Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2023 | 15(1): 22392–22398
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8034.15.1.22392-22398
#8034 | Received 01 June 2022 | Final received
09 January 2023 | Finally accepted 13 January 2023
First
occurrence record of Indian Roundleaf Bat Hipposideros
lankadiva in Rajasthan, India
Dharmendra Khandal 1, Dau Lal
Bohra 2 & Shyamkant S. Talmale 3
1 Tiger Watch, Maa Farm, Ranthambhore Road, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan 322001,
India.
2 P.G. Department of
Zoology, Seth G.B. Podar College, Nawalgarh,
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan 333042, India.
3 Zoological Survey of
India, Western Regional Centre, Vidyanagar, Sector-29, Ravet
Road, PCNT Post, Pune, Maharashtra 411044, India.
1 dharmkhandal@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 daulalbohara@yahoo.com, 3 s_talmale@yahoo.co.in
Editor: Paul Racey, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK. Date of publication: 26 January 2023
(online & print)
Citation: Khandal,
D., D.L. Bohra & S.S. Talmale (2023). First occurrence
record of Indian Roundleaf Bat Hipposideros
lankadiva in Rajasthan, India. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 15(1): 22392–22398. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8034.15.1.22392-22398
Copyright: © Khandal
et al. 2023. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows
unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium
by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: Tiger Watch.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Dr. Dharmendra Khandal PhD, has served as conservation biologist with Tiger Watch since 2003. His work with Tiger Watch has involved pioneering ground breaking initiatives in proactive anti-poaching, the monitoring of wildlife & scientific research. He has also forged new frontiers in the world of community based conservation through the Village Wildlife Volunteer program in the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve. He is also
the co-author of Unexplored Ranthambhore, a first
of its kind book on the canids and
striped hyena in Ranthambhore.
Dr. Dau Lal Bohra
PhD, is currently head
of the Department of Zoology at the Seth Gyaniram Bansidhar Podar College in Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. He has numerous research
papers to his credit and is
recognised for his
significant contributions to
vulture conservation in Rajasthan. Dr. S. Talmale PhD, is a taxonomist
working on Indian small mammals
and (Insecta) Odonata with several research papers and books to
his credit. He is currently affiliated
with the Zoological Survey of India.
Author contributions: All authors
have contributed equally to this paper.
Acknowledgements: The authors are
grateful to Mr. Dieter Gutmann & Mrs. Liz Gutmann, and Tiger Watch for their
unstinting support.
Abstract: An erroneously cited
text of Wason by subsequent authors has led to the
assumption that Hipposideros lankadiva was first recorded in Rajasthan in the Bhim Bharak caves of Jodhpur. A
careful review of Wason’s note revealed that it in
fact mentioned another species from the genus, H. fulvus.
This erroneous citation has led to several research articles published on the
ecological aspects of this species to be misinformed. The authors discovered a
small population of H. lankadiva in eastern
Rajasthan and have monitored this new population since 2010. Since the Bhim Bharak cave location is
erroneous, Kased Cave (26.2209N, 77.1024E) is the
only location of H. lankadiva for Rajasthan
and is therefore the first record of the species from the state.
Keywords: Bhim Bharak caves, Chiroptera, Jodhpur, Kased Cave,
occurrence, population.
Introduction
The Indian Roundleaf
Bat Hipposideros lankadiva
is endemic to southern Asia, and has been recorded from many parts of India, as
well as neighbouring nations like Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh, and Myanmar (Bates et al. 2015; Saha et
al. 2015). Hipposideros lankadiva
Kelaart, 1850 was described from the city of
Kandy in the central hills of Sri Lanka (Bates & Harrison 1997). Three
subspecies have been reported for this species of bat. The subspecies described
from Sri Lanka is H. lankadiva lankadiva
(Kelaart, 1850) and the subspecies from India is
referred to as H. lankadiva indus
(Andersen, 1918). The latter is small in size relative to the former (Bates
& Harrison 1997). Bates et al. (2015) described a new subspecies, H. lankadiva gyi from Myanmar
with its distribution in northeastern India, which is morphometrically similar
to the Sri Lankan subspecies.
