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!/L1434	application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet	Rhinolophus rouxi	Rhinolophus rouxi	Rhinolophus rouxii	Rhinolophus rouxi	Rhinolophus rouxi	Rhinolophus rouxii	Rhinolophus rouxii	Rhinolophus rouxii	Rhinolophus rouxii	Rhinolophus rouxii	Rhinolophus rouxii	Rhinolophus rouxii	Rhinolophus rouxii	Rhinolophus rouxii	Rhinolophus rouxii		[MSW2] Includes petersi; see Sinha (1973:614, 615).; [MSW3] rouxii species group. Includes petersii; see Sinha (1973). Does not include sinicus; see Thomas (2000). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997) and Horácek et al. (2000); revised by Thomas (2000). Sometimes spelled rouxi (e.g., Horácek et al., 2000; Koopman, 1993).; [HMW] Rhinolophus rouxii Temminck, 1835 , “ continent de 1’ India ... Pondichéry [= Puducherry ] et à Calcutta .” Rhinolophus rouxii is sister to a clade that includes R.sinicus and R. thomasi ; all these species belong to the rouxii species group. The rouxii group may be close to the euryotis species group, but more detailed studies are needed to clarify its relationships with congeners. A sympatrically distributed form from the southern Western Ghats of India , with a higher (c.92 kHz) echolocation frequency, was recently named “ R indorouxii ;” however, the paper in which the name was introduced did not provide a proper description, type specimen, or type locality, so the name is a nomen nudum. This form is here included in R rouxii , but it may represent a distinct species, based on limited genetic, morphological, and echolocation data presented by B. Chattopadhyay and colleagues in 2012. More substantial morphological and genetic evidence is needed, using specimens from throughout the distribution of R rouxii , to support its species status (along with a properly introduced name). There appears to be some ambiguity regarding the distribution of this species and R sinicus in published records. North Indian records that were previously attributed to R rouxii are now considered to refer to R. sinicus , although the record from south-central Myanmar reported here is still considered R.rouxii . Two subspecies recognized.; [batnames2022]  rouxii species group. Includes petersii; see Sinha (1973). Does not include sinicus ; see Thomas (2000). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997) and Horácek et al. (2000); revised by Thomas (2000). Sometimes spelled rouxi (e.g., Horácek et al., 2000; Koopman, 1993). The name proposed by Chattopadhyay et al. (2012) for an Indian phonic variant is a nomen nudum  awaiting proper description.; [MDD2022] includes the recently described indorouxii; indorouxii likely represents a distinct species, although this needs to be proven with morphological and genetic data rather than just echolocation data; a new valid name would also need to be described for the indorouxii taxon since the paper that first used indorouxii did not include a full description, holotype, and type locality designation; [IUCN] This species belongs to ;rouxii ; species group. The taxon ;petersii ; Dobson, 1872 was included under ;Rhinolophus thomasi ; Andersen, 1905 by Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951). However, Sinha (1973), Corbet and Hill (1992), Koopman (1993), Bates and Harrison (1997) and Simmons (2005) synonymized it with ;Rhinolophus rouxii ; Temminck, 1835 (Srinivasulu and Srinivasulu 2012). Two distinct species namely R. rouxii Kelaart, 1850 and R. indorouxii Chattopadhyay et al. , 2012 are presently recognised. This taxon is presently endemic to India and Sri Lanka, and the Sri Lankan populations may prove to be distinct pending taxonomic revision.; [batnames2023]  rouxii species group. Includes petersii; see Sinha (1973). Does not include sinicus ; see Thomas (2000). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997) and Horácek et al. (2000); revised by Thomas (2000). Sometimes spelled rouxi (e.g., Horácek et al., 2000; Koopman, 1993). The name proposed by Chattopadhyay et al. (2012) for an Indian phonic variant is a nomen nudum  awaiting proper description.; [MDD2023] includes the recently described indorouxii; indorouxii likely represents a distinct species, although this needs to be proven with morphological and genetic data rather than just echolocation data; a new valid name would also need to be described for the indorouxii taxon since the paper that first used indorouxii did not include a full description, holotype, and type locality designation; [MDD2025_2.0] includes the recently described indorouxii; indorouxii likely represents a distinct species, although this needs to be proven with morphological and genetic data rather than just echolocation data; a new valid name would also need to be described for the indorouxii taxon since the paper that first used indorouxii did not include a full description, holotype, and type locality designation; [batnames2025_1.7] rouxii species group. Includes petersii; see Sinha (1973). Does not include sinicus; see Thomas (2000). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997) and Horácek et al. (2000); revised by Thomas (2000). Sometimes spelled rouxi (e.g., Horácek et al., 2000; Koopman, 1993). The name proposed by Chattopadhyay et al. (2012) for an Indian phonic variant is a nomen nudum  awaiting proper description.; [MDD2025_2.2] includes the recently described indorouxii; indorouxii likely represents a distinct species, although this needs to be proven with morphological and genetic data rather than just echolocation data; a new valid name would also need to be described for the indorouxii taxon since the paper that first used indorouxii did not include a full description, holotype, and type locality designation				petersi	(petersi)	cinerascens, fulvidus, petersi, rammanika, rubidus, sinicus.	rouxi, sinicus	rouxii, rubidus	cinerascens, fulvidus, petersii, rammanika	rouxii, rubidus		rouxii, rubidus	rouxii - cinerascens, fulvidus, indorouxii, petersii, rammanika	rouxii, rubidus, fulvidus, cinerascens, rammanika, petersii, indorouxii	This species belongs to ;rouxii ; species group. The taxon ;petersii ; Dobson, 1872 was included under ;Rhinolophus thomasi ; Andersen, 1905 by Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951). However, Sinha (1973), Corbet and Hill (1992), Koopman (1993), Bates and Harrison (1997) and Simmons (2005) synonymized it with ;Rhinolophus rouxii ; Temminck, 1835 (Srinivasulu and Srinivasulu 2012). Two distinct species namely R. rouxii Kelaart, 1850 and R. indorouxii Chattopadhyay et al. , 2012 are presently recognised. This taxon is presently endemic to India and Sri Lanka, and the Sri Lankan populations may prove to be distinct pending taxonomic revision.	rouxii, rubidus	rouxii - cinerascens, fulvidus, indorouxii, petersii, rammanika	rouxii, rubidus, fulvidus, cinerascens, rammanika, petersii, indorouxii	rouxii, rubidus, fulvidus, cinerascens, rammanika, rouxi, petersii, petersi, indorouxii	rouxii, rubidus	rouxii - cinerascens, fulvidus, indorouxii, petersii, rammanika	rouxii Temminck, 1835|rubidus Kelaart, 1850|fulvidus E. Blyth, 1851 [incorrect subsequent spelling]|cinerascens Kelaart, 1852|rammanika Kelaart, 1852|rouxi E. Blyth, 1863 [incorrect subsequent spelling]|petersii Dobson, 1872|petersi Corbet & J. Edwards Hill, 1980 [incorrect subsequent spelling]|indorouxii B. Chattopadhyay, K. M. Garg, V. Kumar, Paramanantha Swami Doss D., Ramakrishnan, & Kandula, 2012 [nomen nudum]|rauxii A. Kumar, G. Sharma, & I. A. Khan, 2022 [incorrect subsequent spelling]		Corbet, G.B. and Hill, J.E. 1980. A World List of Mammalian Species. British Museum (Natural History), London, 226 pp.		India, S China, Sri Lanka	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 rouxi	India, Pondicherry and Calcutta.	Temminck	1835	Monogr. Mamm., 2:306.	Dis tribution: Ranging from India and Ceylon to southern China and Vietnam.		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		India, S China, Vietnam, Sri Lanka	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.	Temminck	1835	Monogr. Mamm., 2:306.	Includes petersi; see Sinha (1973:614, 615).	Sri Lanka and India to S China and Vietnam.	India, Pondicherry and Calcutta.		TEMMINCK	1835	Sella pandurate. Lancet definitely has tate. Metacarpals unusally long. Anterior upper premolar greatly reduced, though in toothrow. Size medium (forearm length, 45-53 mm).	Dis tribution: Ranging from India and Ceylon to southern China and Vietnam.	Two subspecies are recognized:	R. r. rouxi (= petersi) (India, Ceylon), R. r. sinicus (Burma, southern China, Thailand, Vietnam).	54	species	R. rouxi	TEMMINCK	1835	Rhinolophus	genus	Rhinolophus rouxi				Sella pandurate. Lancet definitely has tate. Metacarpals unusally long. Anterior upper premolar greatly reduced, though in toothrow. Size medium (forearm length, 45-53 mm).	Two subspecies are recognized:		14. R. rouxi TEMMINCK 1835 [ferrumequinum group].	14	_R. r. rouxii_ Temminck, 1835 (synonyms: _cinerascens_ Kelaart, 1852, _petersii_ Dobson, 1872, _rammanika_ Kelaart, 1852); _R. r. rubidus_ Kelaart, 1850			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 rouxii	Rhinolophus		rouxii	Temminck		1835		Monogr. Mamm.	2		306		Rufous Horseshoe Bat	India, Pondicherry and Calcutta.	Sri Lanka, peninsular India to S Burma and Vietnam. Reports of this species from Cambodia are likely erroneous; see Kock (2000a).	IUCN 2003 and IUCN/SSC Action Plan (2001) – Lower Risk (lc).	cinerascens Kelaart, 1852; fulvidus Blyth, 1851; petersii Dobson, 1872; rammanika Kelaart, 1852; rubidus Kelaart, 1850.	rouxii species group. Includes petersii; see Sinha (1973). Does not include sinicus; see Thomas (2000). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997) and Horácek et al. (2000); revised by Thomas (2000). Sometimes spelled rouxi (e.g., Horácek et al., 2000; Koopman, 1993).	