Glydenstolpe, 1917 Thai horseshoe bat We consider these taxa together because their distinctiveness from each other has long been questioned. Rhinolophus siamensis was formerly included in R. macrotis, but was recently considered as a distinct taxon on the basis of its smaller size and higher echolocation call frequency (Francis et al., 1999; Hendrichsen et al., 2001). Indeed, Simmons (2005) treats R. siamensis as a distinct species. It was first described (as a subspecies of R. macrotis) from north-west Thailand (Gyldenstolpe, 1917), and is sympatric with the larger R. macrotis in Vietnam and Lao PDR (Csorba et al., 2003). A paratype specimen of R. siamensis has a forearm length of 37.1 mm, whereas R. macrotis can reach 48 mm (Csorba et al., 2003). Heller and Helversen (1989) and Kingston et al. (2000) reported that R. macrotis in Malaysia calls at 48 kHz (FA 46.5 mm and 45.5 mm, respectively), which is close to values from the large bats typical of this species in China. We have found typical R. macrotis and a smaller form (that fits with descriptions of R. siamensis) in sympatry (even in the same cave) in Guangxi, supporting their status as separate species. Detailed analyses of genetic and call frequency variation of these taxa are currently underway (authors’ unpublished data) to clarify their taxonomic status, and to determine whether one does indeed correspond to R. siamensis and whether additional cryptic species may be present. Sun et al. (2008) identified a ‘new’ cryptic species of R. macrotis from Jianxi, though on the basis of body size and call frequency we believe that their ’new’ small species is probably R. siamensis. Wu et al. (2008) described a new, small cryptic species in the R. macrotis group from Guangdong, Guangxi and Jiangxi, which they named R. huananus. The forearm length of this bat was 39.3–43.1 mm, and hence overlapped with that found by Sun et al. (2008). Although Wu et al. (2008) argued that the body size of R. huananus was intermediate between that of R. siamensis and R. macrotis, they were not able to examine any specimens of the former. Francis (2008) gives the forearm length of R. siamensis in Thailand as 38–42 mm. We therefore believe that R. huananus may be a synonym of R. siamensis, and until further evidence is forthcoming we consider the large and small bats in the R. macrotis group in China as R. macrotis and R. siamensis, respectively. Our criteria for separation of R. macrotis and R. siamensis are conservative because they are based on individuals where both call frequency and forearm length were recorded — we have found no overlap in either parameter between the taxa. Bats with FA> 46 mm and FMAXE R. macrotis. If FA 58 kHz then bats were assigned to R. siamensis. Rhinolophus macrotis FA — 46.9–49.9 mm (n = 5), mass — 8.7–9.4 g (n = 4). Two males and four females typical of R. macrotis were caught from Beijing, Guangxi and Sichuan. The echolocation calls ranged in FMAXE from 47.2–53.9 kHz. Previous records from China (for all bats identified as R. macrotis — may include records of R. siamensis because this species was not previously considered distinct): Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Shaanxi, Yunnan and Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes The species is relatively uncommon, and always found in small numbers. Records are widespread, extending north to Beijing from subtropical regions of China. All bats were captured in caves. Rhinolophus siamensis FA — 39.2–45.4 mm (n = 22), mass — 5.5–6.4 g (n = 10). Thirty-seven bats (14 ♂♂ and 23 ♀♀) could be readily assigned to this taxon, and there was no overlap with either forearm length or FMAXE of the larger R. macrotis. Echolocation calls had FMAXE ranging from 60.0–69.3 kHz (n = 22). Recorded from Fujian, Guangxi, Guizhou, Jiangxi, and Yunnan Ecological Notes Rhinolophus siamensis appears to be widespread in southern China, and was recorded more frequently than R. macrotis, which may extend further northwards given the new record from Beijing. The two species were sympatric (even found in the same cave) in Guangxi. Rhinolophus siamensis was previously recorded from Yunnan according to Smith and Xie (2008). All records were from caves., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on pages 77-78, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["FRANCIS, C. M., A. GUILLEN, and M. F. ROBINSON. 