Rhinolophus mehelyi, Matschie, 1901
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.3748525 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3808853 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/885887A2-FFC7-8A20-FF65-EF0EFD39D2C8 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Rhinolophus mehelyi |
status |
|
15 View On . Mehely’s Horseshoe Bat
Rhinolophus mehelyi View in CoL
French: Rhinolophe de Méhelÿ I German: Mehely-Hufeisennase / Spanish: Herradura mediana
Taxonomy. Rhinolophus (Euryalus) mehelyi Matschie, 1901 View in CoL ,
“ Bukarest [= Bucharest],” Romania.
Rhinolophus mehelyi is in the euryale species group along with R euryale . The names barbants and meridionalis by EL Andersen and P. Matschie in 1904 are better treated as synonyms of R mehelyi rather than synonyms of R euryale . Based on morphometric analyses by P. Benda and colleagues in 2006 and 2014, tuneti by R. Deleuil and A. Labbé in 1955 is considered a junior synonym of R mehelyi , and judaicus is better treated as a subspecies of R mehelyi instead of R euryale based on comparisons with the type specimen. Two subspecies recognized.
Subspecies and Distribution.
R m. mehelyi Matschie, 1901 - S Europe (S Iberian Peninsula, Sardinia, E Sicily, SE Italy, S Albania, E Serbia, S Romania, E North Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Greece), SW Asia (Caucasus, Anatolia, N Iraq, and Zagros Mts in W Iran), and N Africa (N Morocco, N Algeria, and N Tunisia); possibly a record from SE France, and there are apparently records from Afghanistan, although exact localities are uncertain.
R m. judaicus K. Andersen & Matschie, 1904 - Levant in Cyprus, N Syria, W Jordan, Israel, NE Egypt (including NW Sinai based on echolocation), and NE Libya. View Figure
Descriptive notes. Head—body 42—64 mm, tail 21—37 mm, ear 18—22 mm, hindfoot 9-12 mm, forearm 48-56 mm; weight 10-23 g. Mehely’s Horseshoe Bat is very similar to the Mediterranean Horseshoe Bat (AE mryafe), although its lancet is emarginateti near tip, is generally a little larger, and can have lighter pelage. Dorsal pelage is grayish brown (individual hairs are pale grayish beige, with grayish brown tips), with paler face and usually having conspicuous dark brown patch completely around or below each eye (much darker than in the Mediterranean Horseshoe Bat). Ventral pelage is much paler, being pure white or nearly white; boundary between dorsum and venter is fairly distinct. There is no orange morph. Males lack axillary tufts. Ears are short (c.42% of forearm length). Noseleaf has hastate lancet, with narrow upper one-half and almost parallel sides, although slightly tapered; lancet tip is bluntly pointed; connecting process is subtriangular; sella is naked, rounded, and tilted forward, with completely parallel sides; horseshoe is narrow at 4-9—7- 5 mm, does not cover entire muzzle, and lacks lateral leaflets; and there is slight median emargination. Wings and uropatagium are grayish brown. Skull is medium built, with slender zygomatic arches and zygomatic width wider than mastoid width; nasal swelling is low; frontal depression is shallow to nearly flat; supraorbital ridge is inconspicuous; sagittal crest is moderately developed; bony bar between infraorbital foramen and orbit is narrow; and infraorbital foramen is large. P2 is somewhat displaced labially but still stops C1 and P4 from touching; P3 is very small and completely displaced labially, allowing P2 and P4 to touch. Chromosomal complement has 2n = 58 and FNa = 60-64.
Habitat. Mediterranean shrub and woodlands and dry steppes, closely associated with water sources and caves, from sea level to elevations of c. 2000 m. In Spain, Mehely’s Horseshoe Bats were frequently found in semi-natural oak savanna and avoided open areas. They tend to prefer areas with lots of vegetation to forage in. Males and females seem to use different habitat types, at least in south-western Spain. Males foraged in riparian forest and broadleaved woodlands, and females foraged in mixed pastureland and woodland landscapes (“dehesa”), scrubland, and eucalypt plantations. They are found in Mediterranean forests, woodlands, montane forests, and sub-Mediterranean semi-desert grass and shrublands in North Africa and seem to avoid coastal regions.
Food and Feeding. Mehely’s Horseshoe Bats feed by slow hawking and fly-catching prey close to vegetation, and they probably also glean prey offfoliage and the ground. Foraging generally occurs close to the ground or near dense vegetation. They feed largely on lepidopterans in most parts of their distribution, with moths making up, by volume, 56-7—88-2% of spring diets and 34-9—69-6% of summer diets in Iran; beeties (8-2-26-2% and 11-3-33-5%), homopterans (0-13-9%), and flies (0-11% and 0-13-1%) also occurred in diets. Lepidopterans also made up significant proportion of diets in Spain (80—90% by volume), and only lepidopterans were found in three stomach samples in Romania. Although lepidopterans make up majority of their diet, Mehely’s Horseshoe Bats also feed on a variety of flies, beetles, homopterans, neuropterans, and cockroaches. In Libya, 22 fecal pellets contained an extremely large percentage ofcockroaches at 99-1% by volume; lepidopterans represented only 0 - 9 %. In Bulgaria, other non-lepidopterans (e.g. flies, beetles, and neuropterans) are seasonally important in diets.