885887A2FFE68A00F8B3F9E8F2BBD69F	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	325	zip:hash://sha256/ec5fd314a06aba1a7b0b72f23e54ac625ae272bd98f82f1d01f4c09627d9e8e0!/treatments-xml-main/data/88/58/87/885887A2FFE18A07FF69FEF9F55ED3BC.xml	Rhinolophus rouxii	Rhinolophidae	Rhinolophus	rouxii	Temminck	1835	@en | ndian Rufous Horseshoe Bat @en | Rhinolophe de Roux @fr | Rotbraune @de | ndien-Hufeisennase @en | Herradura de Roux @es | Rufous Horseshoe Bat @en | Other commonnames @en	Rhinolophus rouxii Temminck, 1835 , “ continent de 1’ India ... Pondichéry [= Puducherry ] et à Calcutta .” Rhinolophus rouxii is sister to a clade that includes R.sinicus and R. thomasi ; all these species belong to the rouxii species group. The rouxii group may be close to the euryotis species group, but more detailed studies are needed to clarify its relationships with congeners. A sympatrically distributed form from the southern Western Ghats of India , with a higher (c.92 kHz) echolocation frequency, was recently named “ R indorouxii ;” however, the paper in which the name was introduced did not provide a proper description, type specimen, or type locality, so the name is a nomen nudum. This form is here included in R rouxii , but it may represent a distinct species, based on limited genetic, morphological, and echolocation data presented by B. Chattopadhyay and colleagues in 2012. More substantial morphological and genetic evidence is needed, using specimens from throughout the distribution of R rouxii , to support its species status (along with a properly introduced name). There appears to be some ambiguity regarding the distribution of this species and R sinicus in published records. North Indian records that were previously attributed to R rouxii are now considered to refer to R. sinicus , although the record from south-central Myanmar reported here is still considered R.rouxii . Two subspecies recognized.	R . r. rouxii Temminck, 1835 — W , E & S India (Maharashtra, Goa , Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and West Bengal) and S Myanmar ; possibly also in S China ( Yunnan ). R.r. rubidus Kelaart, 1850 - Sri Lanka .	Head—body 42—66 mm , tail 20- 5—33 mm , ear 14- 5—22 mm , hindfoot 7-2—12- 8 mm , forearm 44-4—52- 3 mm ; weight 12-2—14- 8 g . The Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat. It has distinct winter and summer pelage: summer ( May—September ) pelage is dull brown to grayish brown dorsally (hairs with drab base), with wood brown to light drab ventral pelage; winter (October—April) pelage is bright orange rufous dorsally and ventrally; intermediate forms are known. Ears are small. Noseleaf has hastate lancet that abruptly narrows in middle and is fairly variable in height; connecting process is rounded, but rounded portion does not start at tip of sella, as in euryotis species group; sella is virtually parallel-sided, occasionally with slight middle constriction, and has broadly rounded tip; horseshoe is narrow in relation to muzzle (7-9- 2 mm wide) and small lateral leaflets are usually present. Lower lip has three mental grooves. Baculum is heavily built (mean of 2-3 mm long) with simple shaft that curves ventrally at rounded tip; basal portion is slightly flattened dorso-ventrally and there is simple ventral emargination that is wider and deeper than dorsal one; tip widens laterally and is rather flat dorso-ventrally, and shaft is somewhat higher than wide. Skull is robust (zygomatic width always much wider than mastoid width); anterior median swellings are small and low; posterior swellings are wide; sagittal crest is strongly or moderately developed; frontal depression is shallow; supraorbital crests are conspicuous but not especially sharp. C1 is long and massive; P2 is moderate in size and either within tooth row or occasionally halfway external to it; C1 is more slender than C1; P3 is partly or completely extruded from tooth row, rarely missing; P2 and P4 are usually separate but sometimes in contact. Dental formula is the typical of 32 teeth for the genus or 30 when a lower premolar is missing. Chromosomal complement has 2n = 56 and FNa = 60 (FN = 62 in India ).	Typically a forest-dwelling species, the Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat can be found in moist evergreen and lowland forests. Recorded at elevations from sea level up to 1370 m .	Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bats forage by aerial-hawking and flycatching. While foraging, they fly low below the canopy and they tend to fly through areas cluttered with vegetation in the process. It is also suggested that the species may fly higher in the canopy when trees are blooming to capture insects that are attracted to the flowers. In Sri Lanka , each bat foraged over an area of c . 400 m 2 and would exhibit perch-hunting, making short outings to capture prey and come back to eat it . Diet seems to vary , but the species probably feeds mainly on grasshoppers, moths, beetles, termites, mosquitoes, and other flies.	