1999. Order Chiroptera: bats. Pp. 225 - 235, in Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 status report (J. W. DUCKWORTH, R. E. SALTER, and K. KHOUNBOLINE, eds.). IUCN, Vientiane, Laos, 274 pp.","HENDRICHSEN, D. K., P. J. J. BATES, B. D. HAYES, and J. L. WALSTON. 2001. Recent records of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from Vietnam with six species new to the country. Myotis, 39: 35 - 122.","SIMMONS, N. B. 2005. Order Chiroptera. Pp. 312 - 525, in Mammal species of the World: a taxonomic and geographic reference, 3 rd edition (D. E. WILSON and D. M. REEDER, eds.). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2142 pp.","GYLDENSTOLPE, N. 1917. Zoological results of the Swedish expedition to Siam 1911 - 1912 and 1914 - 1915. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingare, 57: 1 - 59.","HELLER, K. - G., and O. V. HELVERSEN. 1989. Resource partitioning of sonar frequency bands in rhinolophoid bats. Oecologia, 80: 178 - 186.","KINGSTON, T., G. JONES, A. ZUBAID, and T. H. KUNZ. 2000. Resource partitioning in rhinolophoid bats revisited. Oecologia, 124: 332 - 342.","SUN, K. - P., J. FENG, T. L. JIANG, J. MA, Z. - Z. ZHANG, and L. - R. JIN. 2008. A new cryptic species of Rhinolophus macrotis (Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae) from Jiangxi Province, China. Acta Chiropterologica, 10: 1 - 10.","WU, Y., M. MOTOKAWA, and M. HARADA. 2008. A new species of horseshoe bat of the genus Rhinolophus from China (Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae). Zoological Science, 25: 438 - 443.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp.","SMITH, A. T., and Y. XIE (eds.). 2008. A guide to the mammals of China. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 576 pp."]}

Rhinolophus sinicus K. Andersen, 1905 Chinese rufous horseshoe bat The species is most easily confused with R. affinis, from which it is best distinguished by its straight-sided lancet and the relatively short second phalanx of the third digit (et al., 2003). Unequivocal separation can seemingly be performed by sequencing the control region of mtDNA (authors’ unpublished data). Echolocation call frequencies overlap with those emitted by R. affinis. Rhinolophus affinis is also typically a larger species, though overlap occurs with R. sinicus at forearm lengths between 50–53 mm (Fig. 4). Rhinolophus sinicus is very similar to R. thomasi from Myanmar, Vietnam, Lao PDR and Thailand, to which it is closely related and possibly conspecific. Call frequency for R. thomasi in Lao PDR is reported as 76–86 kHz (Francis and Habersetzer 1998), and so the two taxa overlap considerably in call frequency. Rhinolophus thomasi is reported to have smaller upper canines than R. sinicus (Francis 2008). FA — 42.6–52.6 mm, mass — 8.5–14.3 g. Seventy-four males and 43 females were captured from Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Hubei, Jiangxi, Sichuan, and Yunnan. The echolocation calls vary over the geographic range, from 73.4–88.5 kHz. The call frequencies (0 ± SD) of a sample of males (82.0 ± 2.0 kHz, n = 38) were lower than females (85.4 ± 1.9, n = 29 — Mann- Whitney W = 839, P ♂♂: 46.9 ± 1.5, n = 37; ♀♀: 46.6 ± 2.0, n = 29; Mann-Whitney W = 1325, P > 0.05). Previous records from China:, Anhui, Fujian, Gansu, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Hubei Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Tibet, Yunnan, Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes Widespread in caves in southern China, but never abundant. Maximum count was 24 bats in one cave in Jiangxi. An abandoned brick kiln was used by a solitary male in Xinyi County., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 80, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["FRANCIS, C. M., and J. HABERSETZER. 1998. Interspecific and intraspecific variation in echolocation call frequency and morphology of horseshoe bats, Rhinolophus and Hipposideros. Pp. 169 - 179, in Bat biology and conservation (T. H. KUNZ and P. A. RACEY, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 365 pp.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian, Parsons, Stuart (2009): Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae. Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1): 71-88, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703