taxonID	type	description	language	source
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Lesser Short-nosed Fruit bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Simmons (2005): Nepal. — Sinha (1986): Nepal (see note). Note. — Sinha (1986) records brachyotis from Nepal based upon his examination of one male and one female specimen collected by J. Scully in 1877. In his monograph on Nepalese Chiroptera, however, Scully (1887) mentions that he collected only two Cynopterus, both specimens of which (a male and a female) he refers to C. marginatus Geoffroy, 1810 a, the latter being a current synonym of C. sphinx (see Bates & Harrison, 1997; Simmons, 2005). Andersen, 1912 considered Cynopterus angulatus to be a synonym of C. brachyotis but the removal of angulatus from brachyotis to C. sphinx (see Hill & Thonglongya, 1972) would suggest that, based on material in collections, brachyotis occurs no further north than Sirsi (14 º 37 ' N.) in the Indian State of Karnataka (Bates & Harrison, 1997: 23). The subspecies angulatus is ascribed to specimens of C. sphinx from Bhutan (Bates & Harrison, 1997: 19), the latter country sharing many similarities in elevation and topography with Nepal. Until substantive information arises to place brachyotis firmly in Nepal, the species is excluded here from the country's faunal list. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as C. s. sphinx). — Mitchell (1978 a) (as C. s. sphinx): Nepal. — Mitchell & Punzo (1977): Sankhuwasabha [District]. — Scully (1887): Nepal Valley; " Nowakot district about 16 miles north-west of Kathmandu " (as Cynopterus marginatus Dobson, 1876) (see note 5). — Worth & Shah (1969): Nepal. Note. — 1 The localities of Bharabise, Shebu, and Wana cannot be identified precisely as they do not appear on standard maps of Nepal (1: 750,000 and 1: 500,000) and co-ordinates are not given in the F. M. N. H. collections catalogue. Bharabise is not the more sizeable locality of the same name in Sindhupalchok District. Examples of C. sphinx from the three localities mentioned were collected by E. W. Cronin Jr. between 3 rd and 8 th February, 1973. Cronin was associated with the Arun Valley Wildlife Expedition (1970 – 1973), whose members collected at points along the course of the Arun River in Sankhuwasabha District, and it is likely that it is in this area that the localities lie. 2 The species authority of gangeticus is (K.) Andersen, 1910 and not, as Johnson et al. (1980) state, " Anderson, 1910 " (see Simmons, 2005: 317). 3 Measurements of USNM specimens are given in Appendix II. 4 Myers et al. (2000) give mean external, cranial, and palatal measurements of a series of 19 specimens (seven males and 12 females), which were collected variously “ near banana plants adjacent to houses, in dense riparian vegetation, over trails through forest, and over a stream ”. The authors comment that “ late arrivers appeared to be attracted by the distress calls of other Cynopterus as we removed them from the net ”. 5 Scully (1887) bases his records on two specimens collected personally, the measurements of which he lists. Hinton & Fry (1923) include the species in Nepal's faunal list as Cynopterus brachyotis angulatus Mill [er, 1898]; angulatus is now an accepted synonym of C. sphinx (Simmons, 2005: 317). See the note to Cynopterus brachyotis, above (p. 20). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Eonycteris spelaea (Dobson, 1871) MAP No. 2 (Lesser) Dawn bat Cave Fruit bat Dobson's Long-tongued Fruit bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Simmons (2005): Nepal. Note. — 1 Myers et al. (2000) give mean external, cranial, and palatal measurements of two male E. spelaea, one of which was collected “ among banana plants near houses ” the other in a net set adjacent to a stream in a ravine. Myers records spelaea from Nepal for the first time. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as P. g. leucocephalus Hodgson, 1835). — Hinton & Fry (1923) (as P. g. leucocephalus): " The valley of Nepal near Katmandu " (see note 2). — Kock (1996) (as P. g. leucocephalus — see note 3): Nepal (SMF 12424). — Mitchell & Punzo (1977): Kathmandu [District]. — Mitchell (1978 a) (as P. g. leucocephalus): Nepal. — Scully (1887): Nepal Valley (as Pteropus medius Temminck, 1827 [1824 – 1841]). — Worth & Shah (1969): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hodgson (1841 b) refers to Pteropus leneocephalus but this is considered simply to be a misprint of Pteropus leucocephalus. 2 Hinton & Fry (1923) refer to B. H. Hodgson's manuscript, in which the latter author writes of the species: " Very rare in hills, very common in plains or Tarai ". Scully (1887) indicates that Hodgson observed the species (and P. pyrivorus (= Rousettus leschenaulti) (Hodgson, 1835: 700 )) [in the Kathmandu Valley] only in autumn, when " it comes in large bodies to plunder the ripe fruit in gardens ". Ogilby (1840) was the first commentator to appreciate the lack of any perceptible difference between P. medius and P. leucocephalus, writing: " P. leucocephalus ... does not appear to differ from the P. medius ... of the Plains; and the probability of its identity with that species is increased by the fact, which Mr. Hodgson mentions, of its only visiting the temperate regions of Nepal during the autumn, returning of course to the more sultry plains of India on the approach of the cold season ". Presumably with reference to Ogilby's comments, Hodgson (1842) writes that leucocephalus " is alleged to be identical with Medius ". 3 The single specimen to which Kock (1996) refers, was collected by B. H. Hodgson. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Hinton & Fry (1923): " Valley of Nepal " (see note 5). — Mitchell & Punzo (1977): Kathmandu [District]. — Mitchell (1978 a) (as R. l. leschenaulti): Nepal. — Scully (1887): Nepal Valley (as Cynonycteris amplexicaudata Dobson, 1876 — see note 6). Note. — 1 Hodgson (1844 b) refers to the taxon " privorus " but this is likely to be a simple misspelling of " pyrivorus ". 2 Csorba et al. (1999) give external, cranial, and dental measurements of a single female and remark that the specimen was collected in a mist net set in montane primary mixed forest. Nepalese specimens are referred to the nominate subspecies R. l. leschenaulti. 3 Le Patourel (1971) collected specimens from " a very large colony " of R. leschenaulti within Harpan River Cave, approximately 3 km. south-west of Pokhara. The author gives the forearm and the head & body measurements of " a typical bat " as 75 mm. and 95 mm., respectively. These measurements do not compare favourably with measurements given in Bates & Harrison (1997) of R. leschenaulti from India and Pakistan (FA: 75.0 — 86.0, mean = 80.6; HB: 111.0 — 147.0, mean = 125.9; n = 37) and are more representative of measurements of Eonycteris spelaea from India and Myanmar (FA: 66.0 — 78.0, mean = 71.2 [n = 12]; HB: 92.0 — 130.0, mean = 115.0 [n = 11]). 4 Myers et al. (2000) give external measurements of a single female specimen, which “ entered a mist net set over a small stream in a forested ravine at about 9.30 p. m. ” 5 Hinton & Fry (1923) base their record on Hodgson's collection of Pteropus pyrivorus in " the great valley of Nepal at 4,000 ' [1,219 m.] ". 6 Scully (1887) follows Dobson (1878) in synonymising Cynonycteris amplexicaudata (now Rousettus amplexicaudatus (see Simmons, 2005: 346 )) with Hodgson's Pteropus pyrivorus. Despite Scully's assertive defence of this synonymy, the range of R. amplexicaudatus does not extend to Nepal (Corbet & Hill, 1992: Map 29; Simmons, 2005: 347). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Mountain Fruit bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records (see note 1). — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as S. b. blanfordi). — Lekagul & McNeely (1977): " Eastern Nepal " (see note 2). Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) include S. blanfordi in a list of bat species recorded from Nepal but without elucidation. Lekagul & McNeely (1977) state: " Sphaerias has now been found in ... eastern Nepal by the junior author " but provide no further comment. Nepal is included in the species' distribution by I. U. C. N. (the year of assessment being 2008) but with no greater detail than that provided by Leekagul & McNeely (1977), upon which publication I. U. C. N. ' s assessment of the species' presence in Nepal is likely to be based. Nepal is not included in the species' distribution by Simmons (2005). Pending the description of substantive material from Nepal, it is not considered safe to include Sphaerias blanfordi in that country's faunal list. 2 Lekagul & McNeely (1977) make no reference to actual material but it is likely that any specimens of S. blanfordi collected in Nepal would have been secured during the course of the Arun Valley Wildlife Expedition, which collected mammal specimens in eastern Nepal between 1970 and 1973 and of which J. A. McNeely (see note 1, above), was co-leader. In a checklist of Nepalese bats, Mitchell (1978 a) makes no reference to the presence of S. blanfordi, despite his being supplied with material from the Expedition (Mitchell, 1978 a). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. FAMILY RHINOLOPHIDAE Rhinolophus affinis Horsfield, 1823 MAP No. 5 Intermediate Horseshoe bat Rhinolophus affinis Horsfield, 1823 [1821 - 1824]: (6), pl.; figs. a, b. Java.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Sinha (1973): Nepal (as R. a. himalayanus — see note 6) Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) give a range of, and mean, external measurements of 16 specimens and cranial and dental measurements of two specimens. The authors remark that nearly all of the bats were collected within, or in the vicinity of, caves and that the specimen from Chobar " belongs to the red color phase ". Nepalese specimens are referred by the authors to the subspecies R. a. himalayanus Andersen, 1905. 2 a The H. N. H. M. accession nos. HNHM 95.57.4 — HNHM 95.57.7 should refer, if one follows Csorba et al. (1999), to specimens of R. affinis collected from the Syangja and Balaju Forest localities mentioned above. The collection locality of those specimens, however, is listed in the H. N. H. M. collections catalogue as " 3 km. S. E. of Syabru ". The Syangja and Balaju Forest localities are retained here as it is considered that the 1999 publication preponderates. 2 b When plotted on a 1: 500,000 map, the co-ordinates given in Csorba et al. (1999) for the localities " 4 km. E. of Syangja (Kailash Cave) " (28 º 08 ' N, 83 º 44 ' E) and " 14 km. E. of Syangja " (28 º 07 ' N, 83 º 51 ' E) place the positions approximately 14 km. W. N. W. of Syangja and 4 km. N. W. of Syangja, respectively. In the course of the survey that gave rise to the Syangja specimens, Dr. Csorba's field team used only very basic Nepalese-made tourist maps and did not have access to Global Positioning System (G. P. S.) equipment. In the field, the team's native guides estimated the distance and the direction of the collecting sites from larger settlements and it was from the guides' projections that the latitudinal and longitudinal co-ordinates were plotted subsequently. This system lent itself inevitably to inaccuracies with the result that neither the co-ordinates given nor the written description of the collecting localites can be accepted as precise. It is, however, the written descriptions that are likely to provide the more accurate information (G. Csorba, pers. comm.) and it is those that are followed here. The co-ordinates given in the Gazetteer for the localities " 4 km. E. of Syangja (Kailash Cave) " and " 14 km. E. of Syangja " have, accordingly, been changed from those given in Csorba et al. (1999) to reflect the actual geographical position of these localities (28 º 05 ' N, 83 º 54 ' E and 28 º 05 ' N, 84 º 01 E, respectively). A position 4 km. E. of Syangja would be approximately 17 km. S. W. of Pokhara rather than " about 30 km. S. of Pokhara " as indicated in Topál (1997: 377). 3 Specimen no. HNHM 95.58. 1 was collected by Gy. Lásló and G. Ronkay. 4 Bates & Harrison (1997: 60) refer to (a) the Balaju Forest Reserve and Chobar localities and (b) the Chun Pahad locality mentioned above as (a) " Kathmandu " and (b) " Dulegounda ". 5 The localities of Bharabise and Shebu in Sankhuwasabha District cannot be identified precisely as they do not appear on standard maps of Nepal (1: 750,000 and 1: 500,000) and co-ordinates are not given in the F. M. N. H. collections catalogue. 6 The single male specimen, to which Sinha (1973) refers, is contained within the collections of the Zoological Survey of India. 7 Hinton & Fry (1923) record R. affinis himalayanus from Parchung and Thankot but these records are referred by Bates & Harrison (1997: 60) to Rhinolophus rouxii, which, in the northern part of its range, is, itself, referable to Rhinolophus sinicus (Thomas, 2000). It is under sinicus, therefore, that Hinton & Fry's records are now included. 8 Thomas (1997) records specimen no. BM. 21.5.1.3 (from Parchung) both as R. affinis (op. cit., p. 193) and R. rouxii (now R. sinicus) (op. cit., p. 191). It is likely that the specimen is the same as that mentioned in Hinton & Fry (1923: 405) and it is for the reasons given in note 7, above, that the Parchung locality is applied to R. sinicus (q. v.) and not R. affinis. See note 4 to R. sinicus, below (p. 29). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — B. M. (N. H.): Kathmandu Valley (BM. 43.1.12.135); Nepal (BM. 43.1.12.136). — Chiroptera Specialist Group (2000): Nepal. — Mitchell & Punzo (1977): Kathmandu [District]. — Mitchell (1978 a): Nepal. — Scully (1887): Nepal Valley (see note 4). — Sinha (1973): Nepal. — Thomas (1997): Sankhuwasabha [District] (CN. 114238 — see notes 5,6). Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) give a range of, and mean, external, cranial, and dental measurements of five specimens. The authors remark that one of the bats obtained 3 km. S. E. of Syabru was collected in a net set amongst dense Berberis bushes, suggesting a " foliage-gleaning feeding behaviour ", and that the Chobar specimen was pregnant with a single embryo on 16 th April. Nepalese specimens are referred by the authors to the subspecies R. f. tragatus Hodgson, 1835. 2 Bates & Harrison (1997: 57) refer to " Langtang " rather than " 3 km. S. E. of Syabru ", as the locality lies in Langtang National Park. 3 Bates & Harrison (1997: 57) refer to the Mt. Chordung locality mentioned above as " Ramechhap " (the district in which Mt. Chordung is located).	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as R. l. monticola [K.] Andersen, 1905). — Mitchell & Punzo (1977): Sindu [District]. — Mitchell (1978 a): Nepal. Note. — 1 "? Calcutta " is used commonly to denote the type locality of lepidus (Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951; Corbet & Hill, 1992; Bates & Harrison, 1997) but an argument is put forward by Das (1986) that the type locality should be revised to read " Vicinity of Calcutta ". Blyth (1844) does not possess detailed information about the exact locality, writing only that the specimen was " probably obtained in the vicinity of Calcutta ". The adverb " probably " indicates Blyth's uncertainty and it is suggested, therefore, that a better citation of the type locality might be "? Vicinity of Calcutta ". 2 ROM 74765 is identified in the collections of the Royal Ontario Museum as Rhinolophus rouxii (now R. sinicus in the northern part of its range — see Thomas, 2000). It is included here as R. lepidus as the measurements of the specimen given in Mitchell (1980), notably the length of the forearm, are consistent with lepidus rather than R. sinicus. " Jamuna " is the collection locality attributed to the specimen in the R. O. M. catalogue; Mitchell states only that " The Ilam District specimen was taken at an elevation of 2,240 m. near the eastern border of Nepal which lies adjacent to the Darjeeling District of India ". Mitchell describes the vegetation of the area in which it was collected. 3 Mitchell (1980) gives measurements of one male and three female specimens and provides details of the dominant vegetation of the collection site. 4 R. M. Mitchell collected one male and three female lepidus from Melumchi, presenting one of each gender to the Royal Ontario Museum. ROM 74715 was also collected from Melumchi by Mitchell but this specimen is not discussed by the author in his 1980 publication. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as R. l. perniger). — Scully (1887): Nepal (see note 3). — Sinha (1973): Nepal (as R. l. perniger — see note 4). Note. — 1 Hinton & Fry (1923: 405) state that " Hodgson's type was obtained from ' the Forest of Hatiban' in the great valley of Nepal ". 2 Bates & Harrison (1997: 74) refer to the Suki Patyl Forest locality mentioned above as " Num ". 3 Scully (1887) reproduces Hodgson's measurements of the type of R. perniger, which he treats as a synonym of R. luctus. 4 Sinha (1973) refers to a single male spirit specimen contained in the collections of the Zoological Survey of India. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Scully (1887): Nepal (see note 5). — Sinha (1973): Nepal (as R. m. macrotis Blyth, 1844 — see note 6). Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) give a range of, and mean, external measurements of eight specimens and cranial and dental measurements of three specimens. The authors remark that " two of the three females caught in July were lactating " and that " the male specimen captured in October had expanded testes indicating the sexually active period ". Nepalese specimens are referred by the authors to the nominate subspecies R. m. macrotis. 2 The co-ordinates accompanying the locality " 4 km. E. of Syangja " given in Csorba et al., 1999 (28 º 08 ' N, 83 º 44 ' E) have been altered in the Gazetteer to read " 28 º 05 ' N, 83 º 54 ' E ". The reason for the amendment is explained in note 2 b to Rhinolophus affinis, above (p. 24). 3 Bates & Harrison (1997: 72) refer to the Chun Pahad locality mentioned above as " Dulegounda ". 4 The locality " Kerabari " cannot be located within Sankhuwasabha District and no co-ordinates are given in the F. M. N. H. collections catalogue. FMNH 114252 was collected by the Arun Valley Wildlife Expedition in May, 1973. The nearest locality to the Arun R. that bears the name " Kerabari " is 30 km. S. E. of that river's confluence with the Sun Kosi and Tamar rivers but the locality is in Morang District, which lies much further south than Sankhuwasabha District. 5 Scully (1887) bases his record on two specimens collected by B. H. Hodgson. One specimen, Scully states, was presented by Hodgson to the B. M. (N. H.) and one " to the Asiatic Society which is now in the collection of the Indian Museum ". Citing Dobson (1876), Scully comments that the type [specimen] of R. macrotis forms part of the collection of the Indian Museum (in Calcutta) and that that specimen is the " Nepal specimen ". Scully reproduces the measurements of two specimens from Nepal collected by B. H. Hodgson. 6 Sinha (1973: 627) indicates that the single female spirit specimen in the collections of the Zoological Survey of India is the holotype of Rhinolophus macrotis macrotis Blyth, 1844. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Rhinolophus pearsonii Horsfield, 1851 MAP No. 10 Pearson's Horseshoe bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Kock (1996) (as R. p. pearsoni): " Katmandu- Tal im Westen " [" In the western part of the Kathmandu Valley "] (SMF 58414). — Sinha (1973): Nepal (as R. p. pearsoni — see note 2). Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) give a range of, and mean, external measurements of four specimens and cranial and dental measurements of one specimen. The authors comment that two R. pearsoni were observed hibernating in a cave system in October whilst two other Rhinolophus species were seen to be active, a feature of the behaviour of R. pearsoni that the authors had also witnessed in [North] Vietnam. Nepalese specimens are referred to the nominate subspecies R. p. pearsoni. 2 Sinha (1973) refers to five female spirit specimens in the collections of the Zoological Survey of India. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Scully (1887): " Nepal Valley " (as Rhinolophus minor) (see note 5). Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) draw attention to the taxonomic similarities within the pusillus group of R. cornutus, R. lepidus, R. pusillus, and R. subbadius. The authors give a range of, and mean, external, cranial, and dental measurements of Nepalese specimens and state that the single adult female from the vicinity of Banthanti was gravid and was captured on 8 th May in a mist net set over the Bhurungdi River. The male specimen from Bimalnager, which was collected on 12 th October, was noted to have enlarged testes. Nepalese specimens are referred by the authors to the subspecies R. p. blythi [K.] Andersen, 1918, although they add the qualification that northern Indian and Nepalese specimens are " generally listed as subspecies blythi by tradition only ". 2 The co-ordinates accompanying the locality " 4 km. E. of Syangja " given in Csorba et al. (1999) (28 º 08 ' N, 83 º 44 ' E) have been altered in the Gazetteer to read " 28 º 05 ' N, 83 º 54 ' E ". The reason for the amendment is explained in note 2 b to Rhinolophus affinis, above (p. 24). 3 Measurements of HZM 1.16287 are given in Appendix III. 4 Sinha (1973) refers to two unsexed spirit specimens in the collections of the Zoological Survey of India. The author gives external measurements of one male and one female specimen of blythi from Nepal and cranial measurements of one male. It is not clear whether these specimens bear a relationship to the two unsexed specimens mentioned. The distribution of the taxon cornutus is limited to Japan (Simmons, 2005). 5 Bates & Harrison (1997) treat Scully's single specimen of R. minor as representing R. subbadius. See note 2 to Rhinolophus subbadius, below (p. 30). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (2000): Nepal. Note. — 1 sinicus was regarded formerly as a subspecies of R. rouxii but was elevated to specific level by Thomas (2000), based on morphological analyses. Thomas restricts rouxii to Sri Lanka, peninsular India, and southern Myanmar and refers populations from China, the Himalayan region of northern India, and Nepal to sinicus. The Chiroptera Specialist Group includes both species from Nepal in the I. U. C. N. Red List (2006) but the Group's assessment of rouxii was four years prior to Thomas's paper. I. U. C. N. (2008) record both rouxii and sinicus from “ Central and Eastern Nepal ” but without comment. 2 Csorba et al. (1999) give a range of, and mean, external, cranial, and dental measurements of four specimens. They remark that many R. sinicus were collected in cultivated areas and suggest that the bats, on account of their propensity to settle in niches under rocks, may be solitary perch-hunters. The authors state that the " echolocation calls are of high intensity with the CF component around 90 kHz ". 3 The locality " Sipuri " cannot be located. It may be the same as the locality " Sipari ", which is " Probably near [Chalna-Khel] and [Thankot] " (Hinton & Fry, 1923). It is more likely, however, to be a variation in the spelling of (Mount) Sheopuri and this would be adopted here were it not for the fact that Fry (1925) states that the collections, of which his published record of R. rouxi forms part, were secured " in the districts lying to the west of Kathmandu ". Mt. Sheopuri is within 30 km. both of Chalna-Khal and of Thankot but lies to the north-east of Kathmandu. The problems of identifying antique place-names in Nepal and elsewhere were acknowledged by Ellerman (1947 a), who wrote: " I suspect that some of these obscure places are native villages or perhaps gardens or plantations which would not normally appear in atlases ". 4 Bates & Harrison (1997: 60) refer Hinton's & Fry's records of R. affinis himalayanus from Parchung and Thankot to Rhinolophus rouxii, the latter being referable, in the northern part of its range, to R. sinicus (see note 1, above). Specimen nos. BM. 21.5.1.3 and BM. 22.5.16.6 mentioned by Thomas (1997) are most probably the same specimens recorded by Hinton & Fry (1923). Thomas also lists BM. 21.5.1.3 as Rhinolophus affinis but the Parchung locality is applied to R. sinicus for the reasons given in notes 7 & 8 to R. affinis, above (p. 25). 5 HZM 3.16293, HZM 6.16296, and HZM 7.16297 were collected at " Godavari Bridge, 15 minutes up the track to Pulchowki ", their provenance being listed above as " Godavari " and not as " Pulchowki " as stated in Bates & Harrison (1997) and Thomas (2000). HZM 4.16294 was collected at " Godavari Temple ". Measurements of HZM specimens are given in Appendix III. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal. — Simmons (2005): Nepal. Note. — 1 The correct citation is that given and not " subbadius Hodgson, 1841 " as stated in Simmons (2005). 2 Hodgson first mentioned subbadia in his 1842 catalogue but included the taxon alongside four other species of Vespertilio, writing simply of them all that they were " 5 Sp. new ". Hodgson did, however, remit a specimen of subbadia to the Asiatic Society of Bengal and this was described by Blyth (1844) as Rhinolophus subbadius. The holotype, itself, cannot be traced (Scully, 1887; Csorba et al., 2003), although Scully (1887) suggests that the type is the specimen presented to the Asiatic Society by Hodgson and recorded by Blyth as " No. 69 A ", which number, Scully adds, " seems to have been accidentally removed from the specimen ", rendering it indistinguishable. Scully collected a single specimen of a bat he thought was representative both of subbadius and of Rhinolopus minor (= R. pusillus) and synonymised the two species. There is no apparent record of any further capture of subbadius in Nepal. Bates & Harrison (1997) list external, cranial, and dental measurements of six small rhinolophid bats collected in northern Myanmar that were referred by Hill (1962) to R. subbadius and note (of one of the key diagnostic characters) that the " average forearm length is considerably shorter than that of R. pusillus ". The authors question, however, whether Hill was correct in referring the series of bats before him to subbadius and emphasize that further studies are needed " to determine whether subbadius is a discrete taxon or a synonym of pusillus ". Scully (1887) lists a series of measurements of subbadius (from Nepal) taken by Hodgson, Blyth, and himself and these, together with measurements taken by Bates & Harrison both of Hill's subbadius from Myanmar and of a series of R. pusillus from India are given in Table 1. Also given in that table are measurements of a single specimen of R. pusillus from Nepal (HZM 1.16287), which was identified originally as R. subbadius. Measurements taken by Hodgson, Blyth, and Scully have been converted from their original imperial units (inches and fractions thereof) to metric equivalents (mm.). Ignoring the head and body length of the H. Z. M. specimen (54.0 mm.), which is notably in excess of the top of the range of the specimens of pusillus from India (30.0 — 40.0 mm.), and the tail length of Hodgon's specimen (s) (31.8 mm.), which is more than double that of Hodgson's single specimen measured by Blyth (15.8 mm.), the data appear inconclusive. The measurements of Scully's specimen do not distinguish it from Indian pusillus. However, the range of forearm length of subbadius from Myanmar (33.4 — 35.9 mm.), although overlapping the lower range of forearm length of pusillus from India (34.9 — 37.8 mm.), would seem to indicate that it is in general a smaller bat. This would appear also to be the case with the specimens examined by Hodgson and Blyth, as the forearm lengths given (31.8 mm. [Hodgson] and 34.8 mm. [Blyth]) fall below the range of Indian pusillus (34.9 — 37.8 mm.), Hodgson's notably so. Hodgson provided the British Museum with many examples of species collected by him in Nepal and it is unfortunate, therefore, that he did not make a specimen of subbadius available to that institution (Scully, 1887). Had he done so, the determination of the taxonomic status of subbadius in Nepal (and elsewhere) may have been assisted greatly. It is considered that the presence of subbadius in Nepal cannot be supported for the following reasons: 1. Scully (1887) synonymises subbadius with R. minor (= R. pusillus) and states that the specimen he collected in the Nepal Valley is an example of both species [sic]. 2. A specimen in B. M. (N. H.) of Rhinolophus garoensis Dobson, 1872 a, a taxon that is deemed to be a synonym of R. subbadius (see Corbet & Hill, 1991; Bates & Harrison, 1997; Simmons, 2005), is referable actually to R. pusillus (Bates & Harrison, 1997). 3. The holotype of subbadius remitted by Hodgson to the Asiatic Society of Bengal and described by Blyth (1844) cannot be traced and cannot, therefore, yield any confirmatory data. 4. Measurements of Nepalese specimens considered to be subbadius are scarce and do not provide sufficient evidence to differentiate the species from others, particularly R. pusillus. 5. Andersen (1905) states that " Hodgson's ' Vespertilio subbadia ' ", which Scully (1887) equates with Rhinolophus subbadius Blyth, 1844 " is not a Rhinolophus, but a Hipposideros, probably H. bicolor or an allied form ". I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. FAMILY HIPPOSIDERIDAE	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Great Himalayan Leaf-nosed bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1978 a) (as H. a. armiger): Nepal. — Scully (1887): Nepal Valley (as Phyllorhina armigera). Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) give a range of, and mean, external measurements of nine specimens and cranial and dental measurements of ten specimens. The authors comment on the " fleshy elevation behind the posterior leaf " in male specimens and state that females caught in March and July were found to be lactating, indicating a prolongued period for parturition. The species was found to be common in caves. Nepalese specimens are referred to the nominate subspecies H. a. armiger. 2 The co-ordinates accompanying the locality " 4 km. E. of Syangja " given in Csorba et al. (1999) (28 º 08 ' N, 83 º 44 ' E) have been altered in the Gazeteer to read " 28 º 05 ' N, 83 º 54 ' E ". The reason for the amendment is explained in note 2 b to Rhinolophus affinis, above (p. 24). 3 Bates & Harrison (1997: 98) refer to the Balaju Forest Reserve and Batule Chour localities mentioned above as " Kathmandu Valley " and " near Pokhara ", respectively. 4 The co-ordinates given in the Gazetteer are of a point 15 miles (24 km.) north of Baglung on the Kali Gandaki R. The co-ordinates listed in the records of the F. M. N. H. are of Baglung, itself. 5 The specimens marked with an asterisk were collected between January, 1921 and May, 1923 by Mr. N. A. Baptista as part of the Bombay Natural History Society's Mammal Survey of India, Burma, and Ceylon. Mr. Baptista's collections, together with those of Lt. - Colonel R. L. Kennion, a former British Envoy in Kathmandu, were documented in Hinton & Fry (1923) and Fry (1925), the latter author dealing with collections made by Baptista in districts west of Kathmandu. The asterisked specimens may, therefore, represent replicas of the records published by Hinton and Fry, but they are included here for completeness. 6 FMNH 162223 and FMNH 162224 were collected in March / April, 1996 during the course of Hungarian and Russian field surveys in Nepal. The remainder of the H. armiger specimens so collected are recorded and discussed in Csorba et al. (1999).	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — B. M. (N. H.): Kathmandu Valley (see Bates & Harrison, 1997: 85 and note 2). — Corbet & Hill (1992): Central and southern areas of western and central Nepal (map only) (see note 3). — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as H. c. cineraceus). — Scully (1887): " Nepal Valley " (as Phyllorhina amboinensis Peters, 1871 — see note 4). Note. — 1 The taxon is ascribed sometimes to Hutton (Hutton, 1872: 703). 