http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom	http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/format	name_CH1_1980	name_MSW1_1982	name_CH3_1991	name_MSW2_1993	name_Koopman_1994	name_MSW3_2005	name_HMW_2019	name_BatNames_2022	name_MDD_2022	name_IUCN_2022	name_BatNames_2023	name_MDD_2023	name_MDD_2025_2.0	name_batnames_2025_1.7	name_MDD_2025_2.2	column151	taxonomic_notes_concatenated	column171	synonyms_CH1	subspecies__MSW2	synonyms__MSW1	synonyms_CH3	synonyms_MSW2	subspecies_Koopman94_interpreted	subspecies_MSW3_interpreted	synonym_MSW3_interpreted	subspecies_HMW_interpreted	synonym_HMW_interpreted	subspecies_batnames_interpreted	synonym_batnames_interpreted	synonym_MDD_interpreted	synonym_IUCN_interpreted	subspecies_batnames2023_interpreted	synonym_batnames2023_interpreted	synonym_MDD2023_interpreted	synonym_MDD2025_interpreted	subspecies_batnames2025_interpreted	synonyms_batnames2025_interpreted	nominalNames	column391	docOrigin_CH1	commonName_CH1	distribution_CH1	docOrigin_MSW1	column451	typeLocality_MSW1	authority_MSW1	year_MSW1	citation_MSW1	distribution	comment_MSW1	docOrigin_CH3	commonName_CH3	distribution_CH3	docOrigin_MSW2	authority_MSW2	year_MSW2	citation_MSW2	comments_MSW2	distribution_MSW2	typeLocality_MSW2	docOrigin_Koopman94	authority_Koopman94	year_Koopman94	description_Koopman94	distribution_Koopman94	diversity_Koopman94	subspecies_Koopman94	page	rank	name	authority	year	parent	parent_rank	corrected_name	actual_species_count	claimed_species_count	dental_formula	description	diversity	full_subspecies_text	name_line	species_index	subspecies	synonym	text	docOrigin_MSW3	order_MSW3	family_MSW3	subfamily_MSW3	tribe_MSW3	name_MSW3	genus_MSW3	subgenus_MSW3	species_MSW3	authoritySpeciesAuthor_MSW3	(parentheses (1=author & date in parentheses)_MSW3	authoritySpeciesYear_MSW3	actualDate_MSW3	citation_MSW3	volume_MSW3	issue_MSW3	pages_MSW3	type_species_MSW3	commonName_MSW3	typeLocality_MSW3	distribution_MSW3	status_MSW3	synonym_MSW3	comments_MSW3	docId_HMW	docOrigin_HMW	docISBN_HMW	docName_HMW	docMasterId_HMW	docPageNumber_HMW	derivedFrom_HMW	name_HMW	family_HMW	genus_HMW	species_HMW	authoritySpeciesAuthor_HMW	authoritySpeciesYear	commonNames_HMW	taxonomy_HMW	subspeciesAndDistribution_HMW	descriptiveNotes_HMW	habitat_HMW	foodAndFeeding_HMW	breeding_HMW	activityPatterns_HMW	movementsHomeRangeAndSocialOrganization_HMW	statusAndConservation_HMW	bibliography_HMW	distributionImageURL_HMW	verbatimText_HMW	docOrigin_batnames	family_batnames	name_batnames	genus_batnames	subgenus_batnames	species_batnames	authoritySpeciesAuthor_batnames	date_batnames	parentheses_batnames (1=author & date in parentheses)	citation_batnames	docPageNumber_batnames	common Name_batnames	synonyms_batnames	type_locality_batnames	Distribution_batnames	CITES_batnames	IUCN_batnames	comments_batnames	docOrigin_MDD	name_MDD	phylosort_MDD	mainCommonName_MDD	otherCommonNames_MDD	subclass_MDD	infraclass_MDD	magnorder_MDD	superorder_MDD	order_MDD	suborder_MDD	infraorder_MDD	parvorder_MDD	superfamily_MDD	family_MDD	subfamily_MDD	tribe_MDD	genus_MDD	subgenus_MDD	specificEpithet_MDD	authoritySpeciesAuthor_MDD	authoritySpeciesYear_MDD	authorityParentheses_MDD	originalNameCombination_MDD	authoritySpeciesCitation_MDD	authoritySpeciesLink_MDD	holotypeVoucher_MDD	holotypeVoucherURIs_MDD	typeLocality_MDD	typeLocalityLatitude_MDD	typeLocalityLongitude_MDD	nominalNames_MDD	taxonomyNotes_MDD	taxonomyNotesCitation_MDD	countryDistribution_MDD	continentDistribution_MDD	biogeographicRealm_MDD	iucnStatus_MDD	extinct_MDD	domestic_MDD	flagged_MDD	CMW_sciName_MDD	diffSinceCMW_MDD	MSW3_matchtype_MDD	MSW3_sciName_MDD	diffSinceMSW3_MDD	docOrigin_IUCN	internalTaxonId_IUCN	NAME_IUCN	kingdomName_IUCN	phylumName_IUCN	className_IUCN	orderName_IUCN	familyName_IUCN	genusName_IUCN	speciesName_IUCN	authoritySpeciesAuthorYear_IUCN	taxonomicNotes_IUCN	assessmentId_IUCN	scientificName_IUCN	redlistCategory_IUCN	redlistCriteria_IUCN	yearPublished_IUCN	assessmentDate_IUCN	criteriaVersion_IUCN	language_IUCN	rationale_IUCN	habitat_IUCN	threats_IUCN	population_IUCN	populationTrend_IUCN	range_IUCN	useTrade_IUCN	systems_IUCN	conservationActions_IUCN	realm_IUCN	yearLastSeen_IUCN	possiblyExtinct_IUCN	possiblyExtinctInTheWild_IUCN	scopes_IUCN	docOrigin_batnames2023	FAMILY_batnames2023	GENUS_batnames2023	SUBGENUS_batnames2023	SPECIES_batnames2023	authoritySpeciesAuthor_batnames2023	authoritySpeciesYearbatnames2023	PARENTHESES_batnames2023 (1=AUTHOR & DATE IN PARENTHESES)	CITATION_batnames2023	PAGES_batnames2023	COMMON NAME_batnames2023	SYNONYMS_batnames2023	TYPE LOCALITY_batnames2023	DISTRIBUTION_batnames2023	CITES_batnames2023	IUCN_batnames2023	COMMENTS_batnames2023	name MDD2023	id_MDD2023	phylosort_MDD2023	mainCommonName_MDD2023	otherCommonNames_MDD2023	subclass_MDD2023	infraclass_MDD2023	magnorder_MDD2023	superorder_MDD2023	