Rhinonycteridae J.E. Gray, 1866

Foley, Nicole M., Thong, Vu Dinh, Soisook, Pipat, Goodman, Steven M., Armstrong, Kyle N., Jacobs, David S., Puechmaille, Sebastien J. & Teeling, Emma C., 2014, How and Why Overcome the Impediments to Resolution: Lessons from rhinolophid and hipposiderid Bats, Molecular Biology and Evolution 32 (2), pp. 313-333 : 319

Family Rhinonycteridae J.E. Gray, 1866 .

Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1866:81,

new rank.

Old World leaf-nosed bats.

(= Rhinonycterina J.E. Gray 1866:81 ;

including the Subfamily Rhinonycterinae J.E. Gray 1866:81

; Tribe Rhinonycterini J.E. Gray 1866:81 ; Tribe Triaenopini Benda and Vallo 2009:33 ; Subtribe Rhinonycterina J.E. Gray 1866:81 (including [fossil taxa with †] Rhinonicteris J.E. Gray, 1847:16 ; Cloeotis Thomas 1901:28 ; Triaenops Dobson 1871:455 ; † Brachipposideros Sige, 1968:83 ; † Brevipalatus Hand and Archer 2005:372; Paratriaenops Benda and Vallo 2009:31 .)

Type Genus— Rhinonicteris J.E. Gray, 1847

Type genus is Rhinonicteris J.E. Gray, 1847:16 , which was included in J.E. Gray’s (1866:81) supra-generic grouping, the Rhinonycterina , which he called “leaf-nosed bats”. Correct generic spelling was discussed by Simmons (2005:378) and resolved by Armstrong (2006), see also Mahoney and Walton (1988:127) (see derivato nominis section of the supplementary information for further discussion).

Description and Diagnosis of the Family Rhinonycteridae

The soft part characters of the rhinarium (noseleaf) outlined here are derived largely from Gray (1845) and Hill (1982), with verification of specimens in The Natural History Museum, London (BMNH). The Family Rhinonycteridae, Old World leaf-nosed bats, as diagnosed here, possess the following combination of five principal features of the rhinarium observable in extant species (reference specimens include Cleotis percivali [BMNH 56.550], Paratriaenops furculus [BMNH 78.185], Rhinonicteris aurantia [BMNH 57.10.24.10], and Triaenops persicus [BMNH 72.4372]): 1) having a sella (strap-like projection) extending forward from the internarial region of the anterior portion of the rhinarium, which distinguishes them from their closest relatives in the Hipposideridae Lydekker, in Flower and Lydekker,1891:657 ; 2) anterior rhinarium is deeply emarginate medianly, more so than in the Rhinolophidae (Gray, 1825:242) (see illustrations in Hill [1982] and Benda and Vallo [2009]; cf. Csorba et al. 2003); 3) strongly cellularized (more so than members of the Hipposideridae ) and multipocketed posterior rhinarium; 4) either with (Cleotis, Paratriaenops , and Triaenops ) or without ( Rhinonicteris ) a trident-like projection oriented dorsally and originating from the caudal margin (these are structurally different from the three reduced projections in the genus Asellia ); and 5) a compressed longitudinal process originating from the intermediate rhinarium between the nares and central cellular pocket. For further descriptions and illustrations, see the following: Gray (1866); Dobson (1878); Hill (1982); and Benda and Vallo (2009). The Rhinonycteridae are further distinguished from Hipposideridae by a 128-bp retrotransposon insertion in the THY gene fragment.

The Rhinonycteridae differ from the Nycteridae, Van der Hoeven, 1855:1028 and Megadermatidae, H. Allen, 1864:1 based on noseleaf structure (as described above; see descriptions of the latter in Tate [1941a, 1941b] and Koopman [1994]) and by having ears that are separate, not enlarged and lacking a tragus. Like the Hipposideridae , members of the Rhinonycteridae differ from the Rhinolophidae , by having two pedal phalanges rather than three, and they lack a P 3. Craniodental features of extinct and extant Rhinonycteridae show considerable variation, and the examination of relevant specimens and literature does not reveal characters that diagnose members of the Rhinonycteridae from all other rhinolophoids or from the members of the Hipposideridae ; see Sige et al. (1982) and Hand and Archer (2005) for combinations of features that distinguish fossil members of the Rhinonycteridae from members of the Hipposideridae ; these differences are not necessarily unique to the Rhinonycteridae . Both the Rhinonycteridae and Hipposideridae differ in terms of their echolocation call structure from the Rhinolophidae , emitting typical pulse durations of around 15 ms or less in “search mode”, compared with 4 30 ms search mode calls produced by members of the Rhinolophidae .