2 The specimen (s) in the British Museum (Natural History) may well be that (those) described by Scully (1887). 3 Corbet & Hill (1992) do not include Nepal within the range of cineraceus in their text. They do, however, map the species' presence in central and southern areas of western and central Nepal but provide no explanation. 4 The synonymy given in Scully (1887) comprises Phyllorhina amboinensis Peters, 1871 (to which Scully assigns his specimens) and Phyllorhina micropus Hutton, 1872 [Peters, 1872 in Bates & Harrison, 1997]. The former species is now regarded as a synonym of Hipposideros ater Templeton, 1848 (see Simmons, 2005) whilst the latter is an accepted synonym of Hipposderos cineraceus (see Bates & Harrison, 1997). The range of ater does not extend as far as Nepal (Simmons, 2005; Bates & Harrison, 1997) but that country does fall within the range of cineraceus (see the two aforementioned commentators). Hinton & Fry (1923) assign Scully's specimens to cineraceus, based on forearm measurements, although the range Scully gives (1.37 — 1.4 in. [34.80 — 35.56 mm.]) falls within those of both ater (34.9 — 38.0 mm.) and cineraceus (33.0 — 36.3 mm.) (see Bates & Harrison, 1997: 81, 84). 5 The Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996) does not recognise the presence of cineraceus in Nepal although this view is reversed by I. U. C. N. (2008). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as H. f. pallidus). — Scully (1887): " Nepal Valley " (as Phyllorhina fulva — see note 2). Note. — 1 In his initial description of the species, Gray (1838) states: " Inhabits India, (Madras.) " [in the south-eastern state of Tamil Nadu]. Corbet & Hill (1992) write of the type locality: " ' Madras', actually apparently Dharwar, India " [in the south-western state of Karnataka]. Simmons (2005) gives the type locality as: " India, Karnatika, Dharwar ". 2 Scully (1887) gives measurements of three specimens. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as H. p. gentilis [K.] Andersen, 1918). — Chiroptera Specialist Group (2000): Nepal; I. U. C. N. (2008): Western Nepal. Note. — 1 Corbet & Hill (1992) add that the type locality is “ a few miles N. of Mercara, Coorg District, Karnataka ”. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. I. U. C. N. / S. S. C. Chiroptera Specialist Group status. — DD (2001) (see Hutson et al., 2001). FAMILY MEGADERMATIDAE Megaderma lyra E. Geoffroy, 1810 MAP No. 18 Greater False Vampire bat Indian False Vampire bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Mitchell (1978 a) (as M. l. lyra): Nepal. Note. — 1 Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) suggest that the type locality may be defined more precisely as “ Madras ”. 2 Csorba et al. (1999) give a range of, and mean, external measurements of three specimens and cranial and dental measurements of two specimens. The authors remark that all bats were captured in nets near cave entrances and comment on aspects of carnivory associated with the species. Nepalese specimens are referred by the authors to the nominate subspecies M. l. lyra. 3 The Balaju Forest Reserve locality is the same as the " Kathmandu " locality mentioned in Bates & Harrison (1997) (p. 52). 4 Kock (1987) reports M. lyra from Twan Reng Cave, Kathmandu Valley, citing Durrant et al. (1979) but the locality is not recognised here owing to taxonomic irregularities in the latter paper concerning other species. [Durrant records Hipposideros bicolor from Mahendra Cave, Chobar Gorge Cave, and Twan Reng Cave but the range of bicolor does not include Nepal (Simmons, 2005). The author refers also to Hipposideros cinerascens, a species of Hipposideros that does not exist]. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. FAMILY RHINOPOMATIDAE * Rhinopoma hardwickii Gray, 1831 Lesser Mouse-tailed bat Lesser Rat-tailed bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Benda (2004): Nepal (see note 2). Note. — 1 Simmons (2005) indicates that the type locality is restricted to “ Bengal ” by Qumsiyeh et al. (1992). 2 As part of his assessment of the species for the I. U. C. N. Red List in 2004, Benda records R. hardwickii from Nepal but without comment. The species is not included in the country's faunal list by other authorities (e. g. Qumsiyeh & Knox Jones, 1986; Corbet & Hill, 1992; Bates & Harrison, 1997; Csorba et al., 1999). In the absence of a substantive record of the species from Nepal, it is considered that Rhinopoma hardwickii should not be included in that country's faunal list. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. FAMILY EMBALLONURIDAE	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records (see note 1). — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as T. l. longimanus). — Worth & Shah (1969): Nepal (see note 2). Note. — 1 Nepal is not included in the species' distribution by Simmons (2005). 2 This is the first published record of the species from Nepal. The record is based on six specimens collected by R. M. Mitchell in January, 1966 from Jhapa in the eastern Terai and is the same record to which Mitchell (1978 a) refers (see " Records ", above). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. FAMILY MOLOSSIDAE	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. (See note). Note. — The Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996) provides no Nepalese locality details in their assessment of the species, which remains excluded from Nepal's faunal list in other reputable source material (see, for example, Corbet & Hill, 1992 (as Tadarida plicata); Bates & Harrison, 1997 (as Tadarida (Chaerephon) plicata); and Simmons, 2005). In the absence of a substantive record of the species from Nepal, it is considered that Chaerephon plicatus should not be included in the country's faunal catalogue. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) (as Tadarida plicata) Year of assessment: 2008. FAMILY VESPERTILIONIDAE Arielulus circumdatus (Temminck, 1840) MAP No. 20 Black gilded pipistrelle Large Black pipistrelle Bronze sprite Vespertilio circumdatus Temminck, 1840 [1824 – 1841]: 214. Tapos, Java. Records. — Csorba et al. (1999) (see note 1): Banthanti (vicinity of) (see note 2); Lam Pokhari (HNHM 98.5.23); Sudame (vicinity of) (see note 2). — F. M. N. H. (as Pipistrellus circumdatus): Suki Patyl Forest (see note 3) (FMNH 114248). Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. Note. — 1 Arielulus was classified as a subgenus of Pipistrellus by Hill & Harrison (1987) but Csorba et al. (1999) give examples of cranial and dental characteristics that " give a possibility to consider [Arielulus] as a separate genus ", a revision cemented by Csorba & Lee (1999) and followed subsequently (see Simmons, 2005: 451 - 452). Csorba et al. (1999) give external, cranial, and dental measurements of Nepalese specimens and comment that all bats were captured in mountainous terrain over water either in a partly forested area (nr. Sudame) or in primary forest (nr. Banthanti). Each of the females captured on 4 th May (n. 1) and 8 th & 9 th May (n. 4) was gravid. The authors refer Nepalese specimens to the nominate subspecies A. c. circumdatus. 2 Specimens obtained from the vicinities of Banthanti and Sudame are retained in the collections of the Zoological Museum of Moscow State University under accession nos. ZMMU 164469 — ZMMU 164474. 3 Bates & Harrison (1997) (p. 185) refer to the Suki Patyl Forest locality mentioned above as " Num ". I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Eptesicus dimissus Thomas, 1916 MAP No. 21 Surat serotine	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Note. — 1 Myers et al. (2000) give mean external, cranial, and palatal measurements of a series of seven specimens (males and females), which represent the first collection of this little-known species since its description by Oldfield Thomas in 1916. In order to augment the scant information available on E. dimissus, which, prior to Myers’s publication, had been known only by the type specimen from Thailand (Myers et al., 2000), the authors provide careful drawings of the cranial and dental morphology and of the baculum of the species; give useful descriptions of pelage coloration and ear, wing, and dental morphology; and compare the taxon with its generic siblings, E. fuscus (Beauvois, 1796) and E. pachyotis (Dobson, 1871 b). I. U. C. N. status. — Data deficient (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Gobi Big Brown bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as E. g. centralasiaticus Bobrinskii, 1926) (see notes 3,4). — Honacki et al. (1982): Nepal (as Eptesicus nilssoni (Keyserling and Blasius, 1839 )). — Koopman (1993): Nepal (as Eptesicus nilssoni). — Mitchell (1978 a) (as Eptesicus nilssoni): Nepal. — Simmons (2005): Nepal. Note. — 1 Distribution. Honacki et al. (1982) include Nepal (but without specifying a locality) in the geographical distribution of Eptesicus nilssonii. Corbet & Hill (1992) incorporate Nepal within the range of Eptesicus gobiensis but base this purely on Honacki et al. ' s distribution of E. nilssonii. Based on the distribution given in Honacki et al. (1982), E. gobiensis is also placed in Nepal by Koopman (1993) and Simmons (2005) (both of whom repeat Honacki et al.) and Bates & Harrison (1997) (who refer to Koopman, 1993). Csorba et al. (1999) include gobiensis in a list of Nepal's bat fauna but without explanation. Somewhat more concrete, although inconclusive, information is contained in Rydell (1993), who states " Specimens, that may be either nilssonii or gobiensis, have been obtained from Iraq, Kashmir, and Nepal ". Rydell bases this statement on Hanák & Horáček (1986), who refer to " die ungenauen Angaben von Mitchell (1978) aus Nepal " [" the inexact records of Mitchell (1978) from Nepal "]. In his checklist of Nepalese bats, Mitchell (1978 a) includes Eptesicus nilssoni in a list of 19 bat species that, he states, were " collected by the author or ... [were] provided to him by the Arun Valley Wildlife Expedition ", the latter having collected mammals in eastern Nepal between 1970 and 1973. In his 1978 (a) paper, Mitchell provides the only firm evidence to date of E. nilssoni in Nepal but, unfortunately, fails to give any locality details of the specimen (s) collected. Strelkov (1986) provides a somewhat less than straightforward distribution map, which does, however, indicate the geographical ranges of nilssoni, gobiensis, " centralasiaticus ", and kashgaricus (and E. bobrinskii). Unfortunately, the distribution map does not extend as far south as Nepal. Inexplicably, Horáček et al. (2000) base their distribution of gobiensis on DeBlase (1980) (who does not mention Nepal in the species' range) and on Bates & Harrison (1997) (who refer, via Koopman, 1993, to the unqualified record of Honacki et al., 1982). The Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996) does not include Nepal in the distribution of E. gobiensis. I. U. C. N. (2008), however, does place the species in Nepal, although this view is based on the same two authorities cited by Horáček et al. (2000). 2 Shrestha (1997) and Majupuria & Kumar (1998) both state that Eptesicus nilssonii is " reported from Makulu Barun National Park ". Such a record would be compatible geographically with the study area of the Arun Valley Wildlife Expedition (see note 1, above) as the Arun Valley forms the easternmost border of the National Park. The record is not formally recognised here, however, owing to the very general nature of the two publications and to the absence of any corroborating data. 3 The correct spelling of the subspecific name is " centrasiaticus " (Bobrinskii, 1926: 95, 96) and not " centralasiaticus ", the latter having been employed by Csorba et al. (1999) and other commentators (Strelkov, 1986; Corbet & Hill, 1992). 4 Taxonomy. Bobrinskii (1926) describes three subspecies of Eptesicus nilssonii: c entrasiaticus, gobiensis, and kashgaricus. Horáček et al. (2000) list seven authorities (Kuzyakin, 1950, 1965; Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951, 1966; Corbet, 1978; and Koopman, 1993, 1994), who follow Bobrinskii in treating gobiensis as a subspecies of nilssoni. In the first edition of " Mammal Species of the World ", Honacki et al. (1982) do not acknowledge gobiensis but refer to nilssonii alone. They do refer, however (but in relation to E. n. japonensis Imaizumi, 1953), to Corbet (1978), who lists gobiensis as a subspecies of nilssonii. Hanák & Horáček (1986) refer the record from Nepal (which they query on the grounds of inexactness — see note 1) to E. n. gobiensis and specimens from western central China to E. n. " centralasiaticus ". Strelkov (1986) raises gobiensis to specific level based on the species' baculum structure and morphology. The three records nearest to Nepal (Strelkov's distribution map does not cover that country) are considered by the author to represent E. gobiensis but he appears to base these records on " Eptesicus nilssoni centralasiaticus ". Corbet & Hill (1992) treat gobiensis as specifically distinct but regard specimens of gobiensis from Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan as E. g. kashgaricus and suggest that " elsewhere ... in the region " (which would include Nepal), specimens may be referable to E. g. " centralasiaticu s ", a view that seems to support the inference of Strelkov (1986). Bates & Harrison (1997) adhere closely to Corbet & Hill but expand usefully on the species' morphology and cranial and dental characters. Csorba et al. (1999) follow Corbet & Hill without comment in regarding " centralasiaticus " as a subspecies of gobiensis whilst Horáček et al. (2000) state that E. gobiensis is a " Centralasiatic vicariant [taken to mean a local variety or morphological variant] of E. nilssonii ". Simmons (2005) treats gobiensis and nilssonii as separate species and regards centrasiaticus and kashgarensis as synonyms of gobiensis. The apparent lack of consistency in published material would indicate that there are unresolved difficulities in the taxonomic identfication of subspecies of gobiensis and, indeed, in the relationship between gobiensis and nilssonii. The paucity of central Asiatic specimens (of gobiensis) in scientific collections, and certainly the lack of material from Nepal, may hinder a straightforward resolution of these difficulties. Eptesicus gobiensis is included in Nepal's faunal list for the following two reasons: 1. One specimen or more of E. nilssoni was collected in Nepal between 1965 and 1973 either by R. M. Mitchell or by the Arun Valley Wildlife Expedition. 2. Strelkov (1986) and Corbet & Hill (1992) refer specimens from the region of Nepal, which were formerly regarded as examples of E. nilssoni, to E. gobiensis. R. M. Mitchell deposited much of his material in the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto and in the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, but there is no record of E. nilssoni in the collection of either institution. To trace the specimen (s) would enable evidence to be gained not only of its precise taxonomic status, which, in the light of Strelkov (1986), may be brought about by an examination of the specimen's baculum, but also of its exact provenance in Nepal. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as E. s. pachyomus). Note. — 1 The correct citation of the taxon is “ pachyomus ” (see Tomes, 1857: 50, 51). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Hesperoptenus tickelli (Blyth, 1851) MAP No. 23 Tickell’s bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as H. t. tickelli). — Mitchell (1978 a): Nepal. Note. — 1 Corbet & Hill (1992) state that Anderson (1881) and Wroughton (1918) restrict the type locality to “ Chaibassa, Bihar ” (India). 2 Mitchell (1980) gives measurements of a single female specimen, which was collected from the same habitat as that author's specimen of Nyctalus montanus (q. v., p. 42). 3 Myers et al. (2000) give mean external, cranial, and palatal measurements of five specimens (both male and female) and state that individuals were collected in mist nets that had been established " over a ravine, a stream, a pond, and extending from forest edge into grassland ". I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Scotomanes ornatus (Blyth, 1851) MAP No. 24 Harlequin bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) give external, cranial, and dental measurements of a single adult male specimen. The authors state that " echolocation calls are distinctive with very high intensity steep to shallow FM sweep from ca. 80 to 25 kHz with maximum energy around 30 kHz. ". Nepalese specimens are referred by the authors to the nominate subspecies S. o. ornatus. 2 Bates & Harrison (1997: 145) refer to the Arun R. locality mentioned above as " Sankhuwasabha ", which is the name of the district in which the locality is found. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Records. — Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971): Bhojbhawanpur [= Bahwanipur [Village]) (as S. heathi heathi) (see note 1). — Johnson et al. (1980) (as S. heathii heathii): Raxaul-Birganj (USNM 290061, skin only; USNM 290062). — Mitchell (1980) (see note 2): Bahwanipur Village (Banke District) (FMNH 142277; ROM 74633, ROM 74634); Darakhuti, Dang Valley (Dang-Deokhuri District) (FMNH 142278). — Myers et al. (2000) (see note 3): Bardhana Khola (Royal Chitwan N. P.); Dudora Nala / Park Rd. (Royal Chitwan N. P.) (UMMZ 172259); Nandon Tal (Royal Chitwan N. P.) (UMMZ 172258); Sauraha (Royal Chitwan N. P.) (UMMZ 172257); Tiger Tops, Dhangari Khola (Royal Chitwan N. P.) (UMMZ 172260 — UMMZ 172262). Non-specific records. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as S. h. heathi). — Mitchell & Punzo (1977): Banke [District]. — Mitchell (1978 a) (as S. h. belangeri): Nepal. Note. — 1 Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) give measurements of a single male specimen together with brief remarks on coloration. The specimen was secured by R. M. Mitchell during the same period of collection in April, 1968 that gave rise to the specimens deposited in F. M. N. H. and R. O. M., to which Mitchell (1980) refers (see " Records ", above). 2 Mitchell (1980) gives measurements of two male and two female specimens from Bahwanipur, which were collected from the same habitat as the author's specimen of Pipistrellus tenuis (q. v., p. 48), and one female specimen from Dang-Deokhuri District, which was collected from the same habitat as the author's specimen of Nyctalus montanus (q. v., p. 42). The two separate localities " Darakhuti " and " Dang-Deokhuri District " listed under the distribution of the species in Bates & Harrison (1997) and based on the F. M. N. H. specimen list and Mitchell's 1980 paper, respectively, are, in fact, referable to the single locality " Darakhuti ", Mitchell having placed the solitary specimen giving rise to the record in the F. M. N. H. collection. 3 Myers et al. (2000) give mean external, cranial, and palatal measurements of a series of 11 S. heathii (five males and six females), a majority of the bats having being collected over water. The authors state that Scotophilus was one of the first genera to be secured in the evening with females appearing to be notably larger than males. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — None (see note). Note. — Corbet & Hill (1992: 128, Map 60) indicate that the range of S. kuhlii includes the Terai of southern Nepal but the authors make no textual reference either to collection records or to any other information that would confirm the species' presence there. No other authority places kuhlii firmly in Nepal and in the absence of substantive material from that country, it is considered that Scotophilus kuhlii should be excluded from Nepal's faunal list. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Lesser noctule Hairy-armed bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Mitchell & Punzo (1977): Dang-Deokhuri [District]. See note 2. Note. — 1 Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) and Simmons (2005) cite the date of Kuhl's authorship of the species as 1818 and 1817, respectively, rather than the commonly accepted year 1819 given in the Bibliography. 2 This is seemingly the only reference to the presence of N. leisleri in Nepal. The species is not included in Nepal's fauna by other authorities (Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951; Corbet & Hill, 1992; Bates & Harrison, 1997; Simmons, 2005; I. U. C. N., 2008). The nearest locality outside Nepal at which the species has been collected is Katarmal in Uttar Pradesh, India (Bates & Harrison, 1997), approximately 60 km. from Nepal's western border and some 280 km. from the westernmost point of Dang Deokhuri District. The specimen from Katarmal, however, may be referable to Nyctalus montanus (see Bates & Harrison, 1997), a single specimen of which (ROM 74637) was collected by R. M. Mitchell also from Dang-Deokhuri District. Pending further collection of the species from Nepal or confirmation of the taxonomic identity of the single specimen examined by Mitchell & Punzo (1977), it is considered unsafe to include N. leisleri in Nepal's faunal list. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Note. — 1 Mitchell (1980) gives measurements of a single male specimen and provides details of the geographical features and dominant vegetation of the collection site. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Scully (1887): " Nepal Valley " (as Vesperugo noctula Dobson, 1876) (see notes 6,7). Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) comment that the single adult female specimen collected near Sudame " is quite different from European and Central Asian N. noctula in size, fur coloration, and skull shape " and remark that there are similarities between their specimen and examples of Nyctalus plancei Gerbe, 1880 (Simmons, 2005 corrects the spelling of the species to plancyi) in the Z. M. M. U. collections. The authors follow Bates & Harrison (1997) in referring specimens from the Indian Subcontinent to N. n. labiata Hodgson, 1835 but query the incontrovertibility of such referral in light of comments on the taxonomic status of labiata in Yoshiyuki (1989). Bates & Harrison (1997) do refer specimens from the Indian Subcontinent to N. noctula labiata but they except from such referral specimens from Nagaland and northern Myanmar, which " are notably darker and appear most similar to N. n. plancyi from China ". Csorba et al. (1999) give external, cranial, and dental measurements of the single specimen mentioned, which was lactating and " had probably just given birth to twins (the uterine horns were enlarged, each with a placental scar) ". 2 The F. M. N. H. catalogue refers to N. n. labiatus, rather than the correct subspecific spelling labiata. 3 Bates & Harrison (1997: 190) refer to the locality " 4 miles S. E. of Trisuli " as " Nuwakot " [District]. 4 HZM 41.16246 was collected at St. Xavier's School in Godavari, where a large roost was located within the rafters of a house. Measurements of HZM specimens are given in Appendix III. 5 Myers et al. (2000) give mean external, cranial, and palatal measurements of two male specimens and note that “ both individuals were captured several hours after dark in nets set over small ponds ”. 6 Scully (1887) refers to, and repeats the measurements of, Hodgson's type specimen of Vespertilio labiata, which Scully synonymises with Vesperugo noctula. Hinton & Fry (1923) comment also on Hodgson's type specimen but refer it to Nyctalus labiatus. Scully (1887) lists the measurements, and furnishes a brief description, of a single specimen (of V. noctula) collected by himself. 7 Scully (1887) attributes the authorship of Vesperugo noctula to Dobson, 1876, although Dobson refers the specific form noctula to Schreber (Schreber, 1774 (1775 in Dobson, 1876 )). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Little Indian bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as P. c. coromandra). — Mitchell (1978 a) (as P. c. coromandra): Nepal. — Scully (1887): " Nepal Valley " (as Vesperugo abramus Dobson, 1876 — see note 3). Note. — 1 Hinton & Fry (1923) record P. coromandra also from Bairaglia (as part of their report on Nepal), although the locality is in India. 2 Myers et al. (2000) give mean external, cranial, and palatal measurements of a series of 24 specimens (13 males and 11 females). The authors state that the species was “ not seen near houses ” and that “ most individuals were captured over streams ”. Cranial, palatal, and bacular comparisons are made with Nepalese specimens of P. javanicus. See Caveat to Pipistrellus javanicus (p. 44).	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	babu; UMMZ 172291 — UMMZ 17203); Sauraha (Royal Chitwan N. P.) (UMMZ 172288 — UMMZ 172290); Simal Ghol Tal (Royal Chitwan N. P.) (UMMZ 172306, UMMZ 172307); Tamar Tal (Royal Chitwan N. P.); Tiger Tops, Dhangari Khola (Royal Chitwan N. P.) (UMMZ 172304, UMMZ 172305). — R. O. M. (as P. babu) (see note 6): Melumche (1) (ROM 74651). Non-specific records. — Mitchell (1978 a) (as P. babu): Nepal (see note 6). — Mitchell & Punzo (1977) (as P. babu): Sindu [District]. Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) draw attention to the taxonomic differences between examples of javanicus from Vietnam and Nepalese specimens, the latter being referred, together with all specimens from the mainland of the Indian Subcontinent (Bates & Harrison, 1997), to the subspecies babu Thomas, 1915 c. Csorba et al. (1999) suggest that babu could be raised to specific status based on size, karyology, and external & cranial morpholgy. The authors give selected external, cranial, and dental measurements of their Nepalese specimens, which were caught over the Bhurungdi River either in a partly deforested area (nr. Sudame) or in primary forest (nr. Banthanti). It is stated that " typical echolocation calls are of relatively high intensity, with a steep then shallow FM sweep from ca. 60 to 40 kHz., with maximum energy around 45 - 50 kHz. " 2 The two adult males collected in the vicinity of Banthanti and the single adult male captured near Sudame are retained in the collections of the Zoological Museum of Moscow State University under the accession nos. ZMMU 164506 — ZMMU 164508. 3 The specimens from Bouzini and Sipuri are likely to be those that give rise to the records from the same localities in the B. M. (N. H.) (see " Records ", above). 4 Measurements of HZM specimens are given in Appendix III. 5 Myers et al. (2000) give mean external, cranial, and palatal measurements of a series of 33 specimens (eight males and 25 females). The authors state that the species was “ common around houses [at Sauraha], where it tended to be captured earlier than other pipistrelles ” and was “ sometimes abundant over water ”. 6 The specimen from Melumche (ROM 74651) was collected by R. M. Mitchell and accounts probably for that author's inclusion of the taxon in his checklist of Nepal's chiropteran fauna (Mitchell 1978 a). Caveat: Myers et al. (2000) propound the reasoning (based on cranial and dental data and palatal and bacular morphology) that leads them to identify specimens as javanicus but the authors caution that “ the identification of [Pipistrellus javanicus] and … other pipistrelles [in their 2000 paper] … is controversial ”. See Pipistrellus coromandra (p. 43) and P. tenuis (p. 48), to which species this caveat is equally applicable. See also note 1 to P. paterculus (p. 45). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. * Pipistrellus paterculus Thomas 1915 Mount Popa pipistrelle	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — None. Note. — 1 The collections catalogue of the American Museum of Natural History lists three specimens of P. paterculus, which were collected from Sauraha in Royal Chitwan N. P. by P. Myers and D. Smith on 5 th & 11 th March, 1990. The specimens mentioned formed part of a much larger collection secured by P. Myers in and near Royal Chitwan N. P. That collection is discussed in some detail in Myers et al. (2000) but no reference is made therein to the identifications of any of the specimens as P. paterculus. The authors do state, however, that the identification of pipistrelles mentioned in the paper " is controversial " (see caveat to Pipistrellus javanicus, p. 44). In order to confirm the specific identification of the material, which, were it paterculus, would represent the first record of the species from Nepal, a single male specimen (AMNH 269836) was received on loan from A. M. N. H. and its baculum, the morphology of which is useful in distinguishing between closely related sympatric species that it may otherwise be troublesome to identify using conventional morphological characters (Hill & Harrison, 1987), was prepared as described in the Material and Methods section, above (Section 2) (p. 16). Initial observations indicated that the morphology and length (3.65 mm.) of the baculum were consistent not with P. paterculus, which has a much greater bacular length (c. 9.2 mm. (see Hill & Harrison, 1987: 286, Fig. 3 )), but with either P. tenuis or P. coromandra (both of which species Myers and Smith had collected from Royal Chitwan N. P. — with tenuis being collected at Sauraha, itself — in the course of the same field exercise that gave rise to the collection of the specimens identified as paterculus (see Myers et al., 2000 )). Accordingly, ventral and lateral aspects of pre-prepared bacula of P. coromandra from northern India (HZM 2.7318) and P. tenuis from western Myanmar (HZM 10.35443) were drawn also and were compared with those of the " paterculus " specimen (see Fig. 3). In addition, external measurements of AMNH 269836 were taken and were compared with the same measurements from specimens of P. coromandra and P. tenuis from India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka and of P. paterculus from India and Myanmar given in Bates & Harrison (1997) (see Table 2). The skull of AMNH 269836 was not able to be located in the collections of A. M. N. H. and thus could not be used to provide additional data to aid specific identification. Results. The baculum of AMNH 269836 has a long, reasonably straight shaft with a notable bifid tip. The lateral view shows that the paired basal lobes are inclined ventrally. These characteristics are consistent with the genus Pipistrellus and, specifically, with the abramus, pipistrellus, coromandra, and tenuis group (Hill & Harrison, 1987: 233). The bacula of HZM 2.7318 (coromandra) and HZM 10.35443 (tenuis) share the above morphology, although the shaft of tenuis is, to a certain extent, slenderer than those of coromandra and AMNH 269836, whilst the basal lobes of coromandra are somewhat fuller in lateral view than those of the other two specimens. The baculum of AMNH 269836 is longer (3.4 mm.) than that of tenuis (2.9 mm.) but is similar in length to that of coromandra (3.3 mm.). The basal width (taken across the widest point of the basal forks) and the shaft width (taken at its narrowest point) of AMNH 269836 (0.7 & 0.23 mm.) agree more readily with the same measurements of coromandra (0.6 & 0.2 mm.) than with those of tenuis (0.5 & 0.18 mm). A favourable comparison may be drawn between the baculum of AMNH 269836 and the dorsal and lateral views of the baculum of P. coromandra as depicted by Hill & Harrison (1987: 233, Fig. 7 b (lateral) and Fig. 7 c (dorsal )). The bacular morphology of AMNH 269836 would indicate that the specimen is allied more closely with P. coromandra than with P. tenuis but, owing to the overall similarity between the bacula of coromandra and tenuis, AMNH 269836 cannot be identified as coromandra with certainty. The baculum of P. paterculus has a long, straight shaft with a less distinctly bifid tip than the two other species mentioned above. The base does not possess the marked lobes of coromandra or tenuis and exhibits a much smaller inclination ventrally. The length (8.8 mm.) and shaft width (0.36 mm.) of the baculum are, respectively, 158 % and 56 % greater than in AMNH 269836 and these measurements alone are sufficient to determine that AMNH 269836 is not representative of Pipistrellus paterculus. The head and body (38.4 mm.), forearm (26.8 mm.), and hind foot (4.9 mm.) measurements of AMNH 269836 fall into the range of both P. coromandra (34.0 — 49.0 mm.; 25.5 — 34.3 mm.; 3.4 — 8.0 mm.) and P. tenuis (33.0 — 45.0 mm.; 25.0 — 30.2 mm.; 3.0 — 7.0 mm.), although each measurement of the AMNH specimen is closer to the mean measurements of tenuis (39.1; 27.7; 5.3 mm.) than to coromandra (42.3; 30.0; 5.6 mm.). The tail (21.9 mm.) and ear (6.8 mm.) measurements of AMNH 269836 are below the range of coromandra (22.0 — 39.0; 7.1 — 14.0 mm.) but within the range of tenuis (20.0 — 35.0; 5.0 — 11.0 mm.), although each is significantly lower than the mean measurement of the tail and ear of the two latter species: 32.0 mm.; 10.3 mm. (coromandra) and 28.9 mm.; 9.7 mm. (tenuis). None of the measurements of AMNH 269836 falls within the range of those of P. paterculus, with measurements of the latter species being notably in excess of those of the AMNH specimen. External morphological data would indicate that AMNH 269836 is allied somewhat more closely with P. tenuis than with P. coromandra but the data are not conclusive owing largely to the great difficulty in separating tenuis from smaller individuals of coromandra using external measurements alone (Bates & Harrison, 1997). Comparative material. Pipistrellus coromandra (HZM 2.7318) Collection locality: Dalpatpur, nr. Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India. Collection date: 14.10.1973 Collector: D. L. Harrison Pipistrellus tenuis (HZM 10.35443) Collection locality: Balukan, Mrauk-U, Rakhine State, Myanmar. Collection date: 13.03.2003 Collector: M. J. Pearch (The specimen was one of eleven individuals collected by the author in a four-ply, nylon mesh mist net erected amongst toddy palms (Borassus flabellifer) in the village of Balukan. Within the immediate area were betel nut trees (Areca catechu), coconut trees (Cocos nucifera), cashew nut trees (Anachardium occidentalis), mango trees (Mangifera indica), kapok trees (Ceiba pentranda), and fig trees (Ficus mysorensis). The bats were observed roosting in the crown of one of the toddy palms). Pipistrellus paterculus (HZM 7.36082) Collections locality: Hintha Gu (Hintha Cave), Mandalay, Myanmar. Collection date: 03.12.2003 Collector: I. J. Mackie. The nearest locality outside Nepal from which Pipistrellus paterculus has been collected is Buhnar in Bihar State, India (Sinha, 1983), approximately 210 km. distant from Sauraha to the south-east and about 45 km. from the nearest point on the Nepalese border. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Pipistrellus tenuis (Temminck, 1840) MAP No. 30 Least pipistrelle Indian Pygmy bat Vespertilio tenuis Temminck, 1840 [1824 – 1841]: 229. Sumatra (Tate, 1942).	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as P. t. tenuis). — Mitchell (1978 a) (as P. m. mimus): Nepal. Note. — 1 HNHM 97.7.1 and HNHM 97.7.2 were listed initially in the collection of the H. N. H. M. as Pipistrellus abramus, a species not known to occur in Nepal. 2 Mitchell (1980) gives measurements of a single female specimen and provides details of the geographical features and dominant vegetation of the collection site. 3 Myers et al. (2000) give mean external, cranial, and palatal measurements of a series of 21 specimens (11 males and ten females). The authors state that the species was commonly to be found under galvanised metal roofing sheets on the buildings at Sauraha and that “ several specimens were also captured over streams, ponds, and forest trails ”. Cranial, palatal, and bacular comparisons are made with Nepalese specimens of P. coromandra and P. javanicus. See Caveat to Pipistrellus javanicus (p. 44). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Records. — Csorba et al. (1999) (see notes 2,3): Banthanti (vicinity of) (ZMMU 164496). — R. O. M.: Melumche (1) (ROM 74650). Non-specific records. — Corbet & Hill (1992): Nepal (see note 4). — Mitchell & Punzo (1977): Sindu [District]. — Mitchell (1978 a) (as B. l. darjeelingensis (Hodgson, 1855 )): Nepal (see notes 3,5). Note. — 1 The date of the species authority is given often as 1830 or 1831 (Corbet & Hill, 1992; Bates & Harrison, 1997). Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951), I. U. C. N. (Chiroptera Specialist Group, 1996), and Simmons (2005) prefer the date 1826. It was decided at 11 th Meeting of the Eurobats Advisory Committee (see Hutson, 2006) that " the date should be changed from 1830 to 1826 in line with other publications " and that ruling is followed here. The work in which Cretzschmar published the species spans the years 1826 to 1831. 2 Csorba et al. (1999) give external, cranial, and dental measurements of a single adult male, which was collected " in montane primary broad-leafed forest in a mist-net set across the Bhurungdi river ". 3 Csorba et al. (1999) and Mitchell (1978 a) refer Nepalese specimens to the subspecies B. l. darjelingensis Hodgson, 1855 [= Hodgson (in Horsfield), 1855], although darjelingensis was never collected by Hodgson in Nepal, its correct provenance being Darjiling [Darjeeling] (Hinton & Fry, 1923: 428). 4 Corbet & Hill (1992: 127, 128) include Nepal within the the range of B. leucomelas and indicate five localities in Nepal on a distribution map of the species. The authors do not, however, provide details of specimens or refer to any supporting references by way of verification. 5 The correct spelling of the subspecific name is darjelingensis (see Horsfield, 1855: 103). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Csorba et al. (1999) (as P. a. homochrous): Nepal. Note. — 1 Horsfield (1855) states that Hodgson discovered homochrous " in the central regions of Sub-Himalaya " and it is included in a list of species that Horsfield indicates were collected by Hodgson in Nepal. Hinton & Fry (1923: 428) suggest that Plecotus homochrous was not collected by Hodgson in Nepal but probably in Sikkim whilst Scully (1887) and Sanborn (1950) both regard the specimen as originating in Darjeeling. In his catalogue of Hodgson's specimens from Nepal and Tibet, Gray (1863) writes (of the specimen he numbers 20 in that catalogue): " Plecotus homochrous, Hodgson. Hab. Darjiling, July 6 ... ". Hodgson, himself (Hodgson, 1847 b: 894), states only that the specimen in his possession, and which he proceeds to describe, " was taken in the central region of the mountains, in a dwelling house ... ". As Hodgson left Nepal in the autumn of 1843 and did not return, it can be stated with certainty that his specimen of Plecotus was not secured in that country but in the Indian states either of [West] Bengal or of Sikkim, in which latter areas (as well as the neighbouring parts of Tibet) he obtained material from 1845 to 1858. Hodgson's description of homochrous was published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Hodgson, 1847 b: 894 – 896). Immediately preceding that paper in the Journal is another paper by Hodgson (Hodgson, 1847 a: 889 – 894), in which the author wrote (of the collection locality of Megaderma schistacea): " Arriving recently at the staging Bungalow of Siligori [in West Bengal] ... ". There is no evidence that Hodgson wrote the two papers mentioned in the order in which he secured the specimens of P. homochrous and M. schistacea or that the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal published the works in chronological sequence but it is possible that homochrous may have been collected at Siligori rather than at Darjeeling or in Sikkim. The likelihood, however, is that the specimen did originate in Darjeeling on the basis of Gray's description of Hodgson's material from that locality (Gray, 1863: 2). It is suggested, therefore, that the type locality of homochrous should read "? Darjeeling " and this has been employed in the synonymy above. 2 Spitzenberger et al. (2006) consider homochrous to be a distinct species based on genetic and morphological analysis. The authors restict P. auritus to " Europe including Ural and Caucasus mountains ". 3 The co-ordinates given in the F. M. N. H. catalogue of the collection locality are for Baglung and not Jomson, although Sanborn (1950) makes it clear that the specimen was collected at Jomson, where it was found frozen to a rock on the banks of the Kali Gandaki River. Caveat: Sanborn (1950) provides a forearm length of the single female specimen collected at Jomson of 44.5 mm., which is within the range of Indian examples of Plecotus austriacus (41.9 — 45.1 mm.; n. 10) but notably beyond the range of forearm measurements of P. auritus (36.5 — 40.3 mm.; n. 4) (Bates & Harrison, 1997). It is clear that Sanborn was not able to examine the skull of the specimen as he states that this has not been removed and the author produces little other taxonomic evidence to confirm the specimen as P. auritus. The specimen is retained in the collections of the F. M. N. H., where its identity is listed currently as Plecotus auritus homochrous. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as P. a. wardi). Note. — 1 Based on cranial measurements of the three specimens from Nepal discussed by Kock (1996), Spitzenberger et al. (2006) consider the material to represent Plecotus wardi, which they regard as a distinct species based on genetic and morphological analysis. 2 The specimens of P. austriacus to which Kock (1996) refers were collected by Jochen Martens. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Falsistrellus affinis (Dobson, 1871) MAP No. 34 Chocolate bat Chocolate pipistrelle	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as Pipistrellus affinis). — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Ia io Thomas, 1902 MAP No. 35 Great Evening bat Great pipistrelle Ia io Thomas, 1902: 164. Chungyang, southern Hupeh, China. Records. — Csorba (1998) (see note 1): Bimalnager (Sidda Gupha [Monk Cave]) (HNHM 98.8.27, HNHM 98.8.28, HNHM 98.10.1 — HNHM 98.10.3, HZM 1.28130). Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. Note. — 1 Csorba (1998) gives selected external, cranial, and dental measurements of each of the six specimens listed above (which represent the first record of the species from Nepal); other data, including mean measurements, are included in Csorba et al. (1999). Three male specimens were secured in a mist net set in the entrance of Sidda Gupha (Monk Cave) at Bimalnager on 12 th October. One adult male and two adult females were collected from the same locality six months later (12 th April), when the majority of the bats netted were gravid females. Csorba (1998) comments that the locality is in one of the few limestone areas in Nepal and is the westermnost record of the species. Ia io was noted to leave its diurnal roost in the cave before dusk (Csorba, 1998). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Philetor brachypterus (Temminck, 1840) MAP No. 36 Rohu's bat Vespertilio brachypterus Temminck, 1840 [1824 – 1841]: 215, pl. 53. Padang District, Sumatra. Records. — Koopman (1983): Barabisse (FMNH 114249); Num Bridge (FMNH 114481). Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as M. b. blythi). Note. — 1 Blanford (1888 – 91) suggests that the type locality requires confirmation but does not explain further. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Csorba's Mouse-eared Myotis	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — CBSG CAMP Workshop (2004): Nepal. Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) give external, cranial, and dental measurements of a series of specimens, some of which were collected in a net " in front of a cave surrounded by subtropical secondary forest ". These bats were noted to leave the cave " before total darkness ". Specimens were also captured over rivers, where they were seen to fly " in slow circles ca. 10 – 30 cm. above the water " and in riparian areas, which they traversed at a height of approximately 1 – 3 m. The pattern of flight of M. csorbai over water is likened to that of Myotis daubentonii (Kuhl, 1819 — see note 5) and the genera Selysius Bonaparte, 1841 [1836 – 41] and Leuconoë Boie, 1830. Wing movements were noted to be comparable to those of Myotis brandtii (Eversmann, 1845). The riverine bats were seen to appear " immediately after sunset " with echolocation calls being detected at 40 kHz. The authors record that the majority of females captured between 2 nd and 16 th May were gravid. 2 The co-ordinates accompanying the locality " 4 km. E. of Syangja " given in Csorba et al. (1999) (28 º 08 ' N, 83 º 44 ' E) have been altered in the Gazetteer to read " 28 º 05 ' N, 83 º 54 ' E ". The reason for the amendment is explained in note 2 b to Rhinolophus affinis (p. 24). 3 Specimens obtained from the vicinities of Banthanti, Tirkhedunga, and Sudame are retained in the collections of the Zoological Museum of Moscow State University under accession nos. ZMMU 164475 — ZMMU 164490. 4 ROM 74724 was collected on 7 th September, 1969 by R. M. Mitchell but it is not known to which taxon the specimen was assigned originally. Five specimens of M. longipes in the collections of H. N. H. M. were reidentified subsequently as M. csorbai by Topál, 1997 [1998] (see note 2 to Myotis longipes, p. 53). 5 Simmons (2005) cites the authority as " (Kuhl, 1817). Die Deutschen Fledermäuse. Hanau, p. 14 ", rather than the commonly accepted 1819 reference given in the Bibliography. 6 Myotis csorbai is endemic to Nepal. I. U. C. N. status. — Data deficient (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Scully (1887): " Nepal Valley " (as Vespertilio formosus — see note 2). Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) give external, cranial, and dental measurements of a single adult specimen, which was collected in a mist net " in a mature Rhododendron forest half an hour after sunset ". Nepalese specimens are referred by the authors to the nominate subspecies M. f. formosus. 2 Scully (1887) refers to the original description of the type specimen of V. formosa by Hodgson (1835) and repeats some of the latter's measurements and observations. The holotype, Scully states, is retained in the collections of B. M. (N. H.). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Kashmir Cave Myotis	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (2000): Nepal (see note 3). — Simmons (2005): Nepal (see note 3). Note. — 1 Blanford (1891) [1888 – 91] and Thomas (1915 a) consider the form unidentifiable (Ellerman & Morrison- Scott, 1951). 2 Bates & Harrison (1997: 131) record M. longipes from Syangja in Nepal based on records in the collections of the Hungarian Natural History Museum, dated February, 1996. At that time, the five specimens listed, which had been collected at Kailash Cave, 4 km. E. of Syangja on 23 rd July, 1995, were referred to the taxon longipes. Topál (1997) [1998] re-identified the five specimens and described them as a new species (M. csorbai). It is under csorbai, therefore, that the Syangja records are now included. 3 The Chiroptera Specialist Group (2000), Simmons (2005), and I. U. C. N. (2008) include M. longipes in Nepal's faunal list without comment. It is likely that the reason for such inclusion is based either on the collection records of the Hungarian Natural History Museum or on the content of Bates & Harrison (1997) (see note 2, above), there being no other published records that are evident. In the absence of a tangible record, M. longipes is excluded here from Nepal's known bat fauna. I. U. C. N. status. — Data deficient (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Myotis muricola (Gray, 1846 [1847]) (See note 1) MAP No. 40 Nepalese Whiskered bat Nepalese Whiskered Myotis Vespertilio tralatitius Temminck, 1840 [1824 – 41]: 228, pl. 57. Java. [Preoccupied by V. tralatitius Horsfield, 1824 [1821 – 24 ]].	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Francis & Hill (1998): Nepal. — Mitchell (1978 a) (as Myotis mystacinus muricola (Gray, 1846) — see note 6): Nepal. — Scully (1887) (as Vespertilio muricola Gray, 1846 — see note 7): Nepal Valley. Note. — 1 Gray describes the taxon muricola first in his " Catalogue of the specimens and drawings of mammals, birds, reptiles and fishes of Nepal and Thibet presented by B. H. Hodgson to the British Museum ". Although dated 1846, the Catalogue was published in January, 1847 and it is, accordingly, the latter date to which reference is made in the species citation above. 2 Gray (1847 a) refers Vespertilio muricola to Hodgson, who had listed the taxon (but without description) in three of his catalogues of Nepalese mammalia (Hodgson, 1841 b: 212; 1842: 908; and 1844 b: 286). Gray makes reference only to the 1842 catalogue. Simmons (2005) regards muricola Hodgson, 1841 as a nomen nudum. 3 Csorba et al. (1999) give external, cranial, and dental measurements of specimens, which were collected " across a path just after sunset "; " in montane primary broadleafed forest "; and " in a partly deforested area ". The authors state that the ZMMU specimens differ from the description of the species given in Francis & Hill (1998) " by the nearly absent calcar keel and somewhat darker coloration " [Francis & Hill state that " the calcar has a distinct heel "]. Calls were detected between 40 and 45 kHz. Nepalese specimens are referred to the nominate subspecies M. m. muricola. 4 Csorba et al. (1999) give external, cranial, and dental measurements of a specimen of Myotis from near Dhunche (HNHM 98.8.7), which they identify provisionally as muricola. The authors comment, however, that the specimen's pelage coloration and skull morphology do not agree precisely with those of muricola. 5 Bates & Harrison (1997: 60) refer to the Dhunche locality mentioned above as " Langtang ".	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell & Punzo (1977): Kathmandu [District]. — Scully (1887): Nepal Valley (as Vespertilio mystacinus — see note 3). Note. — 1 Simmons (2005) cites the authority as " (Kuhl, 1817). Die Deutschen Fledermäuse. Hanau, p. 15 ", rather than the commonly accepted 1819 reference given in the Bibliography. 2 A taxonomic reanalysis of the specimens giving rise to the F. M. N. H. record and that of Mitchell & Punzo (1977) should be undertaken to confirm that they are not examples of Myotis nipalensis, a taxon that was regarded as a synonym of mystacinus (excepting Hinton & Fry, 1923, who considered it to be " a perfectly distinct species ") until it was raised to specific status by Benda & Tsytsulina (2000). The latter authors suggest that nipalensis occurs " in a large part of the Asian area ... believed to be inhabited by M. mystacinus ". The southern border of the area is deemed to be the southern Himalayan slopes, which would encompass the records from Num and Kathmandu (the latter more marginally). In the absence of evidence that the specimens are not nipalensis, M. mystacinus is included in Nepal's fauna with a degree of caution. Were it not for the differentiation between nipalensis and mystacinus made by Scully (1887) (see note 3 to Myotis nipalensis, p. 55), it is likely that Nepalese specimens regarded hitherto as mystacinus would, in fact, be referable solely to nipalensis based on the diagnosis of Benda & Tsytsulina (2000). The record of M. mystacinus from Kathmandu contained in Bates & Harrison (1997) is based on Vespertilio nipalensis Dobson, 1871 b and is, accordingly, referred to the latter species (Myotis nipalensis) and not hereunder to mystacinus. 3 Scully (1887) gives the measurements of five male and three female specimens secured in the Nepal Valley between June and November together with a brief description of the species. Hinton & Fry (1923) refer to Scully's records from the Nepal Valley but assign Scully's V. mystacinus to Myotis siligorensis, the latter founded on Vespertilio siligorensis Tomes [in: Horsfield, 1855]. See the note to M. siligorensis, p. 56 I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Myotis nipalensis Dobson, 1871 MAP No. 42 Nepalese Myotis	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Csorba et al. (1999) (as M. mystacinus nipalensis): Nepal (see note 2). — Hinton & Fry (1923): valley of Nepal. — Mitchell (1978 a) (as M. mystacinus nipalensis): Nepal. Note. — 1 Dobson (1876) describes, and gives external measurements of, the type of V. nipalensis from the collection of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. His description is replicated in his 1878 " Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the Collection of the British Museum " (= Dobson, 1878) and is a fuller description than that given in his 1871 work. Hinton & Fry (1923) indicate that the type specimen in the Indian Museum has the accession code " 172 a ". 2 Csorba et al. (1999) include the taxon in a general list of bat species recorded from Nepal but do not refer to examined specimens.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Myotis sicarius Thomas, 1915. MAP No. 43 Mandelli's Mouse-eared bat Mandelli's Mouse-eared Myotis	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — CBSG Camp Workshop (2004): Nepal. Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) give a range of, and mean, external measurements of three specimens and cranial and dental measurements of two specimens. The authors comment that the specimens were collected in " flap-traps " about 3 m. over the Bhurungdi R. in a partially deforested area. Two female specimens were heavily gravid on 6 th May. 2 Measurements of HZM 1.16284 are given in Appendix III. I. U. C. N. status. — VU B 2 ab (iii) (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. I. U. C. N. / S. S. C. Chiroptera Specialist Group status. — VU A 2 c, D 2 (2001) (see Hutson et al., 2001).	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Himalayan Whiskered Myotis Siliguri bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records (see note). — Bates & Harrison (1997): Kathmandu Valley. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal. — Dobson (1878): " Nipal " (as Vespertilio mystacinus). — Hinton & Fry (1923): Nepal valley. — M. C. Z. (as M. mystacinus siligorensis): Nepal (MCZ 32977). Note. — Dobson (1878) catalogues 17 specimens of Vespertilio mystacinus in the collections of the British Museum. The collection locality of two of these, an immature male and an adult female, is given as " Nipal ", the specimens having been secured, Dobson indicates, by B. H. Hodgson. Dobson refers the two specimens mentioned to Vespertilio siligorensis Hodgson [Horsfield, 1853] (1855 in later works, e. g. Corbet & Hill, 1992 and Bates & Harrison, 1997), which species he places in the synonymy of Vespertilio mystacinus Leisler [Kuhl, 1819]. At this point, the only record of mystacinus from Nepal is based on Hodgson's siligorensis. In his monograph on Nepalese Chiroptera, Scully (1887: 234 – 235) writes as follows: " Mr. Hodgson left Nepal in 1844 [1843]. He never returned to that country, but, after a visit to England, he settled for some years at Darjiling, in the Sikkim Himalayas east of Nepal, and collected zoological specimens there largely. These spoils he also gave to the British Museum and to the Museum of the East India Company in London. Mr. Hodgson's name had, however, become so firmly connected with Nepal in the minds of English zoologists, that some portion of his collections in Sikkim were wrongly assigned by them to Nepal. So that, mainly by Dr. Horsfield, Hodgson's additions of Chiroptera from Darjiling were published as coming from the former country. Owing to this confusion, at least half a dozen species of bats from Sikkim, never obtained by Hodgson in Nepal, were credited to the latter country on the strength of that naturalist having collected them ". In examining specimens remitted to the British Museum (Natural History) by Hodgson, Gray (1863) lists the taxon " Vespertilio seligorensis " and adds " Hab. Seligori Tarai ". Scully continues: " In 1876 and 1878, Dr. Dobson's two admirable works on the Chiroptera appeared. The task this author had on hand was too extensive to permit his paying particular attention to a relatively small question like the station of certain species in Nepal; he had, moreover, to be guided by previous writers, and to rely on museum labels, which are not always accurate. He has in consequence given in his works some species as from Nepal which were not obtained there by Hodgson or any one else ... " Scully (1887) records Vespertilio mystacinus from the Nepal Valley, basing the species authority on V. mystacinus Kuhl, 1819 and referring in his synonymy to Dobson (1876 [incorrectly printed in Scully's 1887 paper as 1816] and 1878), whose accuracy with regard to the " station of certain species in Nepal " he had already questioned. Scully, himself, secured ten specimens of V. mystacinus from June to September [one of which is contained in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University under the accession no. MCZ 32977, where it is classified as Myotis mystacinus siligorensis — see " Non-specific records ", above] and remarked that the species was " one of the commonest bats in the Nepal Valley ". Scully concludes his commentary on V. mystacinus thus: " Considering how common this bat is in Nepal, it is very singular that Mr. Hodgson never seems to have obtained a specimen of it there. His first acquaintance with the species was made years after he left Nepal, when he procured it at Siligori, in the Sikkim Terai [in India], and named it Vespertilio siligorensis ". Blanford (1888 – 91) follows Scully by incorporating siligorensis in the synonymy of Vespertilio mystacinus. Hinton & Fry (1923) acknowledge Blanford but include Scully's record of mystacinus conversely in the synonymy of Myotis siligorensis Tomes [in: Horsfield, 1855: 102] [Note: In his analysis of Hodgson's specimens, Horsfield (1855) states: " This [Vespertilio darjelingensis] and the preceding [Vespertilio siligorensis] were examined and described at my request by R. F. Tomes, Esq. " The only other reference that can be found to Tomes is in Dobson (1871 b: 214), where Tomes is cited as the authority for the " Subgenus, Vespertilio "]. As Hinton & Fry (1923) refer to Scully's 1887 work alone, there seems to be no evidence in support of their placing mystacinus within the synonymy of siligorensis, especially as they do not record the collection of siligorensis by The Bombay Natural History Society's Mammal Survey of India, Burma, and Ceylon, upon whose collections their 1923 report is based. Hinton & Fry's record of Myotis siligorensis is reversed here and referred accordingly to Myotis mystacinus. Bates & Harrison (1997) separate mystacinus and siligorensis but record siligorensis from the Kathmandu [Nepal] Valley based on Hinton & Fry's report, a record that, for the above reasons, appears insupportable. Corbet & Hill (1992) map Nepal within the distribution of siligorensis and Csorba et al. (1999) include Myotis siligorensis in a list of bat species recorded from Nepal but neither authority offers details in support. The Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996) includes Nepal in its distribution list for the species but without comment. The only two localities given in the literature for siligorensis (and founded on actual material) that are relevant hereto are " Nipal ", which is based on a specimen that was collected by Hodgson in India, and the Nepal Valley (Kathmandu Valley in Bates & Harrison, 1997), which is founded on Scully's record from that locality of mystacinus. It is concluded that no definite record of Myotis siligorensis has been obtained from Nepal and that the species cannot, despite references to its presence in Nepal by authors subsequent to Scully (1887), be included in the country's faunal list. Scully (1887) believed evidently that the species named as Vespertilio siligorensis by Hodgson, when the latter " procured it at Siligori, in the Sikkim Tarai " (Scully, 1887: 255), was Myotis (Vespertilio) mystacinus. It would seem clear, however, that Hodgson recognised it not as mystacinus but as a new species, and named it accordingly. It is unfortunate that the type locality associated with Hodgson's specimen of siligorensis is " Siligori, Nepal ", as this has become embedded in the literature (see, for example, Corbet & Hill, 1992, who attribute the type locality to " Horsfield, 1855: 102 ", and Simmons, 2005). Although Horsfield, 1855 makes no mention of any precise locality relating to V. siligorensis, he does indicate clearly (and mistakenly) that Hodgson collected siligorensis in Nepal. Horsfield refers to the species as " Vespertilio siligorensis, Hodgson ". In an effort to determine the true taxonomic identity of the specimen registered as Myotis mystacinus siligorensis in the collections of the Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ 32977), an examination of the specimen was undertaken by curatorial staff. Owing to the age of the material (a label attached to the specimen indicates a collection date of 5 th August, 1876), the skull was deemed too friable to be removed. In order for the skull characters to be examined, however, X-ray images of the bat were taken (Fig. 4). In addition, photographic images were taken of the specimen's dorsal and ventral aspects (Fig. 5) and selected external, cranial, and dental measurements were collected (Table 3). External measurements were taken from the specimen itself whilst cranial and dental measurements were taken from the X-ray images. External, cranial, and dental measurements of MCZ 32977 were compared with the same measurements of specimens of Myotis mystacinus from India; M. siligorensis from India, Myanmar, and Vietnam; M. csorbai from Nepal; and M. muricola from India, Nepal, and Pakistan. Lateral outlines of the skulls of MCZ 32977 and the four abovementioned taxa were drawn and compared (Fig. 6). M. csorbai and M. muricola were included in the comparative analysis on account of the taxonomic similarities between the four taxa mentioned. collections of the Hungarian Natural History Museum. [Images in Figs. 4 and 5 © Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University]. Results. Hairs on the dorsal surface of MCZ 32977 have dark brown to black roots with pale brown tips (Fig. 5). This coloration is consistent with both M. muricola and M. mystacinus (see Bates & Harrison, 1997). The pelage of the ventral surface (Fig. 5) is almost perfectly representative of M. mystacinus (see Bates & Harrison, 1997) with individual hairs having brownish grey roots and characteristic silvery white tips. Seven of the external, dental, and cranial measurements of MCZ 32977 listed in Table 3 fall into the range of M. mystacinus (HB, FA, HF, GTL, CCL, C-M 3, and C-m 3), four fall into the range of M. siligorensis (HB, FA, T, and E), one into the range of M. csorbai (FA), and seven into the range of M. muricola (HB, FA, T, E, GTL, CCL, and C-M 3). Six of the measurements (HB, FA, HF, GTL, C-M 3, and C-m 3) are nearest to the mean measurements of M. mystacinus. Of the remaining measurements, FA is nearest to the mean of M. csorbai, E is nearest to the mean of M. siligorensis, and C-M 3 is closest to M. muricola. By tracing the outline of the skull of MCZ 32977 (Fig. 6) and superimposing this on the skull outlines of the other four taxa shown in Fig. 6, it would seem that, in general outline, MCZ 32977 matches M. muricola more closely than the other species. It can be seen also from Fig. 6 that both MCZ 32977 and HZM 18.31749 (M. muricola) have a more flattened braincase and rostrum compared to the specimens of M. mystacinus, M. siligorensis, and M. csorbai. Discussion It is apparent from the partial overlap of external, cranial, and dental measurements given in Table 3 that MCZ 32977 cannot be stated incontrovertibly to be representative of any one of the four taxa listed. The coloration of the pelage of MCZ 32977 would suggest strongly that it is representative of M. mystacinus and this identification is supported by the HB, FA, HF, GTL, C-M 3, and C-m 3 measurements being closest to the mean of the latter species. In M. siligorensis, the braincase is conspicuously domed and elevated distinctly above the rostrum (Bates & Harrison, 1997). This is not the case with MCZ 32977 and, both for this reason and for the fact that none of the cranial or dental measurements falls within the range of those of siligorensis given in Table 3, it can be stated with reasonable certainty that MCZ 32977 does not represent siligorensis. The relatively flattened braincase of MCZ 32977 is consistent with that of M. muricola (Fig. 6) rather than with the braincases of M. mystacinus, M. siligorensis, or M. csorbai, each of which is elevated more notably above the rostrum, particularly that of siligorensis. Of the measurements of MCZ 32977 given in Table 3, four of the external measurements (HB, FA, T, and E), both cranial measurements (GTL and CCL), and one dental measurement (C-M 3) fall within the range of the same measurements of M. muricola. It is possible that MCZ 32977 represents muricola but this identification is not supported by the colour of the ventral pelage of MCZ 32977, where the tips of individual hairs are silvery white (which, as stated above, is consistent with M. mystacinus) rather than the ochraceous brown of muricola (see Bates & Harrison, 1997). Of the nine measurements given in Table 3, the only measurement of MCZ 32977 that falls within the range of any one measurement of M. csorbai is that of the forearm. The pelage colour of MCZ 32977 is also lighter than that of genuine M. csorbai (G. Csorba, pers. comm.), although this may be the result of fading during the considerable time that has elapsed since the collection of the specimen. Conclusion The available data would seem to indicate that MCZ 32977 represents mystacinus based on the general compatibility of the specimen's measurements and of its external appearance with that species. However, the fact that there are some inconsistencies in these measurements and that there are certain affiliations of MCZ 32977 with the other species discussed, precludes an absolute taxonomic identification of MCZ 32977 from being made at present. It can be said, however, that Hinton & Fry (1923) are not justified in assigning Scully’s specimens to siligorensis. - ● - Majapuria & Kumar (1998) and Shrestha (1997) state that M. siligorensis occurs in, or is reported from, Annapurna Conservation Area and Makulu Barun National Park in Nepal. M. siligorensis also appears in a checklist of the mammals of Nepal extracted from a forthcoming publication by P. B. Yonzon. None of the three works mentioned provides supporting information (although it is possible that Yonzon's work, should it proceed to publication, may do so) and, consequently, they are not regarded as scientifically admissible for the purposes of determining the presence of siligorensis in Nepal. The only recorded specimens of Vespertilio darjelingensis Hodgson [Horsfield, 1855], which is tentatively synonymised with Myotis (Vespertilio) siligorensis by some authors (e. g. Corbet & Hill, 1992; Bates & Harrison, 1997) and incontrovertibly by others (e. g. Simmons, 2005), were collected by Hodgson in the Siligori Terai (Gray, 1863) in Darjeeling, India and not in Nepal. [Note: Horsfield (1855) refers to V. darjelingensis rather than V. darjilingensis, the latter spelling having been adopted by more recent authorities (e. g. Corbet & Hill, 1992; Bates & Harrison, 1997; Simmons, 2005).] I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal. — Simmons (2005): Nepal. Note. — 1 Dobson (1876) does not furnish details of the type locality of pusillus. Tate (1941) assumes it to be " Madras, India " but Hill (1983) shows this to be based simply on the provenance of the first specimen listed in Dobson's 1878 " Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the collection of the British Museum ". Hill (1983) follows Wroughton (1918) in determining the type locality as " Nicobar Islands " and gives a succinct explanation of his deduction in this respect (pp. 175 & 176). 