
==== Front
Biodivers Data J
Biodivers Data J
1
urn:lsid:arphahub.com:pub:F9B2E808-C883-5F47-B276-6D62129E4FF4
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:245B00E9-BFE5-4B4F-B76E-15C30BA74C02
Biodiversity Data Journal
1314-2836
1314-2828
Pensoft Publishers

10.3897/BDJ.12.e129879
129879
25210
Taxonomy & Inventories
Animalia
Systematics
New record of Miniopterusmagnater (Chiroptera, Miniopteridae) from south-western China and a comparative study of three species of Miniopterus in China
Qian Yishun https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0438-6839
1Writing - original draft
Mou Xin https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6760-3680
1
Wang Wen 2
Zhang Wenxiang 2
Li Yuanyuan 34
Wu Li 35
Zhao Canjun 6Data curation
Jiao Zhiwei 6Data curation
Li Song lis@mail.kiz.ac.cn
71
1 Kunming Natural History Museum of Zoology, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, China Kunming Natural History Museum of Zoology, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Kunming China
2 Huanglianshan National Nature Reserve in Yunnan Province, Honghe Hani and Yi Autonomous, China Huanglianshan National Nature Reserve in Yunnan Province Honghe Hani and Yi Autonomous China
3 Yunnan Academy of Forestry and Grassland, Kunming, China Yunnan Academy of Forestry and Grassland Kunming China
4 Yunnan Key Laboratory of Biodiversity of Gaoligong Mountain, Kunming, China Yunnan Key Laboratory of Biodiversity of Gaoligong Mountain Kunming China
5 Gaoligong Mountain Forest Ecosystem Observation and Research Station of Yunnan Province, Kunming, China Gaoligong Mountain Forest Ecosystem Observation and Research Station of Yunnan Province Kunming China
6 Cangshan Erhai National Nature Reserve Administration, Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture, China Cangshan Erhai National Nature Reserve Administration Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture China
7 Yunnan Key Laboratory of Biodiversity Information, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, China Yunnan Key Laboratory of Biodiversity Information, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Kunming China
Corresponding author: Song Li (lis@mail.kiz.ac.cn).
Academic editor: Krizler Tanalgo

2024
13 9 2024
12 e1298796CA725F9-EEAE-53B6-8626-436C8C7CE3031376431317 6 2024
02 9 2024
Yishun Qian, Xin Mou, Wen Wang, Wenxiang Zhang, Yuanyuan Li, Li Wu, Canjun Zhao, Zhiwei Jiao, Song Li
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract

Background

This research documents a new record of Miniopterusmagnater in the south-western region of China, a significant discovery given the limited diversity of the Miniopterus genus within the country. Only three species of Miniopterus occur in China: Miniopterusmagnater, Miniopterusfuliginosus and Miniopteruspusillus. These species share a high degree of morphological similarity, particularly in their external characteristics. This underscores the necessity for the identification of additional distinguishing traits that can aid in the taxonomic differentiation of these closely-related species.

New information

During the 2023 field expedition to various nature reserves in Yunnan Province, China, we encountered specimens of the genus Miniopterus. Utilising a combination of morphological assessments and phylogenetic analyses, we identified six individuals as Miniopterusmagnater. A review of the existing geographical distribution data revealed that this species is primarily found in central and southern regions of China, with no previous records from the south-western part of the country. Based on our findings, we present a novel record of Miniopterusmagnater's distribution in the south-western region of China.

Keywords new record
Miniopterusmagnater
morphology
south-western China
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Although Miniopteridae used to be a subfamily of Vespertilionidae, it was later found that miniopterines differed from vespertilionids in numerous aspects of morphology and genetics in many ways (Agrawal and Sinha 1973, Mein and Tupinier 1977, Krutzsch and Crichton 1990, Reep and Bhatnagar 2000, Kawai et al. 2002, Hoofer and Bussche 2003, Hutcheon and Kirsch 2004, Van Den Bussche and Hoofer 2004, Eick et al. 2005, Miller-Butterworth et al. 2007). Thus, the taxonomic status of Miniopteridae was elevated to the family level. The family Miniopteridae now stands as a distinct entity, encompassing the monotypic genus Miniopterus. This genus is distinguished by a pronounced elongation of the third finger and second phalanx, a unique morphological trait amongst its bat counterparts. Despite a high degree of similarity in external morphology amongst the species within this genus, the primary taxonomic differentiators lie in the size and proportional length of their wings. Historically, Miniopterus species identification and classification relied predominantly on fur colour and other morphological markers; however, recent advances in molecular systematics and biogeographical research have unveiled a complex picture of Miniopterus species taxonomy, revealing a degree of previous misclassification (Appleton et al. 2004) . Notably, the taxonomic delineation of Miniopterusschreibersii has been a subject of particular scrutiny, with ongoing research aiming to resolve their classification (Miller-Butterworth et al. 2007).

Historically, numerous species of the Miniopterus genus in the Asian Region were broadly categorised as Miniopterusschreibersii Kuhl, 1817 (Wilson and Reeder 2005). However, with the advancement of molecular biology and the progression of scientific research, a multitude of new species have been progressively delineated and identified. The prevailing taxonomic consensus in China posits that the taxon previously referred to as Miniopterusschreibersii in China should be reclassified as Miniopterusfuliginosus. This reclassification is supported by a synthesis of evidence encompassing morphological traits, genetic data and biogeographical distribution (Miller-Butterworth et al. 2007, Li et al. 2015). Many species within this genus exhibit overlapping characteristics, particularly in body size and fur colouration. However, there are also studies that rely on these external features to distinguish between species (Skinner and Chimimba 2005).

Miniopterusfuliginosus was formerly in taxonomic confusion with Miniopterusschreibersii (Li et al. 2015). Nonetheless, genetic analyses have uncovered substantial genetic divergence at the DNA level between these two taxa, providing robust support for their classification as distinct species (Miller-Butterworth et al. 2007). Furthermore, Miniopterusschreibersii, a species characteristic of the Mediterranean Region, is predominantly found across Europe and western Asia, whereas Miniopterusfuliginosus is more prevalent in China and its neighbouring regions (Piksa and Gubała 2020). In China, the genus Miniopterus encompasses three species: Miniopterusfuliginosus, Miniopterusmagnater and Miniopteruspusillus. Despite extensive morphological overlap between Miniopterusmagnater and Miniopterusfuliginosus, discernible differences emerge in forearm length and cranial dimensions. A critical taxonomic criterion is the width of the upper jaw's third molar, with Miniopterusmagnater exceeding 7.3 mm and Miniopterusfuliginosus measuring less than this threshold (Smith and Xie 2008).

During field investigations in key natural reserves of Yunnan Province, China, including Cangshan Erhai National Nature Reserve, Huanglianshan National Nature Reserve and Guanyinshan Provincial Nature Reserve, we collected specimens of the three Chinese Miniopterus species. Our geographical distribution analysis revealed that Miniopterusmagnater is predominantly found in southern Asia and Southeast Asia, as documented by Han et al. (2008) and Francis et al. (2010). This species has been recorded in southern regions such as Hainan, Guangdong and Hong Kong (Smith and Xie 2008), extending to Fujian and Anhui in eastern China (Han et al. 2008). However, until now, no distribution records existed for Miniopterusmagnater in south-western China.

Materials and methods

Sample collection

The specimens used in this study were collected using mist-nets in 2023 during field expeditions to three nature reserves in Yunnan, China (Fig. 1). M.magnater and M.pusillus were collected in April 2023 from the Huanglianshan National Nature Reserve, Luchun County, Yunnan, China (N22.85°, E102.19°, altitude 866 m). M.fuliginosus was collected from two different localities: the Cangshan Erhai National Nature Reserve in Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture, Yunnan, China (25.57 °N, 100.14 °E, altitude 1912 m, September 2023) and Yuanyang Guanyinshan Provincial Nature Reserve of Yunnan, China (N23.01 °, E102.94 °, altitude 2401 m, October 2023) (Bates and Harrison 1997). Specimens were preserved by immersion in absolute ethanol. The specimens were deposited at the Kunming Natural History Museum of Zoology, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (KIZ, CAS). M.magnater collection numbers are KIZ20230213, KIZ20230270, KIZ20230274, KIZ20230276, KIZ20230307 and KIZ20230312. The specimen collection numbers of M.fuliginosus are KIZ20230869, KIZ20230871, KIZ20230921, KIZ20230922, KIZ20231102 and KIZ20231111. The collection numbers of M.pusillus are KIZ20230263, KIZ20230265, KIZ20230305, KIZ20230306, KIZ20230311 and KIZ20230314.

Morphological description and measurement

Five external morphologies: tail length (TL), head-body length (HB), forearm length (FA), tibia length (TIB) and ear length (EAR) were measured in the field (Bates and Harrison 1997). The skull specimen was stripped under experimental conditions and the attached muscle tissue on the skull was carefully removed to maintain the integrity of the skull structure. A digital vernier caliper was used to measure the skull, the measurement accuracy being 0.01 mm. In terms of skull morphology measurement, we selected seven features for measurement: greatest skull length, from the anterior rim of the alveolus of the first upper incisor to the most projecting point of the occipital region (GSKL); postorbital breadth, narrowest dorsal width posterior to the postorbital constriction of the cranium (POB); mastoid width, the greatest width across the mastoid region (MAW); mandible length, from the posterior-most point of the condyle to anterior-most alveoli of lower incisors (ML); width across upper canines, taken across the outer-most points of the crowns of the upper canines (C-C); width across the upper third molars, taken across the outer-most point of the crowns of the 3rd upper molars (M3-M3); complete upper canine-molar tooth row, taken from the anterior-most point of the crown of the upper canine to the posterior-most point of the crown of 3rd upper molar (C-M3). Skull measurements were based on bat studies of the genus Pteropus in India and Sri Lanka (Kusuminda et al. 2022). The measurements of bat wing bones are undertaken following Bates and Harrison (1997); mt: metacarpal, from the extremity of the carpus to the distal extremity of the metacarpal. Ph: phalanx of the metacarpal, taken from the proximal to the distal extremity of the phalanx. For example: 1ph3mt, refers to the first phalanx of the third metacarpal. 2ph3mt/4mt/1ph4mt/5mt/1ph5mt: as above. It is worth noting that we did not take in situ measurements of the hand skeleton of M.pusillus during the field survey. Therefore, the morphological characteristics of the wings of M.pusillus were measured by using specimens immersed in absolute ethanol. Since the morphology of the hand bones did not change, most of the characteristics were considered to be reliable and not much different from those when they were alive in the natural state. During the assessment, it was observed that the second phalanx of the wing exhibited significant curling, a condition not conducive to accurate measurement. Consequently, these specimens had to be manipulated into a straight configuration for measurement, an intervention that may introduce discrepancies between the measured data and the specimens' natural state. Due to these methodological limitations, the morphological data derived from the second phalanx were deemed unreliable for inclusion in our analysis. These measurements were conducted by a single individual using consistent equipment, thereby minimising the influence of human error on the data.

Data processing

Data processing was undertaken using the IBM SPSS Statistics v. 27.0.1 non-parametric 1-sample K-S (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) test (Berger and Zhou 2014). Inspection of the morphological data obtained by our measurements showed that all morphological data conformed to a normal distribution. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether there were significant differences in morphological parameters amongst species and principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the morphological measurements of specimens.

Phylogenetic analysis

Genomic DNA from bat muscle tissue preserved in anhydrous ethanol was extracted using the TSP202-200 Animal Genomic DNA Extraction Kit (Bejing Tsingke Biotech Co., Ltd., Chian). We used the primers Molcit-F (5'-AATGACATGAAAAATCACCGTTGT3', Ibáñez et al. (2006)) and Cytb-H (5'-CTTTTCTGGTTTACAAGACCAG-3', Weyeneth et al. (2008)) to amplify the complete mitochondrial cytochrome b (cyt-b) gene. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed in a 50 μl system. The system contained 45 μl of enzyme: Gold Mix (green), 2 μl of forward primer, 2 μl of reverse primer and 1 μl of DNA template. The PCR protocol required an initial denaturation at 94°C for 2 minutes, followed by five cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 30 seconds, annealing at 50°C for 30 seconds and extension at 72°C for 1 minute, followed by 35 additional cycles: denaturation at 94°C for 30 s, annealing at 55°C for 40 s, extension at 72°C for 1 min and final extension at 72°C for 10 min and renaturation at 4°C. Finally. purifed samples were sequenced by the ABI 3730XL DNA Analyzer (USA) at Beijing Tsingke Biotech Co., Ltd (China).

The evolutionary history was inferred by using the Maximum Likelihood method and Hasegawa-Kishino-Yano model (Hasegawa et al. 1985), which has the highest log likelihood (-7525.55). The percentage of trees in which the associated taxa clustered together is shown next to the branches. Initial tree(s) for the heuristic search were obtained automatically by applying Neighbour-Joining and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the Maximum Composite Likelihood (MCL) approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value. A discrete Gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences amongst sites (5 categories (+G, parameter = 0.4761)). The rate variation model allowed for some sites to be evolutionarily invariable ([+I], 30.02% sites). This analysis involved 43 nucleotide sequences. There were a total of 1141 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA11 (Tamura et al. 2021). We selected Cyt b sequences provided by other researchers from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database for comparative study. Amongst them, Kerivoulafurva was used as the outgroup. The relevant situation is shown in the following table (Table 1).

