Translator Disclaimer
9 October 2008 Choeroniscus Minor (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae)
Ernst-Hermann Solmsen, Harald Schliemann
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Choeroniscus minor (Peters, 1868) is a phyllostomid commonly called the lesser long-tongued bat. It is a medium-size bat with an elongated muzzle, a very long tongue, and other cranial and dental features indicative of its highly specialized adaptations for nectar feeding. Living solitary or in small numbers, it inhabits tropical rain forests from the Amazon Basin of Brazil across northern South America and Trinidad. It has a more extensive geographical distribution than either of its 2 congeners. It is not of special conservation concern but is relatively poorly represented in mammal collections worldwide.

Synonymies completed 1 December 2007

  • Choeroniscus Thomas, 1928

  • Choeronycteris Peters: 1868:366. Part, not Choeronycteris Tschudi, 1844:72.

  • Choeroniscus Thomas, 1928:120. Type species Choeronycteris minor Peters, 1868:366, by original designation.

  • Context and Content. Order Chiroptera, suborder Microchiroptera, family Phyllostomidae, subfamily Glossophaginae, tribe Glossophagini (Simmons 2005). Choeroniscus contains 3 living species (Simmons 2005; Simmons and Voss 1998): godmani (Thomas, 1903), minor (Peters, 1868) [ =  inca Thomas, 1912;  =  intermedius Allen and Chapman, 1893], and periosus Handley, 1966.

    A key to the species of Choeroniscus, based on cranial features (Jones and Carter 1976, Koopman 1993, 1994; Miller 1907; Solmsen 1994, 1998; Thomas 1928), follows:

    1. Posterolateral margin of palate notchedC. godmani

    Posterolateral margin of palate unnotched2

    2. Condylobasal length ≥ 28 mm; rostrum long and robustC. periosus

    Condylobasal length < 28 mm; rostrum medium lengthC. minor

  • Choeroniscus minor (Peters, 1868)

  • Lesser Long-tongued Bat

  • Choeronycteris minor Peters, 1868:366. Type locality “Surinam.”

  • Choeronycteris intermedia Allen and Chapman, 1893:207. Type locality “Princestown, Trinidad.”

  • Choeronycteris inca Thomas, 1912:403. Type locality “Yahuarmayo, S.E. Peru.”

  • Choeroniscus minor: Thomas, 1928:122. First use of current name combination.

  • Context and Content. Context as for genus. Choeroniscus minor is monotypic (Simmons 2005; Simmons and Voss 1998).

    Nomenclatural Notes. The genus name Choeroniscus with minor as its type species was introduced in 1928 by Oldfield Thomas for the “normal headed species” that included minor, intermedia, inca, and godmani, thus separating these species from Choeronycteris. Comparative examination of material referred to the formerly differentiated species Choeroniscus minor, C. inca, and C. intermedius (Simmons and Voss 1998) revealed close correspondence and filled the morphometric gap between minor and intermedius that had been originally reported for a smaller series of both taxa (Koopman 1978). Specimens formerly regarded as C. intermedius fall at the lower end of an intraspecific size range, whereas C. minor and C. inca are at its upper end (Koopman 1978, 1993, 1994; Simmons and Voss 1998). The phylogenetic relationships above the species level remain subject to further scientific investigation. Based on a combination of morphological and molecular data, Carstens et al. (2002) divides the tribe Glossophagini into 2 groups, the choeronycterines and the glossophagines. C. minor is included within the former group along with Anoura, Choeronycteris, Hylonycteris, Lichonycteris, Musonyctris, and Scleronycteris.

    The name “Choeroniscus” was probably chosen to separate the smaller genera of long-nosed nectar-feeders from the larger Choeronycteris by shortening the latter name in a latinized ending “iscus.” In their contribution on Choeronycteris mexicana, Arroyo-Cabrales et al. (1987) assumed the name was derived from the Greek choiros (pig) and nycteris (bat). However, considering the extreme specialization for nectar-uptake, that is, consuming liquid food, we instead prefer an interpretation based on the Greek root choero, which means drink in a sacral context, and the latinized ending (iscus) giving both genera the label drinking bat.