2 Maeda (1982) bases the record from Pokhara on one examined male specimen, which was collected by Hisashi Abe on 18 th May, 1968, and of which the author lists measurements of the skull characters. Corbet & Hill (1992) question the record, however, but offer no explanation of their reasoning. 3 Myers et al. (2000) give mean external, cranial, and palatal measurements of one male and one female specimen and record that the species was collected in mist nets set over a ravine. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Long-winged bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — H. Z. M.: Bagmati [Zone] (HZM 229.15750); Schlitter (2004): Nepal. — Mitchell (1978 a) (as M. schreibersi fuliginosus (Hodgson, 1835 )): Nepal. — Scully (1887): Nepal Valley (see note 9). Note. — 1 Simmons (2005) cites the authority as " (Kuhl, 1817). Die Deutschen Fledermäuse. Hanau, p. 14 ", rather than the commonly accepted 1819 reference given in the Bibliography. Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) place Kulmbazer Cave in Hungary. 2 Csorba et al. (1999) give a range of, and mean, external measurements of eight specimens and cranial and dental measurements of three specimens. The authors comment that M. schreibersii was a common species in caves at Bimalnager and in the vicinity of Syangja and that three specimens were taken above the Bhurungdi R., one in primary forest near Banthanti and two " in a partly deforested area near Sudame ". Nepalese specimens are referred by the authors to the subspecies M. s. fuliginosus (= fuliginosa) Hodgson, 1835. 3 The co-ordinates accompanying the locality " 4 km. E. of Syangja " given in Csorba et al. (1999) (28 º 08 ' N, 83 º 44 ' E) have been altered in the Gazetteer to read " 28 º 05 ' N, 83 º 54 ' E ". The reason for the amendment is explained in note 2 b to Rhinolophus affinis (p. 24). 4 Specimens obtained from the vicinities of Banthanti and Sudame are retained in the collections of the Zoological Museum of Moscow State University under accession nos. ZMMU 164503 — ZMMU 164505. 5 Measurements of HZM specimens are given in Appendix III. 6 The specimens from Kakani in the collections of H. Z. M. were caught in a butterfly net as they approached a lepidopterist's mercury vapour light. 7 The specimens described by Kock (1996) seem to have been collected in a building or area known as Tindara [Teen Dhara] Paksala on the urban fringe [" Stadtrand "] of Kathmandu. 8 Myers et al. (2000) give mean external, cranial, and palatal measurements of eleven specimens (six males and five females), all of which were captured in a suspended net " as they exited a large sewer tunnel ". 9 Scully (1887) gives the measurements of a single specimen obtained in the Nepal Valley together with the briefest description of the specimen's pelage coloration. Scully repeats Hodgson's morphological and cranial observations of Vespertilio fuliginosa, together with that species' dental formulae, which data, he states, accord with M. schreibersii. Hinton & Fry (1923) refer to Hodgson's manuscript and Scully's record but assign the name Miniopterus fuliginosus Hodgson [1835] to the taxon. Bates & Harrison (1997) refer to Scully's " Nepal Valley " as " Kathmandu Valley ". I. U. C. N. status. — Near threatened (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. I. U. C. N. / S. S. C. Chiroptera Specialist Group status. — LR / nt (2001) (see Hutson et al., 2001). Murina aurata Milne-Edwards, 1872 MAP No. 47 Little Tube-nosed bat Tibetan Tube-nosed bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as M. a. aurata.). — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. Note. — 1 The first reference to Murina aurata Milne-Edwards (which is attended by a brief description of the species) appears on p. 91 of Armand David's 1872 " Rapport adressé à MM. les professeurs-administrateurs du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle ". This is the authority cited here rather than the more commonly accepted " Murina aurata Milne-Edwards, 1872 [b]: 250, pl. 37 b, fig. 1; pl. 37 c, fig. 2. " (see Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951: 184; Corbet & Hill, 1992: 149; Simmons, 2005: 523). See note 1 to Murina leucogaster (p. 67) for a fuller explanation of the citations and their dates. 2 It is likely that the specimen from Makut is the same as the specimen collected north of [Mount] Dhaulagiri, to which Maeda (1980) refers. Makut is located approximately 16 km. N. N. W. of the summit of Mount Dhaulagiri. See note 3, below. 3 Maeda (1980) states that the record from Mt. Sheopuri is based on his examination of two specimens (skins and skulls) collected by H. Abe at that location and that the record from N. of Dhaulagiri is based on a single specimen (skull only) collected by G. B. Corbet, the latter specimen being contained within the collections of the Natural History Museum, London. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Murina cyclotis Dobson, 1872 MAP No. 48 Round-eared Tube-nosed bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) give external, cranial, and dental measurements of a single adult male, which was “ caught by hand in a hut well after … sunset ”. The authors record M. cyclotis from Nepal for the first time and refer their Nepalese specimen to the nominate subspecies M. c. cyclotis. 2 The approximate co-ordinates of the Island Jungle Resort are 27 º 35 ' N, 84 º 10 ' E and not 27 º 40 ' N, 84 º 07 ' E as stated in Csorba et al. (1999). 3 Myers et al. (2000) give external, cranial, and palatal measurements of a single female specimen, which " was caught in a net set across a road through dense riverine forest ... around 7.30 p. m. " The authors comment on the specimen's size, colour, and dental morphology. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Note. — Dobson (1876) records Harpiocephalus leucogaster (although not from Nepal) in his monograph on bats in the collection of the Indian Museum, placing Murina leucogaster Alph. Milne-Edwards, 1871 (the correct date is 1872 — see note 1 to Murina leucogaster, p. 67) and Harpyiocephalus huttonii Peters, 1872 in his synonymy. Dobson made measurements of a single specimen preserved in alcohol, recording the forearm measurement of that specimen as 1.3 ins. (33.02 mm.). Scully (1887) describes a single specimen of Harpyiocephalus leucogaster, which he collected in the Nepal Valley. In his synonymy, Scully includes only Murina leucogaster Alph. Milne- Edwards, 1871 [1872] and Harpiocephalus leucogaster Dobson, 1876. He gives the forearm measurement of his specimen as 1.25 ins. (31.75 mm.). Blanford (1888 – 91) offers a description of the species (Harpyiocephalus leucogaster) with measurements, the length of the forearm being given as 1.3 ins. (33.02 mm.). Blanford follows the synonymy of Dobson (1876) but adds Harpiocephalus leucogaster Dobson 1876 (& 1878) and Harpiocephalus leucogaster Scully, 1887 thereto. Hinton & Fry (1923) mention only Scully's specimen from the Nepal Valley but refer the record to Murina huttoni, Peters, citing Wroughton's Report No. 15 (Wroughton, 1914) in support. Wroughton (1914) rejects Dobson's placement of huttonii in the synonymy of leucogaster, stating: " that animal [leucogaster] is much larger, having a forearm of 41 mm. ... as compared with 37 mm. in the present species [huttonii] ". Wroughton also introduces Blanford's leucogaster into the synonymy of huttonii, implying tacitly that the species Blanford described was not leucogaster, as Blanford thought, but huttonii [Blanford's description (Blanford, 1888 – 91: 327) portrays characteristics of both leucogaster and huttonii but it is considered here to be more representative of huttonii on the basis of the specimen's external measurements]. Corbet & Hill (1992: 149, 151) distinguish between Murina leucogaster Alph. Milne-Edwards, 1872 b, giving the type locality of the species as " Moupin district, Sichuan, China ", and Murina huttonii Peters, 1872, the type locality of which they state as " Dehra Dun, Kumaon, N. W. India ". Bates & Harrison (1997) give detailed accounts of both species but rely for their distribution record of M. leucogaster on Scully (1887) and for the record of M. huttonii on Hinton & Fry (1923). As Hinton & Fry's record of huttonii is based solely on Scully's record of leucogaster, only one of the records given in Bates & Harrison (1997) can be valid. Bates & Harrison give a forearm measurement range taken from four specimens of huttonii from India and Tibet as 32.8 — 35.4 mm. and a forearm measurement of a single specimen of leucogaster from India as 40.9 mm. Measurements taken from Vietnamese specimens in the collection of the Harrison Institute (HZM 1. 31758, HZM 2.32351, and HZM 3.32352) show a forearm range in huttonii (n. 2) of 33.2 — 33.3 mm. and a forearm length in leucogaster (n. 1) of 41.8 mm. The forearm measurement given by Scully (1887) would not seem to indicate that the specimen before him at that time was leucogaster. Rather, it would point to the specimen's being huttonii, although, even for the latter species, the measurement is low. It may be the case that Scully was dealing with a juvenile specimen or that he mismeasured his material; however, as Scully's profession was that of surgeon, it is unlikely, in the case of the former, that he would not be able to identify the specimen as immature. With such conflicting information, it is difficult to be precise about the identity of the specimens described by Dobson, Scully, and Blanford and it is worth noting not only that methods of measuring were less precise at the time those naturalists were working but that measurements were taken in imperial units (inches and fractions thereof). The Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996) and Csorba et al. (1999) record huttoni from Nepal but provide no details of specimens nor any information that would represent a concrete record of the species from that country. It is unclear whether Scully's single specimen collected in the Nepal [Kathmandu] Valley, which is the only apparent material from Nepal, is an example of M. leucogaster or M. huttonii. It is considered to represent M. huttonii, however, on the basis that its external measurements, notably that of the forearm, compare more favourably with those of the latter taxon. The forearm measurement Scully gives of his specimen (= 31.75 mm.) is so far removed from the same typical measurement (> 40 mm.) (see Bates & Harrison, 1997: 202, 203) in leucogaster as to preclude the referral of the specimen to this last taxon. The collection locality of Scully's material (the Nepal [Kathmandu] Valley) is shown on map 49, where it is indicated by a white dot to demonstrate the uncertainty surrounding the specimen's identity. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. * Murina leucogaster Milne-Edwards, 1872 MAP No. 50 Great (er) Tube-nosed bat Rufous Tube-nosed bat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as M. l. leucogaster). Note. — 1 The first reference to Murina leucogaster Milne-Edwards (which is attended by a brief description of the species) appears on p. 91 of Armand David's 1872 (dated 15 th December, 1871) " Rapport adressé à MM. les professeurs-administrateurs du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle " (which forms part of the Bulletin of Volume 7 of the Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris). This is the reference employed here and also by Dobson (1876) and Scully (1887). The authority that has become embedded in the literature, however (see Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951: 185; Corbet & Hill, 1992: 149; Simmons, 2005: 524), is based on a subsequent, fuller description and on a representation of M. leucogaster given on p. 252 (and pl. 37 b, fig. 1 & pl. 37 c, fig. 3) of Milne-Edwards's " Recherches pour servir l'histoire des mammifères " (= Milne-Edwards & Milne-Edwards, 1868 – 74). A helpful elucidation of the publication dates of the two works mentioned is provided by a note attached to the copy of David's " Rapport " in the Natural History Museum in London. The note, which bears the signature " T. C. S. Morrison-Scott " and the date " 8. iv. 1952 ", reads as follows: " Extended descriptions of these mammals " (which include M. leucogaster) " are given in Milne Edwards RECHERCHES HIST. NAT. MAMM. pp. 231 - 379. Of this pages 231 - 304 were published in 1872 and the rest in 1874. " Pages 91 - 93 of the Bulletin vol. 7 (for 1871) were published in 1872 almost certainly prior to pages 231 - 304 of the Rech. H. N. Mamm. " Somewhat inconsistently, Morrison-Scott employs the later authority (it is felt erroneously by this author) in his joint publication with J. R. Ellerman in 1951. See note 1 to Murina aurata (p. 65), to which the body of this note also applies. 2 Scully (1887) records M. leucogaster (as Harpyiocephalus leucogaster) from the Nepal [Kathmandu] Valley based on a single specimen collected by himself. Scully's material, however, is considered to represent Murina huttonii for the reasons given in the note to that species (p. 66) and it is to the latter taxon that the record accordingly is referred. As the identity of the specimen is attended by considerable uncertainty (the material may yet be shown to represent leucogaster), the collection locality is included on map 50 (Murina leucogaster), where it is indicated by a white dot. I. U. C. N. status. — Data deficient (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Kerivoula hardwickii (Horsfield, 1824) MAP No. 51 Hardwicke’s bat Hardwicke’s Forest bat Hardwicke’s Woolly bat Obscure bat Vespertilio hardwickii Horsfield, 1824 [1821 – 1824]: Part 8. Java.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — None. Note. — 1 Csorba et al. (1999) give a range of, and mean, external measurements of 11 specimens and cranial and dental measurements of two specimens. The authors record K. hardwickii from Nepal for the first time and comment that all specimens were captured in houses. Six of the female bats collected were noted to be gravid. Nepalese specimens are referred by the authors to the subspecies K. h. depressa. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5417DFFB3FF6AFF1EFE112C2C.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Chiroptera Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Csorba et al. (1999): Nepal (as K. p. picta). Note. — 1 Corbet & Hill (1992) indicate that Pallas’s introduction of the taxon is based on Seba (1734: 91, pl. 56, figs. 2,3). 2 Corbet & Hill (1992) follow, inter alia, Tate (1941), who, according to Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951), considered the type locality to be “ Ternate [Island], Moluccas (near Halmahera) ”. 3 Myers et al. (2000) give external, cranial, and palatal measurements of a single female specimen, which " was captured at around 9 p. m. in a net set over a stream running through a steep-sided ravine ". I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5412BFFB6FF6AF9DEFE1129A9.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Blanford (1888 – 91): " ... as far west as Nepal. " (as Tupaia ferruginea — see note 2). — Helgen (2005): " ... far E. India and Nepal, ... ". — Mitchell (1975) (as T. g. lepcha): Nepal. Note. — 1 Measurements of USNM specimens are given in Appendix II.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D5412BFFB6FF6AF9DEFE1129A9.taxon	description	4 Worth & Shah (1969) record Tupaia glis from Nepal based on the collection of the species by L. W. Quate and M. Nadchatram between November, 1965 and January, 1966 but the record is discounted in light of the limits on the species' geographical distribution given by Helgen (2005). The Tupaia to which Worth & Shah (1969) refer is most likely belangeri and it is probable that the single specimen that constitutes the record was misidentified. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54128FFBDFF6AFBA0FE112F5A.taxon	description	Ochotona curzoniae (Hodgson, 1858) MAP No. 54 Plateau pika Black-lipped pika	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54128FFBDFF6AFBA0FE112F5A.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Hoffmann & Smith (2005): E. Nepal (see note 5). — Lagomorph Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. Note. — 1 Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) state the type locality as " Chumbi Valley, in extreme south Tibet " whilst Hinton & Fry (1923) consider the type locality to be " Sikkim ". A manuscript note on Hodgson's 1858 publication in the Natural History Museum in London indicates that the accession number of the type specimen is BM. 58.6.24.115. 2 Mitchell (1978 b) provides notes on taxonomy and habitat and presents field observations. 3 Mitchell and Derksen (1976) believe this to be the first collection record of curzoniae from Nepal. 4 Mitchell & Derksen (1976) refer to five specimens collected at 29 º 19 ' N, 83 º 58 ' E whilst Mitchell (1978 b) mentions five specimens secured at 29 º 17 ' N, 83 º 58 ' E. Map 54 shows the positions indicated by the two sets of co-ordinates but it would seem that both papers refer to the same five specimens. 5 Hoffmann & Smith (2005) state that curzoniae was treated formerly as a subspecies of O. dauurica but that the two forms " differ ... morphologically ..., chromosomally ..., electrophoretically ..., and in their mitochondrial DNA ". I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54128FFBDFF6AFBA0FE112F5A.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Johnsingh (in prep.): Nepal (see note). Note. — A checklist of the mammals of south Asia, compiled by P. O. Nameer for inclusion in Johnsingh (in prep.), indicates the presence of O. forresti in Nepal but provides no supporting evidence. Based on an examination of the type specimen, Corbet (1978) considered forresti to be " a small race of O. roylei ". Nepal is not included in the distributional range of forresti by Hoffmann & Smith (2005) nor by I. U. C. N. (2008) and it is excluded here from the country's faunal list for want of substantive collection data. The species was considered distinct by Smith et al. (1990) (Hoffmann & Smith, 2005). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54128FFBDFF6AFBA0FE112F5A.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Lagomorph Specialist Group (1996): " Nepal? ". Note. — Hoffmann & Smith (2005) state that published data (Feng & Zheng, 1985; Feng et al., 1986) have suggested that the range of himalayana is " within that of ... O. roylei nepalensis " although this clearly had still to be evinced at the date of Hoffmann & Smith's publication. It is considered that O. himalayana should be excluded from an inventory of Nepal's known fauna until confirmatory evidence of the species' presence in that country is forthcoming. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54128FFBDFF6AFBA0FE112F5A.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Lagomorph Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as O. m. wallastoni) (see note 2): Nepal. Note. — 1 a Hoffmann & Smith (2005) state that the type locality is neither " Duba ... N side Kuenlun ... on road ... via Kugiar " (Blanford, 1879 — see note 1 b), nor " Dobo, Quinghai " (Vaurie, 1972) but " ' Doba' [C. Tibet, (31 ºN, 87 ºE), China] " (Ognev, 1940). Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) give the type locality as " Doba, Kuenlun Mountains, extreme southern Chinese Turkestan ... ". 1 b Blanford's full sentence reads: " Dúba is a camping ground at an elevation of 10,440 feet on the north side of the Kuenlun, on the road from Yárkand to Yangi Diwán and the Kárákoram pass viâ Kugiár ". 2 The specimens from Gosainkund Pass (FMNH 142070), Lobujya (FMNH 142071), and Muktinath (2) (ROM 74744) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. 3 Kawamichi (1971) presents useful data on the distinct zonal separation of O. macrotis and O. roylei, suggesting that in Nepal's Khumbu region, where the author observed the two species continuously from October, 1969 to January, 1970, macrotis is prevalent from 4,000 — 5,630 m. (on glacial moraine above the tree line) and roylei from 2,800 — 4,150 m. (below the tree line, where dense Rhododendron forest proliferates). 4 The locality " Gorashan " cannot be located, although Khajuria (1961) states that it is in " Khumbu District, Eastern Nepal in the vicinity of Cho-Oyu peak ". The settlement is located probably in the Dudh Kosi River valley north of Thangboche as it was in this region that the Indian Cho-Oyu Expedition, which collected the single female specimen of O. macrotis amongst loose rocks in 1958, operated. 5 Mitchell (1978 b) provides notes on taxonomy and habitat and presents field observations. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Ochotona nubrica Thomas, 1922 MAP No. 56 Nubra pika	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54128FFBDFF6AFBA0FE112F5A.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Lagomorph Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. Note. — 1 lama is treated as a synonym of O. nubrica by Hoffmann & Smith (2005). 2 The R. O. M. catalogue lists the collection locality of the holotype of lama (ROM 74738) as " Thini, 5 k. m. E. of Jomosom " [28 º 46 ' N, 83 º 48 ' E]. Lupra is treated here as the type locality of the taxon, however, as this is the locality that appears in Mitchell & Punzo's published work (1975), where the holotype is described and discussed. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54128FFBDFF6AFBA0FE112F5A.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Lagomorph Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as O. angdawai, O. r. roylei, and O. r. wardi Bonhote, 1904): Nepal. — Thomas & Hinton (1922) (as O. r. nepalensis): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hodgson's actual description of the Gosainthan type locality, where the two specimens of L. nepalensis were obtained by Hodgson's hunters, is " the margin of the sacred lake whence the Trisul Ganga River issues ". There are numerous lakes in the vicinity of Mt. Gosainkund, which is about 40 km. north of Kathmandu, but Hodsgon would have been referring to one on the western side of the mountain as he considered that not a " single streamlet of the Trisúl arise [s] east of the peak of Gosain-thán " (Hodgson, 1849 a: 766). The location of the " sacred lake ", itself, cannot be determined, but its likely position would be in the region of the two tributaries of the Trisuli R. that rise on the south-western side of Mt. Gosainkund, at approximately 28 º 03 ' N, 85 º 24 ' E. 2 Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) give measurements of the holotype of mitchelli together with a description of the specimen. 3 Hodgson (1842: 915) refers to Lagomys nipalensis rather than L. nepalensis, the latter antedating the former by reason of its earlier description (see Hodgson, 1841 d: 854). Hodgson (1842) indicates that there was one species of Lagomys in Nepal (at that time) and the spelling nipalensis, therefore, is deemed simply to be an error. As Hodgson gives no information on nipalensis, other than the briefest indication of its distribution, it is considered that the taxon could be regarded justifiably as a nomen nudum. 4 Uring Ghyang is not marked on maps of Nepal. Lewis (1970) writes of the locality that it " is known as Tarde Pati [Thare Pati] Ridge; consists of several cow huts on the ridge 6 to 8 miles south-west of Melumchi ". 5 Fry (1925) cites Thomas as the species authority of nepalensis, contrary to the accepted citation of Hodgson, 1841 (see Hoffmann & Smith, 2005: 192). The only other species occurring in Nepal of which Thomas is the accepted authority is O. nubrica but nepalensis is not regarded as synonymous therewith (see Hoffmann & Smith, 2005: 191). 6 Kawamichi (1968) does not provide details of the location " Drandi Khola " other than stating that his observation station was on a " southern slope without snow cover [on] grassy ground used for grazing in rhodendron forest [on] the upper course of Drandi Khola, northern valley of Gurkha ". The upper course of the Drandi Khola [= the Darondi River] could be described as extending from 28 º 11 ' N to 28 º 18 ' N and the mid-point (28 º 15 ' N) has been selected in the Gazetteer for the approximate location of the observation station. The author describes the vegetation of the other observation sites as follows: " rhododendron and alpine scrub, above coniferous forests " (Gosainkund); " grassy ground used for grazing " (between Dhunche and Gosainkund); and " juniper-rhododendron forest, below timber line " (between Thare Pati and Gosainkund). 7 See note 3 to Ochotona macrotis (p. 73) concerning Kawamichi's observations on the zonal separation of O. macrotis and O. roylei. 8 Mitchell (1978 b) provides notes on taxonomy and habitat and presents field observations of O. r. roylei. He lists further specimens of roylei from Dhukphu, Gosainkund Lakes, Kumjung, Maharigaon, Phulung Gyang, and Thare Pati but these specimens are included in the collections either of F. M. N. H. or of R. O. M. listed above under " Records ". The co-ordinates Mitchell gives for the collection locality of Lobuche are 27 º 57 ' N, 87 º 50 ' E. As the approximate co-ordinates of Lobuche are 27 º 57 ' N, 86 º 50 ' E, it is assumed that Mitchell's longitude is simply a typographical error. 9 A note to the co-ordinates given in the M. V. Z. catalogue for " Barun River Valley " states: " Unable to find valley, so georeferenced entire river ". The co-ordinates, however, do indicate a position on the southern side of the Barun R. valley, the locality lying about 20 km. N. W. of Num at approximately the same elevation as stated in the catalogue (3,840 m.). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. FAMILY LEPORIDAE	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54128FFBDFF6AFBA0FE112F5A.taxon	description	Lepus hispidus Pearson [in M'Clelland, 1839]: 152. " ... Assam, ... base of the Boutan [Bhutan] mountains " (India). Records. — Bell (1986): Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve (see note 1). — Oliver (1985) (see note 2): Royal Bardia Wildlife Reserve (see note 3); Royal Chitawan National Park (see note 4); Royal Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve (see note 5). Non-specific records. — Lagomorph Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975): Nepal. Note. — 1 Bell (1986) does not indicate the exact positions within Royal Sukla Phanta W. R. at which she secured seven specimens (4 ♂, 3 ♀) of C. hispidus, which were collected " along narrow strips of tall, marshy, riverine grassland bordering small streams " (Bell, 1986). The black dot shown on map 58 represents the central point of the Wildlife Reserve, the totality of which lies within Global 200 Ecoregion No. 91 (Terai-Duar Savanna and Grasslands). 2 Oliver (1985) bases his records on the analysis of “ highly diagnostic faecal pellets ”, which, he asserts, are those of C. hispidus. 3 The single white dot (numbered 1) shown on map 58 represents nine localities situated adjacent to watercourses and lying within the western half of Royal Bardia W. R. The locality record is not included in Table 6 as no actual specimen of C. hispidus was collected. See note 2, above. 4 The single white dot (numbered 2) shown on map 58 represents 21 localities lying within a 40 km. long and seven km. wide, east-west corridor adjacent to the Rapti R., which forms the northern boundary of Royal Chitwan N. P. The area comprises tall grassland and riverain forest (Oliver, 1985). The locality record is not included in Table 6 as no actual specimen of C. hispidus was collected. See note 2, above. 5 The single white dot (numbered 4) shown on Map No. 58 represents five localities lying within the southern half of Royal Sukla Phanta W. R. Each of the localities was situated in an area of tall grass and mixed forest (Oliver, 1985). The locality record is not included in Table 6 as no actual specimen of C. hispidus was collected. See note 2, above. I. U. C. N. status. — Endangered B 2 ab (ii, iii, v) (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54128FFBDFF6AFBA0FE112F5A.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Hodgson (1834): Nepal. — Hodgson (1842) (as L. macrotus): " Tarai and all three regions of the hills ". — Mitchell (1975) (as L. n. ruficaudatus): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hodgson (1840) states that he referred to Lepus macrotus first as Lepus indicus in his " Catalogue of Mammals ", which, he indicates, was published in the Transactions of the Linnean Society. Gray (1847 a) corroborates Hodgson's statement by his reference to " Lepus indicus, Hodgs. Linn. Trans ". The only Catalogue that Hodgson published between his first reference to the taxon (as " Lepus n. s. " (see Hodgson, 1834: 97 and Gray, 1847 a: 20 )) and his formal description of Lepus macrotus (Hodgson, 1840) was in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History (Hodgson, 1838), in which a catalogue of Nepalese mammals prepared by Hodgson appears as part of the " Proceedings of Learned Societies: Linnaean Society ". The catalogue, however, makes no mention of Lepus indicus nor is there any apparent reference to the taxon in the Transactions of the Linnean Society of London between the years 1837 and 1841. 