Many taxonomic
accounts have contributed to chiropteran studies in Rajasthan, such as Blanford (1891), Ryley (1914), Wroughton
(1918), Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951), Prakash (1963a,b, 1973), Agrawal
(1967), Biswas & Ghosh (1968), and Sinha (1973, 1975, 1976, 1977). The
first detailed taxonomic exploration of bats in Rajasthan was conducted by the
Zoological Survey of India (Sinha 1980) which documented detailed descriptions,
illustrations, and zoogeography of 21 bat species in the state. Later on,
various explorers described new occurrence records and ecology of bats in
Rajasthan (Sinha 1981; Sharma 1986; Bhupathy 1987;
Bohra 2011; Senacha & Dookia
2013).
On the occurrence of H.
lankadiva in Rajasthan
Bates & Harrison
(1997) quoted a published note by Wason (1978) on the
occurrence of H. lankadiva in the Bhim Bharak caves of Jodhpur,
Rajasthan. However, Sinha (1980, 1996) did not discuss this bat’s presence in
the state, and this led to doubts about the occurrence of H. lankadiva in the state. Bats have been studied in the
Thar desert by various scientists, especially those based in Jodhpur such as
Prakash (1963a,b, 1973), Agrawal (1967), Biswas & Ghosh (1968), Sinha
(1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1981), Sharma (1986), and Senacha
& Dookia (2013). Thus, no prior reports of this
species lent credence to the idea that the observation by Bates & Harrison
(1997) is incorrect.
A careful review of Wason’s (1978) note revealed that it mentioned another
species from the genus—H. fulvus—and the
inclusion of H. lankadiva was due to an error
by Bates & Harrison (1997).
Srinivasulu et al. (2013), examined published literature
and compiled a list of 25 bat species from Rajasthan, including H. lankadiva from the Bhim Bharak caves of Jodhpur. Interestingly, without physically
verifying the note by Wason (1978), Srinivasulu et al. (2013) quoted the same distribution area
for H. lankadiva in Rajasthan. It seems that
while they may have followed Bates & Harrison (1997), they cited Wason (1978) for the occurrence of H. lankadiva in Rajasthan. Afterwards, many documents have
included H. lankadiva for the state of
Rajasthan (Menon 2014; Bates et al. 2015).
This erroneous citation
has led to various research articles published on the ecological aspects of
this species to be misinformed. For example, Dookia
et al. (2017) expressed concern that H. lankadiva was
not reported from the Thar desert since 1979. This erroneous location has also
been used in spatial studies to predict new possible areas for the species
(Venugopal 2020).
However, we recorded
a small population of H. lankadiva in eastern
Rajasthan and have monitored this new population since 2010, which was
opportunistically discovered during a wildlife survey of the region. Since the Bhim Bharak cave location is
erroneous, Kased Cave (26.2209N, 77.1024E) is the
only location of H. lankadiva for Rajasthan
and it is thus the first record of the species from the state.
Study Area
The population of H.
lankadiva occurs in a natural cave between the Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary and National Chambal Gharial
Sanctuary in Karauli, Rajasthan, India. The precise
location is a Hindu religious site, known as the Kased
Cave (26.2209N & 77.1024E) near the town of Karanpur
(Figure 1). The cave is situated on a low hill close to the contiguous Vindhyan hill range of Kailadevi
WS. Due to its holy status, no tree felling has occurred in its immediate
vicinity although the local community has completely denuded its surrounding
areas.