The number of base substitutions per site from between sequences are shown (Suppl. material 1). Analyses were conducted using the Maximum Composite Likelihood model (Tamura et al. 2004). This analysis involved 21 nucleotide sequences. Codon positions included were 1st+2nd+3rd+Noncoding. All ambiguous positions were removed for each sequence pair (pairwise deletion option). There were a total of 1141 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA11 (Tamura et al. 2021). The relevant sequences of M.magnater, M.fuliginosus and M.pusillus used are detailed in Table 1.

Taxon treatments

Miniopterus magnater

Sanborn, 1931

9ADB5014-35F8-5D8F-8E8E-2DD7EA235EF3

https://www.gbif.org/species/2432503

Materials

Type status: Other material. Occurrence: occurrenceID: A45CA4E8-576D-52FD-A7F4-A17A0FDE9E7E; Taxon: kingdom: Animalia; phylum: Chordata; class: Mammalia; order: Chiroptera; family: Miniopteridae; genus: Miniopterus; Location: countryCode: China; stateProvince: Yunnan; county: Lvchun; locality: Huanglianshan National Nature Reserve; verbatimCoordinates: N22.85°, E102.19°

Diagnosis

Dorsal pileus long, soft, light brownish-black; abdominal pileus dark brown, tips of pileus lighter in colour. Large body size. Head-body length: 58-75 mm, tail length: 52-64 mm, hind-foot length: 9-13 mm, ear length: 11-17 mm, forearm length: 47-54 mm. Total length of skull more than 17 mm. Condylobasal length more than 14 mm, width across the upper third molars more than 7.4 mm (Smith and Xie 2008).

Miniopterus fuliginosus

Hodgson, 1835

D276007B-E3D8-5446-A71D-1508B6B729AA

https://www.gbif.org/zh/species/5787699

Materials

Type status: Other material. Occurrence: occurrenceID: 11EC16D1-79EE-5658-8B51-21819D99F77B; Taxon: kingdom: Animalia; phylum: Chordata; class: Mammalia; order: Chiroptera; family: Miniopteridae; genus: Miniopterus; Location: country: China; stateProvince: Yunnan

Diagnosis

Wholly sooty brown. Ears, lips and muzzle, as in the last: and face sharp, but the rostrum somewhat recurved, owing to the concave bend of the nasal bones, which in formosa are rather convex (Hodgson 1835). Transverse width of maxillary third molars less than or equal to 7.3 mm (Smith and Xie 2008).

Miniopterus pusillus

Dobson, 1876

B3804FEC-1FD2-5BA5-AC07-1EE8AEBCF04A

https://www.gbif.org/species/2432506

Materials

Type status: Other material. Occurrence: occurrenceID: 91B5C895-7477-5C93-BA6F-50AC0F35F3FC; Taxon: kingdom: Animalia; phylum: Chordata; class: Mammalia; order: Chiroptera; family: Miniopteridae; genus: Miniopterus; Location: country: China; county: Yunnan

Diagnosis

The fur is dark brown in colour, with some extension of the fur on to the tail. Head-body length 45-48 mm, tail length: 40-48 mm, hind-foot length: 7-8 mm, ear length 10-11 mm, forearm length 39-42 mm, total cranial length 13.5-14.5 mm. The skull has no sagittal crest (Smith and Xie 2008).

Analysis

Morphological characteristics

Body and Fur

M.magnater is characterised by a slender body plan, featuring an oval head, rounded ears with distinct tragus and a well-developed thumb. The second phalanx of the third metacarpal (2ph3mt) is notably elongated, approaching approximately 90% of the forearm length (FA). The FA is robust and covered with dense fur on the ventral aspect, while the mouth area is devoid of villi. The hind limbs are well-developed, presenting five distinct toes and the genitalia are well-developed. The body of M.magnater is densely covered with downy hair, presenting an overall tan hue, while the villi tips are marginally golden brown. The colouration along individual villi remains largely uniform from the tail root to the head, without a pronounced gradient. Both the dorsal and ventral body surfaces, as well as the head to tail hair colouration, exhibit consistency, with no significant variation (Fig. 2).

Skull

In the dorsal view, the anterior maxilla presents a concave oval configuration, with the incisors exhibiting a distinct inward retraction. The sagittal suture is prominently defined. The canines are markedly prominent and the orbits are notably large. The zygomatic arches are characterised by a straight lateral profile, with robust anterior and posterior extremities and a more delicate mid-section. From a lateral perspective, the skull of M.magnater is elegantly slender, featuring a subtle concavity at the maxillary level and a pronounced sagittal suture. The occipital region of the skull is broadly oval, with a significant indentation observable on the parietal bones. The zygomatic processes are well-developed, with the anterior portion being broad and the posterior tapering to a narrower point. Relative to M.fuliginosus and M.pusillus, the skull of M.magnater is notably elongated and the sagittal suture is comparatively more developed (Fig. 3).

Dentition

Dental formula of the M.magnater : 2.1.2.3/3.1.3.3 = 36. The base of the canines of the cranium protrudes outwards and the first premolar is depressed medially, canine developed. First premolar is small, not as high as the incisor, the height of first premolar is not half that of second premolar, second premolar is higher in height than the posterior teeth, the height of the molar almost the same. Well-developed canines in the lower jaw, the height of first premolar and second premolar is basically the same and third premolar is significantly higher than first premolar and second premolar, the height of the molars decreases sequentially from front to back (Fig. 3).

Morphological measurement data

The descriptive statistics, as delineated in Table 2, reveals pronounced distinctions between M.magnater, M.fuliginosus and M.pusillus. Amongst the trio of species evaluated, M.magnater emerges as the most substantial in stature. Owing to the morphological congruence observed on external examination, we measured some morphological data of the skull and wings. The cranial measurements for M.magnater align well with prior scholarly works (Hodgson 1835, Smith and Xie 2008). Variability is noted in the extremities of the measured range; however, the mean values, juxtaposed with the standard deviation of these metrics, indicate a higher degree of precision in the cranial measurements and suggest limited inter-individual variability within M.magnater.

By means of morphometric data, the specimens of the three species of the genus Miniopterus collected in this study are in general agreement with the morphometric data of other scholars (Hodgson 1835, Smith and Xie 2008, Saikia et al. 2020, Kusuminda et al. 2022). Thus, we have reason to believe that these specimens belong to three species of Miniopterus, M.magnater , M.fuliginosus and M.pusillus.

Comparison of significant differences

By analysis of skulls based on measurement data, M.magnater demonstrates significant morphological distinctions from both M.fuliginosus and M.pusillus, as evidenced by pronounced differences in GTL, POB, MAW, M3-M3, C-M3, C-C and ML, with statistical significance indicated by a P-value of less than 0.01. In the context of the wing skeleton, 3mt, 4mt and 5mt of M.magnater and M.fuliginosus do not exhibit significant variability (P > 0.05, with a minimum P-value of 0.257). However, 1ph3m and 1ph4mt display highly significant differences. 1ph5mt presents significant to extremely significant differences, as detailed in Table 3 and Suppl. material 2.