2 " Madyades " refers to that area of (southern) Nepal situated on the Gangetic Plain (Burghart, 1984). Owing to the absence of an exact collection site, the locality is not plotted on map 59. 3 Fry (1925) states that the specimen from Syartang is a (male) juvenile. The position of Syartang cannot be identified but the locality lies in one of the districts west of Kathmandu (Fry, 1925). 4 Hinton & Fry (1923) state that the species is " common near the bank of the Soonsori [= Sunseri] River ". 5 Johnson et al. (1980) refer to a specimen (USNM 290067) of L. ruficaudatus ruficaudatus I. Geoffroy, 1826 (the taxon having since been synonymised with L. nigricollis) collected at Kauriala Ghat (India). The catalogue of the collections of N. M. N. H. identifies the precise locality of the same specimen as Chatra (eastern Nepal). The Chatra record is excluded here for want of certainty. 6 Johnson et al. (1980) refer to a specimen of Lepus grahami Howell, 1928 (now L. oiostolus Hodgson, 1840) collected at Mangalbare. The specimen is recorded in the collections of N. M. N. H. as catalogue no. USNM 290068 and identified therein as L. nigricollis ruficaudatus. It is assumed that the information in the published paper of Johnson et al. (1980) takes precedence over the identification accorded the specimen in the N. M. N. H. catalogue and the Mangalbare locality is not included on map 59 (L. nigricollis), therefore, but on map 60 (L. oiostolus). Johnson et al. (1980), however, signal their reservations about the accuracy of the identification accorded the specimen — see the caveat to L. oiostolus (p. 78). 7 Oliver (1985) bases his records on the analysis of faecal pellets of L. nigricollis and Caprolagus hispidus. The author asserts that: “ Lepus [nigricollis] … is everywhere sympatric with Caprolagus over the latter species’ more limited range ”. The Bardia, Chitawan, and Sukla Phanta localities are not included in Table 6 as no actual specimen of L. nigricollis was collected. The Royal Sukla Phanta W. R. does find representation in the species' distribution, however, on account of the collection of two adult L. nigricollis at the Reserve's elephant camp at Pipariya (Bell, 1986 — see " Records ", above). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54128FFBDFF6AFBA0FE112F5A.taxon	description	Non-specific records (see note 3). — Gray & Gray (1846): " ... the Kachar ". — Hinton & Fry (1923): " Northern region of Nepal and Tibet " (see note 4). — Hoffmann & Smith (2005): " Tibetan Plateau, from Ladak to Sikkim (India) Nepal, ... " — Johnson et al. (1980) (as Lepus grahami Howell, 1928): Mangalbare (see Caveat, below). — Lagomorph Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Hodgson (1842): Northern hilly region (of Nepal) and Tibet. — Mitchell (1975) (as L. o. oiostolus): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hodgson (1840) states that he made a first reference to L. oemodias in his Catalogue of Mammals published in the Transactions of the Linnean Society (1838) but the Catalogue has not lent itself readily to identification. See note 1 to Lepus nigricollis, (p. 77). 2 The catalogue of the F. M. N. H. records the collection locality of FMNH 142076, the specimen having been secured by R. M. Mitchell, as “ Lho Mantang ” but the co-ordinates and elevation given agree with previous collections made by Mr. Mitchell from Lho Mustang (see, for example, Sorex minutus (ROM 74752 and ROM 74760 )). The error is likely to be typographical only. 3 Hoffmann & Smith (2005) include Nepal within the distributional range of the species but without detail. Gray & Gray (1846) refer to " A specimen from the Kachar " — " the Kachar " cannot be defined precisely (but see note 2 to Marmota himalayana, below (p. 101 )), although Blanford (1875 b), referring to Marmota himalayana (Hodgson, 1841 c), restricts the range of the latter species to " the Kachar of Nepal ". As the title of Gray & Gray's publication is " Catalogue of the specimens and drawings of Mammalia and Birds of Nepal and Thibet presented by B. H. Hodgson, Esq., to the British Museum " and as Gray & Gray refer to Lepus oiostolus (as L. oemodias in Gray & Gray, 1846) as " Inhab. Snowy region of the Himalaya, and perhaps also Thibet ", it may be inferred that the " specimen from the Kachar " was collected in Nepal. 4 Hinton & Fry (1923) cite Hodgson (1841) (= Hodgson, 1842). Caveat. — Johnson et al. (1980) record Lepus grahami (now an accepted synonym of L. oistolus (Hoffmann & Smith, 2005: 201 )) from Mangalbare but describe the specimen as " a woolly-coated juvenile hare [that] is too young for positive identification " (see note 6 to L. nigricollis, p. 77). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54123FFBEFF6AFAF1FE1128FB.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Hinton & Fry (1923): " the central region of Nepal ". — Hodgson (1842) (as Erinaceus collaris, E. grayii, and E. spatangus): " central hilly region " (of Nepal). Note. — Hinton & Fry (1923) comment as follows: " Hodgson (1841) [= 1842] records three species of " Erinaceus, " viz.: - " spatangus, " " collaris " and " grayii, " as inhabiting the central region of Nepal; " spatangus " and " grayii " are, of course, synonyms of collaris. " There is no material in the Hodgson collection and as far as we are aware this is the only reference which exists concerning the occurrence of a hedgehog in Nepal. " Hutterer (2005 a) includes grayi (Bennett, 1832) and spatangus (Bennett, 1832) in the synonymy of collaris but limits the distribution of that species to " Pakistan and N. W. India ". For this reason, and on account of there not being any tangible specimens of Erinaceidae from Nepal, the species (and the Family) cannot be included in a list of that country’s known fauna. Some confusion remains, however, about the identity of the three taxa recorded by Hodgson, who was an observant and diligent naturalist, although he had stated earlier that " there are no hedgehogs in Nepal " (Hodgson, 1832: 340). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Crocidura attenuata Milne-Edwards, 1872 MAP No. 61 Grey shrew Asian Grey shrew	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records: Insectivore Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as C. a. rubricosa) (see note 2): Nepal. Note. — 1 In Ingles et al. (1980), the full description of the collection locality of B. M. (N. H.) 75.108 is " 2 miles N. E. of Mayang, south side of Pelma Khola, W. of Dhaulagiri at 28 º 39 ' N 82 º 50 ' E at an altitude of 6500 ft. [1,980 m.] "; in the same paper, the full description of the collection locality of B. M. (N. H.) Nos. 79.997 – 79.999 is " 3 miles south of Chakrapur, north of Fatepur on the west bank of the River Kosi, Diapurgarmi District, 26 º 50 ' N 87 º 01 ' E at about 300 m. altitude. " Greenwood et al. (1985), who record the flea, Acropsylla traubi Lewis, 1973, from C. attenuata for the first time, describe the locality from which B. M. (N. H.) 79.997 – 79.999 were collected as " south of Chakrapur village on stubble and amongst tall riverine grassland close to River Kosi. Flooded annually, alluvial and flat ". The same authors state that C. attenuata was collected together with Mus booduga. [Note: the coordinates of the Chakrapur locality given in Greenwood et al. (1985) (26 º 05 ' N, 87 º 10 ' E) represent a point 85 km. south of the actual locality. The correct co-ordinates (26 º 50 ' N, 87 º 01 ' E) are given in Ingles et al., 1980]. 2 Mitchell & Punzo (1976) state that this is the first substantive record of C. attenuata from Nepal although the species appears (as C. a. rubricosa) in Mitchell's checklist of Nepalese mammals published the previous year (Mitchell, 1975). 3 The three specimens of C. attenuata to which Newton et al. (1990) refer are the same three specimens discussed by Ingles et al. (1980) (B. M. (N. H.) Nos. 79.997 – 79.999). The first authors give the longitude of the collection site as 87 º 07 ' E rather than the longitude 87 º 01 ' E stated in Ingles et al. (1980). The latter co-ordinate is preferred here on account of the greater precision of the locality description given in Ingles et al. (1980) and because it is to the latter paper that Newton et al. (1990) refer. 4 ROM 74646 and ROM 74615 were collected by R. M. Mitchell. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records: Corbet & Hill (1992): (western) Nepal. — Hutterer (1993): Nepal. — Hutterer (2005 b):? Nepal (see note 1). — Insectivore Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as C. h. horsfieldi): Nepal. — R. O. M. (see notes 1,2): Jumla Airport (ROM 74701, ROM 74703); Rara Lake (ROM 74692). Note. — 1 Hutterer (2005 b) includes Nepal as a possibility in the species' distribution. The same author states that: " The distribution of horsfieldii sensu strictu is still a matter of disagreement. Lunde et al. (2003) restricted its distribution to Sri Lanka and adjacent peninsular India. " In light of Hutterer’s remarks and in an effort to determine more precisely the taxonomic identity of the specimens from Jumla Airport and Rara Lake in the collections of the Royal Ontario Museum, a re-examination of the material was undertaken by J. L. Eger, Senior Curator of Mammals. External and cranial measurements of the specimens were taken and these were compared with measurements of other Crocidura species (notably C. indochinensis and C. wuchihensis) given in Jenkins et al. (2009), Lunde et al. (2003), and Lunde et al. (2004). The R. O. M. specimens were found to be closest in size to C. indochinensis with the exception of the height of the braincase, which measured approximately 0.5 mm less in the R. O. M. specimens. The braincase of the R. O. M. material was observed to be quite flat and to lack lambdoidal crests. Despite similarities with indochinensis, it cannot be stated incontrovertibly that the R. O. M. specimens are representative of that species. Until a more detailed revision of Indochinese shrews is completed, it is considered that a reassignment of the specimens listed currently as C. horsfieldii in the collections of R. O. M. would be premature. However, as Lunde et al. (2003) restrict the distribution of the taxon horsfieldii to Sri Lanka and adjacent areas of India, the true identity of the specimens from Jumla and Rara Lake remains uncertain. For this reason, it is deemed unsafe at present to include C. horsfieldii in a list of Nepal's known fauna. 2 The specimens from Jumla Airport (ROM 74701 and ROM 74703) and Rara Lake (ROM 74692) were collected by R. M. Mitchell and are likely to be part of the series of 14 specimens from those two localities that are mentioned in Mitchell & Derksen (1976) (see " Records ", above). I. U. C. N. status. — Data deficient (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Etruscan shrew	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records: — Mitchell (1975) (as S. e. pygmaeoides): Nepal. — I. U. C. N. (2008): Nepal. Note. — 1 Mitchell & Punzo (1976) state that these are the first substantive (locality) records of S. etruscus from Nepal (the species is included in a basic checklist of Nepalese mammals contained in Mitchell, 1975). The specimens were collected in July and August (1970) from " stone fences " that were " overgrown with ferns, willows (Salix sp.) and wild roses (Rosa sericea) ". The fences enclosed plots in which wheat, millet, and potatoes were being cultivated (Mitchell & Punzo, 1976). 2 The specimens from Melumche (ROM 74648 and ROM 74654) were collected by R. M. Mitchell but are from a different, although similar, elevation from those reported in Mitchell & Punzo (1976). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	(1969) (as S. m. soccatus): Bigu (2); Darapani; Ekantakuna; Kathmandu. — Worth & Shah (1969) (as S. m. soccatus): Nagarkot (3). Non-specific records: Hodgson (1834) (as Sorex indicus): Nepal. — Hodgson (1842) (as Sorex indicus): " Tarai and all three regions of the hills " (see note 8). — F. M. N. H.: Kathmandu Valley (FMNH 94128). — Insectivore Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as Suncus murinus caerulescens (Shaw, 1800), S. m. soccatus, and S. m. tytleri). — Weigel (1969) (as S. m. soccatus): Sun Kosi valley (see note 9). — Worth & Shah (1969) (as S. m. caerulescens): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hodgson used the specific names nemorivagus and soccatus first in 1844 (Hodgson, 1844 b: 288) but without providing a description of either taxon. Were the earlier dates to be used, the type localities of both forms would be: " Tarai and all three regions of the hills " (of Nepal). 2 Greenwood et al. (1985) record that the collection site featured a " rocky stream surrounded by mixed deciduous woodland ". 3 Measurements of HZM specimens are given in Appendix III. 4 HZM 31.15739 and HZM 32.15740 were collected in a " hedgerow ditch " and a " river hedgerow " respectively. 5 Measurements of USNM specimens are given in Appendix II. 6 Raxaul and Birganj are opposing border towns, the former in India, the latter in Nepal. 7 Mekada et al. (2001) give external measurements of specimens, which are deposited in the mammal collection of the Laboratory of Animal Management and Resources, Graduate School of Bio-Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. 8 Corbet & Hill (1992) limit the Nepalese range of Suncus murinus approximately to the Terai and to the area that Hodgson would term " the lower and central hilly regions ". Green (1981) records the species from the elevation of 1,800 m. in Langtang N. P. 9 The locality " Sun Kosi valley " is not plotted on map 64 owing to the absence of a specific collection site. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records: Insectivore Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975): Nepal. 1 Mitchell & Punzo (1976) state that this is the first substantive record of S. stoliczkanus from Nepal. The authors comment that two specimens were secured " from a thorn brush fence row surrounding a mango grove " and that other small mammals collected in the vicinity " were Mus booduga, M. platythrix [= Mus? saxicola — see note 2 below], Vandeleuria oleracea, Golunda ellioti, Tatera indica, Millardia meltada, Lepus nigricollis, and Herpestes edwardsi ". 2 Agrawal (2000) regards M. platythrix as an Indian endemic, whose range, accordingly, does not include Nepal. DNA analysis of saxicola reported in Chevret et al. (2003) indicates a strong relationship between that species and M. platythrix (see Musser & Carleton, 2005). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records: Mitchell (1975) (as C. platycephalis himalayica (Gray, 1842 )): Nepal (see note 2). Note. — 1 Harrison (1958) regarded platycephala and himalayica as distinct species, placing the former in the Japanese realm and the latter in the Himalayan regions. Corbet (1978) included platycephala as a subspecies of C. himalayica. Hutterer (2005 b) (in accordance with Harrison, 1958) restricts the distribution of Chimarrogale platycephalus (which, he says, is the correct spelling of the specific name) to " Most of the Japanese Isls. " It is probable, therefore, that the specimen to which Abe (1982) refers is C. himalayica (Gray, 1842) and not C. platycephala (Temminck, 1843). It is likely that the correct date of Temminck's authorship of the species is 1843 and not 1842, the latter date being given in Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) and Hutterer (2005 b). See Mazak (1967: 538 – 541) for a reasoned analysis of the publication dates of Temminck's mammal volume of Fauna Japonica, which contains the original description of C. platycephala. 2 The correct spelling of the species is deemed to be platycephalus. See note 1, above. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Episoriculus caudatus (Horsfield, 1851) MAP No. 67 Hodgson's Brown-toothed shrew	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records: Mitchell (1975) (as S. caudatus caudatus and Soriculus caudatus soluensis Weigel, 1969 — see note 8): Nepal. Note. — 1 Motokawa et al. (2008) elevate sacratus to specific level based on karyotype analysis and on morphological difference from E. caudatus in size (sacratus is considered to be smaller). The authors remove soluensis from the synonymy of E. caudatus, also on the basis of size, and place the taxon (in respect of specimens from Nepal and Sikkim) as a subspecies of sacratus. 2 The B. M. (N. H.) and H. U. specimens of (Epi) soriculus caudatus shown above are listed in the appendix to Motokawa & Lin (2005). 3 Daniel & Hanzák (1985) provide detailed descriptions of collecting localities within the Barun Valley. As the authors state that these are often local names that do not appear on contemporary maps, the inclusive locality " Barun Valley " is employed here. 4 Johnson et al. (1980) state: " We consider Soriculus leucops (Horsfield, 1855) with very similar characters, to be a synonym of S. caudatus ". As the authors identify both leucops and caudatus in this statement, it is assumed that they distinguish sufficiently between them to refer their records to caudatus. 5 Johnson et al. (1980) state that their Nepalese specimens of (Epi) soriculus caudatus and (Epi) soriculus macrurus can be distinguished by the length of the tail and the coloration of the pelage. The authors suggest that caudatus has a tail length of 80 – 108 % of the head and body length whilst in macrurus the tail length is c. 140 % of the head and body length. The dorsal coloration of caudatus is described as " a warm dark brown " in contrast to the " cold grey hue " of macrurus. 6 The measurements of USNM specimens are given in Appendix II. 7 Mekada et al. (2001) give external measurements of specimens, which are deposited in the mammal collection of the Laboratory of Animal Management and Resources, Graduate School of Bio-Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. 8 The correct authority for soluensis is Gruber, 1969 (Hutterer, 2005 b: 277) I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — B. M. (N. H.) (as Soriculus leucops): Nepal (BM. 79.11.21.483 — holotype: see note 1). — Insectivore Specialist Group (1996): Nepal (as S. leucops). — Mitchell (1975) (as S. gruberi and S. leucops): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hutterer (2005 b) states that the type locality of Episoriculus leucops is Nepal, whilst Hinton & Fry (1923) have suggested that the true type locality is " Darjiling ", the latter commentators writing that " many species have been added to the Nepal List ... merely upon the basis of specimens in the Hodgson Collection inaccurately labelled ‘ Nepal’ ”. Writing on the Chiroptera of Nepal, Scully (1887) indicates Horsfield's shortcomings in this respect (see the note to Myotis siligorensis, p. 56). Motokawa & Lin (2005) describe the provenance of the holotype of Soriculus leucops in B. M. (N. H.) as " Nepal, no exact locality ". The informed view of Hinton & Fry (1923) is followed here. 2 Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) treat baileyi as a subspecies of (Epi) soriculus caudatus but Corbet & Hill (1992) and Hutterer (2005 b) do not. 3 Mekada et al. (2001) give external measurements of specimens, which are deposited in the mammal collection of the Laboratory of Animal Management and Resources, Graduate School of Bio-Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Hutterer (2005 b): " C. Nepal [to W. and S. China and to N. Burma ...] ". — Insectivore Specialist Group (1996): Nepal (as Soriculus macrurus). Note. — 1 Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) treat macrurus as a subspecies of (Epi) soriculus leucops. Hutterer (2005 b) states that there was confusion between leucops and macrurus until the latter taxon was shown to be specifically distinct by Hoffmann (1985). 2 The B. M. (N. H.) specimens of (Epi) soriculus macrurus shown above are listed in the appendix to Motokawa & Lin (2005). 3 See note 5 to Episoriculus caudatus (p. 84) for differences in tail length and pelage coloration between that species and E. macrurus. 4 The measurements of USNM specimens are given in Appendix II. 5 Mekada et al. (2001) give external measurements of specimens, which are deposited in the mammal collection of the Laboratory of Animal Management and Resources, Graduate School of Bio-Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Records. — F. M. N. H.: Arun Valley (FMNH 114345); Lumdumsa (FMNH 114165). Non-specific records. — Hutterer (2005 b): Nepal (see note 1). — Insectivore Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as N. e. sikhimensis de Winton, 1899): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hutterer (2005 b) states that the species inhabits " Cold mountain streams across the Himalayas [and in W. and C. China] ". I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Blanford (1888 – 91): " Sikhim and Nepal " (see note 8). — Insectivore Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as S. n. nigrescens): Nepal. — Worth & Shah (1969): Nepal. Note. — 1 It is almost certainly the case that the specimens that Gray (1863) refers to Sorex oligurus were not collected by B. H. Hodgson in Nepal, as Gray makes the following entry under habitat: " Sikim, May 1856 ". Hodgson left Nepal in the autumn of 1843 and did not return. He did, however, continue his zoological collections in Sikkim and Darjeeling from 1845 until 1858. It is notable that Gray's 1863 catalogue lists specimens acquired by B. H. Hodgson almost excusively after he left Nepal and the reference in the title of the catalogue to " specimens ... of ... mammals ... of Nepal and Tibet " is, therefore, misleading. Scully (1887: 234 – 235) writes succinctly on the erroneous placement in Nepal of Hodgson's post- 1843 material (see also the note to Myotis siligorensis, p. 56). 2 Biswas & Khajuria (1957) report that the specimen from Sattar Hill is retained in the collections of the Zoological Survey of India. 3 For an explanation of the asterisked specimens, see note 5 to Hipposideros armiger, above (p. 32). 4 Hinton & Fry (1923) refer to three specimens collected at Bouzini, one of which is presumably the holotype of centralis (B. M. No. 22 - 5 - 16 - 17) described by Hinton (1922 a). The four specimens from Bouzini to which Fry (1925) refers do not replicate the specimens mentioned by Hinton & Fry (1923) as the period in which the specimens were secured for the Bombay Natural History Society's Mammal Survey by Lt. Col. Kennion and N. A. Baptista differs: Hinton & Fry (1923) deal with the period from August, 1920 to March, 1921, whilst Fry (1925) lists specimens taken between May, 1922 and May, 1923. B. M. No. 22 - 5 - 16 - 17 was collected on 1 st January, 1921. 5 Greenwood et al. (1985) comment that specimens were collected at a " stream edge [in] a very moist habitat of ferns and mosses surrounded by mature mixed deciduous forest " (Godaveri (1 )) and at the " edge of mixed deciduous woodland in [a] dense herb layer of grasses and ferns " (Godaveri (2 )). 6 Measurements of HZM specimens are given in Appendix III. 7 Mekada et al. (2001) give external measurements of specimens, which are deposited in the mammal collection of the Laboratory of Animal Management and Resources, Graduate School of Bio-Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. 8 Hinton (1922 a) suggests that at the time Blanford was writing, S. nigrescens was known only from Sikkim and Bhutan. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — None. Note. — 1 Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) give measurements of a single female specimen and provide brief details of body and tail colour. Hoffmann (1987) questions the identity of the specimen, however, suggesting that it may be assignable to Sorex excelsus on the basis of a clear distinction between the specimen's ventral and dorsal coloration and the affinity of its cranial dimensions with the latter species. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Sorex bedfordiae Thomas, 1911 MAP No. 73 Lesser Stripe-backed shrew Lesser Striped shrew	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Insectivore Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as S. c. nepalensis): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hutterer (2005 b) comments that bedfordiae was regarded formerly as a subspecies of Sorex cylindricauda but was recognised as a distinct species by Corbet (1978) and Hoffmann (1987). See additional remarks in the note to S. cylindricauda (p. 89). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. * Sorex cylindricauda Milne-Edwards, 1872 MAP No. 74 Stripe-backed shrew Greater Stripe-backed shrew Sorex cylindricauda Milne-Edwards, 1872 a: 92. Moupin, western Sichuan, China. Records (see note). — Abe (1982): Kyangjin Gompa; Gosainkund (1). — Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971): Khumjung (3). Non-specific records. — Mitchell (1975) (as S. c. cylindricauda) (see note): Nepal. Note. — Hutterer (2005 b) limits the distribution of S. cylindricauda to " Montane forests of N. Sichuan " (but adds that cylindricauda is sympatric with Sorex bedfordiae in C. Sichuan "). I. U. C. N. (2008) cite Smith & Xie (2008) in restricting the species to China. The specimens to which Abe (1982) and Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) refer are most probably S. cylindricauda nepalensis Weigel, 1969 (Hoffmann, 1987 assigns the specimen discussed by Agrawal & Chakraborty, 1971 to Sorex bedfordiae nepalensis), a species that has now been synonymised with Sorex bedfordiae (see Hutterer, 2005 b). Corbet & Hill (1992) state that Sorex bedfordiae " has been included in S. cylindricauda but [is] now generally agreed to be specifically distinct ". Indeed, referring to the specimen collected at Khumjung by Mr. R. M. Mitchell, Agrawal & Chakraborty state: " ... due to insufficient material it is not now possible to arrive at any definite conclusion as to its taxonomic status ". Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) give measurements of a single female specimen and comment briefly on hind foot colour, tail, and skull morphology. S. cylindricauda is not included in Nepal's faunal list by reason of the extranational distribution accorded the species by Hutterer (2005 b) and I. U. C. N. (2008) and of the taxonomic uncertainty that attends the specimens mentioned above. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Chinese Highland shrew	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — None. Note. — There is no substantive record of this species having been collected in Nepal but Hoffmann (1987) suggests that a specimen of Sorex araneus from Khumjung described by Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) may be referable to S. excelsus based on the clear distinction in ventral and dorsal coloration and on cranial dimensions. See note 1 to Sorex araneus (p. 88). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Hodgson (1842) (as Sorex pygmaeus): " Tarai and all three regions of the hills ". Note. — 1 Hutterer (2005 b) indicates that the type locality of S. minutus is " Yenisei " [River] but adds that Pavlinov & Rossolimo (1987) restrict the locality to " Krasnoyarskii kr., Krasnoyarsk ". Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) state that the type locality is Barnaul (as given above) and that this is based on Laxmann's manuscript of " Sibirische Briefe ". 2 The first authenticated record of Sorex minutus for Nepal was cited in Corbet (1978), who wrote of the species' range simply: " Nepal (specimen in British Museum) ". Referring to Corbet's record, Ingles et al. (1980) state that: " This young specimen is B. M. (N. H.) No. 55.74 and was collected by hand in grass by Mr. Hyatt on 18 August 1954 on a ridge about 18 miles N. E. of Pokhara, 28 º 22.5 ' N 84 º 7.5 ' E between 13,000 and 14,000 ft. " 3 ROM 74687, 74700, 74752, 74757, and 74760, which, together, represent the entirety of Sorex minutus material in the Royal Ontario Museum, are discussed by Hutterer (1979), who gives dental and cranial measurements of the specimens. It is likely that specimen nos. ROM 74687, 74700, 74752, and 74760 are four of the five specimens that Mitchell & Derksen (1976) refer to Sorex minutus thibetanus — those specimens, however, were restricted by Hutterer (1979) to minutus, although the restriction was later relaxed (see note 2 to Sorex thibetanus, p. 91). 4 " Lho " (meaning " south " in Tibetan) is the name given to the northern part of Mustang District, an area with strong geographical and cultural ties with Tibet. The precise co-ordinates and elevation of the collection locality are given in the Gazetteer. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Insectivore Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as S. m. thibetanus — see note 3): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hutterer (2005 b) lists Sorex thibetanus as a separate species " until a more complete analysis is available ". Hutterer states: " Dolgov and Hoffmann (1977) and later Hoffmann (1987) used thibetanus to define a Himalayan species in which they included ... specimens from Nepal and China reported as minutus by various authors ". 2 The Royal Ontario Museum, which houses many specimens collected by R. M. Mitchell during his lengthy period of fieldwork with the Nepal Ectoparasite Program (1966 - 1970), lists four specimens of S. minutus from the three localities mentioned in Mitchell & Derksen (1976) (Dhorpatan (ROM 74687), Maharigaon (ROM 74700), and Lho Mustang (ROM 74752 and ROM 74760 )). It may be that Mitchell collected both thibetanus and minutus at these localities or it may be the case that specimens deemed by Mitchell to be thibetanus were reidentified subsequently as minutus. A precedent for the reidentification of some of Mitchell's material was established by Lim & Ross (1992), who reassigned Mitchell's Nepalese specimens of Alticola stoliczkanus to Cricetulus alticola. Mitchell & Derksen (1976: 56) state clearly, however, that " this is the first record of Sorex minutus thibetanus from Nepal ". The authors give details of the species' dental characters and coloration and comment that specimens were collected in subalpine coniferous forests at Dhorpatan and Maharigaon and in the alpine desert biotope near Mustang. Hutterer (1979) considers the subspecific taxon thibetanus to be a nomen dubium (although the author states later (Hutterer, 2005 b) that this was based on the apparent loss of the thibetanus holotype) and refers the specimens mentioned in Mitchell & Derksen (1976) to minutus. Here, Sorex thibetanus is included tentatively in Nepal's faunal list based on Mitchell & Derksen's assertion of the species' presence in Nepal, the same founded on actual material, and the species' accepted tenancy of the Himalayas (Hutterer, 2005 b) (see Caveat). 3 Mitchell (1975) states that this represents the first collection of the taxon thibetanus in Nepal. He bases this statement either on specimens collected by, or presented to, himself or on records in the literature but no further details are given. It is probable, however, that the record is based on those specimens from Dhorpatan, Maharigaon, and Mustang cited in Mitchell & Derksen (1976) (see note 2, above). Caveat. — I. U. C. N. (2008), draws attention to “ ongoing taxonomic difficulties ” with the species and considers S. thibetanus to be an apparent Chinese endemic based on an assessment of the species' distribution by Smith & Xie (2008). I. U. C. N. status. — Data deficient (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. FAMILY TALPIDAE Euroscaptor micrura (Hodgson, 1841) MAP No. 78 Himalayan mole	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54120FFABFF6AFD5EFE112BD0.