    Diagnosis

    Condylobasal length of Choeroniscus minor is greater than in C. godmani and less than in C. periosus. The rostrum of C. minor is slender and of intermediate length within the rostral range of the Glossophaginae. Length (in mm) of maxillary toothrow is 8.2 in C. minor (mean of 6 females), 7.4 in C. godmani (2 females), and 10.6 in C. periosus (1 female—Solmsen 1998). The posterolateral margin of the palate in C. minor is not notched as it is in C. godmani, and the pterygoids are moderately inflated. The tragus of C. minor has a notched tip, whereas C. godmani has a tragus with a single pointed tip.

    General Characters

    Choeroniscus minor (Fig. 1) is of small to medium size with an elongated muzzle and a forearm length from 33 to 38 mm. It has a well-developed triangular nose leaf that is 4 mm in height with 3 sides nearly the same length (ca. 3 mm). Ears are rounded on top with their inner margins distinctly convex and outer margins slightly concave in their upper one-half. The tragus is short, slightly pointed, and notched at the tip. The uropatagium is well developed with a concave posterior margin; the tail remains enclosed for nearly the proximal one-half of the tail membrane, with its extreme tip visible on the dorsal surface of the membrane. The calcar is about 6 mm long, and the wing membrane inserts on the outer toe slightly more distally than the uropatagium on the opposite side. The pelage of C. minor is dense and generally dark to blackish brown, with slight differences between ventrum and dorsum. Fur extends on both sides of the arm beyond the elbow. Individual hairs are darker at the tips and yellow-brown at the base (Solmsen 1998).

    Fig. 1

    An adult female Choeroniscus minor from Rio Cuyabeno, Ecuador, collected in 1982 by E. Patzelt (Zoologisches Museum Hamburg, T 1380). Used with permission of photographer, E. Patzelt.

    i1545-1410-822-1-1-f01.gif

    Mean values (with range, n, sex, and locale) of body mass (g) and external morphological features (mm) are: body mass, 9.8 (8.0–12.0, 7 females) and 8.0 (7.0–8.8, 4 males, French Guiana); total length, 69.1 (65.0–70.0, 7 females) and 63.8 (61.0–68.0, 4 males, French Guiana); length of ear, 12.3 (11.0–13.0, 7 females) and 12.3 (12.0–12.5, 4 males, French Guiana), 10.8 (1 female, Ecuador), 7.0 (1 female, Manaus, Brazil), and 10.2 (1 female, Guyana); length of forearm, 34.3 (33.0–36.0, 7 females) and 34.3 (33.0–35.0, 4 males, French Guiana), 35.6 (35.3–36.0, 3 females) and 34.9 (34.8–35.0, 3 males, French Guiana), 34.3 (1 female, Ecuador), 34.1 (1 female, Manaus, Brazil), 36.9 (1 female, Guyana), and 34.8 (1 male, holotype, Suriname); length of tail, 7.8 (6.0–9.0, 7 females) and 8.0 (7.0–9.0, 4 males, French Guiana); length of hind foot, 9.0 (all 9.0, 7 females) and 9.1 (8.5–10.0, 4 males, French Guiana), 7.2 (1 female, Ecuador), 6.8 (1 female, Manaus, Brazil), 7.4 (1 female, Guyana), and 7.5 (1 male, Suriname); length of calcar, 5.0 (1 female, Ecuador), 6.8 (1 female, Manaus, Brazil), 5.0 (1 female, Guyana), and about 6.0 (1 male, Suriname). Data for specimens from French Guiana are from Simmons and Voss (1998); specimens from Brazil, Ecuador, and Guyana are from Solmsen (1998); those from Suriname are from Husson (1962).

    The skull of C. minor (Fig. 2) displays a comparatively long rostrum that is just slightly shorter than its braincase. The level of the palatinal base is elevated against the skull base; a dorsal profile of the rostrum appears very straight and the braincase is vaulted, but without distinct indentation between rostrum and braincase. The neurocranium has no crests (Solmsen 1994).

    Fig. 2

    Dorsal, ventral, and lateral view of cranium and lateral view of mandible of an adult female Choeroniscus minor (ZMH [Zoologisches Museum Hamburg, Universität Hamburg] 9301), collected in 1982 by E. Patzelt from Rio Cuyabeno, Ecuador. Greatest length of skull is 22.50 mm. Photographs by H. Schliemann.

    i1545-1410-822-1-1-f02.gif

    Zygomatic arches are present in C. minor but are very delicate (Solmsen 1994). They are often destroyed during preparation of skull specimens, as they have been in the specimen shown in Fig. 2, and are consequently interpreted as being incomplete (Koopman 1994; Miller 1907). The palate is rectangular in basal view and not notched at the posterolateral margin. There are 3 palatal foramina. The unpaired, most frontal foramen between the 1st upper incisors is sometimes lacking, which results in a small V-shaped indentation in the premaxilla. The skull base has conspicuously elongated and distinctly inflated hamuli pterygoidei that almost reach the tympanic. Basisphenoid fossae are well defined, rather deep and long, and are separated from each other by a wide portion of the skull base. Mandible is long and narrow and the coronoid process is short, barely projecting beyond the articular process. The mentum has a marked symphyseal projection.