By performing principal component analysis on the morphometric data, we obtained three principal components. The eigenvalue of principal component 1 is 15.894 and Variance explained is 88.048%. The eigenvalue and Variance showed that the differences between component 2 and component 3 were relatively small and the cumulative variance contribution was 95.815%. Except for TL, E, 3mt, 4mt, 5mt and ML, which have relatively low loadings, the other eigen loadings are relatively high. Overall, there was less loss of original information, which was suitable for principal component analysis (Table 4).

The scatter plots, generated from the principal component analysis, distinctly delineate the three Miniopterus species, with no overlap observed between M.magnater, M.fuliginosus and M.pusillus. The data points exhibit a clear demarcation, forming three discrete groups (Fig. 4).

Phylogenetic analysis

Phylogenetic analyses have confirmed that our cytochrome b (Cyt b) sequences, in conjunction with those from other researchers, form a monophyletic group with M.fuliginosus, M.magnater and M.pusillus. The sequences display no evidence of hybrid relationships amongst the three species. These phylogenetic outcomes are congruent with the findings from morphological studies, thereby reinforcing the validity of our species identifications (Fig. 5).

Using the genetic distance table, we can see that, within the populations of all three species, the differences in genetic distances between the sequences of the specimens collected in this study and those of other researchers are relatively small, with an average difference of approximately 0.75% for M.magnater, 1.09% for M.fuliginosus and 0.20% for M.pusillus . In terms of inter-population variation, the difference in genetic distance between M.magnater and M.fuliginosus was relatively small, with a mean difference of about 6.39%. The mean difference in genetic distance between M.magnater and M.pusillus was about 13.40%. The mean difference in genetic distance between M.fuliginosus and M.pusillus is about 14.02% (Suppl. material 1). The results of genetic distances indicate that the specimens we collected in Yunnan Province, China, are indeed M.magnater , M.fuliginosus and M.pusillus belonging to the genus Miniopterus.

Comparison of differences

Comparative analysis of coat colouration reveals marked differences on the body surface between M.magnater and its congeners, M.fuliginosus and M.pusillus. The latter two species display a predominantly grey-black coat, with more pronounced golden hues at the fur tips.

Comparative morphological assessments reveal significant differences in overall morphology and size between M.magnater and its congeners, M.fuliginosus and M.pusillus, while M.magnater and M.fuliginosus exhibit relatively minor variations in body size. Forearm length, body length and hind foot length are markedly longer in M.magnater than in M.fuliginosus. In contrast, there is a substantial disparity in body size when comparing M.magnater with the smaller M.pusillus.

Morphometric data analysis indicates significant differences in the mean values of tail length (TL), forearm length (FA), head-body length (HB), tibia length (TIB) and ear length (E) between populations of M.magnater and M.fuliginosus (Table 2). Intraspecific body size variations within M.magnater are also evident, as demonstrated by the standard deviation of the morphometric measurements.

There was no significant difference in the arrangement structure of the teeth between M.magnater and M.fuliginosus and M.pusillus. According to previous studies, the M3-M3 of M.magnater was greater than 7.3 mm, M3-M3 of M.fuliginosus less than 7.3 mm (Smith and Xie 2008) and all specimens of M.magnater and M.fuliginosus in this study conformed to this characteristic (Fig. 3).

In terms of skull differences, of the three species, the smallest skull of M.pusillus differed considerably from the other two, with no sagittal suture present in the skull. The size difference between M.magnater and M.fuliginosus was relatively small, with both having a distinct sagittal suture.

Discussion

There are several Miniopterus species in the neighbouring countries of China that are more similar to the Miniopterus species distributed in China mentioned in this study. The new species M.srinii discovered in 2023 is very similar to M.pusillus, with forearm lengths ranging from 38.93 mm to 41.29 mm. The fur is dark golden yellow to dark brown and lighter than M.pusilus (Srinivasulu and Srinivasulu 2023). The newly-discovered M.phillipsi (2022) is somewhat smaller in external body size and cranial dimensions than M.magnater and M.fuliginosus, but is larger than M.pusillus. Its morphometric data overlap slightly with M.fuliginosus (Kusuminda et al. 2022). These four species are also similar in appearance, making it more difficult to distinguish them under field conditions. The distribution of M.eschscholtzii in the Philippines, which was previously recognised as a subspecies of M.schreibersii (Wilson and Mittermeier 2019), was made independent as a separate valid species by genetic studies of it (Miller-Butterworth et al. 2007), much like the change in taxonomic status of M.fuliginosus.

In the initial phase of mandibular morphological identification, a distinct diastema at the base of the teeth between the first (p1) and second (p2) premolars was observed in M.fuliginosus, a characteristic not present in M.magnater. At first, we considered this feature as a potential morphological factor in distinguishing the two species. However, with an increasing sample size, the consistency of this gap as a distinguishing feature proved to be variable; it was present in some individuals, but absent in others. The utility of such variations as indicators of ecological environments warrants further investigation and refinement. The observed overlap in body size metrics between M.magnater and Mi.fuliginosus underscores the challenge of species identification, based solely on external morphological characteristics.

Li et al. (2015) conducted a comparative study on Miniopterusmagnater and Miniopterusfuliginosus populations in Vietnam and China, revealing that the M3-M3 measurement in all individuals was less than 7.3 mm, with M.magnater specifically ranging from 7.03 mm to 7.29 mm and Miniopterusfuliginosus from 6.33 mm to 7.16 mm. Subsequent research by Saikia et al. (2020) and Kusuminda et al. (2022) reported M3-M3 measurements within a narrower range of 7.0 to 7.7 mm. In contrast, the present study observed measurements ranging from 7.30 to 7.60 mm. These findings suggest that the diagnostic feature of an M3-M3 width exceeding 7.3 mm may not be entirely reliable, as the majority of individuals exhibited M3-M3 widths greater than this threshold, albeit with some smaller individuals displaying measurements below it. Moreover, discrepancies in other morphometric measurements have been noted, with size overlap occurring between smaller M.magnater and larger M.fuliginosus individuals, complicating morphological identification.

In terms of genetic distance (Suppl. material 1), the genetic distance between M.magnater and M.fuliginosus is relatively close, only about 6%. Additionally, the genetic distance between M.pusillus with M.magnater and M.fuliginosus is relatively far higher than 13%. This result coincides with the differences in the morphometric data, where the similarity between M.magnater and M.fuliginosus is higher, the similarity of M.pusillus with M.magnater and M.fuliginosus was relatively low. As can be seen through the phylogenetic tree, these three species being on the same branch (Fig. 5). Although there are some significant differences between their three species, this may explain why similarities exist amongst the three species.