The cave is formed of
sand stone. The main chamber of the cave is 12 x 12 m in size. This chamber is
used by a “sadhu” (hermit) and other pilgrims alike to shelter, cook food, and
perform devotional music. The height of the chamber is around 4.5–5.5 m from
the centre, and form a dome shape. The surface is
dark black in colour, as a result of exposure to
smoke. In the main cave chamber, three narrow tube like tunnels further extend
from it, one of them has a slow flowing stream and two of them are dry. When
the pilgrims cook food for ritual offerings and create a disturbance, the bats
move inside the narrow water tunnels. The water tunnel is 55─60 m long and a
small stream flows through it year round. The main tunnel is 1─1.5 m high and
1─3 m wide. The temperature in this water tunnel stays the same year round,
because it is underground and not affected by surface weather patterns. The
temperature of the cave is usually close to the average annual temperature. During
the study we found two other species of bats, Lyroderma
lyra and H. fulvus, along with H. lankadiva at the same site.
The tree species
found on the hill are Anogeissus pendula, Mitragyna parvifolia, Crateva adansonii, Butea monosperma, and exotic trees & herbaceous plants
recently planted in the area by the guardians of the temple. A seasonal water
stream forms a waterfall nearby. The surrounding area is high and the cave
opening is in a depressed area, which makes it moist and cool. The nearby areas
are comprised of a mosaic of agriculture fields and scrubland. The Chambal
river 1.2km away from the cave site. An undulating landscape consisting of
ravines exists between the Chambal river and Kased
Cave.
Material and Method
Basic data of habitat
and the surroundings has been collected like measurements of the cave and
vegetation species. Five individuals of
the species were captured in hand nets at Kased Cave,
Karanpur, and Karauli
(Figure 1). Specimen and habitat photographs were taken with the help of Nikon
D850 DSLR with 300 mm, 17─35 mm lens. Morphological data was taken by manual
examination in which measurements were taken with a digital calliper
and compared with earlier findings (Srinivasalu et
al. 2010; Bates et al. 2015; Saha 2015). The captured
bats have been released after taking morphometric measurements. All data was compared with available
literature to conclude a final result. Lux meter was used to observe the
intensity of light in the cave (Lacoeuilhe et al. 2014). To
detect if light intensity influenced roost selection in bats, lux values were
observed at places where the bats roost. MS6610 high accuracy 0~50,000 LUX
digital luxmeters illuminometer was used to measure
the value of light.
Results
We captured 5
individuals of bats (three males and two females) for morphometric analysis.
(Table 1). The morphometric data revealed that the bat matches with the
subspecies H. lankadiva indus. The pelage of
the bats varied from yellowish-brown to dark brown (Image 1). They were darker
on the head & shoulders and paler on the underside. For species
identification we compare morphometric analysis from Srinivasalu
et al.(2010), Saha (2015), and Bates et al. (2015).
The average value of FA (mm) in three male samples was found to be 85.99 ± 2.12
and in two females to be 83.70 ± 0.65, respectively. Similarly (Saha 2015) the mean value of FA (mm) was 87.64 ± 3.62.
In the study of Srinivasulu (2010) the HBL (mm) range was 87.0–106.0 in
males and females as well. In this study we have also rendered the range and
mean value of HBL (mm) reported in (78.11–98.57) 89.62 ± 10.47 males and
(91.28–92.81) 92.05 ± 1.08 females.
On the comparison of
tail length, our observation is supported by Srinivasulu
et al. (2010) and Bates et al. (2015). According to Bates et al. (2015), the
tail length was found to be 35.0–47.0 (mm) in males and 40.0–45.0 (mm) in
females. According to Srinivasulu et al. (2010) the
vast range length of the tail (mm) was 35.0–58.0. The mean TL (mm) recorded in
this study is 33.36 ± 2.24 in males and 37.80 ± 0.48 in females.
