4.4 Article

Rediscovery of Histiotus alienus Thomas, 1916 a century after its description (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae): distribution extension and redescription

期刊

ZOOKEYS
卷 -, 期 1174, 页码 273-287

出版社

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1174.108553

关键词

Bats; diagnosis; morphology; Neotropics; taxonomy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Histiotus is a Neotropical genus of bat that currently includes 11 species. Despite previous studies, there is still a lack of a comprehensive systematic revision for Histiotus. This study presents a second record of H. alienus and an amended diagnosis of this species, using qualitative and quantitative analyses. Our results enhance the understanding of the taxonomy and diagnosis of Histiotus, but further comprehensive revision is needed.
Histiotus is a Neotropical genus of bat that currently includes 11 species. The systematics of Histiotus has been the focus of several studies over the last decades. However, no broad systematic revision has been made, and taxonomic issues such as synonymies, use of subspecies, and specimens that do not fit the description of valid species still persist, as pointed out by several authors. Histiotus alienus was described in 1916 and is known only by the holotype. Here we present a second record of H. alienus and an amended diagnosis of this species. We use qualitative, quantitative, and morphometric analyses based on data from 184 specimens of Histiotus and almost all valid species. Our amended diagnosis establishes the taxonomic limits of H. alienus, as well as a comprehensive comparison with congeners. We also explore new diagnostic characters for H. alienus and provide a few notes on the natural history of this species. Our results highlight skull similarities among Histiotus species and reinforce the usefulness of external morphology for their correct identification. Despite our new insights into the taxonomy of the genus, several taxonomic issues remain, and a comprehensive revision of the genus is needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据