In Asia, M.magnater exhibits a broad distribution across the Indochina Peninsula, whereas M.fuliginosus is sparsely found in the same region, but is present in central and northern China (Li et al. 2015,Kusuminda et al. 2022). The distribution patterns of these species appear to be influenced by the complex topography of southern China, with the south-western distribution limited by the Hengduan Mountains and the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, the southern range constrained by the Nanling Mountains and the central region obstructed by the Wuyi Mountains. These geographical features impede their inland penetration, allowing only a few individuals to overcome such barriers. It is plausible that the prolonged geographical isolation has led to divergent evolutionary trajectories, adapting to their respective niches.

In southwest China, similar altitudes and environments, which are numerous, are being increasingly impacted by urbanisation, agricultural and forestry development and intensified human activities, leading to a reduction in suitable bat habitats. The establishment of nature reserves undoubtedly provides protection for bats and facilitates their survival and reproduction. Increasing the publicity of science and enhancing the construction and management of nature reserves are of positive significance for bats, wild animals, the protection of natural ecological environment and the sustainable development of human civilisation.

Supplementary Material

XML Treatment for Miniopterus magnater

XML Treatment for Miniopterus fuliginosus

XML Treatment for Miniopterus pusillus

5BA1CB03-F7F6-5360-873A-2B9EAF9F5B1D 10.3897/BDJ.12.e129879.suppl1 Supplementary material 1 Uncorrected P-distances (%) amongst sequences.

Data type Table

Brief description Table of genetic distances of three species of the genus Miniopterus distributed in China.

File: oo_1114285.docx

https://binary.pensoft.net/file/1114285Yishun Qian

CD4BD007-849A-5600-970D-E45F8ED0C679 10.3897/BDJ.12.e129879.suppl2 Supplementary material 2 LSD multiple comparisons

Data type Table

Brief description Results of LSD multiple comparisons of morphometric data of three specimens of species of the genus Miniopterus collected in this study.

File: oo_1114792.docx

https://binary.pensoft.net/file/1114792Yishun Qian

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Survey of Chiroptera Species Diversity and Distribution in Northwest and Southwest of China (2021FY100302), the Project of Huanglian Mountains National Nature Reserve Animal Diversity Expedition (E2023HLS001), Yunnan Fundamental Research Projects (grant NO. 202201BC070001) and the Position of Bioclassonomist of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS-TAX-24-055).

Author contributions

Xin Mou and Yishun Qian contributed equally to the article.

0A79A088-4B28-5A6B-AEF6-46A026B206B3 10.3897/BDJ.12.e129879.figure1 13764347 Figure 1. The collection sites of the specimens used in this study.

https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1109842

26286398-4D99-5526-B10D-D71D1E927B88 10.3897/BDJ.12.e129879.figure2 13764349 Figure 2. Three specimens of Miniopterus used in this study. A Miniopterusmagnater, specimen collection number: KIZ20230213; B Miniopterusfuliginosus, specimen collection number: KIZ20231111; C Miniopteruspusillus, specimen collection number: KIZ20230306, specimens preserved in anhydrous ethanol. 1 Dorsal view; 2 Ventral view.

https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1064347

47A15914-11D1-5BA5-AC57-AD22B904F5C1 10.3897/BDJ.12.e129879.figure3 13764351 Figure 3. Photograph of the skulls, mandibles, specimens. A Miniopterusmagnater, collection number: KIZ20230213; B Miniopterusfuliginosus, collection number: KIZ20231111; C Miniopteruspusillus, collection number: KIZ20230306. 1 dorsal view of the cranium; 2 lateral view of skull; 3 ventral view of skull; 4 lateral view of the mandible; 5 occlusal view of mandible.

https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1108855

DC8BE0D0-AC5F-5253-AED2-D60095F83444 10.3897/BDJ.12.e129879.figure4 13764353 Figure 4. Scatterplots of the samples for principal component factors 1 vs. 2 and 1 vs. 3, respectively.

https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1064366

5DA0BCE5-502F-598B-9FF6-8098560B9889 10.3897/BDJ.12.e129879.figure5 13764355 Figure 5. Phylogenetic tree of the genus Miniopterus, based on the cytb gene constructed using the Maximum Likelihood method, nodes with posterior probabilities < 0.70 are not labelled. The percentage of trees in which the associated taxa clustered together is shown next to the branches，represented by blue circles, with larger graphs indicating higher values.

https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1114380

Table 1. The GenBank accession numbers and specimen collection numbers of the cyt b sequences used in the construction of the phylogenetic tree.

Species	GenBank accession numbers or specimen collection numbers	Reference	Species	GenBank accession numbers	Reference	
M.magnater	KIZ20230314	This study	M.fraterculus	MN790912	Moir et al. (2020)	
M.magnater	KIZ20230311	This study	M.tristis	MN504407	Demos et al. (2019)	
M.magnater	KIZ20230263	This study	M.inflatus	MN064735	Lutz et al. (2019)	
M.magnater	MW054887	Ruedi et al. (2021)	M.minor	FJ232806	Weyeneth et al. (2008)	
M.magnater	ON640726	Wu et al. (2022)	M.manavi	JF440281	Ramasindrazana et al. (2011)	
M.magnater	ON640727	Wu et al. (2022)	M.majori	JF440279	Ramasindrazana et al. (2011)	
M.magnater	EF517307	Cui et al. (2007)	M.gleni	JF440238	Ramasindrazana et al. (2011)	
M.fuliginosus	KIZ20230307	This study	M.africanus	MN064734	Lutz et al. (2019)	
M.fuliginosus	KIZ20230274	This study	M.griveaudi	FJ232802	Weyeneth et al. (2008)	
M.fuliginosus	KIZ20230270	This study	M.sororculus	JF440286	Ramasindrazana et al. (2011)	
M.fuliginosus	MW054886	Ruedi et al. (2021)	M.petersoni	EU091258	Goodman et al. (2008)	
M.fuliginosus	OR468074	Direct Submission	M.paululus	MN504402	Demos et al. (2019)	
M.fuliginosus	AB085737	Sakai et al. (2003)	M.natalensis	OP157142	Yi et al. (2024)	
M.pusillus	KIZ20231111	This study	M.egeri	MN504382	Demos et al. (2019)	
M.pusillus	KIZ20230871	This study	M.mossambicus	OQ224761	Benda et al. (2022)	
M.pusillus	KIZ20231102	This study	M.brachytragos	MN504225	Demos et al. (2019)	
M.pusillus	KIZ20230869	This study	M.griffithsi	JF440240	Ramasindrazana et al. (2011)	
M.pusillus	MN366288	Direct Submission	M.maghrebensis	KP455388	Benda et al. (2014)	
M.pusillus	OR468083	Direct Submission	M.aelleni	MN504218	Demos et al. (2019)	
M.pusillus	MW054888	Ruedi et al. (2021)	M.ambohitrensis	MN504221	Demos et al. (2019)	
M.pusillus	ON640680	Wu et al. (2022)	K.furva	MH208502	Direct Submission	

Table 2. Morphometric data on three species of the genus Miniopterus.

