A moveable face: deconstructing the Microchiroptera and a new classification of extant bats

• Autorzy: Hutcheon J.M. , Kirsch J. A. W.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Recent comparative-method and molecular studies have called into question both the classic subordinal division of bats into Megachiroptera versus Microchiroptera and the infraordinal separation of microchiropterans as Yinochiroptera and Yangochiroptera: megabats are not necessarily large, nor are microbats uniformly small; some yinochiropterans may be specially related to megachiropterans whilst others are more nearly affiliated with yangochiropterans; and quite apart from the conflict with DNA comparisons, the microbat dichotomy (based on moveable versus fused premaxillae) is neither completely cladistic nor parsimonious. We conclude that current appellations — including the neologism Yinpterochiroptera — no longer embody the authors' intended groups or have been so frequently redefined as to be positively misleading. We therefore adopt the new subordinal names Vespertilioniformes (for the group including Emballonuridae, Nycteridae, and the ‘yangochiropterans’) and Pteropodiformes (for the taxon comprised of Craseonycteridae, Hipposideridae, Megadermatidae, Rhinolophidae, Rhinopomatidae, and Pteropodidae). These epithets are ultimately based on the oldest valid generic names for included taxa (respectively Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758 and Pteropus Brisson, 1762), and are thus impervious to pre-emption or misinterpretation.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Chiropterologica
• Rocznik: 2006
• Tom: 08
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.1-10,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Hutcheon J.M.

• Department of Biology, Georgia Southern University, P.O. Box 8042, Statesboro, GA 30460-8042, USA

autor

Kirsch J. A. W.

