Field identification of the cryptic vespertilionid bats, Myotis lucifugus and M. yumanensis

Acta Chiropterologica

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 133-147

  Weller, Theodore J ^a   Scott, Shonene A ^b,e   Rodhouse, Thomas J ^c   Ormsbee, Patricia C ^d   Zinck, Jan M ^b  

^a PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^b PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NATIONAL PARK SERVICE   (United States)

^d USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cryptic species; Echolocation; Geographic variation; M. yumanensis; MtDNA; Myotis lucifugus; Species identification

Indexed keywords

BAT; ECHOLOCATION; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; IDENTIFICATION KEY; MORPHOLOGY;

NORTH AMERICA;

MYOTIS; MYOTIS LUCIFUGUS; MYOTIS YUMANENSIS; VESPERTILIONIDAE;

EID: 34548477234     PISSN: 15081109     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3161/1733-5329(2007)9[133:FIOTCV]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. ANIMAL CARE AND USE COMMITTEE. 1998. Guidelines for the capture, handling, and care of mammals as approved by the American Society of Mammalogists. Journal of Mammalogy, 79: 1416-1431.
2. BAILEY, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States, 2nd edition. USDA Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication 1391, Washington, D.C., 108 pp.
3. BAKER, R. J. 1984. A sympatric cryptic species of mammal: a new species of Rhogeesa (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Systematic Zoology, 33: 178-183.
4. BARCLAY, R. M. R., and R. M. BRIGHAM. 2004. Geographic variation in the echolocation calls of bats: a complication for identifying species by their calls. Pp. 144-149, in Bat echolocation research: tools, techniques, and analysis. (R. M. BRIGHAM, E. K. V. KALKO, G. JONES, S. PARSONS, and H. J. G A. LIMPENS, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, 167 pp.
5. BARRATT, R. D., T. M. BUPLAND, M. W. BRUFORD, G. JONES, P. A. RACEY, and R. K. WAYNE. 1997. DNA answers the call of pipistrelle bat species. Nature, 387: 138-139.
6. BETTS, B. J. 1998. Effects of interindividual variation in echolocation calls on identification of big brown and silver-haired bats. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62: 1003-1010.
7. BOGDANOWICZ, W. 1990. Geographic variation and taxonomy of Daubenton's bat, Myotis daubentoni, in Europe. Journal of Mammalogy, 71: 205-218.
8. BRADLEY, R. D., and R. J. BAKER. 2001. A test of the genetic species concept: cytochrome-b sequences and mammals. Journal of Mammalogy, 82: 960-973.
9. BRITZKE, E. R., and K. L. MURRAY. 2000. A quantitative method for selection of identifiable search-phase calls using the Anabat system. Bat Research News, 41: 33-36.
10. BRODERS, H. G., C. S. FINDLAY, and L. ZHENG. 2004. Effects of clutter on echolocation call structure of Myotis septentrionalis and M. lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy, 85: 273-281.
11. BURNETT, C. D. 1983. Geographic and climatic correlates of morphological variation in Eptesicus fuscus. Journal of Marnmalogy, 64: 437-444.
12. BURNHAM, K. P., and D. R. ANDERSON. 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, 488 pp.
13. CORBEN, C., and M. J. O'FARRELL. 1999. Anabat system manual, 2nd edition. O'Farrell Biological Consulting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Available online at http://mammalogist.org/anabat/frameset_natual.htm.
14. DENZINGER, A., B. M. SIEMERS, A. SCHAUB, and H.-U. SCHNITZLER. 2001. Echolocation by the barbastelle bat, Barbastrella barbastrellus. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 187: 521-528.
15. FENTON, M. B. 2000. Choosing the 'correct' bat detector. Acta Chiropterologica, 2: 215-224.
16. FENTON, M. B., and R. M. R. BARCLAY. 1980. Myotis lucifugus. Mammalian Species, 142: 1-8.
17. FIELDING, A. H., and P. F. HAWORTH. 1995. Testing the generality of bird-habitat models. Conservation Biology, 9: 1466-1481.
18. FINDLEY, J. S., and G. TRAUT. 1970. Geographic variation in Pipistrellus hesperus. Journal of Mammalogy, 51: 741-765.
19. HARRIS, A. H. 1974. Myotis yumanensis in interior southwestern North America, with comments on Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy, 55: 589-607.
20. HEBERT, P. D. N., E. H. PENTON, J. M. BURNS, D. H. JANZEN, and W. HALLWACHS. 2004. Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astrapes fulgerator. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101: 14812-14817.
21. HERD, R. M. 1983. A simple antibody test for field identification of morphologically similar mammals. Journal of Mammalogy, 64: 700-701.
22. HERD, R. M., and M. B. FENTON. 1983. An electrophoretic, morphological, and ecological investigation of a putative hybrid zone between Myotis lucifugus and Myotis yumanensis (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 61: 2029-2050.
23. HOVORKA, M. D., C. S. MARKS, and E. MULLER. 1996. An improved chemiluminescent tag for bats. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24: 709-712.