    Means and ranges of cranial measurements (mm) are: greatest length of skull, 23.4 (22.6–24.0, 7 females) and 22.2 (21.8–22.4, 4 males, French Guiana), 24.1 (24.0–24.3, 3 females) and 22.3 (21.8–22.7, 3 males, French Guiana), 23.0 (1 female, Ecuador), 22.4 (20.1–23.3, 5 females) and 21.5 (1 male, Brazil), 24.4 (1 female, Guyana), and 22.0 (1 male, French Guiana); condylobasal length, 22.8 (21.7–23.6, 7 females) and 21.8 (21.2–21.9, 4 males, French Guiana), 22.2 (1 female, Ecuador), 22.3 (21.8–22.7, 5 females) and 21.0 (1 male, Brazil), 24.1 (1 female, Guyana), 21.4 (1 male, French Guiana); length of palate, 17.9 (1 female, Ecuador), 14.6 (13.3–15.3, 5 females) and 13.9 (1 male, Brazil), 16.1 (1 female, Guyana), 13.9 (1 male, French Guiana), and 14.0 (1 male, holotype, Suriname); width of braincase, 8.6 (8.4–8.9, 7 females) and 8.6 (8.5–8.9, 4 males, French Guiana), 8.6 (1 female, Ecuador), 8.5 (8.3–8.8, 5 females) and 8.4 (1 male, Brazil), 8.7 (1 female, Guyana), 8.8 (1 male, French Guiana), and 8.8 (1 male, holotype, Suriname); height of braincase, 7.6 (1 female, Ecuador), 7.7 (7.6–7.9, 5 females) and 7.7 (1 male, Brazil), and 7.2 (1 male, holotype, Suriname); zygomatic width, 8.4 (8.1–8.9, 7 females) and 8.3 (8.2–8.4; 3 males, French Guiana), 8.6 (8.4–8.7, 3 females) and 8.4 (1 male, Brazil), 8.7 (1 male, French Guiana), and 8.5 (1 male, holotype, Suriname); mastoid width, 8.6 (8.4–9.1, 7 females) and 8.4 (8.2–8.6; 4 males, French Guiana), 8.6 (1 female, Ecuador), 8.2 (6.6–8.7, 3 females), 8.4 (1 male, Brazil), 8.9 (1 female, Guyana), 8.7 (1 male, French Guiana), and 8.6 (1 male, holotype, Suriname); length of maxillary toothrow, 8.1 (7.9–8.5, 7 females) and 7.7 (7.5–8.0; 3 males, French Guiana), 9.7 (9.4–10.0, 3 females) and 8.5 (3 males, French Guiana), 8.0 (7.0–8.8, 5 females) and 7.9 (1 male, Brazil), 8.3 (1 female, Guyana), 7.9 (1 male, French Guiana), and 7.7 (1 male, holotype, Suriname); width across molars, 4.2 (4.0–4.4, 7 females) and 4.1 (4.0–4.2, 3 males, French Guiana), 4.7 (4.3–4.9, 3 females) and 4.4 (4.3–4.6, 3 males, French Guiana), 4.5 (1 female, Ecuador), 4.4 (4.1–4.5, 5 females) and 4.6 (1 male, Brazil), 4.8 (1 female, Guyana), 4.6 (1 male, French Guiana), and 4.6 (1 male, holotype, Suriname). Data for specimens from French Guiana are from Brosset and Charles-Dominique (1990) and from Simmons and Voss (1998). Data for specimens from Brazil, Ecuador, and Guyana are from Solmsen (1998) and those from Suriname are from Husson (1962).

    Females exceed males in body size, thus presenting a marked sexual dimorphism in several characters (Brosset and Charles-Dominique 1990; Goodwin and Greenhall 1961; LaVal 1969; Simmons and Voss 1998). Additionally, a series of C. minor from French Guiana shows a remarkable intraspecific variation in size, skull shape, and dental morphology. Dental characters, in particular, are highly variable with no consistent pattern or correlation with body size or with rostral proportions.