There is a well-defined single breeding season; copulation takes place in the last week of December in Maharashtra and probably months later in Sri Lanka . Large maternity colonies are subsequently formed, composed only of adult females until young are bom. Early development after fertilization is slow and there is delayed implantation of the blastocyst. The fetus is generally carried in the right horn of the uterus. Gestation lasts 150—160 days, births occurring in the last week of May or in earlyJune in southern India , and apparently in October in Sri Lanka . Newborn young weigh 1-8—2- 1 g ; there appears to be a skewed birth sex-ratio, with males outnumbering females (this may indicate that males have a higher mortality rate). Young are bom deaf and remain so for the first week (typical of Rhinolophidae , unlike in Hipposideridae ), and as they develop their hearing, they also develop their echolocation calls. They first begin to call in their second or third week of life, and their echolocation frequency gradually increases from 53-7—65-7 kHz in the second and third week to 72-4-77-2 kHz in the fifth week, for the second harmonic. This is attributed to the development and fine tuning of the auditory fovea, which develops by the third week. Young are weaned around the first week of August in southern India .	Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bats roost by day in caves, tunnels, tree hollows, unused wells, temples, and rarely other old buildings such as houses and bams; they prefer humid areas. They leave the day roost to forage immediately after sunset in Sri Lanka , foraging by aerial-hawking for the first 30—60 minutes of the night, which is followed by a 1-2-hour resting period. After this rest break, individuals forage through the rest of the night by fly-catching. Calls are shaped FM/CF/FM, with a peak GF of 77-9-84-7 kHz in southern India and 73-79 kHz in Sri Lanka . The proposed new species from the southern Western Ghats of India (named “ indorouxii but invalidly) has a peak F of87-2-94 kHz (mean 92-1 kHz) and durations of 2-2-65-3 milliseconds (mean 24-4 milliseconds), and in an earlier study had 92-9-95-4 kHz (mean 94-94-1 kHz). Many detailed studies have been published on the optical and auditory mechanisms and development as well as sound production of this species in India and Sri Lanka ; they are too complex to summarize in the present work, but are referenced in the bibliography.	Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bats roost in large colonies often of several hundred individuals, although they can be found in smaller colonies ofjust a few. During the breeding season, females form large maternity colonies of several hundred while males roost alone or in small groups.	Classified as Least Concern on The IUCNRed List, the form proposed as “ Rhinolophus indorouxii " has been assessed as a separate species and classified as Data Deficient. The Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat is rather widespread and is common throughout much of its distribution in India . It is rare in Myanmar ; it may occur in China , where it would probably also be rare. A general population decline is being noticed, although this is not substantial enough to cause recategorization as threatened. The main threats to this species are roost disturbance through cave tourism, and general habitat loss from logging and agricultural expansion.	Andersen (1917) | Bates & Harrison (1997) | Bates,Thi Mar-Mar et al. (2004) | Behrend & Schuller (2000) | Behrend et al. (1999) | Bhiwgade (1976,1977) | Casseday et al. (1988) | Chattopadhyay, Garg et al. (2012) | Chattopadhyay, Schuller et al. (2010) | Corbet & Hill (1992) | Csorba et al. (2003) | Eckrich & Neuweiler (1988) | Feng & Vater (1985) | Firzlaff & Schuller (2001, 2004) | Gopalakrishna & Bhiwgade (1974) | Gopalakrishna & Ramakrishna (1977) | Henson & Rübsamen (1996) | Henson et al. (1985) | Kemmer & Vater (2001a, 2001b) | Kleiser & Schuller (1995) | Kössl (1994a, 1994b) | Kuhn & Vater (1995,1996) | Leonard et al. (2004) | Melzer (1985) | Metzner & Radtke-Schuller (1987) | Molur et al. (2002) | Naidu (1985) | Neumann & Schuller (1991) | Neuweiler et al. (1987) | Pietsch & Schuller (1987) | Radtke-Schuller (2001, 2004) | Radtke-Schuller et al. (2004) | Ramakrishna & Rao (1977) | Reimer (1987, 1989, 1991) | Roverud (1988) | Rübsamen (1987) | Rübsamen & Betz (1986) | Rübsamen & Schäfer (1990) | Schuller, O'Neill & Radtke-Schuller (1991) | Schuller, Radtke-Schuller & O'Neill (1988) | Schweizer et al. (1981) | Sinha (1973) | Smith & Xie Yan (2008) | Sun Xinde et al. (1993) | Thomas (2000) | Vanderelst et al. (2011) | Vater (1988) | Zhang Lin et al. (2018) | Zima et al. (1992)	https://zenodo.org/record/3750094/files/figure.png	92 . Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus rouxii French: Rhinolophe de Roux / German: Rotbraune Indien-Hufeisennase / Spanish: Herradura de Roux Other common names: Rufous Horseshoe Bat Taxonomy. Rhinolophus rouxii Temminck, 1835 , “ continent de 1’ India ... Pondichéry [= Puducherry ] et à Calcutta .” Rhinolophus rouxii is sister to a clade that includes R.sinicus and R. thomasi ; all these species belong to the rouxii species group. The rouxii group may be close to the euryotis species group, but more detailed studies are needed to clarify its relationships with congeners. A sympatrically distributed form from the southern Western Ghats of India , with a higher (c.92 kHz) echolocation frequency, was recently named “ R indorouxii ;” however, the paper in which the name was introduced did not provide a proper description, type specimen, or type locality, so the name is a nomen nudum. This form is here included in R rouxii , but it may represent a distinct species, based on limited genetic, morphological, and echolocation data presented by B. Chattopadhyay and colleagues in 2012. More substantial morphological and genetic evidence is needed, using specimens from throughout the distribution of R rouxii , to support its species status (along with a properly introduced name). There appears to be some ambiguity regarding the distribution of this species and R sinicus in published records. North Indian records that were previously attributed to R rouxii are now considered to refer to R. sinicus , although the record from south-central Myanmar reported here is still considered R.rouxii . Two subspecies recognized. Subspecies and Distribution. R . r. rouxii Temminck, 1835 — W , E & S India (Maharashtra, Goa , Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and West Bengal) and S Myanmar ; possibly also in S China ( Yunnan ). R.r. rubidus Kelaart, 1850 - Sri Lanka . Descriptive notes. Head—body 42—66 mm , tail 20- 5—33 mm , ear 14- 5—22 mm , hindfoot 7-2—12- 8 mm , forearm 44-4—52- 3 mm ; weight 12-2—14- 8 g . The Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat. It has distinct winter and summer pelage: summer ( May—September ) pelage is dull brown to grayish brown dorsally (hairs with drab base), with wood brown to light drab ventral pelage; winter (October—April) pelage is bright orange rufous dorsally and ventrally; intermediate forms are known. Ears are small. Noseleaf has hastate lancet that abruptly narrows in middle and is fairly variable in height; connecting process is rounded, but rounded portion does not start at tip of sella, as in euryotis species group; sella is virtually parallel-sided, occasionally with slight middle constriction, and has broadly rounded tip; horseshoe is narrow in relation to muzzle (7-9- 2 mm wide) and small lateral leaflets are usually present. Lower lip has three mental grooves. Baculum is heavily built (mean of 2-3 mm long) with simple shaft that curves ventrally at rounded tip; basal portion is slightly flattened dorso-ventrally and there is simple ventral emargination that is wider and deeper than dorsal one; tip widens laterally and is rather flat dorso-ventrally, and shaft is somewhat higher than wide. Skull is robust (zygomatic width always much wider than mastoid width); anterior median swellings are small and low; posterior swellings are wide; sagittal crest is strongly or moderately developed; frontal depression is shallow; supraorbital crests are conspicuous but not especially sharp. C1 is long and massive; P2 is moderate in size and either within tooth row or occasionally halfway external to it; C1 is more slender than C1; P3 is partly or completely extruded from tooth row, rarely missing; P2 and P4 are usually separate but sometimes in contact. Dental formula is the typical of 32 teeth for the genus or 30 when a lower premolar is missing. Chromosomal complement has 2n = 56 and FNa = 60 (FN = 62 in India ). Habitat. Typically a forest-dwelling species, the Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat can be found in moist evergreen and lowland forests. Recorded at elevations from sea level up to 1370 m . Food and Feeding. Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bats forage by aerial-hawking and flycatching. While foraging, they fly low below the canopy and they tend to fly through areas cluttered with vegetation in the process. It is also suggested that the species may fly higher in the canopy when trees are blooming to capture insects that are attracted to the flowers. In Sri Lanka , each bat foraged over an area of c . 