order_MDD2023	suborder_MDD2023	infraorder_MDD2023	parvorder_MDD2023	superfamily_MDD2023	Family_mdd2023	subfamily_MDD2023	tribe_MDD2023	genus_MDD2023	subgenus_MDD2023	specificEpithet_MDD2023	authoritySpeciesAuthor_MDD2023	authoritySpeciesYear_MDD2023	authorityParentheses_MDD2023	originalNameCombination_MDD2023	authoritySpeciesCitation_MDD2023	authoritySpeciesLink_MDD2023	holotypeVoucher_MDD2023	holotypeVoucherURIs_MDD2023	typeLocality_MDD2023	typeLocalityLatitude_MDD2023	typeLocalityLongitude_MDD2023	nominalNames_MDD2023	taxonomyNotes_MDD2023	taxonomyNotesCitation_MDD2023	distributionNotes_MDD2023	distributionNotesCitation_MDD2023	subregionDistribution_MDD2023	countryDistribution_MDD2023	continentDistribution_MDD2023	biogeographicRealm_MDD2023	iucnStatus_MDD2023	extinct_MDD2023	domestic_MDD2023	flagged_MDD2023	CMW_sciName_MDD2023	diffSinceCMW_MDD2023	MSW3_matchtype_MDD2023	MSW3_sciName_MDD2023	diffSinceMSW3_MDD2023	docOrigin_MDD2025	sciName	id	phylosort	mainCommonName	otherCommonNames	subclass	infraclass	magnorder	superorder	order	suborder	infraorder	parvorder	superfamily	family	subfamily	tribe	genus	subgenus	specificEpithet	authoritySpeciesAuthor	authorityParentheses	originalNameCombination	authoritySpeciesCitation	authoritySpeciesLink	typeVoucher	typeKind	typeVoucherURIs	typeLocality	typeLocalityLatitude	typeLocalityLongitude	taxonomyNotes	taxonomyNotesCitation	distributionNotes	distributionNotesCitation	subregionDistribution	countryDistribution	continentDistribution	biogeographicRealm	iucnStatus	extinct	domestic	flagged	CMW_sciName	diffSinceCMW	MSW3_matchtype	MSW3_sciName	diffSinceMSW3	docOrigin_batnames2025	Family	Genus	Subgenus	Species	Author	Date	Parentheses (1=author & date in parentheses)	Citation	Pages	Common Name	Synonyms	Type Locality	Distribution	CITES	IUCN	Comments	column3781	column3791	subtribe	CONCAT_ALTNAMES
line:xlsx:hash://sha256/181a039844a33e66a35a457b7ece741051086608e425a040051b79581d606b97!/Sheet1!/L1393	application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus lepidus		[MSW2] Includes/eae, monticola, and refulgens; see Hill and Yoshiyuki (1980:180, 186); but also see Sinha (1973:620-621) who considered monticola a distinct species.; [MSW3] pusillus species group. Includes feae, monticola, and refulgens; see Hill and Yoshiyuki (1980) and Corbet and Hill (1992). Does not include osgoodi or shortridgei; see Csorba et al. (2003), although also see Corbet and Hill (1992). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997).; [HMW] Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth , 1844 , “ probably in the vicinity of Calcutta ,” West Bengal , India . Rhinolophus lepidus is included in the pusillus species group, and appears to be sister to a clade including R. comutus , R. pumilus, R.perditus , R. monticolus , R. shortridgei , R. pusillus , R. refulgens , and R. cf. lepidus from South-east Asia, which makes the species basal to much of the pusillus species group. As currendy defined, R. lepidus probably represents a species complex. The Central Asian specimens originally misidentified as R. hipposideros in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan were mentioned under the new name R. kirgisorum (or variously as R. aff. lepidus ) by I. Horaòcek and colleagues in 2000, and were thought probably to represent a new species. There was no description given to the name, so it is a nomen nudum. Subsequent comparison by P. Benda and J. Gaisler in 2015 indicated that the specimens from these regions are similar to specimens in Afghanistan , suggesting that they should be included within the race monticola . Race monticola may represent a species distinct from the South Asian and South-east Asian taxa, pending further genetic and morphological studies. Distributional limits between the subspecies are not well defined. The juvenile type specimen of monticola may have a mismatched skull, as the specimen’s external measurements are within the range of R.pusillus whereas the skull is typical of lepidus . Three subspecies are currently recognized.; [batnames2022]  pusillus species group. Does not include refulgent ; see Soisook et al. (2016). Includes feae,  monticola, ; see Hill and Yoshiyuki (1980) and Corbet and Hill (1992).Does not include osgoodi or shortridgei; see Csorba et al. (2003), although also see Corbet and Hill (1992). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997).; [MDD2022] previously included R. refulgens; [IUCN] This species belongs to pusillus species group. Earlier considered a distinct species (Ellerman and Morrison-Scott 1951, Sinha 1973), the taxon monticola Andersen, 1905, is now treated as subspecies of Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, 1844 (Hill and Yoshiyuki 1980, Das 1986, Koopman 1993, Bates and Harrison 1997, Simmons 2005, Srinivasulu and Srinivasulu 2012). The taxon shortridgei K. Andersen, 1918, was earlier considered subspecies of Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, 1844 (Hill and Yoshiyuki 1980, Sinha 1980) is now considered a distinct species (Csorba 2002, Csorba et al. 2003, Simmons 2005). The taxon refulgens Andersen, 1905 representing Peninsular Malaysian populations is considered as a valid subspecies of Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, 1844 (Simmons 2005).; [batnames2023]  pusillus species group. Does not include refulgent ; see Soisook et al. (2016). Includes feae,  monticola, ; see Hill and Yoshiyuki (1980) and Corbet and Hill (1992).Does not include osgoodi or shortridgei; see Csorba et al. (2003), although also see Corbet and Hill (1992). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997).; [MDD2023] previously included R. refulgens; [MDD2025_2.0] previously included R. refulgens; [batnames2025_1.7] pusillusspecies group. Does not include refulgent; see Soisook et al. (2016). Includes feae, monticola,; see Hill and Yoshiyuki (1980) and Corbet and Hill (1992).Does not include osgoodi or shortridgei; see Csorba et al. (2003), although also see Corbet and Hill (1992). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997).; [MDD2025_2.2] previously included R. refulgens				monticola, reftilgens	(refulgens) (feae) (osgoodi)	cuneatus, feae, monticola, refulgens, shortridgei.	monticola, lepidus, feae, refulgens, cuneatus, shortridgei	lepidus, cuneatus, feae, monticola, refulgens		lepidus, feae, monticola		lepidus, cuneatus, feae, monticola		lepidus, monticola, feae, cuneatus	This species belongs to pusillus species group. Earlier considered a distinct species (Ellerman and Morrison-Scott 1951, Sinha 1973), the taxon monticola Andersen, 1905, is now treated as subspecies of Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, 1844 (Hill and Yoshiyuki 1980, Das 1986, Koopman 1993, Bates and Harrison 1997, Simmons 2005, Srinivasulu and Srinivasulu 2012). The taxon shortridgei K. Andersen, 1918, was earlier considered subspecies of Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, 1844 (Hill and Yoshiyuki 1980, Sinha 1980) is now considered a distinct species (Csorba 2002, Csorba et al. 2003, Simmons 2005). The taxon refulgens Andersen, 1905 representing Peninsular Malaysian populations is considered as a valid subspecies of Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, 1844 (Simmons 2005).	lepidus, cuneatus, feae, monticola		lepidus, monticola, feae, cuneatus	lepidus, monticola, feae	cuneatus, feae, lepidus, monticola		lepidus E. Blyth, 1844|monticola Andersen, 1905|feae Andersen, 1907		Corbet, G.B. and Hill, J.E. 1980. A World List of Mammalian Species. British Museum (Natural History), London, 226 pp.		Afghanistan – S China, Thailand	Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. and Koeppl, J.W. 1982. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Allen Press, Lawrence, 694 pp.	Rhinolophus lepidus	India, Bengal, Calcutta (uncertain).	Blyth	1844	J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 13:486.	Distribution: Ranging from Afghanistan through northern In dia and Burma to western China, south through Thailand and Malaya to Sumatra.		Corbet, G.B. and Hill, J.E. 1991. A World List of Mammalian Species. Third edition. Oxford University Press, London, 243 pp. ISBN 0-19-854017-5	Blyth's horseshoe bat	Afghanistan – S China – Sumatra; ref. 4.31	Koopman, K.F. 1993. Order Chiroptera. Pp. 137–242 in Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 1206 pp.	Blyth	1844	J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 13:486.	Includes/eae, monticola, and refulgens; see Hill and Yoshiyuki (1980:180, 186); but also see Sinha (1973:620-621) who considered monticola a distinct species.	Afghanistan, N India, Burma, Thailand, Szechwan and Yunnan (China), W Malaysia, Sumatra.	India, Bengal, Calcutta (uncertain).		BLYTH	1844	Con necting process triangular in profile. Lancet extre mely hastate. Size medium (forearm length, 37-43 mm) with relatively large skull (condyloca nine length, 14-17 mm; maxillary tooth row length 6.0-7.1 mm; rostral width, 4.4-5.0 mm). Median rostral swellings enlarged.	Distribution: Ranging from Afghanistan through northern In dia and Burma to western China, south through Thailand and Malaya to Sumatra.	Six subspe cies are currently recognized:	R. l. monticola (Afghanistan and northwestern India), R. l. lepidus (central and northeastern India), R. I. shortridgei (northern Burma and perhaps western China), R. I. feae (southern Burma, northern Thailand), R. I. refulgens (Ma lay peninsula), R. I. cuneatus (Sumatra).	55	species	R. lepidus	BLYTH	1844	Rhinolophus	genus	Rhinolophus lepidus				Con necting process triangular in profile. Lancet extre mely hastate. Size medium (forearm length, 37-43 mm) with relatively large skull (condyloca nine length, 14-17 mm; maxillary tooth row length 6.0-7.1 mm; rostral width, 4.4-5.0 mm). Median rostral swellings enlarged.	