Breeding. Mehely’s Horseshoe Bat is seasonally monoestrous. It probably also exhibits delayed fertilization and might copulate before entering hibernation. During mating season, females seem to prefer males with higher frequency calls, which reflects larger body size and thus sexual selection by females. Births in Algeria have been recorded in May and earlyJune; litter size is one. Females with nursing young have been recorded inJune in Iran. In Algeria, some young were volant by lateJune and roosted with their mother in the group. Young will roost with their mothers until they are weaned, after which young disperse and roost in other groups. Females do not become sexually mature until their third year; males become sexually mature at two years old.
Activity patterns. Mehely’s Horseshoe Bats are almost completely restricted to day roosting in caves, although they will roost in underground man-made structures like abandoned mines. In Iran, they are only known from roosts in natural caves. Summer caves are generally warmer caves in karst areas; winter caves are colder, further underground, and maintain constant microclimates. Temporary roosts are used between foraging bouts at night and have been reported in groves of trees. Mehely’s Horseshoe Bats are nocturnal, spending the day roosting and foraging through the night. They are able to enter torpor throughout the day but enter deeper torpor in winter. Active and torpid individuals can be found in roosts in winter. Call shape is FM/CF/FM, with F component averaging 109 (range 104—112) kHz; call durations are 20-36 milliseconds in Europe; and interpluse interval is 62-5 milliseconds in Greece. Tunisian individuals emitted frequencies of 111-5—117-5 kHz (mean 106-1 kHz). In Sinai, individuals were recorded with F component of 105 kHz, but species identity was tentative. Juveniles seem to emit lower frequencies than adults, and body condition seems to increase F component, which might affect sexual selection for larger mates. Both sexes are able to recognize sex of conspecifics based on their calls.
Movements, Home range and Social organization. Although Mehely’s Horseshoe Bats are primarily sedentary throughout the year, they have been recorded to move more than 90 km. Such movements seem to be females moving to maternity colonies to give birth and rear young, although males usually leave colonies so that females can remain, thereby establishing a maternity colony. Outside of the breeding season, males and females roost together in groups ranging in size from single individuals to up to 5000 individuals in winter and 3000 (maternity colony) in summer in some regions. Maternity colonies in Iran have 200-300 individuals. Males separate from the females when maternity colonies are created during summer, which is why colonies are smaller in summer. Within colonies, individuals often cluster tight together and make contact with one another, which is unlike all other European and North African species of Rhinolophus except the Mediterranean Horseshoe Bat Mehely’s Horseshoe Bats also form loose clusters where individuals do not touch. In Iran, some caves used as maternity colonies were abandoned before winter started, showing that distincdy different caves are used for maternity colonies and hibernacula. Mehely’s Horseshoe Bats are typically docile when roosting, although fights have been observed when foraging. In winter, they might cluster with individuals of different species, such as the Greater Horseshoe Bat (AE ferrumequinum), the Maghreb Myotis ( Myotis punicus), or Schreiber’s Long-fingered Bat ( Miniopterus schreibersii ), although they roost intraspecifically in spring and summer.
Status and Conservation. Classified as Vulnerable on The IUCN Red List. Mehely’s Horseshoe Bat has a wide but fragmented distribution but is extinct in north-eastern Spain (Catalonia), Balearics (Mallorca), most of Italy, and Croatia. Most records from France are old (1908-1965), and it is nearly extinct there. A male was recendy collected in south-eastern Italy after not being recorded in that country since 1960. Overall, populations of Mehely’s Horseshoe Bats seem to be declining throughout much of the distribution, but reasons are not fully understood. Some colonies have been reduced to a fraction of their former size, and a decline of 30% over three generations (27 years) is expected to be occurring. They are affected by habitat loss and disturbance and general roost disturbance. Mining in Iran is responsible for destruction of large multispecies maternity colonies. Climate change might also be a major threat. In some areas (e.g. Portugal), collisions with cars are problematic. Mehely’s Horseshoe Bat is protected in Europe by national legislation and is Annex II and IV on the EU Habitats and Species Directive.
Bibliography. ACR (2018), Alcalde, Benda & Juste (2016), Almenar et al. (2007), Al-Sheikhly, Haba, Görföl & Csorba (2015), Andersen & Matschie (1904), Arrizabalaga-Escudero et al. (2018), Arslan & Zima (2014), Benda, Andreas et al. (2006), Benda, Dietz et al. (2008), Benda, Faizolâhi et al. (2012), Benda, Hanâk et al. (2007), Benda, Luòan et al. (2010), Benda, Spitzenberger et al. (2014), Csorba et al. (2003), Csösz et al. (2015), DeBlase (1972), Deleuil & Labbé (1955), Dietz, Dietz et al. (2009), Dondini et al. (2014), Dulie & Soldatovic (1969), Gaisler (2013d), Kowalski et al. (1986), Paunovié et al. (1998), Puechmaille, Borissov et al. (2014), Rodrigues & Palmeirim (1999), Russo, Almenar et al. (2005), Russo, Jones & Mucedda (2001), Salsamendi, Aihartza, et al. (2006), Salsamendi, Arostegui et al. (2012), Salsamendi, Garin et al. (2008), Schuchmann et al. (2012), Sharifi (2004a), Sharifi & Hemmati (2001, 2004), Siemers & Ivanova (2004), Stoffberg et al. (2010), Turni & Kock (2008), Voigt et al. (2010), Walters et al. (2012).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Rhinolophus mehelyi
Burgin, Connor 2019 |
Rhinolophus (Euryalus) mehelyi
Matschie 1901 |