Mops (Mops) niangarae J.A. Allen, 1917

Fig. 28 E–F

Mops niangarae J.A. Allen, 1917: 468 .

* Tadarida (Mops) niangarae J.A. Allen, 1917 .

As indicated by Happold (2013u: 522) the specific status of Mops niangarae remains uncertain. Hayman et al. (1966: 66) considered it a separate species, but noted that Koopman (1965: 25) already mentioned that it closely resembled M. congicus, except for the absence of a band connecting the ears. Hayman & Hill (1971: 60) also consider it a valid species, but refer to Peterson (in litt.), who believed the missing connection between the ears to be an artifact and thought that niangarae is identical to trevori, but not conspecific with congicus [contrary to Happold (2013u: 522) and Simmons (2005: 443), who indicated that Hayman & Hill (1971) consider niangarae to be a subspecies of congicus]. Freeman (1981: 111) retained niangarae as a distinct species based on its more robust jaw and separated ears. This view is followed by Simmons (2005: 443), who suggested that a more formal revision of the trevori / congicus (and niangarae) complex is needed, but Thorn et al. (2009: 68) retain it as a synonym of M. trevori .

Due to the fact that the species is only known from the type specimen, the general distribution map only shows a single locality mark.