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Blanford (1888 – 91) (as Talpa micrura): " The south-western Himalayas, especially Nepal ... " — Hinton & Fry (1923) (as T. micrura — see note 2): " the Central and Northern hilly regions of Nepal " (see note 1). — Insectivore Specialist Group (1996): Nepal. — M. C. Z. (as T. micrura): " Nepal frontier " (MCZ 20977). — Mitchell (1975) (as T. m. micrura): Nepal. Note. — 1 Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951: 39) synonymise Talpa macrura Hodgson, 1858 b with Talpa micrura Hodgson, 1841 b. However, Corbet & Hill (1992: 28) regard the former taxon as incertae sedis and suggest that the holotype of macrura represents a specimen of Talpa europaea Linnaeus, 1758 " that had been imported into India ". Hutterer (2005 b) does not recognise macrura as a synonym either of Euroscaptor micrura or of Talpa europaea. 2 Hinton & Fry (1923) state: " Hodgson sent specimens of this mole home in November 1841. He gives its habitat as the Central and Northern hilly regions of Nepal ". I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Malayan Giant squirrel	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Biswas & Tiwari (1966): " the montane forests of Nepal, [eastward through Sikkim ...] ". — Blanford (1888 – 91): " The Eastern Himalayas of Nipal ". — Hinton & Fry (1923) (as R. gigantea gigantea (McClelland, 1839 )): " the Lower region and deep valleys of Central Nepal " (see note 2). — Thorington & Hoffmann (2005): E. Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as R. b. gigantea): Nepal. Note. — 1 Investigation of Hodgson's published papers evinces considerable uncertainty in respect of his initial introduction of the taxon macruroïdes. Hodgson referred first to Sciurus macruroides as a new species in his 1841 catalogue of Nepalese mammalia (Hodgson, 1841 b: 220) but without qualification, while in his 1842 catalogue (Hodgson, 1842: 915), he offered only the barest information on the species' distribution in Nepal (" lower, central, and northern hilly regions "). The citation " Hodgson, 1849: 775. Bengal ", which is embedded in the literature (see, for example, Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951, Corbet & Hill, 1992), is founded on no more than a clause in Hodgson's 1849 paper " On the physical geography of the Himálaya " (Hodgson, 1849 a). The clause reads: " Among the squirrels, the great thick-tailed and purple species (Macruroïdes and Purpureus) belong solely to the lower region [of the Himalayan mountains] ". The restricted habitat described in the 1849 work seems to contradict the broader range across the three regions of Nepal, with which Hodgson credits the taxon in his 1842 catalogue. In 1849, Hodgson was residing in Darjeeling (in [West] Bengal) but there is no indication in his abovementioned paper of the same year that " Bengal " should be accepted as the type locality of macruroïdes; indeed, Hodgson's 1842 paper had already placed the taxon in Nepal. If the 1849 publication is accepted as offering the first description of macruroïdes, the type locality cannot be defined more precisely than " the lower region of the Himalayan mountains ". Hodgson (1849: 772) prescribes the elevation range of the lower region as " Level of the plains to 4000 feet above the sea. " It is felt that the 1849 reference may be saved from the status of a nomen nudum (which Corbet & Hill, 1992 deem it probably to be) only by reason of the briefest of descriptions accorded macruroïdes therein. It is considered that the type locality, however, should reflect Hodgson's earlier record of the taxon from Nepal and should read accordingly: " the lower, central, and northern hilly regions [of Nepal] ". 2 Hinton & Fry (1923), draw their information on distribution from Hodgson's manuscript and printed catalogue, referring to the date of the latter, however, as 1841 (the imprinted date) rather than 1842 (the date of publication). I. U. C. N. status. — Near threatened (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Corbet & Hill (1992): " [Himalayas from] E. Nepal [east to N. Burma ...] " (as Trogopterus pearsonii — see note 2). — Mitchell (1975) (as B. pearsoni pearsoni): Nepal. Note. — 1 Mitchell (1979) gives details of dental patterns and coloration and states that the species inhabits " the lower mixed temperate, broadleaved forests of the eastern Midlands [of Nepal]; 1,500 to 2,400 m ", the range in elevation being repeated by Corbet & Hill (1992: 307). The elevation at which the Kasuwa Khola and Num specimens listed above were collected ranges from 2,120 to 2,438 m. Mitchell adds that specimens are not numerous in collections with the result that information on the species' ecology and breeding biology remains sparse. 2 Corbet & Hill (1992: 306) synonymise Belomys with Trogopterus, writing " there seems little doubt that these two species [by which they mean Pteromys xanthipes Milne-Edwards, 1867 (the type species of Trogopterus) and Sciuropterus pearsonii Gray, 1842 (the type species of Belomys)] are very closely related ". Thorington & Hoffman (2005) regard Belomys as a distinct genus. I. U. C. N. status. — Data deficient (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Hylopetes alboniger (Hodgson, 1836) MAP No. 81 Particoloured Flying squirrel	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Blanford (1888 – 91): " The Himalayas from Nepal eastward, at an elevation of 3,000 to 5,000 feet ". — Hinton & Fry (1923): Sipari [= Sipuri] (as Pteromys (Hylopetes) alboniger). — Mitchell (1975) (as H. a. alboniger): Nepal. Note. — 1 Ellerman (1961) mentions " Specimens seen from NEPAL, Sipuri and no exact locality, including type ... ". 2 Kaldapeh is also listed as a collection locality in Mitchell (1979), that author having collected specimens FMNH 105547, FMNH 105548, and FMNH 112561. Mitchell (1979) comments on the species' coloration and states that " Hylopetes and Petaurista were equally abundant in numbers in oak-rhododendron forests near Kaldepeh, Central Midlands ". I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Biswas & Tiwari (1966): " Nepal and Sikkim (1300 - 2000 m) ". — Blanford (1888 – 91): " Nepal and Sikhim ... at a lower elevation than P [teromys] magnificus, about 4000 to 6000 feet " (as Pteromys caniceps Gray, 1846 — see note 4) (see Gray 1847 a: 21). — Hinton & Fry (1923): " Central region of Nepal (as Petaurista caniceps — see note 6). — Mitchell (1975) (as P. e. caniceps and P. e. gorkhali): Nepal. — Thorington & Hoffmann (2005): Nepal. Note. — 1 Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) consider the species authority of Pteromys elegans to be Müller, 1839 and cite Temminck's " Verhandelingen over de Natuurlijke Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Overzeesche Bezittingen door de leden natuurkundige commissie in Indie andere Schrijvers. Zoologie. " (Temminck, 1839 – 44 (– 45 )) as the work in which the first description of the species appeared. Thorington & Hoffmann (2005) agree on Temminck's " Verhandelingen " as the root work but apply the date 1840 to Müller's species authority. Thorington and Hoffmann (2005) comment that the taxon was " described in greater detail by Schlegel and Müller, in Temminck [op. cit.] pp. 107, 112 ", and give the date of that description as 1845. Corbet & Hill (1992) disregard Müller and state that the authority is " Temminck, 1836: xii. " and that the initial publication of the name occurred in Temminck's " Coup d'oeil sur la faune des Iles de la Sonde et du Japon ". Müller does refer to Pteromys elegans on pages 35 and 56 of Temminck's " Verhandelingen " but the earliest description of the taxon, which is by Temminck, himself, appears on page XII of the " Coup d'oeil sur la faune des Iles de la Sonde et du Japon ". The publication date of the last mentioned work, however, is the subject of some disagreement. Corbet & Hill (1992) give the date as 1836 whilst the date recognised by librarians in the Natural History Museum in London is 1838, the latter based on a manuscript note attached to the inside cover of the Museum's copy of the " Coup d'oeil ". The note, which bears three initials that cannot be deciphered and the date 31 / 8 / 49, reads as follows: " Date of publication. According to Stejneger (Science 22 1905 p. 402) the Coup d'oeil was published in 1837. No evidence is given to support this date except that it was published with the fourth fascicule of the work which also contained the snakes. According to Sherborn & Jentink (P. Z. S.) [= Proceedings of the Zoological Society] 1895 p. 149, the part containing the snakes appeared in January 1838 and this would appear to be the more correct date ". The following passage, which clarifies the chronology of the genesis of the " Coup d'oeil ", is taken from The Zoological Nomenclature Resource website (www. zoonomen. net / cif / jourf. html): " Stejneger in Herpetology of Japan and Adjacent Territory. United States Museum Bulletin 58. 1907 p. 542 - 543 discusses at length the dates of publication for the herpetological part of this work [= " Fauna Japonica ", of which Temminck's " Coup d'oeil " forms part]. He presents considerable evidence from various secondary sources. His discussion is as follows: The second part of the Reptilia (third of the Fauna Japonica) is thus quoted by A. Wagner, in the München Geleherte Anziger, V, NO. 134, July 7, 1837, p. 41. This part, according to him, contained two different memoirs, the first one by Schlegel, treating of the Japanese snakes (pp. 81 - 93 + pls. I-X); the other by Temminck, giving a review of the fauna of the Sunda Islands and Japan (pp. I-XXX). The latter, which is dated November, 1835, but first distributed through the book trade during the Easter " Messe " [= fair] at Leipzig in 1837, is evidently Temminck's " Coup d'oeil " [NOTE]. [NOTE] I have seen only two copies of this memoir, the full title of which is as follows: Coup d'oeil [sur la Faune des iles de la Sonde] et de [l'empire du Japon. | Discours préliminaire | destiné à servir d'introduction à la Faune du Japon. It is a folio of XXX pp., with Temminck's name at the end only. " It is concluded that as scientific publications are cited by the publication date and not by the imprinted date, the most appropriate date to apply to Temminck's " Coup d'oeil " is that of its initial distribution, which occurred seemingly in 1837, and it is this date that has been employed in the species citation, above. Corbet & Hill (1992) do not explain their application of the year 1836 to the " Coup d'oeil " and there remains, therefore, some uncertainty as to the precise year in which Temminck's work was released. For comparative purposes, see note 1 to Niviventer fulvescens (p. 123) concerning the imprinted date and the publication date of J. E. and G. R. Gray's " Catalogue of the Specimens and Drawings of Mammalia and Birds of Nepal and Thibet presented by B. H. Hodgson, Esq. to the British Museum ". 2 Corbet & Hill (1992) regard senex and gorkhali as synonyms of caniceps, which last taxon they treat as a distinct species on the basis that its pelage pattern (unspotted) differs from that of P. elegans (spotted). 3 Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) and Corbet & Hill (1992) give the type locality of Sciuropterus gorkhali as " Apoon Sottidanda ". Lindsay (1929) bases her description of gorkhali on eight specimens listed as Petaurista caniceps Gray in Fry (1923). Fry refers to the principal collection locality only as " Apoon " and this has been followed in the above synonymy. 4 In his 1846 [1847] paper (Gray, 1847 a: 21), J. E. Gray described a specimen of Sciuropterus senex remitted to the British Museum (Natural History) by Hodgson, which taxon he placed in the synonymy of (Pteromys) caniceps. Gray described (Sciuropterus) caniceps first, however, in 1842 (Gray, 1842: 262). 5 Mitchell (1979) records P. e. caniceps also from Thodung and Phulung Ghyang but it is likely that this material is represented by one or more of the F. M. N. H. specimens from those two localities listed above under " Records ". Much of the material collected by R. M. Mitchell or his colleague, C. O. Maser, as part of the Nepal Ectoparasite Program (1966 – 1970) — together with specimens secured by the Arun Valley Wildlife Expedition (1970 – 1973), to which Mitchell had access — is deposited either in F. M. N. H. or R. O. M. 6 Hinton & Fry (1923) refer to Hodgson's record of Pteromys senex, which taxon they synonymise with Petaurista caniceps. Hodgson, however (Hodgson, 1844 a: 68), places senex in the genus Sciuropterus. 7 Biswas & Khajuria (1957) refer to a " newly born " specimen collected at " Base Camp " [half way between Namche Bazar and Pangboche] at c. 12,000 ft. in the Dudh Kosi valley but qualify this record by stating that: " The specimen cannot be satisfactorily placed, since the diagnostic characters are imperfectly developed. " I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Petaurista magnificus (Hodgson, 1836) MAP No. 83 Hodgson's Flying squirrel Hodgson's Giant Flying squirrel	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Blanford (1888 – 91): " The Himalayas from Nepal eastwards ... at elevations from 6000 to 9000 feet. " (as Pteromys magnificus). — Mitchell (1975): Nepal. 1 The specimens from Kaldapeh (FMNH 105543 — FMNH 105545), Mahendranagar (FMNH 112560), and Mani Gayru (FMNH 105546) were collected by R. M. Mitchell, in whose 1979 publication these localities are also mentioned. I. U. C. N. status. — Near threatened (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Corbet & Hill (1992): " C. Nepal to Bhutan ". — Hinton & Fry (1923): Central region of Nepal (see note 3). — I. U. C. N. (2008) (see note 4). — Thorington & Hoffmann (2005): C. Nepal. Note. — 1 Hodgson identified Sciuropterus chrysotrix as a new species, but without a description, two years before his 1844 publication (see Hodgson, 1842: 915). It is the date of his 1844 work, however, that is applied invariably to the taxon (see, for example, Corbet & Hill, 1992: 313 and Thorington & Hoffmann, 2005: 771). Were the earlier date to be used, the citation would be: Sciuropterus chrysotrix Hodgson, 1842: 915. " Tarai and all three regions of the hills ". 2 The locality " Tarro Bir " cannot be identified. Fry (1925) gives no indication of its position other than stating that the collections, of which the Tarro Bir record of P. nobilis forms part, were made in " districts lying to the west of Kathmandu " (Fry, 1925: 525). As Tarro Bir is the only apparent specific locality record of the species in Nepal, it is a consequence that no meaningful map of the distribution of Petaurista nobilis in that country can be prepared. Hodgson's remarks (Hodgson, 1842) would indicate that the species is, however, wide-ranging in Nepal. Fry (1925) indicates that a single male specimen was collected at Tarro Bir by the Bombay Natural History Society's Mammal Survey. 3 Hinton & Fry (1923) refer to Hodgson's record of the species. 4 I. U. C. N. (2008) map the distribution of P. nobilis in eastern Nepal but provide no evidence to support the area delineated. I. U. C. N. status. — Vulnerable A 4 c (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Common Giant Flying squirrel	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Hodgson (1834) (as Sciuropterus nitidus): " the central region " (of Nepal). — Mitchell (1975) (as P. p. albiventer): Nepal. Note. — 1 Corbet & Hill (1992) state that the type locality is " restricted to Preanger Regencies by Robinson & Kloss (1918: 221) ". Thorington & Hoffmann (2005) repeat the restricted locality but assert that no type locality is given in Pallas (1766). 2 Mitchell (1979) gives details of the species' coloration and states that he has observed P. petaurista " in sal forests of the western Terai ... between 150 [and] 300 m. ". The locality " Mahendranagar ", however, cannot be located at the co-ordinates (28 º 06 ' N, 81 º 49 ' E) that Mitchell gives. The principal town of Mahendranagar lies in the Terai approximately 177 km. west of the position indicated by Mitchell, whose co-ordinates do not always correspond with the collection localites stated (see, for example, note 8 to Ochotona roylei, p. 75). Mitchell (1979) does, however, give the correct co-ordinates for a position 8 km. to the west of Mahendranagar (28 º 58 ' N, 80 º 13 ' E) within his account of Funambulus pennantii but these co-ordinates cannot be assumed to be those at which the Nepal Ectoparasite Programme (of which Mitchell was the field leader) secured the two specimens of P. petaurista mentioned in Mitchell's 1979 paper. The position 28 º 06 ' N, 81 º 49 ' E is indicated by a white dot on Map No. 84 to reflect the conflicting information. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Callosciurus pygerythrus (I. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, 1831) MAP No. 85 Irrawady squirrel Sciurus pygerythrus Geoffroy, 1831 [1831 – 1834]: 145; pl. 7. Pegu, Burma [Myanmar]. See note 1.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as C. p. lokroides): Nepal. Note. — 1 Thorington & Hoffmann (2005) suggest that, following a revision by Moore & Tate (1965), the species authority should be: " (I. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, 1833) "; and the type locality should read: " from forest of Syriam, near Pegu, Burma ". The 1831 date is followed here on chronological grounds. 2 The co-ordinates given in the F. M. N. H. collections catalogue for the localities " ½ mile W. of Hitaura " and " 1 mile W. of Hitaura " indicate positions approximately 6 and 6.5 km. N. N. E. of Hitaura, respectively. As the co-ordinates are precise, these have been followed in plotting the positions of the two localities on map 85. 3 The locality " Kankai Mulch " is considered to be erroneous as the only reference that can be found to " Kankai " in Nepal is to the Kankai River, which traverses Ilam and Jhapa Districts in the south-east of the country. The locality record of FMNH 94108 cannot, therefore, satisfactorily be refined further than Jhapa District and it is the latter locality for which approximate co-ordinates (based on the town of Jhapa) are given in the Gazetteer. 4 The only reference that can be found to Kuwapani is to a village of the same name lying approximately 15 km. south of Num in Sankhuwasabha District, eastern Nepal. Fry (1925) states, however, that collection of the specimens of which the Callosciurus pygerythrus material forms part, were secured " in the districts lying to the west of Kathmandu ". The position of Kuwapani cannot, therefore, be plotted with certainty and the locality is excluded from map 85. 5 Measurements of USNM specimens are given in Appendix II. 6 Mitchell (1979) comments on coloration, cranial morphology, distribution, and diet. 7 The co-ordinates given in Mitchell (1979) indicate a position 10 km. E. N. E. of Chainpur and it is the latter position that has been plotted on map 85. 8 The Y. P. M. collections catalogue lists two specimens from Nuwakot and one from Pokharia but accession numbers are not given. 9 The collections catalogue of the American Museum of Natural History lists a single specimen of Callosciurus sp. from Dingla, Bhojpur District (Nepal). 10 Biswas & Tiwari (1966) state that the species is " found ... in westcentral Nepal, ... ". The authors base their distribution on " records available in literature and on collections present in the Zoological Survey of India " but do not give details of particular specimens examined. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Dremomys lokriah (Hodgson, 1836) MAP No. 86 Orange-bellied Himalayan squirrel	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975): Nepal (see note 2). Note. — 1 The new species of Sciurus to which Hodgson (1834) makes reference was identified as Sciurus locria by Gray (1847 a). 2 FMNH 112549 — FMNH 112551 were collected by R. M. Mitchell. 3 For an explanation of the asterisked specimen, see note 5 to Hipposideros armiger (p. 32). 4 Hinton & Fry (1923) state that the specimens from Sheopari Ridge and Sisagutu were collected by J. Scully. It is likely that the specimens are retained in the collections of the Indian Museum, Kolkata (Calcutta) as it is apparent that the authors derived their information on the specimens from that museum's catalogue (" Cat. Calc. Mus. n., 20. "). The locality " Sisagutu ", however, cannot be identified. 5 The specimen from Namsangsang was collected by R. M. Mitchell. 6 Mitchell (1979) comments on the distribution of D. lokriah in Nepal, the characteristics of the species' call, and its diet. 7 No co-ordinates are given in the M. C. Z. catalogue for " Pokhar ". The locality may be unmapped or it may be referable either to Pokhara or to Pokharia, as the collector of MCZ 57905, R. Paynter, is known to have worked at both localities. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. * Funambulus palmarum (Linneaus, 1766) Indian Palm squirrel	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Hodgson (1834) (as Sciurus palmarum): " Southern region " (of Nepal) (see note). Note. — Reporting on the Mammalia of Nepal, Hodgson (1834) states that the species is: " Abundant in the southern region ". Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) give the northernmost distribution of palmarum as the Indian state of Bihar, which borders Nepal's south-eastern frontier, whilst Corbet & Hill (1992), although including Bihar in the species' range, indicate that it extends no further north than the southermost area of that district. No skin of Hodgson's palmarum appears to have been received by the British Museum, as the species is not recorded by J. E. Gray in either his 1847 or his 1863 catalogue of Hodgson's material from the region. Sciurus palmarum is listed in the catalogue of Mammalia in the East India Company's museum (Horsfield, 1851) but the material is not Hodgson's (the specimens originate from Dukhun [= Deccan] in India). Hodgson's assertion of the presence of palmarum in southern Nepal may be correct or it may be the case, despite his being an acute observer, that Hodgson misidentified the species. In the absence both of actual material from Nepal and of corroborative reports, it is felt unsafe to include Funambulus palmarum in Nepal's faunal list. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as F. p. pennanti): Nepal (see note 2). Note. — 1 Ghose et al. (2004) refer to two male F. p. gangutrianus, the same named by the authors as a new subspecies, from an unknown locality in Nepal. The two specimens are reported to be part of the collections of the Zoological Society of India. No other published reference to this subspecies can be found. 2 FMNH 112547 and FMNH 112548 were collected by R. M. Mitchell. 3 Mitchell (1979) comments on the habitat of F. pennantii in Nepal and on the species' coloration and diet. 4 The locality " Chandranighar Par. " cannot be identified. It may represent a variation of Chandragiri Pass, which lies 12 km. from the collection locality of the preceding specimen number in the Siphonaptera host list given in Worth & Shah (1969), or it may apply to " Chandranagar ", a small settlement approximately 6 km. south-east of Rampur, which lies north of Royal Chitwan National Park. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996) (as Tamiops macclellandi): Nepal. — Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) (as Tamiops macclellandi macclellandi): Nepal. — Thorington & Hoffmann (2005): E. Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as Callosciurus macclellandi macclellandi (Horsfield, 1839) — see notes 2,3): Nepal. Note. — 1 Owing to the lack of specific locality data, it is not possible to produce a meaningful distribution map of T. mcclellandii in Nepal.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) (as Tamiops macclellandii) Year of assessment: 2008. Marmota himalayana (Hodgson, 1841) Himalayan marmot	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records (see note 4). — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Blanford (1875 b): " the Kachar of Nepal ". — Corbet (1978): " type locality Nepal " (as M. bobak himalayana (Hodgson, 1841 )). — Hinton & Fry (1923) (see note 5): " Northern Region of Nepal and Tibet " (as M. himalayanus Hodgson). — Mitchell (1975) (as M. bobak himalayana): Nepal. — Thorington & Hoffmann (2005): " Montane regions of ... Nepal ... ". Note. — 1 Hodgson made an earlier reference in 1841 to " Arctomys himalayanus " (Hodgson, 1841 b: 220) but without comment. Hodgson described the taxon for the first time in the 1841 publication listed in the above synonymy and, for a second time, in the 1843 paper (Hodgson, 1843) in which he described A. hemachalanus. The specific name himalayanus appeared undoubtedly well before 1841, however, as Hodgson (1841 c: 777) writes: " ... the Marmot, which I long ago named in my Catalogue, Arctomys Himalayanus. " 2 Hodgson (1843) does not clarify the collection locality of Arctomys hemachalanus other than in the title of his 1843 publication, where he refers to " Two marmots inhabiting respectively the plains of Tibet [Arctomys himalayanus] and the Himalayan slopes near to the snows [A. hemachalanus] ... ". In the case of the latter, it is uncertain whether he means the northern (Tibetan) or the southern (Nepalese) slopes of the Himalayan range. The habitat description " Himalaya with the Bhote pergannahs or Cachâr in the immediate vicinity of the snows " is inconclusive. The " Bhote pergannahs " may pertain to the northern part of Gorkha District as " Bhote " is the language of the Larke people, who inhabit that area and " pergannah " (or " parganah " in Hindi) is a division of a " zillah ", which is an administrative district (in India, but probably used equally to apply to such districts in Nepal by the Indian Civil Service, of which organisation Hodgson was a member). Alternatively, as " Bhote " is derived from " Bhot ", which is a former name for the region of Tibet (Converse, 2000), the " Bhote pergannahs " may refer simply to administrative districts of Tibet. It is more likely that the Bhote pergannahs are within Nepal, however, as Hodgson (1849 a: 773), himself, states: " the upper region " (of the Himalayas) [which Hodgson defines as " 10,000 to 16,000 feet above the sea "] " is the exclusive habit of the Bhótias, who extend along the whole line of the gháts " (mountain passes) [Hodgson, 1849 a makes reference to the " Bhote perganahs of Kúmaon " (in north-western India)] " and who, with the name, have retained the lingual and physical characteristics of their tramontane " (presumably Tibetan) " brethren ". The supposition that Hodgson is referring to Nepal rather than Tibet is lent support by a report of the meeting of the Zoological Society of London held on 26 th August, 1834 (see Hodgson, 1834). Referring to a paper written by Hodgson on, inter alia, the physical geography of Nepal and published (the year is unspecified) in the journal of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta, the report states that " the juxta-Himalayan region, or Kachâr, consists of high mountains, the summits of which are buried for half the year in snow ". It would seem probable that the Kachâr is used inclusively to refer to the high Himalayan mountains delineating the border between Nepal and Tibet and that the " Kachâr of Nepal " corresponds simply with those mountainous areas on the Nepalese side. This view would appear credible in light of the definition of " Bhote " (Mayhew et al., 2003) as " high altitude desert valleys north of the Himalaya bordering Tibet ". Blanford (1875 b: 113 et seq.) provides a useful analysis of the early (1841 - 1870) nomenclature of the Himalayan and Tibetan marmots. 3 Nikolskii & Ulak (2005) conclude that the alpine and subalpine areas of Nepal lying between 27 º and 28 ºN are probably the southernmost limit of the distribution of Marmota himalayana and of the genus Marmota, itself. The distribution of himalayana in Nepal is mapped by the authors but a translation of their 2005 paper, which, other than a brief English abstract, is wholly in Russian, has not been seen. 4 Owing to the lack of specific locality data in western literature, it is not possible to produce a meaningful distribution map of M. himalayana in Nepal. See, however, note 3, above. 5 Hinton & Fry (1923) draw their locality information from Hodgson (1841 c). 6 Biswas & Tiwari (1966) state that " The Himalayan Marmot ... occurs between 4000 and 5000 metres in the Himalaya from Kashmir, east to Sikkim, and in Yunnan ": the authors refer to the species as M. bobak (Müller, 1776), in which himalayana was placed by Corbet (1978). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. FAMILY SPALACIDAE Cannomys badius (Hodgson, 1841) MAP No. 88 Lesser Bamboo rat Bay Bamboo rat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Corbet & Hill (1992): Nepal (Terai) (see note 3). — Mitchell (1975) (as C. badius badius): Nepal. — Thorington & Hoffmann (2005): E. Nepal. Note. — 1 Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) give the date of Hodgson's publication erroneously as 1842. The " great valley " is the Kathmandu Valley. 2 The records in F. M. N. H. and P. S. M. from the locality " ½ mile W. of Hitaura " are both based on material collected in February, 1967 by C. O. Maser. 3 Corbet & Hill (1992) base their non-specific distribution of C. badius in Nepal on Kock & Posamentier (1983), who provide details of the Indo-Burmese distribution of the species founded principally on literature records. In the northernmost part of the Indian subcontinent covered by Kock & Posamentier (1983), those authors state that C. badius ranges from the " Sikkim Terai ... west to to the Duars [= the Terai] in eastern Nepal ". I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. FAMILY CRICETIDAE Alticola stoliczkanus (Blanford, 1875) MAP No. 89 Stoliczka’s Mountain vole Stoliczka’s High Mountain vole	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996) (as A. stracheyi and A. stoliczkanus): Nepal (see note 1). — Mitchell (1975) (as A. stracheyi and A. stoliczkanus): Nepal (see note 1). Note. — 1 The I. U. C. N. Red List of Threatened Species (Baillie, 1996), Mitchell (1975), and Feng et al. (1986) (see Musser & Carleton, 2005: 961) regard stoliczkanus and stracheyi as separate species. Lim & Ross (1992) draw attention to the complexity of the relationship between the two taxa and imply that material from Nepal that Mitchell may have regarded as exemplifying stracheyi belongs, in fact, to stoliczkanus. Ellerman & Morrison- Scott (1951), Corbet (1978), Hutterer (2005 b) (who cites other authorities), and I. U. C. N. (2008) all treat stracheyi as a synonym of stoliczkanus and, as it preponderates in the literature, that view is followed here. 2 Musser & Carleton (2005) indicate that bhatnagari may be a geographical variant inhabiting the southern slopes of the Himalayas in Nepal and Sikkim (India). 3 Khajuria (1961) states that the elevation of the locality " on [the] way to Gorasham " is 334 m. This is likely to be a misprint as the elevation of Gorashan [Gorasham] given in the same publication is 5,334 m., a height more in keeping with the mountainous Khumbu region, in which Gorasham, which cannot be located with precision, is situated. 4 Lim & Ross (1992) give external, cranial, and dental measurements of a single Nepalese specimen of A. stoliczkanus. The authors base their research on three specimens in the collections of the Royal Ontario Museum and these are probably the R. O. M. specimens mentioned above, there being only three specimens from Nepal (with precise localities) recorded in the R. O. M. collections. Lim & Ross (1992) refer also to the locality " Rasuwa " but this is simply the district in which Khangjung is located. 