Rhinolophus sinicus K. Andersen, 1905

Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1), pp. 71-88 : 80

publication ID	https://doi.org/10.3161/150811009X465703
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4334132
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AF87D3-C435-B542-FF72-8049FB55BB1B
treatment provided by	Valdenar (2020-07-14 11:51:09, last updated 2024-11-29 12:46:43)
scientific name	Rhinolophus sinicus K. Andersen, 1905
status

Treatment

Rhinolophus sinicus K. Andersen, 1905 View in CoL

Chinese rufous horseshoe bat

The species is most easily confused with R. affinis , from which it is best distinguished by its straight-sided lancet and the relatively short second phalanx of the third digit (<66% of the length of the metacarpal — Csorba et al., 2003). Unequivocal separation can seemingly be performed by sequencing the control region of mtDNA (authors’ unpublished data). Echolocation call frequencies overlap with those emitted by R. affinis . Rhinolophus affinis is also typically a larger species, though overlap occurs with R. sinicus at forearm lengths between 50–53 mm ( Fig. 4 View FIG ). Rhinolophus sinicus is very similar to R. thomasi from Myanmar, Vietnam, Lao PDR and Thailand, to which it is closely related and possibly conspecific. Call frequency for R. thomasi in Lao PDR is reported as 76–86 kHz ( Francis and Habersetzer 1998), and so the two taxa overlap considerably in call frequency. Rhinolophus thomasi is reported to have smaller upper canines than R. sinicus (Francis 2008) .

FA — 42.6–52.6 mm, mass — 8.5–14.3 g. Seventy-four males and 43 females were captured from Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Hubei, Jiangxi, Sichuan, and Yunnan. The echolocation calls vary over the geographic range, from 73.4–88.5 kHz. The call frequencies (0 ± SD) of a sample of males (82.0 ± 2.0 kHz, n = 38) were lower than females (85.4 ± 1.9, n = 29 — Mann- Whitney W = 839, P <0.001), but the forearm lengths were not significantly different between sexes (♂♂: 46.9 ± 1.5, n = 37; ♀♀: 46.6 ± 2.0, n = 29; Mann-Whitney W = 1325, P> 0.05).

Previous records from China:, Anhui, Fujian, Gansu, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Hubei Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Tibet, Yunnan, Zhejiang ( Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003).

Ecological Notes

Widespread in caves in southern China, but never abundant. Maximum count was 24 bats in one cave in Jiangxi. An abandoned brick kiln was used by a solitary male in Xinyi County.

References

FRANCIS, C. M., and J. HABERSETZER. 1998. Interspecific and intraspecific variation in echolocation call frequency and morphology of horseshoe bats, Rhinolophus and Hipposideros. Pp. 169 - 179, in Bat biology and conservation (T. H. KUNZ and P. A. RACEY, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 365 pp.

WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp.

ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.

Figures

FIG. 4. Representative echolocation calls of bats in the family Hipposideridae captured from China during our surveys. See text for data on intraspecific variation. Calls are from time expanded sequences of handheld bats with FFT size 1024 Hz, Hanning window. The species are arranged according to body size from large species (left) to small (right)