    Distribution

    The distribution of Choeroniscus minor is restricted to northern South America; this distribution is more extensive than that of any of its congeners (Fig. 3). C. minor occurs in Brazil from the Mato Grosso, the Cerrado, and the southeastern Atlantic forests, to the mouth of the Amazon and the Amazon lowland (de Souza Aguiar et al. 2004; Gregorin and Ditchfield 2005; Koopman 1981, 1994; Marinho-Filho 1996; Solmsen 1998; Tuttle 1970). Its distribution extends northward through the Guianas and Suriname (Brosset and Charles-Dominique 1990; Husson 1962; Peters 1868; Simmons and Voss 1998) to eastern Venezuela (Koopman 1994; Ochoa and Fernández 1982; Sanborn 1954) and Trinidad (Genoways et al. 1973; Simmons and Voss 1998). To the west, it extends into central Colombia (Tamsitt et al. 1965) and coastal Ecuador (Albuja 1982; Koopman 1981, 1994; Patzelt 1989; Solmsen 1998) and southward to southern Peru (Koepcke 1987; Koopman 1978) and Bolivia (Aguirre et al. 2003; Anderson 1997; Koopman 1981, 1994). In Bolivia, C. minor mainly is found north of Santa Cruz, but its documented range recently has been extended to the southeast in Santa Cruz (Brooks et al. 2002). C. minor has been characterized as an Amazon lowland species (Koopman 1978). However, its distribution is known to include localities that are west of the Andes in Ecuador, and at elevations of 3,860 m in Peru (Koopman 1978) and 600–1,400 m in the Brazilian Cerrado (Marinho-Filho 1996). There are no known fossils of C. minor.

    Fig. 3

    Geographic distribution of Choeroniscus minor.

    i1545-1410-822-1-1-f03.gif

    Form and Function

    The lower lip of Choeroniscus minor has a V-shaped median groove that corresponds to a V-shaped notch at the tip of the mandible. Because there are no lower incisors and the uppers are tiny and separated by a wide median gap, the tongue can be protruded through closed jaws (“tongue gliding channel”—Solmsen 1998:75). The tongue can be extended to a length that is about 50% of total body length. The tip of the tongue is covered with bristlelike papillae, directed backwards, that enhance uptake of nectar (Goodwin and Greenhall 1961). The nose leaf of C. minor is relatively short and triangular, which presumably provides easy access to flower corollas (Solmsen 1998).

    The dental formula for C. minor is i 2/0, c 1/1, p 2/3, m 3/3, total 30 (Koopman 1994; Miller 1907; Phillips 1971; Solmsen 1994). With the exception of the canines, teeth are frail, mostly separated from each other, and compressed in the lingual–buccal direction. Upper incisors are small, with I1 smaller than I2 and not in contact with adjacent teeth. I1 has a low flat crown and I2 is triangular with a blunt cusp. Both pairs are separated from each other by a wide median gap. Canines are long and delicate, and C1 has a narrow lingual cingulum. Upper premolars are separated from the canines by a wide diastema, but p1 is close to the lower canines. Otherwise, premolars are separated from each other by narrow spaces. Premolars are long and narrow, and p2 and p3 show no molarization. The crowns of upper premolars are triangular in side view, each with a distinctly protruding main cusp and small anterior and posterior cingular styles. Lower premolars have anterior and posterior styles nearly as high as the main cusps. M1 and m1 do not contact adjacent teeth. M1 and M2 are of equal size, and M3 is slightly smaller. All molars are morphologically similar: they have low blunt protocones, high metacones extended by somewhat trenchant ridges in the direction of the metastyle, and prominent parastyles. Lower molars are nearly as narrow as the premolars and decrease slightly in size from m1 to m3. They are also similar morphologically: each has a rather prominent, nearly stylus-shaped metaconid, a lower and more blunt protoconid, and an even lower paraconid. In the lower molars the talonid is slightly longer than the trigonid and in m3 it is wider than the trigonid, with a distinct hypoconid and entoconid. Dental morphology, especially of the postcanine dentition, is highly variable in this species. Premolars and molars show quite different shapes even in a series of specimens from a single population (Simmons and Voss 1998).

