Rhinolophus clivosus Cretzschmar, 1826

Cakenberghe, Victor Van, Tungaluna, Guy-Crispin Gembu, Akawa, Prescott Musaba, Seamark, Ernest & Verheyen, Erik, 2017, The bats of the Congo and of Rwanda and Burundi revisited (Mammalia: Chiroptera), European Journal of Taxonomy 382 (382), pp. 1-327 : 36-38

Rhinolophus clivosus Cretzschmar, 1826

Fig. 15 A–B

* Rhinolophus clivosus Cretzschmar, 1826: 47 .

* Rhinolophus clivosus zuluensis (Andersen, 1904) : 383.

Hayman et al. (1966: 38) mention two different taxa: R. clivosus and R. clivosus zuluensis , where the latter name is applied to specimens from the (south)western part of the DRC (Sud-Kivu, Haut-Lomami and Haut-Katanga). However, Bernard & Happold (2013a: 316) mention coastal South Africa as region for the zuluensis subspecies. They do not provide any information on the identity of the subspecies occurring in the DRC. Based on the boundaries set by Bernard & Happold (2013a: 316), the northern specimens (from Nord- and Sud-Kivu and from Rwanda and Burundi) might possibly be assigned to keniensis Hollister, 1916, and those from Haut-Lomami and Haut-Katanga to augur K. Andersen, 1904. The subspecific assignment of the westernmost specimen (RMCA 7718 from Kisantu, Kongo Central Province) cannot be performed as no other specimens from that area are known.

The Rwandan locality here attributed to Hayman et al. (1966) refers to three specimens from Bugoye- Kisenyi, Western Prefecture (RMCA 12265 to 12267), which were originally assigned to Rhinolophus fumigatus .

Recent research on nuclear introns by Dool et al. (2016: 202) indicates that R. clivosus is paraphyletic, which would suggest that some of the currently recognized subspecies might represent valid, separate species.

Stoffberg et al. (2012) already found that the mtDNA control region of the southern African R. clivosus specimens differed considerably from that of northern populations (as much as they differ from R. ferrumequinum ). They suggest to call these R. geoffroyi Smith, 1829 . However, they also point out that it “… is not currently recognized as a separate species because the name was unidentifiable and the type specimen apparently lost …” This was already mentioned by Ellerman et al. (1953: 56), Hayman (1954: 284), and Csorba et al. (2003). Stoffberg et al. (2012) do not provide any information that substantiates the validity of geoffroyi , so we are reluctant to use this name. They also indicate that “ R. geoffroyi ” includes four subspecies: geoffroyi in western RSA, zuluensis in eastern RSA, augur in central RSA and Botswana and zambesiensis in Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia and the southeastern-most part of the DRC (Sakania Territory, Haut-Katanga Province). The latter area is just southeast of the records from Haut-Katanga we report here, and seems to suggest that they do not belong to “ R. geoffroyi ”. Stoffberg et al. (2012: 6) considered specimens from Kenya to belong to R. clivosus , which might suggest that the more northern CRB specimens (Sud- and Nord-Kivu, Burundi and Rwanda) could be assigned to R. clivosus . On the other hand, Benda & Vallo (2012: 83) indicate that all populations occurring in the savanna belt from southeastern RSA to Kenya belong to one taxon, for which augur K. Andersen, 1904 is the prior available name. However, pending further research into the systematics of the R. clivosus complex, we tentatively retain the name R. clivosus for all the CRB specimens.

Cotterill (2002: 166) described a new closely related horseshoe bat ( Rhinolophus sakejiensis ) from Kavunda (11°17′ S, 24°21′ E), between the Sakeji and Zambezi Rivers in Zambian Northwest Province. This locality is less than 10 km from the border with the DRC. It would, therefore, also be very likely that this species occurs in the DRC, but it has not yet been recovered from there.

Figures

Fig. 15. Distribution maps. A–B. Rhinolophus clivosus Cretzschmar, 1826. C–D. Rhinolophus eloquens K. Andersen, 1905. E–F. Rhinolophus fumigatus Rüppell, 1842. A, C, E. Distribution in the CRB area. B, D, F. Pan-African distribution.