Variables	M.magnater	M.fuliginosus	M.pusillus	
This study n =6	Saikia et al. (2020) n = 12	Kusuminda et al. (2022)	This study n = 6	Kusuminda et al. (2022)	This study n = 6	Kusuminda et al. (2022)	
TL	60.70±2.96 (56.24-64.45)	-	59.0±2.00 (56-64 n = 15)	58.64±3.29 (54.78-64.08)	54.2±5.35 (46-60 n = 8)	49.94±3.10 (46.50-54.84)	47.9±2.63 (43-51 n = 7)	
FA	50.93±1.38 (48.87-52.30)	-	50.5±1.21 (48-52 n = 16)	48.82±0.84 (47.53-48.34)	46.9±2.39 (42-49 n = 10)	41.26±0.69 (40.43-42.27)	41.7±0.90 (39-42 n = 9)	
HB	64.55±3.31 (59.39-66.78)	-	61.0±2.44 (56-65 n = 14)	55.83±1.35 (54.31-57.45)	55.2±4.74 (47-63 n = 10)	50.78±1.96 (49.01-54.26)	48.2±4.64 (42-57 n = 9)	
TIB	22.66±0.83 (20.77-23.02)	-	21.2±0.84 (20-22 n = 16)	20.50±0.30 (20.13-20.96)	19.2±1.21 (17-20 n = 9)	17.26±0.62 (16.37-18.06)	17.1±0.78 (15-17 n = 9)	
E	10.99±1.38 (9.74-13.04)	-	12.4±1.18 (10.5-14.4 n = 16)	12.07±0.70 (11.45-13.40)	12.3±0.57 (11.7-12.9 n = 4)	9.56±1.02 (8.17-11.11)	10.4±0.43 (10-11 n = 4)	
GTL	16.68±0.27 (16.40-17.13)	16.73 (16.5-16.8)	16.7±0.19 (16.4-17.0 n = 13)	15.80±0.33 (15.20-16.19)	15.8±0.26 (15.3-16.4 n = 14)	13.89±0.21 (13.62-14.24)	14.1±0.22 (13.8-14.5 n = 7)	
POB	4.17±0.08 (4.06-4.27)	4.29 (4.2-4.4)	4.1±0.11 (4.0-4.3 n = 13)	3.99±0.09 (3.84-4.07)	3.9±0.05 (3.9-4.1 n = 14)	3.65±0.07 (3.58-3.76)	3.6±0.08 (3.5-3.7 n = 7)	
MAW	9.24±0.24 (8.88-9.54)	9.33 (9.2-9.5)	9.2±0.24 (8.8-9.5 n = 12)	8.58±0.16 (8.40-8.81)	8.8±0.12 (8.6-9.0 n = 14)	7.77±0.13 (7.61-7.94)	8.0±0.08 (7.9-8.1 n = 7)	
M3-M3	7.50±0.13 (7.30-7.60)	7.46 (7.0-7.7)	7.37±0.21 (7.1-7.7 n = 13)	6.80±0.19 (6.59-7.13)	6.71±0.15 (6.4-7.0 n = 14)	5.66±0.11 (5.54-5.81)	5.77±0.07 (5.6-5.8 n = 7)	
C-M3	6.67±0.13 (6.45-6.80)	6.85 (6.8-7.1)	6.72±0.10 (6.5-6.9 n = 13)	6.23±0.12 (6.09-6.43)	6.18±0.11 (6.0-6.4 n = 14)	5.22±0.15 (5.03-5.41)	5.33±0.07 (5.2-5.4 n = 7)	
C-C	5.26±0.11 (5.13-5.37)	5.23 (5.2-5.3)	5.20±0.19 (4.8-5.5 n = 13)	4.78±0.18 (4.47-4.98)	4.61±0.19 (4.3-4.9 n = 14)	3.99±0.10 (3.86-4.15)	4.13±0.06 (4.0-4.2 n = 7)	
ML	12.73±0.34 (12.17-13.19)	12.81 (12.7-12.9)	12.4±0.35 (12.0-13.0 n = 13)	11.92±0.30 (11.41-12.26)	11.4±0.20 (11.1-11.9 n = 14)	10.23±0.17 (10.08-10.52)	9.9±0.12 (9.7-10.0 n = 7)	
3mt	43.12±0.50 (42.64-43.93)	-	47.1±0.47 (46-48 n = 8)	42.49±0.50 (41.93-43.09)	42.7±2.38 (38-45 n = 9)	35.56±1.22 (33.66-36.78)	38.1±0.81 (37-39 n = 6)	
1ph3mt	12.18±0.49 (12.01-12.76)	-	-	10.99±0.17 (10.66-11.13)	-	9.79±0.32 (9.45-10.39)	-	
4mt	40.62±0.81 (39.49-41.46)	-	44.6±0.68 (43-45 n = 8)	40.17±0.77 (39.53-41.59)	41.0±2.41 (36-43 n = 9)	34.53±0.77 (33.47-35.69)	36.7±1.08 (34-37 n = 6)	
1ph4mt	10.51±0.28 (10.14-10.91)	-	-	9.80±0.19 (9.45-10.00)	-	8.31±0.22 (7.99-8.62)	-	
5mt	36.51±1.62 (34.60-38.74)	-	40.1±0.39 (39-40 n = 8)	36.22±0.74 (35.35-37.38)	37.9±1.82 (34-39 n = 9)	31.71±0.76 (30.92-32.95)	34.5±0.97 (32-35 n = 6)	
1ph5mt	10.65±0.32 (10.21-10.99)	-	-	10.04±0.41 (9.34-10.36)	-	8.56±0.39 (7.95-9.13)	-	

Table 3. Significance test results shown by LSD multiple comparisons results under one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). * indicates the significance level of 0.05 for the difference between the means. A: Miniopterusmagnater; B: Miniopterusfuliginosus; C: Miniopteruspusillus. P: P-value of the significance test. P＜0.05 was considered to indicate a significant difference, P＜0.01 was considered to indicate an extremely significant difference.