    As is typical of other glossophagine bats, C. minor has relatively shorter wings than other phyllostomids (Smith and Starret 1979). Wing dimensions (mm) of 3 females from Ecuador, Guyana, and Brazil (in this sequence) are as follows: length of metacarpal III, 33.5, 36.9, 34.10; length of phalanx 1, digit III, 13.0, 12.7, 11.5; length of phalanx 2, digit III, 17.7, 18.4, 16.5; length of phalanx 3, digit III, 9.4, –, 8.0; length of metacarpal IV, 30.2, 31.9, 31.6; length of phalanx 1, digit IV, 8.5, 8.8, 8.5; length of phalanx 2, digit IV, 12.1, 12.4, 11.1; length of metacarpal V, 29.7, 30.6, 30.8; length of phalanx, digit V, 8.5, 7.9, 8.5; length of phalanx 2, digit V, 11.2, 11.8, 9.7. There are no published reports of wing loading and wing shape for C. minor. Observations of preserved material indicate that a relatively high wing loading and a below-average aspect ratio are likely, as is the case in other nectar-feeding Glossophaginae and Macroglossinae (Lindhe Norberg 2002).

    Ecology

    Data on reproduction in Choeroniscus minor is insufficient to allow broad generalization of breeding patterns. One lactating female C. minor from Colombia was collected in December (Tamsitt et al. 1965). A juvenile has been reported in August in Peru (Tuttle 1970).

    Choeroniscus minor inhabits tropical rain forests and prefers primary forest near rivers or lakes. Eleven specimens in Paracou, French Guiana, were collected in a locality mainly covered with primary rain forest (Simmons and Voss 1998). Eight specimens were found hanging beneath a log that had fallen across a river in Venezuela (Sanborn 1954). Several individuals of C. minor have been reported from the Amazon basin of Peru, roosting in small groups or in pairs under logs or in hollow trees in riverine areas. Three individuals were found among the roots of fallen trees and 1 pair beneath the bark of a rotten log. All individuals roosted 50–70 cm above the ground and occupied their roost sites over a period of several months. Of 3 C. minor captured at the edge of a primary forest, 1 was flying above a low field and another at a dead water of the Rio Llullapichis (Koepcke 1987). In French Guiana, a group of 6 C. minor (1 adult male, 4 adult females, and 1 sex unknown) was found roosting on the dark underside of a large fallen tree. An additional solitary adult male was found roosting beneath an undercut bank of a dry streambed. Both of these roosts were in primary forest (Simmons and Voss 1998).

    Choeroniscus minor primarily feeds on pollen and nectar, but insects may be consumed (Gardner 1977; Goodwin and Greenhall 1961). Stomach contents include pollen, crystallized honey or fruit juice, and fragments of insects (Coleoptera and Hymenoptera—Goodwin and Greenhall 1961; Koepcke 1987). Two specimens captured in the early night (2000 and 2300 h) in Peru had almost empty stomachs, whereas 2 individuals collected in the morning at the day roost (1 male and 1 female) contained many food particles (Koepcke 1987). C. minor is classified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2007) as Lower Risk/Least Concern (LR/lc).

    Genetics

    In Choeroniscus minor the diploid number (2n) is 20 (based on 1 male and 1 female from Suriname—Haiduk and Baker 1982). The karyotype includes 2 biarmed chromosome pairs (numbers 1 and 9), 7 subtelocentric pairs (numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8), and a pair of submetacentric X-chromosomes. C. minor retains the primitive condition for this clade (das Neves et al. 2001). Males exhibit a multiple Y-chromosome pattern (Genoways et al. 1973); it can be presumed that C. minor has a XX/XY1Y2 sex-determining chromosome system (Hsu et al. 1968).

    Literature Cited

    1.

    L. F. Aguirre, X. Velez-Liendo, A. Muñoz, and A. Selaya . 2003. Patterns of distribution and zoogeography of bats of Bolivia. Revista Boliviana Ecologia y Conservacion Ambiental 14:3–17. Google Scholar

    2.

    L. Albuja 1982. Murciélagos del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador Escuela Politécnica Nacional. Google Scholar

    3.

    J. A. Allen and F. M. Chapman . 1893. On a collection of mammals from the island of Trinidad, with descriptions of new species. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 5:203–234. Google Scholar

    4.

    S. Anderson 1997. Mammals of Bolivia, taxonomy and distribution. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 231:1–652. Google Scholar

    5.