400 m 2 and would exhibit perch-hunting, making short outings to capture prey and come back to eat it . Diet seems to vary , but the species probably feeds mainly on grasshoppers, moths, beetles, termites, mosquitoes, and other flies. Breeding. There is a well-defined single breeding season; copulation takes place in the last week of December in Maharashtra and probably months later in Sri Lanka . Large maternity colonies are subsequently formed, composed only of adult females until young are bom. Early development after fertilization is slow and there is delayed implantation of the blastocyst. The fetus is generally carried in the right horn of the uterus. Gestation lasts 150—160 days, births occurring in the last week of May or in earlyJune in southern India , and apparently in October in Sri Lanka . Newborn young weigh 1-8—2- 1 g ; there appears to be a skewed birth sex-ratio, with males outnumbering females (this may indicate that males have a higher mortality rate). Young are bom deaf and remain so for the first week (typical of Rhinolophidae , unlike in Hipposideridae ), and as they develop their hearing, they also develop their echolocation calls. They first begin to call in their second or third week of life, and their echolocation frequency gradually increases from 53-7—65-7 kHz in the second and third week to 72-4-77-2 kHz in the fifth week, for the second harmonic. This is attributed to the development and fine tuning of the auditory fovea, which develops by the third week. Young are weaned around the first week of August in southern India . Activity patterns. Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bats roost by day in caves, tunnels, tree hollows, unused wells, temples, and rarely other old buildings such as houses and bams; they prefer humid areas. They leave the day roost to forage immediately after sunset in Sri Lanka , foraging by aerial-hawking for the first 30—60 minutes of the night, which is followed by a 1-2-hour resting period. After this rest break, individuals forage through the rest of the night by fly-catching. Calls are shaped FM/CF/FM, with a peak GF of 77-9-84-7 kHz in southern India and 73-79 kHz in Sri Lanka . The proposed new species from the southern Western Ghats of India (named “ indorouxii but invalidly) has a peak F of87-2-94 kHz (mean 92-1 kHz) and durations of 2-2-65-3 milliseconds (mean 24-4 milliseconds), and in an earlier study had 92-9-95-4 kHz (mean 94-94-1 kHz). Many detailed studies have been published on the optical and auditory mechanisms and development as well as sound production of this species in India and Sri Lanka ; they are too complex to summarize in the present work, but are referenced in the bibliography. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bats roost in large colonies often of several hundred individuals, although they can be found in smaller colonies ofjust a few. During the breeding season, females form large maternity colonies of several hundred while males roost alone or in small groups. Status and Conservation. Classified as Least Concern on The IUCNRed List, the form proposed as “ Rhinolophus indorouxii " has been assessed as a separate species and classified as Data Deficient. The Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat is rather widespread and is common throughout much of its distribution in India . It is rare in Myanmar ; it may occur in China , where it would probably also be rare. A general population decline is being noticed, although this is not substantial enough to cause recategorization as threatened. The main threats to this species are roost disturbance through cave tourism, and general habitat loss from logging and agricultural expansion. Bibliography. Andersen (1917), Bates & Harrison (1997), Bates,Thi Mar-Mar eta /. (2004), Behrend & Schuller (2000), Behrend et al. (1999), Bhiwgade (1976,1977), Casseday eta/. (1988), Chattopadhyay, Garg eta/. (2012), Chattopadhyay, Schuller et al. (2010), Corbet & Hill (1992), Csorba eta /. (2003), Eckrich & Neuweiler (1988), Feng & Vater (1985), Firzlaff & Schuller (2001, 2004), Gopalakrishna & Bhiwgade (1974), Gopalakrishna & Ramakrishna (1977), Henson & Rübsamen (1996), Henson eta/. (1985), Kemmer & Vater (2001a, 2001b), Kleiser & Schuller (1995), Kössl (1994a, 1994b), Kuhn & Vater (1995,1996), Leonard eta/. (2004), Melzer (1985), Metzner & Radtke-Schuller (1987), Molur eta/. (2002), Naidu (1985), Neumann & Schuller (1991), Neuweiler eta/. (1987), Pietsch & Schuller (1987), Radtke-Schuller (2001, 2004), Radtke-Schuller et al. (2004), Ramakrishna & Rao (1977), Reimer (1987, 1989, 1991), Roverud (1988), Rübsamen (1987), Rübsamen & Betz (1986), Rübsamen & Schäfer (1990), Schuller, O'Neill & Radtke-Schuller (1991), Schuller, Radtke-Schuller & O'Neill (1988), Schweizer et al. (1981), Sinha (1973), Smith & Xie Yan (2008), Sun Xinde et al. (1993), Thomas (2000), Vanderelst et al. (2011), Vater (1988), Zhang Lin et al. (2018), Zima eta/. (1992).	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 rouxii	Rhinolophus		rouxii	Temminck	1835	0	Monogr. Mamm.	2: 30 b 	Rufous Horseshoe Bat	 cinerascens Kelaart, 1852; fulvidus Blyth, 1851; indorouxii Chattopadhyay, Garg, Kumar, Doss, Ramakrishnan & Kandula 2012 [nomen nudum];  petersii Dobson, 1872; rammanika Kelaart, 1852; <b>rubidus</b> Kelaart, 1850.	India, Pondicherry and Calcutta	Sri Lanka, peninsular India to S Myanmar; possibly S China. Reports of this species from Cambodia are likely erroneous; see Kock (2000a)	Not listed.	