Dependent variable	A and B	A and C	B and C	
Mean difference	P	Mean difference	P	Mean difference	P	
TL	1.31667	0.476	10.02500*	＜0.001	8.70833*	＜0.001	
FA	1.77000*	0.008	9.32667*	＜0.001	7.55667*	＜0.001	
HB	7.85667*	＜0.001	12.90667*	＜0.001	5.05000*	0.002	
TIB	1.84333*	＜0.001	5.09000*	＜0.001	3.24667*	＜0.001	
E	-0.73167	0.254	1.77667*	0.012	2.50833*	0.001	
GTL	0.89000*	＜0.001	2.79333*	＜0.001	1.90333*	＜0.001	
POB	0.17833*	0.001	0.52167*	＜0.001	0.34333*	＜0.001	
MAW	0.59500*	＜0.001	1.40500*	＜0.001	0.81000*	＜0.001	
M3-M3	0.66500*	＜0.001	1.80833*	＜0.001	1.14333*	＜0.001	
C-M3	0.44333*	＜0.001	1.45667*	＜0.001	1.01333*	＜0.001	
C-C	0.45167*	＜0.001	1.24500*	＜0.001	0.79333*	＜0.001	
ML	0.84667*	＜0.001	2.53833*	＜0.001	1.69167*	＜0.001	
3mt	0.55333	0.257	7.47667*	＜0.001	6.92333*	＜0.001	
1ph3mt	1.16000*	＜0.001	2.36333*	＜0.001	1.20333*	＜0.001	
4mt	0.31000	0.502	5.94667*	＜0.001	5.63667*	＜0.001	
1ph4mt	0.68167*	＜0.001	2.17333*	＜0.001	1.49167*	＜0.001	
5mt	-0.02833	0.966	4.48667*	＜0.001	4.51500*	＜0.001	
1ph5mt	0.58000*	0.018	2.05167*	＜0.001	1.47167*	＜0.001	

Table 4. Factor loadings and percentage of variance explained for principal component analysis. The extraction method used was principal component analysis and the rotation method was Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation.

Variables	Principal component (PC)	
1	2	3	
TL	0.463	0.828	0.233	
FA	0.733	0.494	0.44	
HB	0.839	0.466	0.016	
TIB	0.766	0.583	0.223	
E	0.202	0.189	0.943	
GTL	0.846	0.377	0.356	
POB	0.766	0.446	0.381	
MAW	0.881	0.402	0.187	
M3-M3	0.869	0.369	0.303	
C-M3	0.844	0.376	0.349	
C-C	0.84	0.404	0.309	
ML	0.861	0.326	0.35	
3mt	0.664	0.533	0.475	
1ph3mt	0.87	0.323	0.261	
4mt	0.642	0.546	0.489	
1ph4mt	0.849	0.378	0.339	
5mt	0.495	0.669	0.512	
1ph5mt	0.815	0.352	0.349	
Eigenvalues	15.849	0.461	0.211	
Variance explained (%)	88.048	5.206	2.561
==== Refs
References