    J. Arroyo-Cabrales, R. R. Hollander, and J. Knox Jones Jr . 1987. Choeronycteris mexicana. Mammalian Species 291:1–5. Google Scholar

    6.

    D. M. Brooks, J. M. Rojas, H. Aranibar, R. J. Vargas, and T. Tarifa . 2002. A preliminary assessment of mammalian fauna of the eastern Bolivian Panhandle. Mammalia 65:509–520. Google Scholar

    7.

    A. Brosset and P. Charles-Dominique . 1990. The bats from French Guiana: a taxonomic, faunistic and ecological approach. Mammalia 54:509–560. Google Scholar

    8.

    B. C. Carstens, B. L. Lundringham, and P. Myers . 2002. A phylogeny of the nectar-feeding bats (Chiroptera:Phyllostomidae) based on morphological and molecular data. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 9:23–53. Google Scholar

    9.

    A. C. das Neves, J. C. Pieczarka, R. M. Barros, S. Marques-Aguiar, L. R. Rodrigues, and C. Y. Nagamachi . 2001. Cytogenetic studies on Choeroniscus minor (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae) from the Amazonian region. Cytobios 105:91–98. Google Scholar

    10.

    L. M. de Souza Aguiar and J. Marinho-Filho . 2004. Activity patterns of nine phyllostomid bat species in a fragment of the Atlantic forest in southeastern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 21:385–390. Google Scholar

    11.

    A. L. Gardner 1977. Feeding habits. 293–350. in R. J. Baker, J. K. Jones Jr, and D. C. Carter , editors. Biology of the bats of the New World family Phyllostomatidae. Part II Special Publications, The Museum, Texas Tech University. 13:1–364. Google Scholar

    12.

    H. H. Genoways, R. J. Baker, and W. B. Wyatt . 1973. Nongeographic variation in the long-nosed bat, Choeroniscus intermedius. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 72:106–107. Google Scholar

    13.

    G. G. Goodwin and A. M. Greenhall . 1961. A review of the bats of Trinidad and Tobago. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 122:187–301. Google Scholar

    14.

    R. Gregorin and A. D. Ditchfield . 2005. New genus and species of nectar-feeding bat in the tribe Lonchophyllini (Phyllostomidae: Glossophaginae) from northeastern Brazil. Journal of Mammalogy 86:403–414. Google Scholar

    15.

    M. W. Haiduk and R. J. Baker . 1982. Cladistical analysis of G-banded chromosomes of nectar feeding bats (Glossophaginae: Phyllostomidae). Systematic Zoology 31:252–265. Google Scholar

    16.

    C. O. Handley Jr 1966. Description of new bats (Choeroniscus and Rhinophylla) from Colombia. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 79:83–88. Google Scholar

    17.

    T. C. Hsu, R. J. Baker, and T. Utakoji . 1968. The multiple sex chromosome system of American leaf-nosed bats (Chiroptera, Phyllostomatidae). Cytogenetics 7:27–38. Google Scholar

    18.

    A. M. Husson 1962. The bats of Suriname. Leiden, The Netherlands E. J. Brill. Google Scholar

    19.

    International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 2007. 2007 IUCN Red list of threatened species.  www.iucnredlist.org. (25 February 2008).  Google Scholar

    20.

    J. K. Jones Jr and D. C. Carter . 1976. Annotated checklist with keys to subfamilies and genera. 7–38. in R. J. Baker, J. K. Jones Jr, and D. C. Carter , editors. Biology of bats of the New World family Phyllostomatidae. Part I Special Publications, The Museum, Texas Tech University. 10:1–218. Google Scholar

    21.

    J. Koepcke 1987. Ökologische Studien an einer Fledermaus-Artengemeinschaft im tropischen Regenwald von Peru. Ph.D. dissertation. Munich, Germany Universität München. Google Scholar

    22.

    K. F. Koopman 1978. Zoogeography of Peruvian bats with special emphasis on the role of the Andes. American Museum Novitates 2651:1–33. Google Scholar

    23.

    K. F. Koopman 1981. The distributional patterns of New World nectar feeding bats. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 68:352–369. Google Scholar

    24.

    K. F. Koopman 1993. Order Chiroptera. 137–241. in D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder , editors. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Washington, D.C 2nd ed. Smithsonian Institution Press. Google Scholar

    25.

    K. F. Koopman 1994. J. Niethammer, H. Schliemann, and D. Starck , editors. Chiroptera: systematics. Handbook of zoology. Berlin, Germany Walter deGruyter. Vol. 8, part 60.  Google Scholar

    26.