24. HURLBERT, S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs, 54: 187-211.
25. JACOBS D. S., G. N. EICK, M. C. SCHOEMAN, and C. A. MATTHEE. 2006. Cryptic species in an insectivorous bat, Scotophilus dinganii. Journal of Mammalogy, 87: 161-170.
26. JONES, G., and S. M. VAN PARIJS. 1993. Bimodal echo-location in pipistrelle bats: are cryptic species present? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 251: 119-125.
27. LUSZCZ, T. M. J., J. M. K. RIP, K. J. PATRIQUIN, L. M. HOLLIS, J. M. WILSON, H. D. M. CLARKE, R. M. R. BARCLAY, and J. ZINCK. 2003. Comparisons of morphology, echolocation call structure, and genetics of Myotis lucifugus and Myotis yumanensis. Bat Research News, 44: 156.
28. MAYER, F., and O. VON HELVERSEN. 2001. Cryptic diversity in European bats. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 268: 1825-1832.
29. MURRAY, K. L., E. R. BRITZKE, and L. W. ROBBINS. 2001. Variation in search-phase calls of bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 82: 728-737.
30. NAGORSEN, D. W., and R. M. BRIGHAM. 1993. The Bats of British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, 164 pp.
31. OBRIST, M. K. 1995. Flexible bat echolocation - the influence of individual, habitat and conspecifics on sonar signal-design. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 36: 207-219.
32. O'FARRELL, M. J., B. W. MILLER, and W. L. GANNON. 1999. Qualitative identification of free-flying bats using the Anabat detector. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 11-23.
33. O'FARRELL, M. J., C. CORBEN, and W. L. GANNON. 2000. Geographic variation in the echolocation calls of the hoary bat ( Lasiurus cinereus). Acta Chiropterologica, 2: 185-196.
34. PARKINSON, A. 1979. Morphological variation and hybridization in Myotis yumanensis sociablis and Myotis lucifugus carissima. Journal of Mammalogy, 60: 489-504.
35. RACEY, P. A. 1988. Reproductive assessment in bats. Pp. 31-45, in Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of bats (T. H. KUNZ, ed.). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 533 pp.
36. REED, A. W., P. K. KENNEDY, M. L. BECK, and M. L. KENNEDY. 2004. Using morphologic characters to identify Peromyscus in sympatry. American Midland Naturalist, 152: 190-195.
37. RODRIGUEZ, R. M., and L. K. AMMERMAN. 2004. Mitochondrial DNA divergence does not reflect morphological difference between Myotis californicus and Myotis ciliolabrum. Journal of Mammalogy, 85: 842-851.
38. Russo, I. R. M., C. T. CHIMIMBA, and P. BLOOMER. 2006. Mitochondrial DNA differentiation between two species of Aethomys (Rodentia: Muridae) from southern Africa. Journal of Mammalogy, 87: 545-553.
39. SAUNDERS, M. B., and R. M. R. BARCLAY. 1992. Ecomorphology of insectivorous bats: a test of predictions using two morphologically similar species. Ecology, 73: 1335-1345.
40. SCOTT, S. A. 2005. Identification and distribution of Myotis yumanensis and Myotis lucifugus bats in Oregon. M.Sci. Thesis, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 204 pp.
41. SIEMERS, B. M. 2004. Bats in the field and in a flight cage: recording and analysis of their echolocation calls and behavior. Pp. 107-113, in Bat echolocation research: tools, techniques, and analysis (R. M. BRIGHAM, E. K. V. KALKO, G. JONES, S. PARSONS, and H. J. G. A. LIMPENS, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, 167 pp.
42. SZEWCZAK, J. M. 2000. A consistent acoustic feature to discriminate Myotis species. Bat Research News, 41: 141.
43. SZEWCZAK, J. M. 2004. Advanced analysis techniques for identifying bat species. Pp. 121-127, in Bat echolocation research: tools, techniques, and analysis (R. M. BRIGHAM, E. K. V. KALKO, G. JONES, S. PARSONS, and H. J. G. A. LIMPENS, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, 167 pp.
44. THOMAS, D. W., G. P. BELL, and M. B. FENTON. 1987. Variation in echolocation call frequencies recorded from North American vespertilionid bats: a cautionary note. Journal of Mammalogy, 68: 842-847.
45. VERTS, B. J., and L. N. CARRAWAY. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 668 pp.
46. WALDIEN, D. L., and J. P. HAYES. 1999. A technique to capture bats using hand-held mist nets. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27: 197-200.
47. WATERS, D. A., and G. JONES. 1995. Echolocation call structure and intensity in five species of insectivorous bats. Journal of Experimental Biology, 198: 475-489.
48. WATERS, D. A., and W. L. GANNON. 2004. Bat call libraries: management and potential use. Pp. 150-157, in Bat echolocation research: tools, techniques, and analysis (R. M. BRIGHAM, E. K. V. KALKO, G. JONES, S. PARSONS, and H. J. G A. LIMPENs, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, 167 pp.
49. WORTHINGTON WILMER, J., and E. BARRATT. 1996. A non-lethal method of tissue sampling for genetic studies of chiropterans. Bat Research News, 37: 1-3.
50. ZINCK, J. M., D. A. DUFFIELD, and P. C. ORMSBEE. 2004. Primers for identification and polymorphism assessment of vespertilionid bats in the Pacific Northwest. Molecular Ecology Notes, 4: 239-242.