Bibliografia

• Barclay, R. M. R„ and R. M. Brigham. 1991. Prey detection, niche breadth, and body size in bats: why are aerial insectivorous bats so small? American Naturalist, 137: 693-703.
• Barclay, R. M. R„ and L. D. Harder. 2003. Life histories of bats: life in the slow lane. Pp. 209-253, in Bat ecology (T. H. Kunz and M. B. Fenton, eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, xix + 779 pp.
• Blackwelder, R. E. 1967. Taxonomy: a text and reference book. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 698 pp.
• Dobson, G. E. 1875. Conspectus of the suborders, families and genera of Chiroptera arranged according to their natural affinities. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 16: 345-357.
• Dumont, E. R. 2004. Patterns of diversity in cranial shape among plant-visiting bats. Acta Chiropte-rologica, 6: 59-74.
• Eick, G. N., D. S. Jacobs, and C. A. Mathee. 2005. A nuclear DNA phylogenetic perspective on the evolution of echolocation and historical biogeog- raphy of extant bats (Chiroptera). Molecular Biology and Evolution, 22: 1869-1886.
• Gray, J. E. 1821. On the natural arrangement of vertebrose animals. London Medical Repository, 15: 296-310.
• Gunnell, G. F., and N. B. Simmons. 2005. Fossil evidence and the origin of bats. Journal of Mammalian Evolution, 12: 209-246.
• Hoofer, S. R., S. A. Reeder, E. W. Hansen, and R. A. Van Den Bussche. 2003. Molecular phylogenetics and taxonomie review of noctilionoid and vespertilionoid bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 84: 809-821.
• Hutcheon, J. M., and T. Garland, Jr. 2004. Are megabats big? Journal of Mammalian Evolution, 11: 257-277.
• Hutcheon, J. M., and J. A. W. Kirsch. 2004. Camping in a different tree: results of molecular systematic studies of bats using DNA-DNAhybridization. Journal of Mammalian Evolution, 11: 17-47.
• Hutcheon, J. M., J. A. W. Kirsch, and J. D. Pettigrew. 1998. Base compositional biases and the bat problem. III. The question of microchiropteran monophyly. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 353B: 607-617.
• International Commission on Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). 2000. International code of botanical nomenclature. International Commission on Botanical Nomenclature, St. Louis, 474 pp.
• International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). 2000. International code of zoological nomenclature. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London, 306 pp.
• Jones, G. 1994. Scaling of wingbeat and echolocation pulse emission rates in bats: why are aerial insectivorous bats so small? Functional Ecology, 8: 450-457.
• Jones, K. E„ and A. MacLarnon. 2001. Bat life-histories: testing models of life-history evolution in mammals using a comparative phylogenetic approach. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 3: 465-476.
• Koopman, K. F. 1984. A synopsis of the families of bats, part VII. Bat Research News, 25: 25-29.
• Miller, G. S. 1907. The families and genera of bats. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 57: i-xvii + 282 pp.
• Novacek, M. J. 1993. Patterns of diversity in the mammalian skull. Pp. 438-545, in The skull: patterns of structural and systematic diversity (J. Hanken and B. K. Hall, eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 580 pp.
• Pedersen, S. 1998. Morphometric analysis of the chiropteran skull with regard to mode of echolocation. Journal of Mammalogy, 79: 91-103.
• Pettigrew, J. D., and J. A. W. Kirsch. 1995. Flying primates revisited: DNA hybridization with fractionated, GC-enriched DNA. South African Journal of Science, 91: 477-482.
• Simmons, N. B. 1994. The case for chiropteran monophyly. American Museum Novitates, 3103: 1-54.
• Simmons, N. B„ and J. H. Geisler. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx to extant bat lineages, with comments on the evolution of echolocation and foraging strategies in Microchiroptera. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 235: 1-182.
• Smith, J. D. 1976. Chiropteran evolution. Pp. 49-69, in Biology of bats of the New World family Phyllostomidae, Part I (R. J. Baker, J. K. Jones, and D. C. Carter, eds.). Special Publications, The Museum Texas Tech University, 10: 1-218.
• Smith, K.. K. 1993. The form of the feeding apparatus in terrestrial vertebrates: studies of adaptation and constraint. Pp. 150-196, in The skull: functional and evolutionary mechanisms. Volume 3 (J. Hanken and B. K. Hall, eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, i-vii + 460 pp.
• Smith, K. K. 1997. Comparative patterns of craniofacial development in eutherian and metatherian mammals. Evolution, 51: 1663-1678.
• Springer, M. S„ E. C. Teeling, O. Madsen, M. J. Stanhope, and W. W. de Jong. 2001. Integrated fossil and molecular data reconstruct bat echolocation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 98: 6241-6246.
• Teeling, E. C., M. Scally, D. J. Kao, M. L. Romagnoli, M. S. Springer, and M. J. Stanhope. 2000. Molecular evidence regarding the origin of echolocation and flight in bats. Nature, 403: 188-192.
• Teeling, E. C., O. Madsen, R. A. Van Den Bussche, W. W. de Jong, M. J. Stanhope, and M. S. Springer. 2002. Microbat paraphyly and the convergent evolution of a key innovation in Old World rhinolophoid microbats. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 99: 1431-1436.
• Teeling, E. C., O. Madsen, W. J. Murphy, M. S. Springer, and S. J. O'Brien. 2003. Nuclear gene sequences confirm an ancient link between New Zealand's short-tailed bat and South American noctilionoid bats. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 28: 308-319.
• Teeling, E. C., M. S. Springer, O. Madsen, P. Bates, S. J. O'Brien, and W. J. Murphy. 2005. A molecular phylogeny of bats illuminates biogeography and the fossil record. Science, 307: 580-584.
• Van Valen, L. 1979. The evolution of bats. Evolutionary Theory, 4: 104-121.
• Wible, J., and M. Novacek. 1988. Cranial evidence for the monophyletic origin of bats. American Museum Novitates, 2911: 1-19.
• Willig, M. R., B. D. Patterson, and R. D. Stevens. 2003. Patterns of range size, richness, and body size in the Chiroptera. Pp. 580-621, in Bat ecology (T. H. Kunz and M. B. Fenton, eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, xix + 779 pp.