Published December 31, 1998 | Version v1
Taxonomic treatment Open

Promops centralis Thomas 1912

  • 1. Department of Mammalogy, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA

Description

Promops centralis Thomas

Figures 66, 67

VOUCHER MATERIAL: 2 females (AMNH *269114; MNHN *1995.983); see table 67 for measurements.

IDENTIFICATION: References useful for identifying species of Promops include Goodwin and Greenhall (1961, 1962), Ojasti and Linares (1971), and Genoways and Williams (1979), all of which include comparative measurements. Unfortunately, the genus has received no modern revisionary treatment and some vexing taxonomic problems remain.

Promops centralis was originally described by Thomas (1915) based on three specimens from ‘‘N. Yucatan,’’ Mexico. Handley (1966) suggested that P. occultus Thomas (1915) from Paraguay and P. davisoni Thomas (1921) from Peru might be conspecific with P. centralis, but provided no supporting data. Although subsequent authors have accepted this synonymy, most have expressed doubts about the affinities of P. davisoni, which may have affinities with P. nasutus instead (Freeman, 1981; Genoways and Williams, 1979; Koopman, 1994). Setting aside specimens from the Pacific coast of Ecuador and Peru (referrable to davisoni; Koopman, 1978, 1994), P. centralis is now believed to range throughout much of the Neotropics. Whereas P. c. centralis is said to occur from Mexico to Surinam (Ojasti and Linares, 1971; Genoways and Williams, 1979; Koopman, 1994), populations from eastern Peru to northern Argentina have been identified as P. c. occultus (see Goodwin and Greenhall, 1962; Koopman, 1994).

Our voucher material corresponds closely to published descriptions of Promops centralis centralis (e.g., Goodwin and Greenhall, 1961, 1962; Ojasti and Linares, 1971; Genoways and Williams, 1979). The dorsal fur, bicolored dark brown with white only at the base, is longer over the neck and shoulders (ca. 7 mm) than it is over the lower back (4– 5 mm). The ventral fur, slightly paler brown in mass effect, is likewise bicolored, with a white base that comprises approximately one­fourth of each hair. The morphology and measurements of the skull and dentition of our specimens fall within the range of vari­ ation described by previous authors (e.g., Goodwin and Greenhall, 1961, 1962; Alvarez and Aviña, 1964; LaVal, 1969; Ojasti and Linares, 1971; Genoways and Williams, 1979). Ojasti and Linares (1971) noted that the tiny anterior upper premolar is absent in the holotype of P. centralis, but is present in one paratype and in their specimen from Venezuela. The anterior upper premolar is present on both sides in one of our specimens (AMNH 269114) but is bilaterally absent in the other (MNHN 1995.983).

In the field we initially had difficulty distinguishing female Molossus rufus from Promops centralis because these bats have a similar dark brown dorsal pelage, and the pale hair bases in our Promops were very short and hard to detect. We also found it hard to see the tiny lower incisors (one pair in Molossus, two pairs in Promops) in living bats even with the help of a hand lens. However, we found that we could easily separate these species based on the ventral pelage (unicolored brown in M. rufus, bicolored brown with distinct white hair bases in P. centralis), morphology of the upper incisors (short and spatulate in M. rufus, very long and pincerlike in P. centralis), and form of the anterior palate (gently arching in Molossus, very strongly arched in Promops; fig. 67).

FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Both of our specimens of Promops centralis were taken in mistnets suspended 17–21 m over a narrow dirt road.

Notes

Published as part of Simmons, Nancy B. & Voss, Robert S., 1998, The mammals of Paracou, French Guiana, a Neotropical lowland rainforest fauna. Part 1, Bats, pp. 1-219 in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 237 on pages 168-169, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4545052

Files

Files (4.2 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:35d2e279a3ed452e1deef4398b7517d4
4.2 kB Download

System files (23.8 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:9eb5805bced67501b32e4b8d258e9137
23.8 kB Download

Linked records

Additional details

Biodiversity

Family
Molossidae
Genus
Promops
Kingdom
Animalia
Order
Chiroptera
Phylum
Chordata
Scientific name authorship
Thomas
Species
centralis
Taxon rank
species
Taxonomic concept label
Promops centralis Thomas, 1912 sec. Simmons & Voss, 1998

References

  • Goodwin, G. G., and A. M. Greenhall 1961. A review of the bats of Trinidad and Tobago: descriptions, rabies infection, and ecology. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 122: 191 - 301.
  • Ojasti, J., and O. J. Linares 1971. Adiciones a la fauna de murcielagos de Venezuela con notas sobre las especies del genero Diclidurus (Chiroptera). Acta Biol. Venez. 7: 421 - 441.
  • Genoways, H. H., and S. L. Williams 1979. Records of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from Suriname. Ann. Carnegie Mus. 48: 323 - 335.
  • Freeman, P. W. 1981. A multivariate study of the family Molossidae (Mammalia, Chiroptera): morphology, ecology, evolution. Fieldiana Zool., N. Ser. 7: 173 pp.
  • Koopman, K. F. 1978. Zoogeography of Peruvian bats with special emphasis on the role of the Andes. Am. Mus. Novitates 2651: 33 pp.
  • Alvarez, T., and C. E. Avina 1964. Nuevos registros en Mexico de la familia Molossidae. Rev. Soc. Mex. Hist. Nat. 25: 243 - 254.
  • LaVal, R. K. 1969. Records of bats from Honduras and El Salvador. J. Mammal. 50: 819 - 822.