5 The specimens from Khanjung (ROM 74706, ROM 74708, and ROM 74709) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Neodon sikimensis Hodgson [Horsfield, 1849] MAP No. 90 Sikkim vole Sikkim Mountain vole	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal (as Microtus sikimensis Hodgson, 1849 b). — Mitchell (1975) (as P. sikimensis): Nepal (see notes 3,6). — M. C. Z.: Nepal (MCZ 17855, MCZ 18737 — both as Microtus sikimensis). Note. — 1 Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) cite the species' authority of Neodon sikimensis as " Hodgson, 1849 " whilst Musser & Carleton (2005: 1032) state: " (Horsfield, 1841). A Catalogue of the Mammalia in the Museum of the Hon. East-India Company: 145 - 146 (as corrected by Kaneko and Smeenk, 1996; not Hodgson, 1849, as entrenched in the literature). " Horsfield provides a brief description of the species in the work mentioned, although the date of the Catalogue is 1851 and not 1841. An earlier and briefer account of the species, however, is given in Horsfield (1849), wherein the author refers to " Neodon sikimensis, Hodgs. " It is not clear, however, whether the brief descriptive notes that Horsfield communicates in his 1849 publication are his own or those of Hodgson. It is apparent that Horsfield intended the authorship of the species to remain with Hodgson as he requests the editor of the journal in which his 1849 publication appeared to enter therein the species of Mammalia and birds, which he proceeds to list, " in his [Hodgson's] name ". Horsfield (1849) states also that " other distingishing characters of this type [N. sikimensis] will be pointed out in Mr. Hodgson's detailed description ", although no evidence can be found that Hodgson provided a subsequent description of the species. Doubt remains about the source of the first descriptive account of N. sikimensis but it is suggested that the spirit of Horsfield's 1849 publication should be upheld and that the species authority accordingly should read: " Hodgson [Horsfield, 1849] ". This is contrary to the view of Kaneko & Smeenk (1996), who, in a considered argument, regard the correct authority as “ Horsfield, 1851 ”. 2 Several commentators have included irene as a synonym of sikimensis (e. g. Weigel, 1969; Corbet, 1978; Honacki et al., 1982), whilst the taxon has been regarded as a separate species by others (e. g. Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951; Gromov & Polyakov, 1977). Musser & Carleton (2005) treat irene as a distinct species based on the differences in size and dentition emphasised by Ellerman (1947 b, 1961). The eight A. M. N. H. records from Shey Gompa are included here under sikimensis as the range of irene is now restricted to China (Musser & Carleton, 2005: 1031). The specimens were collected in November, 1973 by George Schaller and there is no obvious evidence that they have been re-examined since their accession to the A. M. N. H. collection. 3 The specimens from 10 miles N. E. of Jumla, Dhorpatan, Dhukphu, Khumjung, Langtang Village, Lukla, Rara Lake, Thodung, and Uring Ghyang (FMNH 142073 — FMNH 142104) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. 4 See note 9 to Ochotona roylei (p. 75) concerning the position within the Barun River valley of the collection locality, at which specimens MVZ 119401 (O. roylei) and MVZ 119409 — MVZ 119414 (Microtus sikimensis) were secured. 5 Mekada et al. (2001) give external measurements of specimens, which are deposited in the mammal collection of the Laboratory of Animal Management and Resources, Graduate School of Bio-Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. 6 The specimens from Dhorpatan, Gosainkund Lakes, Khumjung, and Lukla (ROM 74690, ROM 74661, ROM 74670, and ROM 74674) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Mitchell (1975) (as Pitymys leucurus leucurus): Nepal (see note 1). Note. — 1 Phaiomys was regarded formerly as a subgenus both of Microtus and of Pitymys (Musser & Carleton, 2005: 1034). 2 Mitchell & Derksen (1976) report that this is the first record of leucurus from Nepal, although it is likely that the same specimens enabled Mitchell to include the species in his checklist of Nepalese mammals (Mitchell, 1975). 3 Mitchell & Derksen (1976) state that specimens were collected " along stream beds and river banks in the arid, alpine desert biotope of Mustang District ". The authors give an account of the species' coloration and provide details of selected external and cranial characteristics and measurements. They add that leucurus " is colonial and makes its burrows in patches of short grasses " and that it " feeds on grass and flower seeds as well as fresh vegetation ". 4 The specimens from Lho Mustang (ROM 74750 and ROM 74753) and Maharang Pass (ROM 74758 and ROM 74759) were collected by R. M. Mitchell, although that author refers leucurus to the genus Pitymys rather than Microtus. It is probable that ROM 74750 and ROM 74753 are two of the 16 specimens from Mustang mentioned in Mitchell & Derksen (1976). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Cricetulus alticola Thomas, 1917 MAP No. 92 Ladak Dwarf hamster Short-tailed Tibetan hamster	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. Note. — 1 Thomas (1917 b) comments on coloration and skull morphology and gives external and cranial measurements of the type specimen (BM. 6.10.3.13) from Shushal, Ladak (India). 2 The ROM specimens listed are discussed by Lim & Ross (1992), who give external, cranial, and dental measurements thereof. 3 For an explanation of the term " Lho ", see note 4 to Sorex minutus (p. 90). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. FAMILY MURIDAE	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as T. i. indica): Nepal (see note 2). — Musser & Carleton (2005): " the Terai region of S. Nepal ". Note. — 1 Johnson et al. (1980) refer to a second specimen of T. indica collected at " Kauriala Ghat, U. P. " The catalogue of the N. M. N. H., in which institution the specimen is located (USNM 290080), records the country of collection as Nepal rather than India, the latter being the actual location of Kauriala Ghat. [U. P. = " United Provinces " — now Uttar Pradesh]. 2 The specimens from Bahwanipur and Darakhuti (ROM 74632 and ROM 74635) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Biswas & Tiwari (1966): " in palaearctic Asia, including ... Nepal " (see note 2). Note. — 1 Musser & Carleton (2005) limit the eastern range of A. flavicollis to the " Urals " and the " Zagros Mtns. of W. Iran ". 2 The general geographical distribution provided by Biswas & Tiwari (1966) is superseded by the more detailed analysis of Musser & Carleton, 2005 (see note 1, above). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as A. f. gurkha): Nepal. — Musser et al. (1996): Nepal (ZFMK 92.148 and ZFMK 92.149). Note. — 1 Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) give measurements of a single male specimen and comment briefly on coloration. 2 The records from Maharigaon (Agrawal & Chakraborty, 1971 and FMNH 142106) are based on two different specimens collected by R. M. Mitchell. 3 For an explanation of the asterisked specimens, see note 5 to Hipposideros armiger (p. 32). 4 Martens & Niethammer (1972) comment that the habitat of A. gurkha includes subtropical mixed forest (at Bobang), Rhododendron arboreum woodland, Abies-Pinus-Cupressus woodland (at Dhorpatan), and Pinus excelsa woodland (in Palaearctic regions of the main range). A. gurkha was noted to share these habitats with Rattus [Niviventer] fulvescens, Mus musculus, locally with Apodemus sylvaticus [= A. pallipes], Soriculus nigrescens, (Epi) soriculus caudatus, (Epi) soriculus leucops, and, exceptionally, with Suncus murinus and Microtus [Phaiomys] leucurus. 5 The Thakkhola region is not apparent on modern maps of Nepal and Martens & Niethammer do not plot it, referring to it only in the text. Geological field expeditions to Thakkhola in 1988 and 1991 were carried out in a region delineated by the villages of Jomsom, Tangbe, Chukkgaon, and Muktinath (Nagy et al., 1995). The locality for Thakkhola given in the Gazetteer, however, is centred further south on Tukche, as this is more central to the collection area worked by Jochen Martens during the period (October to December, 1969 and July 1970 (Martens & Niethammer, 1972 )) in which the specimens from various localities in Thakkhola were collected. The range of elevation in which specimens were secured is given in the Gazetteer under Thakkhola, itself. 6 Mekada et al. (2001) give external measurements of specimens, which are deposited in the mammal collection of the Laboratory of Animal Management and Resources, Graduate School of Bio-Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. 7 Thomas (1924) provides a good description, with external and cranial measurements, of the type specimen, which was one of 16 specimens of the species collected by N. A. Baptista during the Bombay Natural History Society's Mammal Survey of India, Burma, and Ceylon.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Mitchell (1975) (as A. s. wardi): Nepal (see note 2). Note. — 1 Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) give measurements of a single female specimen and remark on ventral colour and palatal length. 2 The localities identified in Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) and the F. M. N. H. catalogue are based on specimens collected by R. M. Mitchell. That author, however, makes no reference to A. s. pentax in his 1975 checklist of Nepalese mammals, referring therein only to A. s. wardi. 3 The catalogue of the F. M. N. H. records an additional specimen of A. pallipes from Rara Lake (FMNH 142111) but the collection co-ordinates given indicate a point approximately 470 km. E. S. E. of Rara Lake, the same lying 15 km. east of Jiri. The record is not included here under Rara Lake nor from the position indicated by the co- - ordinates owing to the conflicting information. 4 This is the first record of wardi from Nepal. Martens & Niethammer (1972) comment that the species had colonised dense Picea smithiana woodland near rivers in the Suli Gad Valley, where it was found with Rattus rattoides; groups of bushes in a clearing in Pinus excelsa woodland at Thaksang, where it was found with Apodemus gurkha, Microtus [Phaiomys] leucurus, Mus musculus, Soriculus nigrescens, and (Epi) soriculus caudatus; bushes and piles of stones on the fringes of woodland at Ringmo / Phoksumdo Lake, where it was found with Microtus [Phaiomys] leucurus and Ochotona roylei; open bushy ground supporting Rosa, Salix, and Contoneaster at Makut, where it was found with Microtus [Phaiomys] leucurus; and pasture with Juniperus bushes on the ascent to Dapa Col, where it was found with Microtus [Phaiomys] leucurus. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. Note. — The species is noted as occurring in Nepal by Baillie (1996) but without detail. Musser & Carleton (2005) state that rusiges is " Endemic to the Himalayas of N. Pakistan (east of the Indus Valley) and N. W. India. " The latter commentators write further that the distribution they give of rusiges " derives from the large series in U. S. N. M. [N. M. N. H]. " They add: " Other smaller collections examined do not have specimens from beyond that range. Ellerman (1961) identified rusiges from the Kumaun region of N. India, which is farther east than the Jammu-Kashmir area and adjacent to Nepal, but without studying the specimens we cannot determine if they are A. rusiges or A. pallipes. " It is considered that Apodemus rusiges cannot be included safely in Nepal’s faunal list owing to the absence of substantive evidence of the species’ presence in that country. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Wood mouse Common Field mouse	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Corbet (1978): " ... east [from the western Palaearctic] to the ... Pamirs [in Tajikistan] and to central Nepal ". (See note 2). Note. — 1 The Royal Ontario Museum holds six specimens from Nepal assigned to A. sylvaticus but they are not included here owing to the views expressed by Musser & Carleton (1993) (see note 2, below). 2 Corbet (1978) states that the range of A. sylvaticus extends " to central Nepal ". Musser & Carleton (1993) state that the occurrence of A. sylvaticus " as mapped by Corbet [1978] east of Byelorussia and W. Ukraine reflects ranges of other species (uralensis, fulvipectus, arianus, wardi, rusiges) once included within A. sylvaticus. " Of the five species mentioned by Musser & Carleton, only wardi (now included in A. pallipes) occurs in Nepal (Musser & Carleton, 2005) and it is likely that it is to this species that Corbet's record should be attributed. The I. U. C. N. Red List (2007) (Baillie, 1996) does indicate the presence of rusiges in Nepal but without detail. See the note to Apodemus rusiges, above (p. 109). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Bandicota bengalensis (Gray, 1835, in 1830 - 1835) MAP No. 96 Lesser Bandicoot rat Arvicola bengalensis Gray, 1835, in 1830 - 1835: pl. 21. Bengal.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — A. M. N. H.: Kathmandu (District) (AMNH 251666, AMNH 251667). — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Biswas & Tiwari (1966): " parts of Nepal ". — Gray & Gray (1846): " Inhab. Nepal " (see note 4). — Mitchell (1975) (as B. b. bengalensis (Gray and Hardwicke, 1835) [= Gray, 1835]): Nepal (see note 3). — Worth & Shah (1969): Nepal. Note. — 1 The brief notices of Mus tarayensis, M. plurimammis, and M. morungensis given by Horsfield (1855) are based on specimens secured by B. H. Hodgson after he left Nepal. The likeliest provenance of the taxa mentioned is Darjeeling, where Hodgson settled upon his return to the Indian subcontinent in 1845 and where he resided until 1858. See note 1 to Episoriculus leucops (p. 85) for Horsfield's similarly erroneous treatment of the type locality of that taxon. 2 The positions of " Chengli ", " Mircourt ", and " Syartang " cannot be ascertained but these localities lie in one of the districts west of Kathmandu (Fry, 1925). 3 The specimen from Darakhuti (ROM 74640) was collected by R. M. Mitchell. 4 The specimen to which Gray & Gray (1846) refer is cited as " Nesokia Kok. Mus Kok, Gray, Mag. N. H. 1836 ". Other authors (e. g. Corbet & Hill, 1992: 353; Musser & Carleton, 2005: 1293) refer in their synonymies to Mus kok Gray, 1837. As it appears that the first volume of the Magazine of Natural History (= Mag. N. H) was published in 1837 (see Corbet & Hill, 1992: 440 and N. H. M. library records), it is possible that Gray & Gray's citation of the year 1836 is erroneous. For a limitation of the non-specific locality " Nepal " in Gray & Gray (1846), see note 10 to Mus musculus (p. 117). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Bandicota indica (Bechstein, 1800) MAP No. 97 Greater Bandicoot rat Large Bandicoot rat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Biswas & Tiwari (1966): Nepal. — Hinton & Fry (1923) (as B. nemorivaga): " Inhabits the Central and Northern Regions of Nepal so far as known " (see note 2). — Mitchell (1975) (as B. i. nemorivaga): Nepal. Note. — 1 The position of " Manglopani " cannot be ascertained but the locality lies in one of the districts west of Kathmandu (Fry, 1925). 2 Hinton & Fry (1923) cite Hodgson (1842). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Dacnomys millardi Thomas, 1916 MAP No. 98 Millard's Dacnomys Millard's rat Large-toothed rat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Musser & Carleton (2005): E. Nepal (see note 1). Note. — 1 Musser & Carleton (2005) base their distribution of the species in E. Nepal on " specimens in F. M. N. H. " The only specimen listed in the F. M. N. H. catalogue is FMNH 114175 (see " Records ", above). I. U. C. N. status. — Data deficient (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Diomys crumpi Thomas, 1917 MAP No. 99 Crump's mouse Crump's Diomys	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. Note. — This represents the first published record of the species in Nepal. The four specimens, on which the record is founded, were collected in tall grass and tangled undergrowth in sal forest in the eastern Terai by the 1978 – 79 University of East Anglia expedition (Newton et al., 1990). I. U. C. N. status. — Data deficient (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Biswas & Tiwari (1966): Nepal. — Ellerman (1961): " Kangra [Himachal Pradesh, India] eastwards to Nepal, 2,000 - 6,700 ft. " (as G. e. myothrix). — Gray & Gray (1846): " Central and Northern hilly region " (as Mus? myothrix Hodgson, 1845). — Mitchell (1975) (as G. e. myothrix): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hodgson (1841 b) includes Arvicola mythrix in a list of Nepalese mammalia but he used the specific name myothrix first in 1842, when he referred, without comment, to a new species of Nepalese murid as " Arvicola? Neotoma myothrix " (Hodgson, 1842: 915). No evidence can be found to indicate that Arvicola? Neotoma myothrix is the later Mus? myothrix described by Hodgson in 1845 but this is not incontrovertible given the lack of comparative material available to Hodgson at the time. 2 Ellerman (1961) states that Kahulia Powa is the type locality of myothrix, although Hodgson (1845) goes no farther than stating that the species is found in " the central region of Nepal ". The position of Kahulia Powa, itself, cannot be ascertained. 3 The specimens from Bahwanipur and Kakani (ROM 74624 and ROM 74643) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Biswas & Tiwari (1966) (as Rattus meltada): Nepal Tarai [= Terai]. — Mitchell (1975) (as M. m. pallidor): Nepal (see note 1). Note. — 1 The Bahwanipur and Darakhuti specimens in F. M. N. H. were collected by R. M. Mitchell. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as M. b. booduga): Nepal (see note 3). Note. — 1 Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) give measurements of a single male specimen. 2 Chesemore (1970) gives external measurements and the mass of two specimens. 3 The specimens from Madhuban (FMNH 142122 — FMNH 142125) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. 4 Greenwood et al. (1985) state that the species was collected together with Crocidura attenuata. The authors comment that the collection locality was " south of Chakrapur village on stubble and amongst tall riverine grassland close to River Kosi. Flooded annually, alluvial and flat ". This is the same locality as " 3 km. S. of Chakrapur ", to which Newton et al. (1990) refer, the record being based on the collection of a single female M. booduga on 23 rd January, 1979 by members of the 1978 – 79 University of East Anglia expedition to eastern Nepal. Newton et al. (1990) add that the locality is on the " W. bank of the R. Kosi, bordering jute fields, grazed by water buffalo ". M. booduga was noted to be a host of the rare flea, Acropsylla traubi Lewis 1973 (see Greenwood et al., 1985). 5 The specimens from Biratnagar (USNM 290132 – 3), Chisapani (USNM 290127), and Tikapur (USNM 290130) are listed as Mus terricolor in the collections catalogue of N. M. N. H. They are included here under M. booduga as it is deemed that the identifications given in the published paper by Johnson et al. (1980) preponderate. However, Musser & Carleton (2005: 1410), draw attention to the close (chromosomal) relationship between the two species. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Blanford (1888 – 91): " Nepal ... " (see note 4). — Gray & Gray (1846): " Central and northern hilly regions ". — Marshall (1977): Nepal (BM 45.1.8.383 [lectotype of cervicolor], BM 45.1.8.384, BM 45.1.8.385 [lectotype of strophiatus], BM 45.1.8.391, BMNH 45.1.8.392 — see note 5). — Mitchell (1975) (as M. c. cervicolor): Nepal. — Worth & Shah (1969): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hodgson used the specific name cervicolor first in 1841, when he referred to a new species of Nepalese murid as Musculus cervicolor (see Hodgson, 1841 b: 220). Hodgson provided the first description of the taxon in his 1845 paper listed in the above synonymy. 2 Abe (1977) assigns specimens from Adhabar, Betrawate, Bhainse, and Pokhara to M. c. phillipsi Wroughton, 1912 but allies the characteristics of the third upper molar (M 3) of the specimens examined to Mus booduga (Gray, 1837) and " the overall features of the skulls of old individuals ... to those of M. platythrix ". Neither M. phillipsi nor M. platythrix Bennett, 1832 is known to occur in Nepal with both species being regarded as Indian endemics (Agrawal, 2000). If not cervicolor, it is possible that the specimens examined by Abe were M. saxicola, as the two species have a close relationship (Musser & Carleton, 2005). The localities mentioned above are retained in the species' distribution, as Abe (1982) does not refer to subspecies. Abe (1977) assigns specimens from Biratanti, Dunche, Ghasa, Ghora Tabela, Godavari, Kathmandu, Khurumsan, Mt. Phulchauki, Pati Bhanjyang, Ramche, Sheopuri, Syabru, Syng Gomba, and Tatopani to M. c. cervicolor based on ventral coloration and dental lamination. Abe separates those forms found at localities below an elevation of 1000 m. (which he assigns to M. c. phillipsi) from those at localities above 1000 m. (to which he designates the subspecific form M. c. cervicolor) (Abe, 1977). 3 The catalogue of the A. M. N. H. lists the collection locality of AMNH 237554 as Patan [District]. Patan, which is also known as Lalitpur (and, less often, as Yala) is the district that borders Kathmandu District to the south. Patan is also the District capital. Marshall (1977), however, records that the author trapped two specimens of M. cervicolor " at the edge of a ricefield at Kathmandu ". 4 For a limitation of the non-specific locality " Nepal " in Blanford (1888 – 91), see note 10 to Mus musculus (p. 117). 5 The B. M. (N. H.) specimens listed were " collected by B. H. Hodgson and labeled simply ' Nepal' " (Marshall, 1977). Marshall identifies BMNH 45.1.8.392 as M. c. cervicolor. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Musser & Carleton (2005): Nepal. Note. — 1 USNM 290128 is listed as Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz and Schwarz, 1943 in the collections catalogue of N. M. N. H. It is included here under M. cookii as it is deemed that the identification given in the published paper by Johnson et al. (where it is identified as M. nagarum) preponderates. See also note 6 to Mus musculus (p. 117) and the note to Mus terricolor (p. 122). 2 USNM 290134 is contained within the collections of N. M. N. H., whose catalogue records the precise collection locality of the specimen as " Richiuns ". Richavas is retained here as Johnson et al. (1980) provide an exact identification of the location. 3 The catalogue of specimens held in N. M. N. H. records that USNM 533866 was collected in " tall dense forest ". Measurements of the specimen are given in Appendix II. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — A. M. N. H.: Kathmandu [District] (AMNH 250007 — AMNH 250010: all as M. m. castaneus; AMNH 250012 — AMNH 250023: all as M. m. urbanus). — Gray & Gray (1846): " Central and northern hilly regions " (as M. nipalensis); " Central and northern hilly regions, in houses and gardens " (as M. dubius). — Gray (1863): " Valley of Nepal. Caught in the city ... " (as M. urbanus) (see note 10). — Hodgson (1834): Nepal. — Marshall (1977): " Nepal (high elevations, mostly above 2000 m.) " (as M. m. homourus): (ISU 1767, ISU 1860, ISU 2106, ISU 2161, ISU 2228, ISU 2415, ISU 2487, ISU 2543, ISU 2588, ISU 2700, ISU 2769, ISU 2794, ISU 2943, ISU 2945, ISU 2958, ISU 2968, ISU 2975, ISU 2979, ISU 2987, ISU 3325, ISU 3499, ISU 3547, ISU 3548, ISU 3558, ISU 3643, ISU 3655, ISU 3691); Nepal (as M. m. castaneus) (BM 45.1.8.398 [lectotype of urbanus — see note 3], BM 45.1.8.399, BM 45.1.8.400). — Mitchell (1975) (as M. m. homourus and M. m. urbanus): Nepal (see note 4). — Worth & Shah (1969) (as M. musculus and M. m. castaneus): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hodgson used the specific name dubius first in 1841, when he referred to a new species of Nepalese murid as Musculus dubius (Hodgson, 1841 b: 220). Hodgson's primary description of the taxon, however, was given in his 1845 paper listed in the above synonymy. Marshall (1977) identifies the lectotype of Hodgson's dubius (BM 79.11.21.405) as Mus musculus castaneus and cautions that the name dubius became a " catch-all for difficult specimens ". 2 Marshall (1977) identifies the specimen designated as the lectotype of homourus (BM 79.11.21.406) as " a darkbellied Mus musculus castaneus " and states that he " can find no Hodgson specimen of homourus ". 3 Marshall (1977) identifies the specimen designated as the lectotype of urbanus (BM 45.1.8.398) as Mus musculus castaneus. See also note 7, below 4 The specimens from 1 mile N. of Lete, Darakhuti, Dhorpatan, Dhukphu, Jomosom, Jumla, Kakani, Kaldapeh, Khumjung, Langtang Village, Lukla, Maharigaon, Melumche (1), Muktinath, Mustang, Rara Lake, Tarke Ghyang, and Thodung (FMNH 101731 — FMNH 101734, FMNH 101736 — FMNH 101738, FMNH 142126 — FMNH 142165, and FMNH 142167 — FMNH 142215) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. 5 Measurements of HZM specimens are given in Appendix III. 6 The collections catalogue of N. M. N. H. lists specimen nos. USNM 290124 and USNM 290125 as Mus cookii Ryley, 1914 but both specimens are regarded here as examples of M. musculus based on the identification given in Johnson et al. (1980), whose published paper, it is considered, supersedes the N. M. N. H. catalogue. See also note 1 to Mus cookii (p. 115). 7 Specimen nos. AMNH 250014 — AMNH 250016 are listed in the collections catalogue of the A. M. N. H. as Mus musculus urbanus. They are included here as M. m. castaneus as it is deemed that the identification given in Marshall's published paper (Marshall, 1977) preponderates. 8 Mekada et al. (2001) give external measurements of specimens, which are deposited in the mammal collection of the Laboratory of Animal Management and Resources, Graduate School of Bio-Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. 9 The spelling, in the R. O. M. catalogue, of specimen nos. ROM 74597 and ROM 74606 (" humourus ") differs from the accepted form " homourus ". This is evidently no more than a typographical error. 10 The " Valley of Nepal " of Gray (1863) is synonymous with the Kathmandu Valley. Scully (1887) states: " The Nepal Valley, the true Nepal of the natives, is a small tract, some 20 miles in length by 15 in breadth, at an elevation of from 4050 to 4500 feet above sea-level, in which is situated the capital of the state, Kathmandu ". Of relevance to other contemporary accounts, where " Nepal " is given as a non-specific locality, Scully continues: " But the Nepal Valley is the only part of the state which has been efficiently explored zoologically, and, consequently, we may be pretty certain that, when the term Nepal only is used to denote the station of a species, the Nepal Valley is what is really meant ". [See, for example, Blanford, 1888 – 91 (Mus cervicolor and Niviventer fulvescens (as Mus fulvescens); and Gray & Gray, 1846 (Bandicota bengalensis, Niviventer fulvescens (as Mus fulvescens), and Rattus nitidus (as Mus nitidus)]. Caveat. — Bewteen 19 th February and 19 th March, 1972, George Schaller collected 32 specimens of Soricidae and Muridae from a locality named in the collections catalogue of the A. M. N. H. as " Zom Khola ", which is not locatable on modern maps of Nepal or in gazetteers. In only eight of the individual specimen records is Zom Khola defined more precisely and these are: AMNH 240752 (M. m. homourus) & AMNH 240722 — AMNH 740724 (all Niviventer eha eha), where the specific locality is given as " Lapche " (also known as " Lepcha " — from the eponymous race of people of that area (see Hodgson, 1849 a: 773 )); and AMNH 240725 (N. e. eha) & AMNH 240728 — AMNH 240730 (all as Soriculus sacratus (Thomas, 1911 b) [now Episoriculus caudatus (Horsfield, 1851]), where the specific locality is given as " Near Lamnang ". Further, the records of AMNH 240731 and AMNH 240732 (both as Soriculus sacratus) state that Zom Khola is " also known as Kung Chu ". Neither Lamnang nor Kung Chu is readily locatable but the Lapche [Lepcha] Valley runs south from Lapchegau on the Tibetan border (c. 28 º 08 ' N, 86 º 11 ' E) (source: H. M. Government of Nepal 1: 50,000 Topographic Survey Map, Sheet no. 2886 - 13). A linguistic comparison may, perhaps, be drawn between the Nepalese locality " Zom Khola " and the Bhutanese locality " Chhuzom ", the latter a compound of the two Dzongkha [the principal language of Bhutan] words " chhu " (meaning " river ") and " zom " (meaning " to join ") (Brown, Armington, & Whitecross, 2007). " Zom " is not recognised, as far as one can tell, as a Nepali word but " khola " means " river ", " stream " or " tributary " in that language. For want of a more precise set of co-ordinates to establish the collection locality " Zom Khola ", it is assumed that " zom " may have a similar meaning (perhaps in the Lapche dialect) to the Dzongkha meaning and that " Zom Khola " refers, therefore, to a confluence of two rivers. The northernmost confluence of note in the Lapche Valley can be found some 17 km. south of Lapchegau at c. 27 º 58 ' N, 86 º 12 ' E and it is this approximate position that is recorded in the Gazetteer for Zom Khola. Marshall (1977) describes the collection locality of AMNH 240750 as " boulder and shrub near river ". I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Mus pahari Thomas, 1916 MAP No. 106 Sikkim mouse Indochinese Shrewlike mouse	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — None. Note. - In order to confirm or revise otherwise the taxonomic identity of the material from 1 mile E. of Bharabise, specimen no. FMNH 114259 (a male specimen in spirit with skull extracted) was received on loan from The Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. The specimen was compared with the type description by Thomas (1916 a) and examined against the holotype in the Natural History Museum in London. The fur of FMNH 114259 is firm and bristly with ordinary hairs being interspersed abundantly with spines. This accords closely with the description of the holotype by Thomas (1916 a). To the touch, the pelage of FMNH 114259 feels stiff rather than sharp, in line with the observations of Marshall (1977) on the holotype. The hairs on the dorsal surface are about 8.25 to 8.50 mm. in length; the spines are pale brown for approximately 80 % of their length with dark brown tips; the ordinary hairs, which are rather fine, are buffy brown with paler tips. The dorsal surface is mid- to light brown in general appearance; the ventral surface is much paler with individual hairs a pale, creamy brown with very pale tips. The ears are a pale chestnut brown. The hands and feet are a dullish off-white. The tail is mid- to pale brown above and slightly paler below; it is marginally shorter than the head and body and is finely haired with serried scales (17 rings to the cm. in the proximal section increasing to 21 rings in the distal section) (see Caveat). The skull is incomplete: the rear section, including the condyles, is missing and the tips of the nasals are absent. As such, it is not possible to measure the condylo-incisive length, the condylo-basal length, or the length of the nasals (Table 4). The interorbital region is broad; ridges are present but these are indistinct anteriorly although somewhat more distinct posteriorly. The braincase is unridged. The palatal foramina do not extend as far as the front line of the first upper molars; the back of the palate extends fractionally beyond the back line of the third upper molars (Fig. 7 (view b )). The teeth of the FMNH 114259 are worn heavily, indicting that the specimen is likely to be an old adult. The fur of the holotype is smoother than that of FMNH 114259 whereas the holotypes of the subspecific forms gairdneri (Kloss, 1920) and jacksoniae (Thomas, 1921) have a more bristled pelage, jacksoniae in particular. The holotype shares similar characters with FMNH 114259, notably a dorsal pelage that comprises dense spines and fine hair; short palatal foramina, which do not extend as far as the first upper molars; and a braincase that is without ridges. The fur of the holotype is a lightly mottled dark to pale brown but this may be due to the fading of the specimen (Marshall, 1977: 194). The zygomata of the skull of the holotype are broken. Thomas (1916 a) writes of the holotype that it " is readily distinguished by its comparatively large size, crisp fur, large unridged braincase with broad interorbital space, and shortened palatal foramina ". As the distinguishing characters of FMNH 114259 correspond closely with those of the holotype and do not depart from Thomas's observations thereon, it can be stated with confidence that FMNH is representative of Mus pahari Thomas, 1916. External, cranial, and dental measurements both of FMNH 114259 and of the holotype of Mus pahari (BM 15.9.1.199) are given in Table 4. All measurements of FMNH 114259 other than the lengths of the palatal foramina (PFL), the mandible (M), and the palate (PL) are lower than the respective measurements of the holotype but they are not so far removed from the latter values as to be inconsistent therewith. It is likely that the lesser measurements can be explained by shrinkage of the Nepali specimen owing to its lengthy retention in alcohol. (Note: manuscript measurements written on the specimen label, which presumably were taken either in the field or at the point of initial curation, indicate a total length of 192.00 mm, a hind foot length of 21.00 mm., a tail length of 91.00 mm., and an ear length of 16.00 mm.). No information on the habitat at the collection site accompanies the specimen. This is the first published record of Mus pahari from Nepal. The westernmost collection locality of the species hitherto was Tonglu in Sikkim (India) (Thomas, 1916 a). The current record extends the known range of the species 214 km to the west. Caveat: although the above description of the specimen's coloration reflects the current appearance of FMNH 114259, it should be emphasised that the material has lain in preserving spirit for a long time and, accordingly, the description given may not reflect the coloration of the specimen at the time of collection. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as M. p. gurkha): Nepal. Note. — 1 Weigel (1969) and Corbet & Hill (1992) treat pygmaeus as a subspecies of M. musculus but Musser & Carleton (2005) state that the holotype of pygmaeus was examined by J. T. Marshall, Jnr. (Marshall, 1998), who " identified it as a nestling M. saxicola ". Biswas & Khajuria (1968) replace the subspecific name pygmaeus with khumbuensis on the basis that, at the time of their naming pygmaeus in 1955, it was preoccupied by Mus pygmaeus Milne-Edwards (1872 b). Corbet & Hill (1992) comment that pygmaeus was preoccupied also by M. citellus var. pygmaeus Pallas, 1779 (= Spermophilus pygmaeus Pallas, 1779 [not 1778 as stated by Thorington & Hoffmann, 2005 — see Corbet & Hill, 1992: 455 for publication dates]) and M. jaculus var. pygmaea Pallas, 1779 [Corbet & Hill (1992) state " 1792 " in error] (a synonym of Pygeretmus pumilio (Kerr, 1792 )) — see Ellerman & Morrison- Scott, 1951: 534). 2 Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) give measurements of a single male specimen, noting its soft pelage. Corbet & Hill (1992) state: " Although the pelage is usually spiny, in the northwestern form gurkha and in individuals elsewhere it not only lacks spines but is particularly soft ". They add: " Although Marshall [1977] considered these conspecific with M. saxicola this needs confirmation ". Musser & Carleton (2005) place gurkha in the synonymy of saxicola but refer to Corbet's & Hill's comments. See also note 2 to Suncus stoliczkanus (p. 83) concerning the station of Mus platythrix. 3 The specimen giving rise to the locality record " Darakhuti-Dang " cited in Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) is one of the five specimens from Darakhuti discussed by Mitchell & Derksen (1976). 4 Mitchell & Derksen (1976) provide brief details of head, body, and tail length and describe the species' pelage characteristics and coloration. 5 The specimens from Darakhuti (ROM 74636 and ROM 74639) were collected by R. M. Mitchell and are most likely part of the series of five specimens from that locality mentioned in Mitchell & Derksen (1976). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Mus terricolor Blyth, 1851 MAP No. 108 Earth-coloured mouse	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. Note. — USNM 290131 is listed as Mus cookii Ryley, 1914 in the collections catalogue of N. M. N. H. It is included here under M. terricolor as it is considered that the identification given in the published paper by Johnson et al. (1980) (where it is identified as Mus dunni) preponderates. See also note 5 to Mus booduga (p. 114). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Nesokia indica (Gray, 1830, in 1830 – 1835) MAP No. 109 Short-tailed Bandicoot rat Short-tailed Nesokia	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Mitchell (1975) (as N. i. indica (Gray and Hardwicke, 1832) [= Gray, 1830 – 1835]): Nepal (see note 2). Note. — 1 Agrawal & Chakraborty (1971) give measurements of a single subadult female specimen. 2 The specimens from Tamaspur (ROM 74616 and ROM 74618) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as R. e. eha): Nepal (see note 1). Note. — 1 The specimens from Dhukphu, Khumjung, Kyangchin, Langtang Village, Melumche, and Thodung (FMNH 142216 — 142225) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. 2 Mekada et al. (2001) give external measurements of specimens, which are deposited in the mammal collection of the Laboratory of Animal Management and Resources, Graduate School of Bio-Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Niviventer fulvescens (Gray, 1847) MAP No. 111 Chestnut rat Indomalayan Niviventer	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Records. — Abe (1982) (as Rattus fulvescens): Biratanti; Chitare; Dunche; Ghasa; Khurumsan; Kuinibisona; Mt. Phulchauki (1,2); Sheopuri (1); Ulleri. — Fry (1925) (as Rattus fulvescens): Apoon Hill; Bouzini; Satthar. — F. M. N. H. (see note 2): 5 miles E. of Jamnagaon (FMNH 94191 — FMNH 94198); 6 km. E. N. E. of Chainpur (FMNH 114190, FMNH 114567); 7 miles N. of Ilam (FMNH 94190); 13 km. N. N. E. of Chainpur (FMNH 114194, FMNH 114290, FMNH 114568); Delmara (FMNH 114200, FMNH 114201, FMNH 114288); Kakani (3) (FMNH 142226); Kerabari (FMNH 114548, FMNH 114549); Mauom (FMNH 114192); Melumche (1) (FMNH 142227 — FMNH 142229); Num (near) (2) (FMNH 114553, FMNH 114554); Num (near) (3) (FMNH 114179, FMNH 114550 — FMNH 114552); Num (near) (4) (FMNH 114555, FMNH 114556); Suki Patyl Forest (FMNH 114256, FMNH 114257, FMNH 114296, FMNH 114557 — FMNH 114566, FMNH 114569 — FMNH 114571); Tarke Ghyang (FMNH 142230 — FMNH 142236); Trasheigong (FMNH 114167, FMNH 114168) (see note 3); Wangkhim (FMNH 114289). — Hinton & Fry (1923): Bouzini; Chalna-Khel; Changoo; Hathiban (all as Rattus fulvescens Gray). M. V. Z.: 1 mile N. of Num (MVZ 119415 — as N. f. fulvescens). — Newton et al. (1990) (as Rattus fulvescens): Godaveri (2). — R. O. M.: Melumche (1) (ROM 74601); Tarke Ghyang (ROM 74591, ROM 74592 and ROM 74593) (as N. f. fulvescens). — U. M. M. Z.: Kashua Khola (UMMZ 122883). — Worth & Shah (1969) (as Rattus fulvescens): Bokaikunde. Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Blanford (1888 – 91): " Nepal ... " (as Mus fulvescens) (see note 4). — Gray & Gray (1846): " Inhab. Nepal " (as M. fulvescens) (see note 1). — Mitchell (1975) (as R. f. fulvescens): Nepal (see note 2). Note. — 1 The imprinted date on J. E. and G. R. Gray's " Catalogue of the Specimens and Drawings of Mammalia and Birds of Nepal and Thibet presented by B. H. Hodgson, Esq. to the British Museum " is 1846, whereas it has been shown that the earliest date that the Catalogue existed as a published work was 22 nd January, 1847 (see Dickinson & Walters, 2006 for a useful analysis of the Catalogue and its publication date). 2 The specimens from Kakani, Melumche, and Tarke Ghyang (FMNH 142226 — 142236) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. 3 The position of the locality " Trasheigong " cannot be ascertained. It may be in the vicinity of Num, in the northeastern district of Sankhuwasabha, as the collector of FMNH 114167 and FMNH 114168, J. A. McNeely, secured specimens of Niviventer eha near Num the following day (23 rd November, 1972). 4 For a limitation of the non-specific locality " Nepal " in Blanford (1888 – 91) and Gray & Gray (1846), see note 10 to Mus musculus (p. 117). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. Niviventer niviventer (Hodgson, 1836) MAP No. 112 White-bellied rat Himalayan Niviventer	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Blanford (1888 – 91): " Himalayas from Simla to Katmandu in Nepal. " (as Mus niveiventer). — Mitchell (1975) (as R. n. niviventer): Nepal (see note 2). Note. — 1 Some commentators (for example, Corbet & Hill, 1992 and Musser & Carleton, 2005) give the type locality of niviventer as " Katmandu ". Whilst Hodgson undertook much of his collecting in the Kathmandu Valley, he does not offer any more precise identification of the type locality than is contained in his observation: " In the central region of Nepál, there are four species of Rat, Decumanus, Rattus, Niviventer, and Nemorivagus " (Hodgson, 1836 a: 234 - footnote). 2 The specimens from Gosainkund Lakes and Melumche (1) (FMNH 142237 and FMNH 142238) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. 3 Greenwood et al. (1985) comment that specimens were collected at the " edge of mixed deciduous woodland in [a] dense herb layer of grasses and ferns ". 4 Measurements of HZM specimens are given in Appendix III. 5 Niethammer & Martens (1975) indicate that the skin and skull of the Shikha specimen are retained in the collections of B. M. (N. H.). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records (see note 1). — Baillie (1996): Nepal (as R. sikkimensis). — Corbet & Hill (1992): " Central Nepal to S. China ... " (as R. remotus — see note 2). — Musser & Carleton (2005): " E. Nepal " (see notes 3,4,5). Note. — 1 Owing to the lack of specific locality data, it is not possible to produce a meaningful distribution map of R. andamanensis in Nepal (see note 4, below). 2 Corbet & Hill (1992) place sikkimensis in the synonymy of R. remotus, regarding the latter as the older name. Musser & Carleton (2005) treat both species as synonyms of R. andamanensis, which, they state, is the most senior name for the species. 3 Musser & Carleton (2005) state that the distribution of R. andamanensis is " based on specimens examined by Musser ". The authors indicate that the extent of the species' range in N. E. India and Nepal is uncertain (see note 4, below). 4 Musser & Heaney (1985: 28) present a map showing the geographic distribution of Rattus sikkimensis (= R. andamanensis) in Nepal and elsewhere in South-East Asia. Five collection sites in Nepal are indicated by numbered dots but no geographic information is given in the text to identify the localities. 5 G. Musser (pers. comm.) has indicated that he is satisfied that some specimens held in the collections of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago (FMNH 94208 — FMNH 94210, FMNH 94213, FMNH 94214, FMNH 114183, FMNH 114184, and FMNH 114191) are representative of R. andamanensis. Until evidence of the reidentification of these specimens is published, they are listed herein under Rattus tanezumi on account of their identification as Rattus rattus brunneusculus (= R. tanezumi) in the F. M. N. H. collections database. If the identity of the specimens as R. andamanensis is confirmed, the distribution of that species in Nepal will correspond to the white dots on map 116 (see note 2 to Rattus tanezumi, p. 130). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	White-footed Indochinese rat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Note. — 1 Hodgson made an earlier reference to Mus nitidus in his 1842 catalogue of Nepalese mammalia (Hodgson, 1842: 915), describing the species' habitat as " the central and northern hilly regions " (of Nepal). Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) indicate that the type specimen is retained in the collections of B. M. (N. H.). 2 Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) and Corbet & Hill (1992) state that the type locality of aequicaudalis is Nepal. The first published reference to aequicaudalis occurs in Horsfield (1849), who indicates clearly that the specimens on which the naming of the taxon is based were collected by Hodgson " from the neighbourhood of Sikim and Darjeling " and it is the latter description of the type locality that is employed in the above synonymy. 3 Measurements of HZM specimens are given in Appendix III. 4 For a limitation of the non-specific locality " Nepal " in Gray & Gray (1846), see note 10 to Mus musculus (p. 117). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Brown rat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Hodgson (1834) (as " Mus decumanus, Linn. " — see note 2): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hodgson lists M. decumanoides as a new species in his catalogue of Nepalese mammalia (Hodgson, 1841 b) but without comment. He writes subsequently of the species, that its habitat in Nepal is the " central and hilly northern region [s] so far as known " (Hodgson, 1842). It is of note, however, that Hodgson makes no reference to decumanoides in his more detailed publication " On the Rats, Mice, and Shrews of the Central Region of Nepal " (= Hodgson, 1845). The unqualified mention of decumanoides by Hodgson in his 1841 catalogue cannot, per se, permit the species' inclusion in Nepal's faunal list, although, given the wide distribution of Rattus norvegicus, it would seem improbable for it not to occupy at least the cooler, north-central areas of Nepal, to which the species naturally would be suited (Musser & Carleton, 2005). 2 Hodgson (1834: 98) includes decumanus in a list of mammalia known by him to be present in Nepal. He refers decumanus, however, to Linnaeus (without giving a date) and not to Pallas, 1779. On account of this conflict, the identification of Hodgson's decumanus cannot be determined and the record, upon which Hodgson in no way elaborates, cannot be used to substantiate the presence of the species in Nepal. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal (as R. turkestanicus). — Corbett & Hill (1992): " Montane, at altitudes of 1200 – 4250 m in Nepal " (as R. turkestanicus). — Gray & Gray (1846): " Central and Northern Hilly region " (as Mus pyctoris). — Mitchell (1975) (as R. turkestanicus): Nepal (see note 3). Note. — 1 Mus pyctoris Hodgson, 1845 was included as a synonym of Rattus nitidus Hodgson, 1845 by Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) and of Rattus turkestanicus Satunin, 1903 by Corbet & Hill (1992). Musser & Carleton (2005) regard Hodgson's M. pyctoris as the type of R. pyctoris and state that pyctoris should supersede the formerly-used rattoides [Hodgson, 1845] and turkestanicus as the specific name for the reason, firstly, that rattoides Hodgson, 1845 is preoccupied by rattoides Pictet & Pictet, 1844 (the latter is a synonym of Rattus rattus) and, secondly, that pyctoris is an older name than turkestanicus. Musser & Carleton (2005) comment that the first- - named author examined the holotype of Hodgson's Mus pyctoris (BM. 45.1.8.381) and found it " to be inseparable from B. M. N. H. Nepalese specimens usually identified as either rattoides or turkestanicus ". Hodgson used pyctoris first in 1841 (Hodgson, 1841 b: 220), when he referred to a new species of rodent from Nepal as Arvicola pyctoris, a taxon whose status remains unclear. Hodgson made prior reference to rattoides in his 1842 publication (Hodgson, 1842: 915), but without comment, and to the specific name " rottoides ", also without comment, in his 1844 catalogue (Hodgson, 1844 b: 292), although the latter is probably a straightforward type-setting error. Hodgson offered the first substantive descriptions of pyctoris and rattoides in his 1845 paper listed in the above synonymy. 2 Corbet & Hill (1992) indicate that the type locality of turkestanicus is in Uzbekistan whilst Musser & Carleton (1993, 2005) state that the type locality is found in Kyrgyzstan. The locality the latter authors give is " Kyrgyzstan, Oshskaya Obl., Lenniskii p-h, Arslanbob " and equate " Arslanbob " with " Assam-bob " (Musser & Carleton, 1993). Ferghana [= Fergana], which is in Uzbekistan, lies approximately 150 km. south-west of Arslanbob and at a much lower elevation. The Fergana Mountains, however, are found a short distance to the north-east of Arslanbob in Kyrgyzstan and it is to these mountains, it is assumed, that the term " Ferghana " applies. 3 The specimens from 1 mile E. of Lete, Khumjung, Langtang village, Melumche, Rara Lake, and Tarke Ghyang (FMNH 142255 — FMNH 142266) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. 4 For an explanation of the asterisked specimen, see note 5 to Hipposideros armiger, above (p. 32). 5 " Lho " is the name given to the northern part of Mustang District. 6 See note 6 to R. rattus (p. 129) concerning the record of R. rattoides from Langtang N. P. cited in Green (1981). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Roof rat Ship rat	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Records. — Abe (1982): Adhabar; Betrawate; Biratanti; Dunche; Ghasa; Ghora Tabela; Godavari; Kathmandu; Khurumsan; Mt. Phulchauki (1,2); Pati Bhanjyang; Pokhara; Ramche; Sheopuri (2); Swingket; Syabru; Syng Gomba; Tatopani; Tukuche. — A. M. N. H.: Birganj (AMNH 251658, AMNH 251659); Hetaura (AMNH 251654 — AMNH 251657); Kathmandu (AMNH 251648 — AMNH 251652). — F. M. N. H.: Kathmandu (FMNH 57709); Madhuban (2) (FMNH 142239 and FMNH 142240 — both as R. r. arboreus Buch-Hamilton [Horsfield, 1851]); Num (near) (1) (FMNH 114292); Tamaspur (1) (FMNH 142241 — as R. r. arboreus). — Greenwood et al. (1985): Pathalaya (see note 1). — Hinton (1922 b) (as R. r. arboreus): Bairia; Hazaria. — Hinton & Fry (1923) (as R. r. rufescens): Bairia; Hazaria (3). — Mekada et al. (2001) (see note 2): Shikha. — Newton et al. (1990): 3 km. E. of Pathalaya; 4 km. W. of Damak; 6 km. N. of Kalitar; 11 km. N. of Charali; 14 km. W. of Chandranigahpur; Karanga; Lamosangu. — Niethammer & Martens (1975): Batula Chaur [= Batule Chour (1)]; Muri (1); Nagarkot (1); Pati Bhanjyang; Tribeni (2) (see note 3). — R. O. M.: " 54 miles S. of Katmandu, on India road " (ROM 31230) (see note 4); Bahwanipur (ROM 74628) (as R. r. arboreus); Kakani (3) (ROM 74642); Madhuban (2) (ROM 74610) (as R. r. arboreus). — Worth & Shah (1969): Syabrudens. Non-specific records. — Hinton & Fry (1923): " the Nepal Tarai " (as R. r. arboreus). — Hodgson (1834) (as Mus rattus): Nepal. — Hodgson (1841 b) (as Mus indicus): Nepal. — N. M. N. H.: Nepal (USNM 290101 — see note 5). Note. — 1 Greenwood et al. (1985) record that the specimen of R. rattus was collected along with specimens of Diomys crumpi in " thick mixed deciduous woodland in central Terai; many saplings but little herb layer with much of ground bare sandy soil ". This record is based on the same specimens that give rise to the locality " 3 km. E. of Pathalaya " in Newton et al. (1990). 2 Mekada et al. (2001) give external measurements of specimens, which are deposited in the mammal collection of the Laboratory of Animal Management and Resources, Graduate School of Bio-Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. 3 Niethammer & Martens (1975) indicate that the skins and skulls of the single specimens from Anghu, Nagarkot, and Tribeni are contained in the collections of B. M. (N. H.). 4 The co-ordinates entered in the R. O. M. catalogue for the collection locality of ROM 31230 indicate a position 7 km. N. E. of central Kathmandu. Owing to the precision of the locality's description, which, it would seem reasonable to assume, preponderates, the co-ordinates shown in the Gazetteer represent a position 54 miles from Kathmandu on the main motor route to India, such locality lying just north of the town of Birganj. 5 The identification of USNM 290101 as R. rattus may be questionable for the reasons given in note 5 of Rattus tanezumi (p. 130). The catalogue of N. M. N. H. contains no supporting information. The specimen formed part of a collection made by R. Mack and H. Weaver in Nepal in 1948 – 49: Johnson et al. (1980) discussed that collection but did not mention USNM 290101. 6 It is not clear whether the record of R. rattoides from Langtang N. P. (see Green, 1981) refers to R. rattoides (Hodgson, 1845) (now R. pyctoris) or R. rattoides (Pictet & Pictet, 1844) (now R. rattus). The lack of certainty in this respect applies also to the record of Rattus rattoides from an unspecified locality in Nepal given in Worth & Shah (1969). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records — A. M. N. H. (all as R. brunneus): Kathmandu [District] (AMNH 239614 — AMNH 239617, AMNH 250030 — AMNH 250032). — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Mitchell (1975) (as R. r. brunneus and R. r. brunneusculus): Nepal (see note 1). — Musser & Carleton (2005): " through C. and S. Nepal (below about 2000 m) ". Note. — 1 The specimens from Bahwanipur, Darakhuti, Gokarna, Melumche, and Tarke Ghyang (FMNH 142242 — FMNH 142254) were collected by R. M. Mitchell. 2 The identity of specimens FMNH 94208 — FMNH 94210, FMNH 94213, FMNH 94214, FMNH 114183, FMNH 114184, and FMNH 114191 is questionable. The material may be referable to Rattus andamanensis rather than to R. tanezumi (G. Musser, pers. comm). On map 116, the collection localities of the specimens mentioned are indicated by a white dot to reflect the indeterminate status of the material. See note 5 to Rattus andamanensis (p. 125). 3 For an explanation of the asterisked specimens, please see note 5 to Hipposideros armiger (p. 32). 4 Hinton & Fry (1923) comment that brunneusculus is " confined to the elevated central valley of Nepal and the slopes of the surrounding mountains ". 5 The specimens from Chatra, Chisapani, Mangalbare, Rekcha, and Tikapur are identified in the catalogue of N. M. N. H. as Rattus rattus, although they are referred by Johnson et al. (1980) variously to the subspecies brunneusculus and gangutrianus. They are included here as representing R. tanezumi for the reason that gangutrianus and brunneusculus are accepted synonyms of that species (Musser & Carleton, 2005: 1490). 6 Johnson et al. (1980) indicate that the specimen from Tikapur is immature. The authors remark also that the specimens they collected were of the " white-bellied type ", which they refer to the western race, gangutrianus, rather than the " dark-bellied " rats of eastern Nepal (brunneusculus). They add, however, that this division is likely to be over-simplistic. Musser & Carleton (2005: 1490) indicate that (in India) sympatric populations of dark- and white-bellied Rattus rattus should not be treated as separate species as the dark-bellied form " is simply a phenotypic morph ... found in the same populations containing the white-bellied morph ". The same authors, referring to breeding experiments carried out on three subspecies of R. rattus by de L'Isle (1865), infer that colour polymorphism in a single species is not attributable to (intraspecific) geographic variation. 7 The measurements of USNM 533485 are given in Appendix II. 8 The current status of Gokarna Game Reserve is unclear. It appears that the area has undergone some development for the purposes of tourism and that the former reserve is inaccessible other than to hotel guests and to visitors using the golfing facilities now present on the land (www. planetware. com). For this reason, Gokarna Game Reserve is not treated here as one of Nepal's protected areas. I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Indomalayan Vandeleuria	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Biswas & Tiwari (1966): " from Kumaon [the eastern section of Uttarakhand State, India] east through Nepal ". — Hinton & Fry (1923) (as V. dumeticola): " Central and Northern Nepal " (see note 4). — Mitchell (1975) (as V. o. dumeticola and V. o. modesta): Nepal. — Musser & Carleton (2005): S. Nepal. Note. — 1 The citation is " dumecolus Hodgson, 1842 " and not " domecolus Hodgson, 1841 " as given in Musser & Carleton (2005: 1518). The publication date of Hodgson's 1842 catalogue is treated often as 1841 as it is the latter date that is imprinted on the work. 2 Mitchell & Derksen (1976) state that " this mouse inhabits scrub bush and bamboo thickets, and constructs an arboreal nest of grass and leaves ". The authors give brief details of head and body length, cranial characters, and coloration. 3 The specimen from Melumche (ROM 74653) is likely to be one of the nine specimens from that locality mentioned by Mitchell & Derksen (1976), as the collector is the first-named author. 4 Hinton & Fry (1923) cite Hodgson (no date is given for Hodgson's comments on distribution but it may be the 1842 paper listed in the synonymy above). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008. FAMILY HYSTRICIDAE	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Biswas & Tiwari (1966): " occurs in Nepal, eastward to Assam " (as H. hodgsoni). — Mitchell (1975) (as H. hodgsoni hodgsoni): Nepal. — Woods & Kilpatrick (2005): Nepal. Note. — 1 N. A. Baptista reports that he secured a single specimen of Acanthion hodgsoni during the course of his Nepalese collections for the Bombay Natural History Society's Mammal Survey and this is likely to be the specimen from Hathiban, which, it would seem, is retained in the collections of the Indian Museum (in Calcutta) (Hinton & Fry, 1923). 2 Hinton & Fry (1923) affirm that Acanthion hodgsoni was described by Gray based on two porcupines remitted to England from Nepal by B. H. Hodgson. Hinton & Fry state that Hodgson referred all specimens of Hystrix that he collected in Nepal to H. nipalensis, although the names of both Nepalese forms (nipalensis and leucurus, the latter being regarded now as a synonym of H. indica Kerr, 1792 (Woods & Kilpatrick, 2005 )), appear in Hodgson's Classified Catalogue of Mammals of Nepal (Hodgson, 1841 b: 220). Hodgson referred to the presence of Hystrix leucurus in Nepal as early as 1834 (Hodgson, 1834: 97). See " Non-specific records " under Hystrix indica, below (p. 132). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D54135FF75FF6AFD8BFE112843.taxon	description	Non-specific records. — Baillie (1996): Nepal. — Hinton & Fry (1923): Nepal (as Acanthion leucurus — see note 1). — Hodgson (1834) (as H. leucurus): " In the central and lower regions " (of Nepal) (see note 2). — Mitchell (1975) (as H. indica indica): Nepal. Note. — 1 Hinton & Fry (1923) refer to an adult female specimen, a drawing of which Hodgson sent back to England in 1837. See also note 1 to Hystrix brachyura (p. 132). 2 In his catalogue of Hodgson's material from Nepal and Tibet, Gray (1847 a) makes the following entry in relation to specimens of Hystrix leucurus remitted to the British Museum (Natural History) by B. H. Hodgson, who had noted the occurrence of the species " in the central and lower regions " (of Nepal) (Hodgson, 1834).: " a – c. Three specimens of different ages. d. A very young flat skin, brown. e, f. Two skulls. g. Bones of the body (without limbs) ... ". As Gray cites Hodgson's 1834 paper in respect of the material before him, it is probable that the specimens were secured in Nepal rather than Tibet and this is borne out by the presence of a label bearing the words " Nepal, B. H. Hodgson " attached to one of the skins of H. leucurus (BM 43.1.12.78) in the N. H. M. collections. The only material of H. leucurus that was remitted by B. H. Hodgson to the B. M. (N. H) and that remains in that institution's collections is the skin abovementioned (BM 43.1.12.78), its attendant skull (BM 47.7.22.8), and two further skulls, one evidently from a juvenile and one from a more mature animal (BM 46.11.8.11). In order to confirm the taxonomic identity of the specimens and, moreover, to establish that the material is representative of H. leucurus (= H. indica) and not H. brachyura, the above specimens were examined against the holotype of H. leucurus Sykes, 1831 (BM 42.8.6.6 — skin and skull). External, cranial, and dental measurements were taken of the material mentioned and these are presented in Table 5. Harrison & Bates (1991) list measurements of a number of H. indica from some of the more westerly parts of the species' range (Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and Yemen) and these measurements are replicated in Table 5 for the purposes of comparison. From Table 5, it can be seen that the measurements of Hodgson's specimen (BM 43.1.12.78) are notably inferior to those of the holotype and well beneath the range of external measurements listed in Harrison & Bates (1991). Other than the lengths of the palatal foramen and the upper toothrow, and the greatest width of the palate, the cranial and dental measurements of the accompanying skull (BM 47.7.22.8) are lower than those of the holotype but not inconsistent with the range of measurements of specimens from the Middle East and Arabia. Owing to the absence of comparative material of H. indica from Nepal, it cannot be ascertained whether the species averages smaller in the more elevated, north-eastern part of its range. It is likely that BM. 43.1.12.78 is simply an immature specimen and a junior member of the three specimens to which Gray (1847 a) refers. M: mandible length; PL: palatal length. Note — a. both incisors broken; b. left zygoma missing, right zygoma detached; c. left zygoma broken; d. ends of nasal bones partly eroded. Apart from the condylo-basal length and the width of the interorbital constriction, the measurements of BM 46.11.8.11 fall within the range of measurements of the more westerly specimens given in Harrison & Bates (1991) although they occupy, for the most part, the lower end of these values. Other than the difference in size mentioned above, Hodgson's skin of H. leucurus (BM 43.1.12.78) conforms closely with the type of the species (BM 42.8.6.6). Both specimens possess a strong crest of bristles: in BM 43.1.12.78 the crest commences on the forehead (where the length of bristles is some 70 mm.) and extends almost as far as the mid-point of the back (where the bristles are approximately 220 mm. in length). The presence of the long crest distinguishes the species from H. brachyura, in which a boldly defined crest of bristles is absent (Corbet & Hill, 1992). The recorded presence of H. indica " In the central and lower regions " of Nepal is confirmed accordingly. Caveat. — The record of H. indica from Langtang National Park cited in Green (1981) is based on visual observation. In the absence of the collection of actual specimens, some doubt must be cast on whether the animal observed was, in fact, H. indica and not H. brachyura, as the range of brachyura is more consistent with the occurrence of that species in northern Nepal. Woods & Kilpatrick (2005) include Nepal in the distribution of H. brachyura but not in that of H. indica. Langtang N. P. is indicated by a white dot on map 119 to highlight the uncertainty in the specific identification of the porcupine observed there but the species entry is retained in Table 6 to reflect the presence of the genus Hystrix in ecoregion PA 1003 (Eastern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadows). I. U. C. N. status. — Least concern (ver. 3.1, 2001) Year of assessment: 2008.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
BE3C87D541F1FF50FF6AF8DEFEFF2948.taxon	description	Murina aurata & Murina leucogaster The publication that is cited usually as containing the original description of Murina aurata (on p. 250 thereof) and of Murina leucogaster (on p. 252 thereof) is: Milne-Edwards, A. 1872. Memoire sur la faune mammalogique du Tibet oriental. 231 – 305. In: Recherches pour servir à l'histoire naturelle des Mammifères. Paris: Masson. 1868 – 74. 394 pp; 105 pls. (see Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951: 184, 185; Corbet & Hill, 1992: 149; Simmons, 2005: 523, 524). The first published descriptions, however, of both taxa (although they are briefer accounts than those contained in the publication mentioned above), appear on p. 91 of the following work: Milne-Edwards, A. 1872. Description of mammals — footnotes. Pp. 91 - 93. In: David, A. Rapport adressé à MM. les professeurs-administrateurs du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle. Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris.	en	Pearch, Malcolm J. (2011): A review of the biological diversity and distribution of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected areas of Nepal 3072. Zootaxa 3072 (1): 1-286, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3072.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3072.1.1
