Noctilio leporinus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Velazco, Paúl M., Voss, Robert S., Fleck, David W. & Simmons, Nancy B., 2021, Mammalian Diversity And Matses Ethnomammalogy In Amazonian Peru Part 4: Bats, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2021 (451), pp. 1-201 : 30

Noctilio leporinus (Linnaeus, 1758)

VOUCHER MATERIAL (TOTAL = 15): Quebrada Esperanza (FMNH 89002–89012, 89161–89164); see table 14 for measurements.

UNVOUCHERED OBSERVATIONS: None.

IDENTIFICATION: Noctilio leporinus is easily distinguished from N. albiventris by its larger size (wingspan about 500 mm; length of foot> 25 mm; forearm> 73 mm; length of maxillary toothrow> 10 mm), including especially long hindlimbs, large feet, and well-developed claws that it uses for gaffing fish (Hood and Jones, 1984; Gardner, 2008a; López-Baucells et al., 2018). Descriptions and measurements of N. leporinus were provided by Husson (1962, 1978), Ceballos-Bendezú (1968), Davis (1973), Hood and Jones (1984), and Simmons and Voss (1998). Although three subspecies have traditionally been recognized (e.g., by Davis, 1973; Simmons, 2005; Gardner, 2008a), recent molecular studies support the recognition of only two: N. l. leporinus (in South America east of the Andes extending north into eastern Panama) and N. l. mastivus (distributed from Mexico south into the lowlands west of the Andes, with an additional population in Jamaica) (Pavan et al., 2013; Khan et al., 2014).

Ceballos-Bendezú (1968) correctly identified the specimens from Quebrada Esperanza as Noctilio leporinus . Our comparisons indicate that these specimens are morphologically indistinguishable from specimens from Bolivia (e.g., AMNH 210666), Brazil (e.g., AMNH 91943), and French Guiana (e.g., AMNH 265974). This result is congruent with the genetic findings of Pavan et al. (2013) and Khan et al. (2014) and suggests that the Quebrada Esperanza specimens should be referred to N. l. leporinus .

REMARKS: No ecological information accompanies the unique series from Quebrada Esperanza, which was obtained by C. Kalinowski in 1957, but from the fact that these specimens were collected on three different dates (1 on 23 September, 10 on 25 September, and 4 on 26 September), we infer the probable occurrence of multiple capture events. Because mistnets were seldom employed in the 1950s, these bats were probably shot at night by jacklight or taken from diurnal roosts.