    R. K. LaVal 1969. Records of bats from Honduras and El Salvador. Journal of Mammalogy 50:819–822. Google Scholar

    27.

    U. M. Lindhe Norberg 2002. The flight of bats. 1–27. in J. Niethammer, H. Schliemann, and D. Starck , editors. Handbook of zoology. Berlin, Germany Walter deGruyter. Google Scholar

    28.

    J. Marinho-Filho 1996. The Brazilian Cerrado bat fauna and its conservation. Chiroptera Neotropical 2:37–39. Google Scholar

    29.

    G. S. Miller Jr 1907. The families and genera of bats. United States National Museum 57:1–282. Google Scholar

    30.

    J. Ochoa and A. Fernández . 1982. Caso de hiperdoncia en Choeroniscus minor (Chiroptera—Phyllostomatidae). Acta Cientìfica Venezolana 33:428–430. Google Scholar

    31.

    E. Patzelt 1989. Fauna del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador Banco Central del Ecuador. Google Scholar

    32.

    W. Peters 1868. Ueber die zu den Glossophagae gehörigen Flederthiere und über eine neue Art der Gattung Coleura. Monatsbericht der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1868:361–368. Google Scholar

    33.

    C. J. Phillips 1971. The dentition of glossophagine bats: development, morphological characteristics, variation, pathology, and evolution. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas 54:1–138. Google Scholar

    34.

    C. C. Sanborn 1954. Bats from Chimantà-Tepui, Venezuela, with remarks on Choeroniscus. Fieldiana: Zoology 34:289–293. Google Scholar

    35.

    N. B. Simmons 2005. Order Chiroptera. 312–529. in D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder , editors. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Baltimore, Maryland Johns Hopkins University Press. 3rd ed.  Google Scholar

    36.

    N. B. Simmons and R. S. Voss . 1998. The mammals of Paracou, French Guiana: a Neotropical lowland rainforest fauna. Part I, bats. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 237:1–219. Google Scholar

    37.

    J. D. Smith and A. Starret . 1979. Morphometric analysis of chiropteran wings. 229–294. in R. J. Baker, J. K. Jones Jr, and D. C. Carter , editors. Biology of bats of the New World family Phyllostomatidae. Part III Special Publications, The Museum, Texas Tech University. 16:1–441. Google Scholar

    38.

    E-H. Solmsen 1994. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Schädelkonstruktion der neuweltlichen Blütenfledermäuse sowie zu ihrer systematischen Ordnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Glossophaginae (Phyllostomidae, Chiroptera, Mammalia). Ph.D. dissertation. Hamburg, Germany Universität Hamburg. Google Scholar

    39.

    E-H. Solmsen 1998. New world nectar-feeding bats: biology, morphology and craniometric approach to systematics. Bonner Zoologische Monographien 44:1–118. Google Scholar

    40.

    J. R. Tamsitt, D. Valdivieso, and J. Hernandez . 1965. Additional records of Choeroniscus in Colombia. Journal of Mammalogy 40:704. Google Scholar

    41.

    O. Thomas 1903. Two new glossophagine bats from Central America. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 7 11:286–289. Google Scholar

    42.

    O. Thomas 1912. New bats and rodents from S. America. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 8 10:403–411. Google Scholar

    43.

    O. Thomas 1928. A new genus and species of glossophaghine bat, with a subdivision of the genus Choeronycteris. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 10 1:120–123. Google Scholar

    44.

    J. Jvon Tschudi 1844. Therologie. 1–262. in J. J. von Tschudi , editor. Untersuchungen über die Fauna Peruana. St. Gallen, Switzerland Scheitlin and Zollikofer. Google Scholar

    45.

    M. D. Tuttle 1970. Distribution and zoogeography of Peruvian bats, with comments on natural history. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 49:45–86. Google Scholar

    Notes

    [1] Associate editors of this account were Ron Gettinger, Eric Helgren, and Pamela Owen. Editors were Meredith Hamilton and Virginia Hayssen.

    Ernst-Hermann Solmsen and Harald Schliemann "Choeroniscus Minor (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae)," Mammalian Species 2008(822), 1-6, (9 October 2008). https://doi.org/10.1644/822.1
    Published: 9 October 2008
    JOURNAL ARTICLE
    6 PAGES


    SHARE
    ARTICLE IMPACT
    Back to Top