Morphologically,
there is no extraneous character variation from different species ranges in
males and females between our five samples and the reference value (Bates et
al. 2015). H. lankadiva (Kelaart
1850) is a Large Leaf-nosed Bat having four (additional) supplementary leaflets
on the nose-leaf with the 4th leaflet reduced, which is a key
character of the species are present in all specimens (Image 1). The length of
the ear is also an important parameter by which we can see the account of the
species. According to Bates et al. (2015) the range of ear length (mm) in
females was found to be 19.5–27.0, but in our study, the maximum value of
female ear (mm) was found to be 28.63 and the average value was recorded as
27.51 ± 1.58. In the same cave, we found
89 L. lyra and four H. fulvus bats
along with H. lankadiva.
We also surveyed the
Bhima Bharak cave site at Jodhpur. No specimens of H.
lankadiva were found in the main part of the cave
(Shiva Temple) and in the lower part of the cave. We found 39 individuals of Taphozous perforatus
and four Rhinopoma hardwickii
at the cave. During this study, we personally communicated with Anil Wason to investigate if the species had ever been reported
by him in the past, but Wason categorically denied
ever observing or reporting H. lankadiva.
There was a
considerable difference between the internal climate and light intensity inside
Kased Cave and outer area of the cave, where the
value of light intensity was measured to be 62 lux on the opening of the cave.
By comparison, the internal light intensity at the site in Karauli
was measured at zero lux. The bats prefer zero lux intensity area of the cave.
Humidity of the Kased Cave in Karauli
was also recorded at more than 50% with water source availability.
Discussion
The species H. lankadiva has been observed for the first time in 2010
by the authors in Rajasthan, but it has been first reported now in 2022. This
delay in reporting is because of the species already being listed on the bat
checklist of Rajasthan, which was the consequence of the erroneous inclusion.
Bates & Harrison (1997) erroneously included the bat in Rajasthan and some
other reports strengthened this erroneous record like Srinivasalu
et al. (2013) and Bates et al. (2015). Srinivasalu et
al. (2013) and Bates et al. (2015), have not only erroneously included the bat,
but also cited a wrong reference for Wason (1978),
i.e., Srinivasalu et al. (2013) mentioned “44(5):
305─306”; whereas Bates et al. (2015) mentioned “46(5): 331─332”, while the
correct reference is 43(5): 305─306. It seems like they mixed Wason (1978) with another reference, Wason
& Misra (1981) and it is important to note that
neither mentioned H. lankadiva. The erroneous
report perpetuated and impacted many other studies like Venugopal (2020).
Venugopal (2020) used
a habitat modelling approach (MaxEnt) based on known
locations, to predict new possible geographic presence of H. lankadiva. The study also included the erroneous Bhim Bharak location, which
misinformed the study and, in all likelihood, must have had an adverse impact
on the results, which may have expanded the predicted distribution area of the
species. Since this erroneous location is far from the other known locations
and lies in a new biogeographic zone, the magnitude of the error could be
substantial. The majority of the predicted suitable areas were in and around
known localities which are in the Western Ghats and central India (Venugopal
2020). The predicted areas around western Gujarat and Rajasthan, may be due to
inclusion of sites where this species has been incorrectly identified. The
Jodhpur lies in totally different biogeographic zone.
It is proved that the
report of H. lankadiva from the Bhim Bharak caves, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan is erroneous, and must be omitted from the list of bats occurring in
that particular part of Rajasthan, so that it does not continue to perpetuate
and impact any further studies.
The newly reported
site has a very small population and shows a decline in numbers. The Kased Cave location is under observation by the authors
since December 2010 and at that time the number of bats was 150─200 as per
personal records. At present, the number shows that the bats are declining in
the area and their numbers are five times lower. In the most recent survey
(October 2021) we recorded only 32─35 bats. The anthropogenic disturbance level
in the cave has also increased. The conservation status of H. lankadiva is listed by the IUCN Red List as ‘Least
Concern’ (Molur et al. 2008). Rajasthan is
geographically the most largest state in India and only Sinha (1980) conducted
comprehensive chiropteran species exploration work throughout the state. Most
other studies are sporadic and opportunistic. There is still an immense
opportunity for greater chiropteran exploration in the state.