Agrawal V C Sinha Y P 1973 Studies on the bacula of some oriental bats. Anatomischer Anzeiger 133 1 180 192 4716403
Appleton B. R. McKenzie J. A. Christidis L. 2004 Molecular systematics and biogeography of the bent-wing bat complex Miniopterusschreibersii (Kuhl, 1817) (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31 2 431 439 10.1016/j.ympev.2003.08.017 15062785
Bates Paul JJ Harrison David L 1997 Bats of the Indian Subcontinent Harrison Zoological Museum 266
Benda Petr Spitzenberger Friederike Hanák Vladimír Andreas Michal Reiter Antonín Ševčík Martin Šmíd Jiří Uhrin Marcel 2014 Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) of the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. Part 11. On the bat fauna of Libya II Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemicae 78 1 162
Benda Petr Uvizl Marek Mazoch Vladimír Šklíba Jan Červený Jaroslav 2022 African bats in the collection of the National Museum, Prague (Chiroptera). I. Bats from Zambia Lynx new series 53 1 291 332 10.37520/lynx.2022.021
Berger Vance W. Zhou YanYan 2014 Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test: Overview Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online 10.1002/9781118445112.stat06558
Cui Jie Han Naijian Streicker Daniel Li Gang Tang Xianchun Shi Zhengli Hu Zhihong Zhao Guoping Fontanet Arnaud Guan Yi Wang Linfa Jones Gareth Field Hume E. Daszak Peter Zhang Shuyi 2007 Evolutionary relationships between bat coronaviruses and their hosts Emerging Infectious Diseases 13 10 1526 1532 10.3201/eid1310.070448 18258002
Demos Terrence C. Webala Paul W. Lutz Holly L. Kerbis Peterhans Julian C. Goodman Steven M. Cortés‐Delgado Natalia Bartonjo Michael Patterson Bruce D. 2019 Multilocus phylogeny of a cryptic radiation of Afrotropical long‐fingered bats (Chiroptera, Miniopteridae) Zoologica Scripta 49 1 1 13 10.1111/zsc.12388
Eick Geeta N. Jacobs David S. Matthee Conrad A. 2005 A nuclear DNA phylogenetic perspective on the evolution of echolocation and historical biogeography of extant bats (Chiroptera) Molecular Biology and Evolution 22 9 1869 1886 10.1093/molbev/msi180 15930153
Francis Charles M. Borisenko Alex V. Ivanova Natalia V. Eger Judith L. Lim Burton K. Guillén-Servent Antonio Kruskop Sergei V. Mackie Iain Hebert Paul D. N. 2010 The role of DNA barcodes in understanding and conservation of mammal diversity in Southeast Asia PLOS One 5 9 10.1371/journal.pone.0012575
Goodman Steven M. Bradman Helen M. Maminirina Claudette P. Ryan Kate E. Christidis Les L. Appleton Belinda 2008 A new species of Miniopterus (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae) from lowland southeastern Madagascar Mammalian Biology 73 3 199 213 10.1016/j.mambio.2007.12.003
Han B. Y. Hua P. Y. Gu X. M. Miller‐Butterworth C. M. Zhang S. Y. 2008 Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in the western long‐fingered bat, Miniopterusmagnater. Molecular Ecology Resources 8 6 1445 1447 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.02008.x 21586071
Hasegawa Masami Kishino Hirohisa Yano Taka-aki 1985 Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA Journal of Molecular Evolution 22 2 160 174 10.1007/bf02101694 3934395
Hodgson B. H. 1835 Synopsis of the Vespertilionidæ of Nipal Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 2 4 699 701
Hoofer Steven R. Bussche Ronald A. Van Den 2003 Molecular phylogenetics of the Chiropteran family Vespertilionidae Acta Chiropterologica 5 1 63 10.3161/001.005.s101
Hutcheon James M. Kirsch John A. W. 2004 Camping in a different tree: results of molecular systematic studies of bats using DNA–DNA hybridization Journal of Mammalian Evolution 11 1 17 47 10.1023/b:jomm.0000029144.80747.d2
Ibáñez Carlos García-Mudarra Juan L. Ruedi Manuel Stadelmann Benoît Juste Javier 2006 The Iberian contribution to cryptic diversity in European bats Acta Chiropterologica 8 2 277 297 10.3161/1733-5329(2006)8[277:tictcd]2.0.co;2
Kawai Kuniko Nikaido Masato Harada Masashi Matsumura Sumiko Lin Liang-Kong Wu Yi Hasegawa Masami Okada Norihiro 2002 Intra- and interfamily relationships of Vespertilionidae inferred by various molecular markers including SINE insertion data Journal of Molecular Evolution 55 3 284 301 10.1007/s00239-002-2326-0 12187382
Krutzsch P H Crichton E G 1990 Reproductive biology of the male bent-winged bat, Miniopterusschreibersii (Vespertilionidae) in southeast South Australia. Acta Anatomica 139 2 109 25 10.1159/000146987 2288198
Kusuminda Tharaka Mannakkara Amani Ukuwela Kanishka D. B. Kruskop Sergei V. Amarasinghe Chamara J. Saikia Uttam Venugopal Parvathy Karunarathna Mathisha Gamage Rajika Ruedi Manuel Csorba Gábor Yapa Wipula B. Patterson Bruce D. 2022 DNA barcoding and morphological analyses reveal a cryptic species of Miniopterus from India and Sri Lanka Acta Chiropterologica 24 1 1 17 10.3161/15081109acc2022.24.1.001
Li Shi Sun Keping Lu Guanjun Lin Aiqing Jiang Tinglei Jin Longru Hoyt Joseph R. Feng Jiang 2015 Mitochondrial genetic differentiation and morphological difference of Miniopterusfuliginosus and Miniopterusmagnater in China and Vietnam. Ecology and Evolution 5 6 1214 1223 10.1002/ece3.1428 25859327
Lutz Holly L. Jackson Elliot W. Webala Paul W. Babyesiza Waswa S. Kerbis Peterhans Julian C. Demos Terrence C. Patterson Bruce D. Gilbert Jack A. 2019 Ecology and Host Identity Outweigh Evolutionary History in Shaping the Bat Microbiome mSystems 4 6 10.1128/msystems.00511-19
Mein P. Tupinier Y. 1977 Formule dentaire et position systématique du Minioptère (Mammalia, Chiroptera) Mammalia 41 2 10.1515/mamm.1977.41.2.207
Miller-Butterworth Cassandra M. Murphy William J. O'Brien Stephen J. Jacobs David S. Springer Mark S. Teeling Emma C. 2007 A family matter: conclusive resolution of the taxonomic position of the Long-Fingered bats, Miniopterus Molecular Biology and Evolution 24 7 1553 1561 10.1093/molbev/msm076 17449895
Moir Monika Richards Leigh R Cherry Michael I Rambau Ramugondo V 2020 Demographic responses of forest-utilizing bats to past climate change in South Africa Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 130 4 850 868 10.1093/biolinnean/blaa048
Piksa Krzysztof Gubała Wojciech J. 2020 First record of Miniopterusschreibersii (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae) in Poland—a possible range expansion? Mammal Research 66 1 211 215 10.1007/s13364-020-00533-8
Ramasindrazana Beza Goodman Steven M. Schoeman M. Corrie Appleton Belinda 2011 Identification of cryptic species of Miniopterus bats (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae) from Madagascar and the Comoros using bioacoustics overlaid on molecular genetic and morphological characters Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 104 2 284 302 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2011.01740.x
Reep Roger L. Bhatnagar Kunwar P. 2000 Brain ontogeny and ecomorphology in bats Ontogeny, Functional Ecology, and Evolution of Bats 93 136 10.1017/cbo9780511541872.004
Ruedi Manuel Saikia Uttam Thabah Adora Görföl Tamás Thapa Sanjan Csorba Gábor 2021 Molecular and morphological revision of small Myotinae from the Himalayas shed new light on the poorly known genus Submyotodon (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) Mammalian Biology 101 4 465 480 10.1007/s42991-020-00081-3
Saikia Uttam Thabah Adora Ruedi Manuel 2020 Taxonomic and ecological notes on some poorly known bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from Meghalaya, India Journal of Threatened Taxa 12 3 15311 15325 10.11609/jott.5264.12.3.15311-15325
Sakai Takahiro Kikkawa Yoshiaki Tsuchiya Kimiyuki Harada Masashi Kanoe Masamitsu Yoshiyuki Mizuko Yonekawa Hiromichi 2003 Molecular phylogeny of Japanese Rhinolophidae based on variations in the complete sequence of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene Genes & Genetic Systems 78 2 179 189 10.1266/ggs.78.179 12773818
Skinner J. D. Chimimba Christian Timothy 2005 The Mammals of the Southern African Sub-region 3rd Cambridge University Press 814 10.1017/CBO9781107340992
Smith Andrew T. Xie Yan 2008 A guide to the mammals of China Princeton University Press 544
Srinivasulu Bhargavi Srinivasulu Aditya 2023 A new species of the Miniopterus australis species complex (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae) from the Western Ghats, India Zootaxa 5296 2 233 249 10.11646/zootaxa.5296.2.5 37518447
Tamura Koichiro Nei Masatoshi Kumar Sudhir 2004 Prospects for inferring very large phylogenies by using the neighbor-joining method Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 30 11030 11035 10.1073/pnas.0404206101
Tamura Koichiro Stecher Glen Kumar Sudhir 2021 MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 11 Molecular Biology and Evolution 38 7 3022 3027 10.1093/molbev/msab120 33892491
Van Den Bussche Ronald A. Hoofer Steven R. 2004 Phylogenetic relationships among recent Chiropteran families and the importance of choosing appropriate out-group taxa Journal of Mammalogy 85 2 321 330 10.1644/1545-1542(2004)0852.0.co;2
Weyeneth Nicole Goodman Steven M. Stanley William T. Ruedi Manuel 2008 The biogeography of Miniopterus bats (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae) from the Comoro Archipelago inferred from mitochondrial DNA Molecular Ecology 17 24 5205 5219 10.1111/j.1365-294x.2008.03994.x 19067798
Wilson Don Reeder DeeAnn Marie 2005 Mammal species of the world: A taxonomic and geographic reference Third 2 The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD 2142 10.56021/9780801882210
Wilson Don E. Mittermeier Russell A. 2019 Handbook of the mammals of the world : vol. 9 : bats Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 1 1008
Wu Zhiqiang Han Yelin Wang Yuyang Liu Bo Zhao Lamei Zhang Junpeng Su Haoxiang Zhao Wenliang Liu Liguo Bai Shibin Dong Jie Sun Lilian Zhu Yafang Zhou Siyu Song Yiping Sui Hongtao Yang Jian Wang Jianwei Zhang Shuyi Qian Zhaohui Jin Qi 2022 A comprehensive survey of bat sarbecoviruses across China in relation to the origins of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 National Science Review 10 6 1 37 10.1093/nsr/nwac213
Yi Xueling Latch Emily K. Lim Burton K. Koroiva Ricardo Da Rocha Patricio Adriano Feijó Anderson 2024 UCE-derived mitochondrial phylogeny reveals pervasive mito-nuclear discordances in serotine bats (genus Eptesicus) and complex evolutionary history in Eptesicus (Histiotus) Mammalian Biology 104 4 417 430 10.1007/s42991-024-00418-2
