The mammals of Paracou, French Guiana, a Neotropical lowland rainforest fauna. Part 1, Bats
Author
Simmons, Nancy B.
Department of Mammalogy, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA
Author
Voss, Robert S.
Department of Mammalogy, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA
text
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History
1998
1998-12-31
237
1
219
journal article
8160
10.5281/zenodo.4545052
0540f87c-c902-4df5-acd4-51801c9531bd
2246/1634/B237-0004
4545052
Eptesicus furinalis
(d’Orbigny)
VOUCHER MATERIAL:
12 females (AMNH *266368, 267236, *267238, *267525, *267526, *268581, *268582, *268583; MNHN *1995.887, *1995.888, 1995.889, *1995.890) and 10 males (AMNH 266367, *266369, *266373, *267235, *267237, *267529, *268580; MNHN 1995.891, *1995.892, *1995.893); see table 55 for measurements.
IDENTIFICATION: Useful descriptions and measurements of
Eptesicus furinalis
were provided by Davis (1966),
Williams (1978)
,
Brosset and CharlesDominique (1990)
, and
Ochoa et al. (1993)
. Four subspecies are currently recognized in South America:
E
.
f
.
gaumeri
(tropical Mexico through Central America to northern Colombia, Venezuela, and the Guianas),
E
.
f
.
chapmani
(Amazonian Colombia, Brazil, and Bolivia),
E
.
f
.
furinalis
(southeastern Brazil to southern Bolivia and northeastern Argentina), and
E
.
f
.
findleyi
(northwestern Argentina) (Davis, 1966;
Williams, 1978
).
15
Our voucher material conforms in all respects to previous descriptions of
Eptesicus furinalis
, but our initial attempt to make a subspecific determination was not successful. We compared our material to measurements of
E
.
f
.
gaumeri
and
E
.
f
.
chapmani
provided by Davis (1966), and were dismayed to discover that these taxa appear to have almost completely overlapping ranges of size variation (op. cit.: table 3). The range of varia
15
Koopman (1994) additionally included
chiralensis
Anthony (1926)
and
montosus
Thomas (1920b)
as subspecies of
Eptesicus furinalis
, but we agree with Davis (1966) that those forms are instead conspecific with
E
.
andinus
(see discussion in the preceding account for
E
.
chiriquinus
).
tion in the Paracou series (table 55) could easily be interpreted as corresponding to either subspecies.
Although Davis (1966) published measurements of the holotypes of
Eptesicus furinalis gaumeri
and
E
.
f
.
chapmani
that suggested a significant size difference, he did not personally examine the specimens; instead, these data were provided by two different colleagues. We therefore remeasured and compared the types of
gaumeri
(AMNH 11040/12753) and
chapmani
(AMNH 37057) ourselves and found that they are more similar than previously reported (table 55). Indeed, both fall within the range of variation found in our Paracou sample in almost every dimension. Moreover, the types of
gaumeri
and
chapmani
and the Paracou specimens are all the same dark brown color above and have similar bicolored ventral fur with dark bases and tan tips. We conclude that
gaumeri
and
chapmani
cannot usefully be distinguished even at the level of subspecies. The correct name for this taxon—which seems distinct from the other South American subspecies of
E
.
furinalis
(see
Williams, 1978
)—is
Eptesicus furinalis gaumeri
Allen.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS: We captured 23
Eptesicus furinalis
at Paracou, of which 14 were taken in groundlevel mistnets, 8 in elevated mistnets, and 1 at a roost. Of our 14 groundlevel mistnet captures, 6 were in manmade clearings and 8 were over roadside puddles. Seven of our elevated mistnet captures were made between 5 and 20 m over a narrow dirt road, and one was made at 34– 37 m over a treefall in welldrained primary forest. Our single roosting example was found behind a window shutter.