Least Concern	 rouxii species group. Includes petersii; see Sinha (1973). Does not include sinicus ; see Thomas (2000). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997) and Horácek et al. (2000); revised by Thomas (2000). Sometimes spelled rouxi (e.g., Horácek et al., 2000; Koopman, 1993). The name proposed by Chattopadhyay et al. (2012) for an Indian phonic variant is a nomen nudum  awaiting proper description.	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 rouxii	23	Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat		Theria	Placentalia	Boreoeutheria	Laurasiatheria	CHIROPTERA	PTEROPODIFORMES	NA	NA	RHINOLOPHOIDEA	RHINOLOPHIDAE	NA	NA	Rhinolophus	NA	rouxii	Temminck	1835	0	Rhinolophus_rouxii	Temminck, C. J. (1835) Monographies de mammalogie, ou Description de quelques genres de mammifères, dont les espèces ont été observées dans les différens musées de l'Europe, Vol. 2. Chez C. C. Van Der Hoek, Leiden, 30b.	https://books.google.com/books?id=yHQQAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=rouxii&f=false	RMNH 35221 [lectotype]		"continent de l'India … Pondichery [= Puducherry] et à Calcutta."			rouxii Temminck, 1835|rubidus Kelaart, 1850|fulvidus Blyth, 1851|cinerascens Kelaart, 1852|rammanika Kelaart, 1852|petersii Dobson, 1872|indorouxii Chattopadhyay, Garg, Kumar, Doss, Ramakrishnan, & Kandula, 2012 [nomen nudum]	includes the recently described indorouxii; indorouxii likely represents a distinct species, although this needs to be proven with morphological and genetic data rather than just echolocation data; a new valid name would also need to be described for the indorouxii taxon since the paper that first used indorouxii did not include a full description, holotype, and type locality designation	Chattopadhyay, B., Garg, K. M., AK, V. K., Ramakrishnan, U., & Kandula, S. (2012). Sibling species in South Indian populations of the rufous horse-shoe bat Rhinolophus rouxii. Conservation Genetics, 13(6), 1435-1445.	India|Sri Lanka|Myanmar|China?	Asia	Indomalaya	LC	0	0	0	Rhinolophus_rouxii	0	sciname match	Rhinolophus_rouxii	0	IUCN. 2022. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on [28 September, 2022].	80000000	Rhinolophus rouxii	ANIMALIA	CHORDATA	MAMMALIA	CHIROPTERA	RHINOLOPHIDAE	Rhinolophus	rouxii	Temminck, 1835	This species belongs to ;rouxii ; species group. The taxon ;petersii ; Dobson, 1872 was included under ;Rhinolophus thomasi ; Andersen, 1905 by Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951). However, Sinha (1973), Corbet and Hill (1992), Koopman (1993), Bates and Harrison (1997) and Simmons (2005) synonymized it with ;Rhinolophus rouxii ; Temminck, 1835 (Srinivasulu and Srinivasulu 2012). Two distinct species namely R. rouxii Kelaart, 1850 and R. indorouxii Chattopadhyay et al. , 2012 are presently recognised. This taxon is presently endemic to India and Sri Lanka, and the Sri Lankan populations may prove to be distinct pending taxonomic revision.	20000000	Rhinolophus rouxii	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, and because it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category.	This species is found in caves, hollows of large tree in moist evergreen forests, unused wells, old dilapidated buildings and temples in South Asia (Molur et al. 2002).	Threats to the habitat or the animal are not known.	Though a widely distributed species in South Asia, with a large colony size, a declining trend in the population is being observed (Molur et al. 2002).	Unknown	This species is largely confined to South Asia, with a few records outside of this region. In South Asia, it is known from India (Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, and West Bengal) (Srinivasulu and Srinivasulu 2012, Mao et al. 2013) and Sri Lanka (Central, Eastern, North Central, Sabargamuwa, Uva and Western provinces) (Molur et al. 2002). This taxon has been recorded from varying elevations.		Terrestrial	The species has been recorded from several protected areas in India, including Karnala Wildlife Sanctuary in Maharashtra, Indravati National Park in Chattisgarh, Kanha National Park in Madhya Pradesh.	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		rouxii	Temminck	1835	0	Monogr. Mamm.	2: 30 b 	Rufous Horseshoe Bat	 cinerascens Kelaart, 1852; fulvidus Blyth, 1851; indorouxii Chattopadhyay, Garg, Kumar, Doss, Ramakrishnan & Kandula 2012 [nomen nudum];  petersii Dobson, 1872; rammanika Kelaart, 1852; <b>rubidus</b> Kelaart, 1850.	India, Pondicherry and Calcutta	Sri Lanka, peninsular India to S Myanmar; possibly S China. Reports of this species from Cambodia are likely erroneous; see Kock (2000a)	Not listed.	Least Concern	 rouxii species group. Includes petersii; see Sinha (1973). Does not include sinicus ; see Thomas (2000). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997) and Horácek et al. (2000); revised by Thomas (2000). Sometimes spelled rouxi (e.g., Horácek et al., 2000; Koopman, 1993). The name proposed by Chattopadhyay et al. (2012) for an Indian phonic variant is a nomen nudum  awaiting proper description.	