Myotis rufoniger ( Tomes, 1858 )

Jo, Yeong-Seok, Baccus, John T. & Koprowski, John L., 2018, Mammals of Korea: a review of their taxonomy, distribution and conservation status, Zootaxa 4522 (1), pp. 1-216 : 41-42

Myotis rufoniger ( Tomes, 1858) —Red and Black Myotis

Ƒespertilio rufo-niger Tomes, 1858 p.82 ; Type locality- Shanghai, China.

Myotis tsuensis Kuroda, 1922 p.43 ; Type locality- Tsushima , Japan.

M. chofukusei Mori, 1928 p.359 ; Type locality- Haeju, Korea; Kishida & Mori, 1931 p.378; Tate, 1947 p.82.

M. formosus tuensis: Kuroda, 1938 p.97 ; Won, 1967 p.317; Won, 1968 p.99; Corbet, 1978 p.50; Yoon, 1992 p.38; Yoon, 2010 p.32.

M. formosus chofukusei: Kuroda, 1938 p.97 ; Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951 p.146; Won, 1958 p.455.

M. sicarius tsuensis?: Tate, 1941 p.548 .

M. formosus: Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951 p.146 ; Won, 1968 p.98; Corbet, 1978 p.50; Han, 1994 p.45; Won & Smith, 1999 p.12 Son, 2001 p.92; Yoon 2004 p.60; Yoon, 2010 p.31; Jo et al., 2012 p.251 .

Range: The distribution of M. rufoniger extends over the Korean Peninsula with most records coming from Jeollanam Province (southwestern Korea) and Jeju Island ( Fig. 23 ).

Remarks: Myotis formosus forms a taxonomic complex with several related species. Tomes (1858) based his evaluation of V. rufoniger on color differences (pinna edge black, dorsal and ventral hairs tipped with bright rufous) but hesitated in classifying it as a distinct species or a ‘‘variety’’ of V. formosus ( Csorba et al. 2014) . Kuroda (1922) depicted M. tsuensis as having reddish-brown fur dorsally and ventrally but only made a comparison with M. macrodactylus and M. nattereri bombinus . He identified M. tsuensis as a distinct species. Kishida (1924) defined M. watasei from Taiwan as matching the ‘‘rufoniger-type’’ based on red-brown ear color at the base edged with black, the basal dorsal and ventral pelage brown-yellow and terminal one-third brown and feet black. Mori (1928) differentiated M. chofukusei from M. bechsteinii by the ‘‘capucine orange’’ dorsal fur and ears emarginated with dark margins. Imaizumi (1970), however, regarded M. tsuensis as ‘‘indistinguishable from M. chofukusei described from Korea’’ and gave its range as Tsushima and the Korean Peninsula. Yoshiyuki (1989) and Yoon (2010) also regarded the Korean population as belonging to the Subspecies M. formosus tsuensis . Kim et al. (2011c) published the complete mitochondrial genome of the species ( M. formosus ) in Korea. Csorba et al. (2014) split M. formosus into six species: M. bartelsi in Java and Bali; M. formosus in Afghanistan, India, Nepal, China, Taiwan, and Vietnam; M. hermani in Sumatra, Thailand, and Malaysia; M. rufoniger in Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, Laos, and Vietnam; M. rufopictus in the Philippines; and M. weberi in Sulawesi. The species from Korea grouped with the rufoniger group, not the formosus group ( Csorba et al. 2014).

Mori (1928) reported M. chofukusei on the Korean Peninsula and treated it as a synonym of M. formosus tsuensis Kuroda, 1922 from Tsushima, Japan ( Yoon 2010). Since M. f. tsuensis had priority and represented a subspecies for Korea and Tsushima Island, we suggest assignment of M. rufoniger tsuensis as the subspecies for Korea.

Conservation status: The Ministry of Environment designated M. formosus (= M. rufoniger ) as an endangered species in 1998 and the Cultural Heritage Administration listed it as a Natural Monument in 2005. Although the IUCN has not assigned a conservation status of this species, the Red Data Books for populations in South Korea and North Korea list M. rufoniger as ‘Vulnerable’ (NIBR 2012) and ‘Rare’ (MAB National Committee of DPR Korea 2002), respectively.

Figures

FIGURE 23. Range map of Myotis rufoniger in Korea.