Six subspe cies are currently recognized:		29. R. lepidus BLYTH 1844 [pusillus group],	29	_R. l. feae_ Andersen, 1907; _R. l. lepidus_ Blyth, 1844; _R. l. monticola_ Andersen, 1905			Don E. Wilson & DeeAnn M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, 2,142 pp. (Available from Johns Hopkins University Press, 1-800-537-5487 or (410) 516-6900, or at http://www.press.jhu.edu).	CHIROPTERA	Rhinolophidae			Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus		lepidus	Blyth		1844		J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal	13		486		Blyth's Horseshoe Bat	India, Bengal, Calcutta (uncertain); see Das (1986).	Afghanistan, Pakistan, N India, Nepal, Burma, Thailand, Szechwan and Yunnan (China), Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra (Indonesia).	IUCN 2003 and IUCN/SSC Action Plan (2001) – Lower Risk (lc).	cuneatus K. Andersen, 1918; feae K. Andersen, 1907; monticola K. Andersen, 1905; refulgens K. Andersen, 1905.	pusillus species group. Includes feae, monticola, and refulgens; see Hill and Yoshiyuki (1980) and Corbet and Hill (1992). Does not include osgoodi or shortridgei; see Csorba et al. (2003), although also see Corbet and Hill (1992). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997).	885887A2FFCB8A2CF8A7F335F960D67E	Handbook of the Mammals of the World – Volume 9 Bats, Barcelona: Lynx Edicions	978-84-16728-19-0	hbmw_9_Rhinolophidae.pdf.imf	hash://md5/7461ffdaffcf8a29ffccffa1ff85d963	315	zip:hash://sha256/ec5fd314a06aba1a7b0b72f23e54ac625ae272bd98f82f1d01f4c09627d9e8e0!/treatments-xml-main/data/88/58/87/885887A2FFEB8A0DFF50FEFDF47DD0CA.xml	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophidae	Rhinolophus	lepidus	Blyth	1844	Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat @en | Rhinolophe de Blyth @fr | Blyth-Hufeisennase @de | Herradura de Blyth @es	Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth , 1844 , “ probably in the vicinity of Calcutta ,” West Bengal , India . Rhinolophus lepidus is included in the pusillus species group, and appears to be sister to a clade including R. comutus , R. pumilus, R.perditus , R. monticolus , R. shortridgei , R. pusillus , R. refulgens , and R. cf. lepidus from South-east Asia, which makes the species basal to much of the pusillus species group. As currendy defined, R. lepidus probably represents a species complex. The Central Asian specimens originally misidentified as R. hipposideros in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan were mentioned under the new name R. kirgisorum (or variously as R. aff. lepidus ) by I. Horaòcek and colleagues in 2000, and were thought probably to represent a new species. There was no description given to the name, so it is a nomen nudum. Subsequent comparison by P. Benda and J. Gaisler in 2015 indicated that the specimens from these regions are similar to specimens in Afghanistan , suggesting that they should be included within the race monticola . Race monticola may represent a species distinct from the South Asian and South-east Asian taxa, pending further genetic and morphological studies. Distributional limits between the subspecies are not well defined. The juvenile type specimen of monticola may have a mismatched skull, as the specimen’s external measurements are within the range of R.pusillus whereas the skull is typical of lepidus . Three subspecies are currently recognized.	. l. lepidus Blyth, 1844 - most of India and Bangladesh ; possibly in Bhutan . R..l. feae K. Andersen, 1907 — Myanmar , S China ( Yunnan ), N Thailand , SW Cambodia , and S Vietnam (possibly more widespread across Vietnam ) including Con Son and Phu Quoc Is. . l. monticola K Andersen, 1905 - SE Uzbekistan , SW Kyrgyzstan , Afghanistan ( Faryab , Kabul , Nangarhar , Parwan , and Zabul provinces), N Pakistan ( Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab provinces ), NW India ( Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand ), and Nepal .	Head—body 33- 5—54 mm , tail 13- 3—26 mm , ear 11-20- 6 mm , hindfoot 5-5-10- 5 mm , forearm 37-42- 9 mm ; weight 3-7-8- 2 g . Dorsal pelage varies between wood brown and cinnamon (hairs with drab bases with paler tip, giving fur glossy appearance), whereas ventral pelage is wood brown or drab. Ears are small or medium-sized. Noseleaf has strongly concave-sided lancet (may be almost parallel-sided in some individuals) and has either a rounded or pointed tip; connecting process is pointed triangle; sella is narrow and usually parallel-sided; horseshoe is relatively wide ( 6-8 mm ) and does not cover the whole muzzle, has wide median emargination, and secondary leaflets are present. Lower lip has three mental grooves. Baculum is elongate, with dorsal bend near the basal cone and ventral bend near base, which is deeply bifurcated with depression on the ventral margin; tip is knobbed and wider in dorsal view, and shaft is cylindrical. Skull is small and robust (zygomatic width is usually subequal to, or sometimes slightiy larger than, mastoid width); anterior median swellings are small and subcircular; posterior swellings are relatively inflated; rostral profile is slightly sloped backwards or occasionally nearly straight; sagittal crest is moderately strong but weakened posteriorly ; frontal depression is shallow to nearly straight; supraorbital ridges are low. C1 is well developed, usually greatly exceeding height of P4; P2 has distinct and generally well-developed cusp and is within tooth row; P3 is variably within or extruded from tooth row; P2 and P4 are in contact ifP3 is external. Chromosomal complement has 2n = 62 and FNa = 60 (southern India and Kyrgyzstan ).	Both dry and moist forest and fringe areas, as well as some desert regions in Central Asia. Recorded at elevations of 100-2338 m .	Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat appears to forage among vegetation and has been observed both aerial-hawking and gleaning prey off offoliage. It is a low, maneuverable flier. Known to feed on Lepidoptera, Coleoptera , Diptera , and Hymenoptera .	Females give birth to a single young in early May, in Maharashtra .	Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat roosts by day in caves, unused tunnels, old and ruined buildings, and old temples, and forages during the night. Search call shape is FM/CF/FM with a peak F recorded at 93-2-96-8 kHz and durations of 16-8-42-4 milliseconds in southern India . Peak frequency was reported as 104—105 kHz in another study in southern India and 103 kHz in South-east Asia.	Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat generally roosts in colonies ranging from a few individuals scattered within the roost or in compact clusters of a dozen or so, to several hundred individuals, some ofwhich may roost solitarily. Males and females roost together in mixed colonies. They reportedly urinate on intruders to deter them from disturbing their roosts.	Classified as Least Concern on The IUCN ed List. Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat is generally widespread and does not seem to have any major threats affecting it as a whole. However, in parts of its Indian range, it is threatened by roost disturbance due to conversion of old forts into hotels as part of tourist-related development activities.	Abramov et al. (2007) | Bates & Harrison (1997) | Benda & Gaisler (2015) | Benda, Hanak (2011) | Bumrungsri, Francis & Csorba (2008) | Csorba et al. (2003) | Das (1986a) | Dejtaradol (2009) | rancis (2008a) | Horâcek et al. (2000) | Koublnova et al. (2010) | Kruskop (2013a) | Raghuram et al. (2014) | Salim et al. (2017) | Shahbaz et al. (2014) | Sinha (1973) | Smith &XieYan (2008) | Soisook et al. (2016)	https://zenodo.org/record/3750056/files/figure.png	74 . Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus lepidus French: Rhinolophe de Blyth / German: Blyth-Hufeisennase / Spanish: Herradura de Blyth Taxonomy. Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth , 1844 , “ probably in the vicinity of Calcutta ,” West Bengal , India . Rhinolophus lepidus is included in the pusillus species group, and appears to be sister to a clade including R. comutus , R. pumilus, R.perditus , R. monticolus , R. shortridgei , R. pusillus , R. refulgens , and R. cf. lepidus from South-east Asia, which makes the species basal to much of the pusillus species group. As currendy defined, R. lepidus probably represents a species complex. The Central Asian specimens originally misidentified as R. hipposideros in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan were mentioned under the new name R. kirgisorum (or variously as R. aff. lepidus ) by I. Horaòcek and colleagues in 2000, and were thought probably to represent a new species. There was no description given to the name, so it is a nomen nudum. Subsequent comparison by P. Benda and J. Gaisler in 2015 indicated that the specimens from these regions are similar to specimens in Afghanistan , suggesting that they should be included within the race monticola . Race monticola may represent a species distinct from the South Asian and South-east Asian taxa, pending further genetic and morphological studies. Distributional limits between the subspecies are not well defined. The juvenile type specimen of monticola may have a mismatched skull, as the specimen’s external measurements are within the range of R.pusillus whereas the skull is typical of lepidus . Three subspecies are currently recognized. Subspecies and Distribution. . l. lepidus Blyth, 1844 - most of India and Bangladesh ; possibly in Bhutan . R..l. feae K. Andersen, 1907 — Myanmar , S China ( Yunnan ), N Thailand , SW Cambodia , and S Vietnam (possibly more widespread across Vietnam ) including Con Son and Phu Quoc Is. . l. monticola K Andersen, 1905 - SE Uzbekistan , SW Kyrgyzstan , Afghanistan ( Faryab , Kabul , Nangarhar , Parwan , and Zabul provinces), N Pakistan ( Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab provinces ), NW India ( Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand ), and Nepal . Descriptive notes. Head—body 33- 5—54 mm , tail 13- 3—26 mm , ear 11-20- 6 mm , hindfoot 5-5-10- 5 mm , forearm 37-42- 9 mm ; weight 3-7-8- 2 g . Dorsal pelage varies between wood brown and cinnamon (hairs with drab bases with paler tip, giving fur glossy appearance), whereas ventral pelage is wood brown or drab. Ears are small or medium-sized. Noseleaf has strongly concave-sided lancet (may be almost parallel-sided in some individuals) and has either a rounded or pointed tip; connecting process is pointed triangle; sella is narrow and usually parallel-sided; horseshoe is relatively wide ( 6-8 mm ) and does not cover the whole muzzle, has wide median emargination, and secondary leaflets are present. Lower lip has three mental grooves. Baculum is elongate, with dorsal bend near the basal cone and ventral bend near base, which is deeply bifurcated with depression on the ventral margin; tip is knobbed and wider in dorsal view, and shaft is cylindrical. Skull is small and robust (zygomatic width is usually subequal to, or sometimes slightiy larger than, mastoid width); anterior median swellings are small and subcircular; posterior swellings are relatively inflated; rostral profile is slightly sloped backwards or occasionally nearly straight; sagittal crest is moderately strong but weakened posteriorly ; frontal depression is shallow to nearly straight; supraorbital ridges are low. C1 is well developed, usually greatly exceeding height of P4; P2 has distinct and generally well-developed cusp and is within tooth row; P3 is variably within or extruded from tooth row; P2 and P4 are in contact ifP3 is external. Chromosomal complement has 2n = 62 and FNa = 60 (southern India and Kyrgyzstan ). Habitat. Both dry and moist forest and fringe areas, as well as some desert regions in Central Asia. Recorded at elevations of 100-2338 m . Food and Feeding. Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat appears to forage among vegetation and has been observed both aerial-hawking and gleaning prey off offoliage. It is a low, maneuverable flier. Known to feed on Lepidoptera, Coleoptera , Diptera , and Hymenoptera . Breeding. Females give birth to a single young in early May, in Maharashtra . Activity patterns. Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat roosts by day in caves, unused tunnels, old and ruined buildings, and old temples, and forages during the night. Search call shape is FM/CF/FM with a peak F recorded at 93-2-96-8 kHz and durations of 16-8-42-4 milliseconds in southern India . Peak frequency was reported as 104—105 kHz in another study in southern India and 103 kHz in South-east Asia. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat generally roosts in colonies ranging from a few individuals scattered within the roost or in compact clusters of a dozen or so, to several hundred individuals, some ofwhich may roost solitarily. Males and females roost together in mixed colonies. They reportedly urinate on intruders to deter them from disturbing their roosts. Status and Conservation. Classified as Least Concern on The IUCN ed List. Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat is generally widespread and does not seem to have any major threats affecting it as a whole. However, in parts of its Indian range, it is threatened by roost disturbance due to conversion of old forts into hotels as part of tourist-related development activities. Bibliography. Abramov eta/. (2007), Bates & Harrison (1997), Benda & Gaisler (2015), Benda, Hanak (2011), Bumrungsri, Francis & Csorba (2008), Csorba eta/. (2003), Das (1986a), Dejtaradol (2009), rancis (2008a), Horâcek eta/. (2000), Koublnova eta/. (2010), Kruskop (2013a), Raghuram eta /. (2014), Salim et al. (2017), Shahbaz et al. (2014), Sinha (1973), Smith &XieYan (2008), Soisook eta/. (2016).	Simmons, N.B. and A.L. Cirranello. 2022B. Bat Species of the World: A taxonomic and geographic database. Accessed on 10/11/2022.	Rhinolophidae	Rhinolophus lepidus	Rhinolophus		lepidus	Blyth	1844	0	J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal	0.8792	Blyth's Horseshoe Bat	<b> cuneatus </b>K. Andersen, 1918;<b> feae </b>K. Andersen, 1907;<b> monticola </b>K. Andersen, 1905	India, Bengal, Calcutta (uncertain); see Das (1986).	Afghanistan, Pakistan, N India, Nepal, Burma, Thailand, S China, Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra (Indonesia).	Not listed.	Least Concern	 pusillus species group. Does not include refulgent ; see Soisook et al. (2016). Includes feae,  monticola, ; see Hill and Yoshiyuki (1980) and Corbet and Hill (1992).Does not include osgoodi or shortridgei; see Csorba et al. (2003), although also see Corbet and Hill (1992). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997).	Mammal Diversity Database. (2023). Mammal Diversity Database (Version 1.11) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7830771 released 15 April 2023	Rhinolophus lepidus	23	Blyth's Horseshoe Bat		Theria	Placentalia	Boreoeutheria	Laurasiatheria	CHIROPTERA	PTEROPODIFORMES	NA	NA	RHINOLOPHOIDEA	RHINOLOPHIDAE	NA	NA	Rhinolophus	NA	lepidus	Blyth	1844	0						"probably in the vicinity of Calcutta," West Bengal, India.			lepidus Blyth, 1844|monticola K. Andersen, 1905|feae K. Andersen, 1907|cuneatus K. Andersen, 1918	previously included R. refulgens	Soisook, P., Karapan, S., Srikrachang, M., Dejtaradol, A., Nualcharoen, K., Bumrungsri, S., ... & BuÅ›, M. M. (2016). Hill forest dweller: a new cryptic species of Rhinolophus in the'pusillus group'(Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae) from Thailand and Lao PDR. Acta Chiropterologica, 18(1), 117-139.	Uzbekistan|Kyrgyzstan|Afghanistan|Pakistan|India|Nepal|Bhutan?|Bangladesh|Myanmar|China|Thailand|Cambodia|Vietnam	Asia	Indomalaya|Palearctic	LC	0	0	0	Rhinolophus_lepidus	0	sciname match	Rhinolophus_lepidus	0	IUCN. 2022. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on [28 September, 2022].	19547	Rhinolophus lepidus	ANIMALIA	CHORDATA	MAMMALIA	CHIROPTERA	RHINOLOPHIDAE	Rhinolophus	lepidus	Blyth, 1844	This species belongs to pusillus species group. Earlier considered a distinct species (Ellerman and Morrison-Scott 1951, Sinha 1973), the taxon monticola Andersen, 1905, is now treated as subspecies of Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, 1844 (Hill and Yoshiyuki 1980, Das 1986, Koopman 1993, Bates and Harrison 1997, Simmons 2005, Srinivasulu and Srinivasulu 2012). The taxon shortridgei K. Andersen, 1918, was earlier considered subspecies of Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, 1844 (Hill and Yoshiyuki 1980, Sinha 1980) is now considered a distinct species (Csorba 2002, Csorba et al. 2003, Simmons 2005). The taxon refulgens Andersen, 1905 representing Peninsular Malaysian populations is considered as a valid subspecies of Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, 1844 (Simmons 2005).	20000000	Rhinolophus lepidus	Least Concern		2019	2018-08-31 00:00:00 UTC	3.1	English	Confirmed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, presumed large population, it occurs in a number of protected areas, and because it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category.	This species can be found in both dry and moist forest and fringe areas (C. Srinivaulu pers. obs. 2016). In Malaysia and Thailand it appears to be associated with intact lowland tropical moist forest. Roosts include caves, unused tunnels, old and ruined buildings, old temples, tree hollows. Its flight is slow and low and feeds on lepidopterans, coleopterans, dipterans, hymenopterans (Bates and Harrison 1997). In cave systems in Karnataka, India this species was observed to cohabit with R. beddomei (Bhargavi Srinivasulu and Chelmala Srinivasulu, pers. obs. 2017).	In general there are no major threats to this species as a whole.	It is locally common throughout much of its range.	Unknown	This species is very widespread in South Asia and Southeast Asia. In South Asia the species is known from Afghanistan (Faryab, Kabul, Nangarhar, Parwan and Zabol provinces) (Bates and Harrison 1997, Csorba et al. 2003, Benda and Gaisler 2015), Bangladesh (Chittagong, Dhaka, Khulna, Sylhet and Rajsahi divisions), India (Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal), Nepal (Central and Eastern Nepal) and Pakistan (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab) (Roberts 1997, Nadeem et al. 2013, Shahbaz et al. 2014). In Southeast Asia, it has been recorded from Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Peninsular Malaysia, and Indonesia - Sumatra (Simmons 2005, Dejtaradol 2009). In South Asia, it has been recorded from wide range of elevations.		Terrestrial	There are no direct conservation measures in place in South Asia. It is reported from Ranthambore National Park in Rajasthan, Karnala Bird Sanctuary in Maharashtra, Satpura National Park in Madhya Pradesh (Molur et al. 2002), and Amrabad Tiger Reserve in Telangana (C. Srinivasulu, pers. obs.). In Southeast Asia it occurs in a number of protected areas.	Indomalayan		FALSE	FALSE	Global	Simmons, N. B., & Cirranello, A. L. (2023). Batnames.org Species List Version 1.4 (1.4). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8136157 	Rhinolophidae	Rhinolophus		lepidus	Blyth	1844	0	J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal	21:06:00	Blyth's Horseshoe Bat	<b> cuneatus </b>K. Andersen, 1918;<b> feae </b>K. Andersen, 1907;<b> monticola </b>K. Andersen, 1905	India, Bengal, Calcutta (uncertain); see Das (1986).	Afghanistan, Pakistan, N India, Nepal, Burma, Thailand, S China, Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra (Indonesia).	Not listed.	Least Concern	 pusillus species group. Does not include refulgent ; see Soisook et al. (2016). Includes feae,  monticola, ; see Hill and Yoshiyuki (1980) and Corbet and Hill (1992).Does not include osgoodi or shortridgei; see Csorba et al. (2003), although also see Corbet and Hill (1992). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997).	Rhinolophus lepidus	1004700	23	Blyth's Horseshoe Bat		Theria	Placentalia	Boreoeutheria	Laurasiatheria	CHIROPTERA	PTEROPODIFORMES	NA	NA	RHINOLOPHOIDEA	Rhinolophidae	NA	NA	Rhinolophus	NA	lepidus	Blyth	1844	0						"probably in the vicinity of Calcutta," West Bengal, India.			lepidus Blyth, 1844|monticola K. Andersen, 1905|feae K. Andersen, 1907|cuneatus K. Andersen, 1918	previously included R. refulgens	Soisook, P., Karapan, S., Srikrachang, M., Dejtaradol, A., Nualcharoen, K., Bumrungsri, S., ... & BuÅ›, M. M. (2016). Hill forest dweller: a new cryptic species of Rhinolophus in the'pusillus group'(Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae) from Thailand and Lao PDR. Acta Chiropterologica, 18(1), 117-139.				Uzbekistan|Kyrgyzstan|Afghanistan|Pakistan|India|Nepal|Bhutan?|Bangladesh|Myanmar|China|Thailand|Cambodia|Vietnam	Asia	Indomalaya|Palearctic	LC	0	0	0	Rhinolophus_lepidus	0	sciname match	Rhinolophus_lepidus	0	Burgin, C. J., Zijlstra, J. S., Becker, M. A., Handika, H., Alston, J. M., Widness, J., Liphardt, S., Huckaby, D. G., and Upham, N. S. (2025). How many mammal species are there now? Updates and trends in taxonomic, nomenclatural, and geographic knowledge. Journal of Mammalogy in revision: TBD. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.27.640393	Rhinolophus_lepidus	1004700	23	Blyth's Horseshoe Bat		Theria	Placentalia	Boreoeutheria	Laurasiatheria	Chiroptera	Yinpterochiroptera	NA	NA	Rhinolophoidea	Rhinolophidae	NA	NA	Rhinolophus	NA	lepidus	E. Blyth	0	Rhinolophus lepidus	Blyth, E. 1844. Notices of various Mammalia, with descriptions of many new species. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 13(150):463-494.	https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40057313		holotype		"probably in the vicinity of Calcutta," West Bengal, India.			previously included R. refulgens	Soisook, P., Karapan, S., Srikrachang, M., Dejtaradol, A., Nualcharoen, K., Bumrungsri, S., ... & BuÅ›, M. M. (2016). Hill forest dweller: a new cryptic species of Rhinolophus in the'pusillus group'(Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae) from Thailand and Lao PDR. Acta Chiropterologica, 18(1), 117-139.				Uzbekistan|Kyrgyzstan|Afghanistan|Pakistan|India|Nepal|Bhutan?|Bangladesh|Myanmar|China|Thailand|Cambodia|Vietnam	Asia	Indomalaya|Palearctic	LC	0	0	0	Rhinolophus_lepidus	0	sciname match	Rhinolophus_lepidus	0	Simmons, N. B., & Cirranello, A. L. (2025). Batnames.org Species List Version 1.7 (1.7). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14796586	Rhinolophidae	Rhinolophus		lepidus	Blyth	1844	0	J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal	0.879167	Blyth's Horseshoe Bat	cuneatus K. Andersen, 1918; feae K. Andersen, 1907; monticola K. Andersen, 1905	India, Bengal, Calcutta (uncertain); see Das (1986).	Afghanistan, Pakistan, N India, Nepal, Burma, Thailand, S China, Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra (Indonesia).	<a href='https://cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php' target='_blank'>Not Listed</a>	<a href='https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/19547/21977419/' target='_blank'>Least Concern</a>	pusillusspecies group. Does not include refulgent; see Soisook et al. (2016). Includes feae, monticola,; see Hill and Yoshiyuki (1980) and Corbet and Hill (1992).Does not include osgoodi or shortridgei; see Csorba et al. (2003), although also see Corbet and Hill (1992). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997).		Mammal Diversity Database. (2025). Mammal Diversity Database (Version 2.2) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15007505	NA	Rhinolophus lepidus; Rhinolophus lepidus; Rhinolophus lepidus; Rhinolophus lepidus; Rhinolophus lepidus; Rhinolophus keyensis; lepidus; cuneatus; feae; monticola; refulgens; lepidus; feae; monticola; cuneatus; feae; monticola; lepidus; monticola; feae; cuneatus; Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat; Rhinolophe de Blyth; Blyth-Hufeisennase; Herradura de Blyth; Blyth's Horseshoe Bat; Blyth's Horseshoe Bat; Kai Horseshoe Bat; R. lepidus