Rhinolophus rouxii	1004735	23	Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat		Theria	Placentalia	Boreoeutheria	Laurasiatheria	CHIROPTERA	PTEROPODIFORMES	NA	NA	RHINOLOPHOIDEA	Rhinolophidae	NA	NA	Rhinolophus	NA	rouxii	Temminck	1835	0	Rhinolophus_rouxii	Temminck, C. J. (1835) Monographies de mammalogie, ou Description de quelques genres de mammifères, dont les espèces ont été observées dans les différens musées de l'Europe, Vol. 2. Chez C. C. Van Der Hoek, Leiden, 30b.	https://books.google.com/books?id=yHQQAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=rouxii&f=false	RMNH 35221 [lectotype]		"continent de l'India … Pondichery [= Puducherry] et à Calcutta."			rouxii Temminck, 1835|rubidus Kelaart, 1850|fulvidus Blyth, 1851|cinerascens Kelaart, 1852|rammanika Kelaart, 1852|petersii Dobson, 1872|indorouxii Chattopadhyay, Garg, Kumar, Doss, Ramakrishnan, & Kandula, 2012 [nomen nudum]	includes the recently described indorouxii; indorouxii likely represents a distinct species, although this needs to be proven with morphological and genetic data rather than just echolocation data; a new valid name would also need to be described for the indorouxii taxon since the paper that first used indorouxii did not include a full description, holotype, and type locality designation	Chattopadhyay, B., Garg, K. M., AK, V. K., Ramakrishnan, U., & Kandula, S. (2012). Sibling species in South Indian populations of the rufous horse-shoe bat Rhinolophus rouxii. Conservation Genetics, 13(6), 1435-1445.				India|Sri Lanka|Myanmar|China?	Asia	Indomalaya	LC	0	0	0	Rhinolophus_rouxii	0	sciname match	Rhinolophus_rouxii	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_rouxii	1004735	23	Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat		Theria	Placentalia	Boreoeutheria	Laurasiatheria	Chiroptera	Yinpterochiroptera	NA	NA	Rhinolophoidea	Rhinolophidae	NA	NA	Rhinolophus	NA	rouxii	Temminck	0	Rhinolophus rouxii	Temminck, C.J. 1835. Livraison 1. Pp. 1–48 in Temminck, C.J. 1835-1841. Monographies de Mammalogie. Tome second. C. C. van der Hoek, Leiden, 392 pp.	https://archive.org/details/monographiedema00temmgoog	RMNH.MAM.35221	lectotype	https://data.biodiversitydata.nl/naturalis/specimen/RMNH.MAM.35221.a | https://data.biodiversitydata.nl/naturalis/specimen/RMNH.MAM.35221.b	"continent de l'India … Pondichery [= Puducherry] et à Calcutta."			includes the recently described indorouxii; indorouxii likely represents a distinct species, although this needs to be proven with morphological and genetic data rather than just echolocation data; a new valid name would also need to be described for the indorouxii taxon since the paper that first used indorouxii did not include a full description, holotype, and type locality designation	Chattopadhyay, B., Garg, K. M., AK, V. K., Ramakrishnan, U., & Kandula, S. (2012). Sibling species in South Indian populations of the rufous horse-shoe bat Rhinolophus rouxii. Conservation Genetics, 13(6), 1435-1445.				India|Sri Lanka|Myanmar|China?	Asia	Indomalaya	LC	0	0	0	Rhinolophus_rouxii	0	sciname match	Rhinolophus_rouxii	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		rouxii	Temminck	1835	0	Monogr. Mamm.	2: 30b	Rufous Horseshoe Bat	cinerascens Kelaart, 1852; fulvidus Blyth, 1851;indorouxii     Chattopadhyay, Garg, Kumar, Doss, Ramakrishnan & Kandula 2012 [nomen nudum];  petersii Dobson, 1872; rammanika Kelaart, 1852; rubidus Kelaart, 1850.	India, Pondicherry and Calcutta	Sri Lanka, peninsular India to S Myanmar; possibly S China. Reports of this species from Cambodia are likely erroneous; see Kock (2000a)	<a href='https://cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php' target='_blank'>Not Listed</a>	<a href='https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/84379218/21995537/' target='_blank'>Least Concern</a>	rouxii species group. Includes petersii; see Sinha (1973). Does not include sinicus; see Thomas (2000). Reviewed in part by Bates and Harrison (1997) and Horácek et al. (2000); revised by Thomas (2000). Sometimes spelled rouxi (e.g., Horácek et al., 2000; Koopman, 1993). The name proposed by Chattopadhyay et al. (2012) for an Indian phonic variant is a nomen nudum  awaiting proper description.		Mammal Diversity Database. (2025). Mammal Diversity Database (Version 2.2) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15007505	NA	Rhinolophus rouxii; Rhinolophus rouxii; Rhinolophus rouxii; Rhinolophus rouxii; Rhinolophus rouxii; Rhinolophus rouxii; rouxii; rubidus; cinerascens; fulvidus; petersii; rammanika; rouxii; rubidus; rubidus; cinerascens; fulvidus; indorouxii; petersii; rammanika; rouxii; rubidus; fulvidus; cinerascens; rammanika; petersii; indorouxii; ndian Rufous Horseshoe Bat; Rhinolophe de Roux; Rotbraune; ndien-Hufeisennase; Herradura de Roux; Rufous Horseshoe Bat; Other commonnames; Indian Rufous Horseshoe Bat; Rufous Horseshoe Bat; Rufous Horseshoe Bat; R. rouxii