Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Schreber, 1774)
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.3161/150811009X465703 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4334182 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AF87D3-C43A-B54E-FCC1-81D4FBCDB86A |
treatment provided by |
Valdenar |
scientific name |
Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Schreber, 1774) |
status |
|
Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Schreber, 1774) View in CoL
Greater horseshoe bat
FA — 56.5–62.0 mm, mass — 16.5–32.6 g. A widespread bat in China: we captured bats in Beijing, Guangxi, Henan, Hubei, Jiangxi, Jilin, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, Tianjin and Yunnan. Bats assigned to R. ferrumequinum in China have lower call frequencies and longer forearms (72.0–83.5 kHz, 56.5–62.0 mm, respectively) than those sampled in continental Europe and the UK (81–84 kHz, 50.6–59.0 mm FA in UK — Heller and Helversen, 1989; Jones and Rayner, 1990; Park et al., 2000; Andrews and Andrews, 2003; Ransome 2008). Genetic analyses of microsatellite loci and mitochondrial DNA reveal deep divisions among populations within China, and also between the Chinese populations and those from the Middle East and
Europe ( Rossiter et al., 2007; Flanders et al. 2009). Bats from southwest China typically emitted echolocation calls with FMAXE at 72.0 kHz to 73.9 kHz (Yunnan and Sichuan, respectively), while those from east China are higher again (♂♂ 74.8–76.8 kHz; ♀♀ 76.4–77.1 kHz). Moreover, bats from Japan that are usually considered a discrete subspecies (R. f. nippon) show a further decrease in call frequency (ca. 65 kHz — Taniguchi, 1985; Fukui et al., 2004) and are typically larger than most bats on the Chinese mainland. In conflict with this general trend was one bat from Jilin that emitted echolocation calls at 65 kHz and also appeared to show greater mtDNA sequence affiliation to the bats from Japan. Hence it is likely that the nippon lineage has recolonised China from Japan (Flanders et al., 2009). Such large differences in call frequency and corresponding genetic distinctiveness suggest that populations of this species in China might warrant taxonomic revision.
Previous records from China: Anhui, Beijing, Fujian, Gansu, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hebei, Henan, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Jilin, Liaoning, Ningxia, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Shandong, Shanghai, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang ( Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003).
Ecological Notes
Although widespread, the species was rarely encountered in large numbers. It was always found in caves. Breeding was confirmed in Du Cave, Tianjin where young were noted during late June. The species appears to eat mainly moths and beetles, as in Britain (Jones, 1990). Analysis of 60 droppings from Beijing collected in August 2003 revealed average percentage volumes of 96.9% moths, 2.7% beetles, 0.4% dipterans.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |