The mammals of Paracou, French Guiana, a Neotropical lowland rainforest fauna. Part 1, Bats Simmons, Nancy B. Voss, Robert S. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 1998 1998-12-31 237 1 219 43FSR (Gray) Gray [252,533,1160,1183] Mammalia Phyllostomidae Mimon Animalia Chiroptera 79 79 Chordata species bennettii   Figures 34–37  VOUCHER MATERIAL: 1 female (AMNH *267109) and 1 male (MNHN *1995.988); see table 26 for measurements.  IDENTIFICATION: Although Koopman (1993, 1994) considered  Mimon bennettiiand  M. cozumelaeto be conspecific, many other authors have recognized them as distinct species ( Dalquest, 1957; Handley, 1960; Carter et al., 1966; Gardner and Patton, 1972; Jones and Carter, 1976; Swanepoel and Genoways, 1979; McCarthy, 1987; McCarthy et al., 1993). Whereas the restricted type locality of  M. bennettiiis Ipanema in the Brazilian state of São Paulo ( Hershkovitz, 1951), the type locality of  M. cozumelaeis Cozumel Island in the Mexican state of Quintana Roo ( Goldman, 1914). Currently, the known range of  cozumelaeextends from southern Mexico to northwestern Colombia, and that of  bennettiiextends from the Guianas to southeastern Brazil (Koopman, 1994).  Dalquest (1957)reported additional specimens of  Mimon cozumelaecollected in the decades following Goldman’s (1914)original description, and discussed differences between  cozumelaeand  bennettii, which he treated as distinct species. However, as Handley (1960)subsequently noted, Dalquest’s only comparative example of  bennettiiwas a juvenile. Schaldach (1964)subsequently summarized characters supposedly distinguishing these taxa, including size (smaller in  bennettii), dorsal pelage color (darker in  bennettii, brighter in  cozumelae), and length and woolliness of the middorsal hairs (long and not woolly in  bennettii, short and woolly in  cozumelae). Like Dalquest’s (1957)account, however, Schaldach’s description of the pelage of  bennettiiseems to have been based on juvenile or subadult specimens. Despite the morphological differences he noted, Schaldach concluded that  bennettiiand  cozumelaeare conspecific, a decision based in large part on the geographic gap between their known geographic ranges. Hall (1981)and Koopman (1993, 1994) followed Schaldach (1964)without additional discussion. Contra Schaldach (1964), Hall (1981), and Koopman (1993, 1994), we consider  Mimon bennettiiand  M. cozumelaeto represent distinct species based on apparently consistent differences in the following characters: (1) dorsal pelage color (more reddish in adult  bennettii, less reddish in  cozumelae), (2) col­ or of the wingtip (dark in  bennettii, white in  cozumelae), (3) shape of the middle upper incisors (tapering to points in  bennettii, more spatulate in  cozumelae), (4) form of the low­ er incisors (narrower in  bennettii), (5) morphology of m3 (talonid larger and better developed in  bennettii), and (6) morphology of the posterior palatal margin (broader with Ushaped mesopterygoid notch in  bennettii, narrower with V­shaped notch in  cozumelae). 8Although some overlap exists, bennet­  8This list of characters is based on both literature accounts and our examination of voucher specimens. Specimens examined in addition to those from Paracou:  Mimon bennettii(Brazil: USNM 123393, 391027);  Mimon cozumelae(Mexico: AMNH 144508, 185862–185872).  Fig. 34. Dorsal ( A) and ventral ( B) views of the skull of  Mimon bennettii(MNHN 1995.988; male) from Paracou. Dorsal ( C) and ventral ( D) views of the skull of  M. cozumelae(AMNH 265107; male) from Guatemala. Note the species differences in incisor morphology and in the shape of the mesopterygoid notch of the posterior palate. Scale bars = 10 mm.  Fig. 35. Lateral views of the skull and lower jaw of ( A)  Mimon bennettii(MNHN 1995.988; male) and ( B)  M. cozumelae(AMNH 265107; male). Scale bars = 10 mm.  tiiis generally smaller than  cozumelae(e.g., forearm length of 50.0–56.6 mm in  bennettii, 54.6–60.7 mm in  cozumelae; Swanepoel and Genoways, 1979; Hall, 1981; Brosset and Charles­Dominique, 1990). Although these taxa have not been collected in sympatry, it is counterproductive to regard them as subspecies given the magnitude of their mor­ phological divergence; until proven false, the appropriate null hypothesis is that they represent distinct species.  Fig. 36. Anterior views of the upper and low­ er dentition of ( A)  Mimon bennettii(MNHN 1995.988; male) and ( B)  M. cozumelae(AMNH 265107; male). Note that the middle upper incisors of  bennettiitaper to points, whereas these teeth are more spatulate in  cozumelae. Scale bars = 5 mm.  Fig. 37. Occlusal views of the crown of the right m3 in ( A)  Mimon bennettii(MNHN 1995.988; male) and ( B)  M. cozumelae(AMNH 265107; male). Note that the talonid is larger and better developed in  bennettiithan it is in  cozumelae. Scale bars = 1 mm. Descriptions and measurements of  Mimon bennettii sensu strictowere provided by Gray (1838), Dalquest (1957), Husson (1962, 1978), Hill (1964), Swanepoel and Genoways (1979), and Brosset and Charles­Dominique (1990). Our specimens closely resemble others previously reported from Guianas, particularly the bright orange­russet adults described by Brosset and Charles­Dominique (1990). Based on our limited comparisons, recognition of subspecies does not seem warranted.  FIELD OBSERVATIONS: One of our two specimens of  Mimon bennettiiwas captured in a ground­level mistnet and the other was taken at a roost; both captures were in creekside primary forest. The roost site was a large tree (ca. 1.5 m in diameter at breast height) with a central cavity extending from ground level to near the crown. We surrounded the only roost opening at ground level, a small hole ca. 15 cm in diameter, with a mistnet enclosure that caught one adult male  Mimon bennettiiand 27 adult male  Carollia perspicillatabetween 18:10 and 18:35 hours on 17 November 1992 (the  Mimon bennettiiemerged at 18:25 hours); no emerging bats escaped. We did not revisit this roost in subsequent years. 3037467365 79 79