Table 1.
Morphological Characters of Hipposideros lankadiva (Kelaart, 1850).
Body
characters |
Srinivasulu et al. 2010 |
Saha 2015 |
Bates et al. 2015 |
Present study |
|||||||
Male |
Female |
||||||||||
Male |
Female |
Male 1 |
Male 2 |
Male 3 |
AVG |
Female 1 |
Female 2 |
AVG |
|||
Forearm Length FA (mm) |
75.0–99.0 |
87.64±3.62 |
80.1–87.0 |
75.0–89.0 |
86.76 |
83.59 |
87.62 |
85.99±2.12 |
83.24 |
84.16 |
83.70±0.65 |
Head Body Length
HBL (mm) |
87.0–106.0 |
98.1±4.24 |
NA |
NA |
78.11 |
98.57 |
92.17 |
89.62±10.47 |
92.81 |
91.28 |
92.05±1.08 |
Tail Length TL (mm) |
35.0–58.0 |
51.45±2.34 |
35.0–47.0 |
40.0–45.0 |
30.84 |
35.12 |
34.12 |
33.36±2.24 |
38.14 |
37.46 |
37.80±0.48 |
Hind Foot Length
HFL (mm) |
12.0–20.0 |
19.35±1.0 |
12.0–16.0 |
13.0–16.0 |
15.77 |
19.29 |
17.53 |
17.53±1.76 |
14.52 |
13.88 |
14.20±0.45 |
Ear Length EAR (mm) |
19.5–30.0 |
27.6±2.05 |
22.0–26.0 |
19.5–27.0 |
23.19 |
26.93 |
27.11 |
25.74±2.21 |
26.39 |
28.63 |
27.51±1.58 |
Length of Tibia TIB (mm) |
|
35.55±2.48 |
|
|
35.02 |
33.89 |
34.46 |
34.46±0.57 |
33.15 |
34.09 |
33.62±0.66 |
No. of
Supplementary Leaflets |
4 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
4 |
4 |
4 |
- |
4 |
4 |
- |
Narial Lappets |
Well-developed |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Well-developed |
Well-developed |
Well-developed |
- |
Well-develo-ped |
Well-develo-ped |
- |
Length of Third
Metacarpal 3MT (mm) |
NA |
67.71±0.79 |
57.2–63.7 |
57.0–65.0 |
56.7 |
62.18 |
60.41 |
59.76±2.80 |
58.49 |
58.43 |
58.46±0.04 |
Length of Fourth
Metacarpal 4MT (mm) |
NA |
NA |
57.2–61.8 |
55.3–63.6 |
58.26 |
55.59 |
62.31 |
58.72±3.38 |
60.18 |
58.93 |
59.56±0.88 |
Length of Fifth
Metacarpal 5MT (mm) |
NA |
NA |
50.7–56.9 |
49.7–58.6 |
49.73 |
51.14 |
50.19 |
50.35±0.72 |
47.78 |
50.12 |
48.95±1.65 |
First Phalanx of
the Third Digit 3D1P |
NA |
31.60±1.17 |
25.4–28.5 |
26.0–30.0 |
26.14 |
25.82 |
26.15 |
26.04±0.19 |
28.43 |
28.07 |
28.25±0.25 |
Second Phalanx of
the Third Digit, 3D2P (mm) |
NA |
34.34±1.23 |
24.4–28.4 |
24.5–28.8 |
28.39 |
28.79 |
29.88 |
29.02±0.77 |
27.12 |
27.86 |
27.49±0.52 |
First Phalanx of
the Fourth Digit 4D1P (mm) |
NA |
NA |
19.0–21.8 |
19.4–21.1 |
20.11 |
21.23 |
20.44 |
20.59±0.58 |
21.16 |
20.78 |
20.97±0.27 |
Second Phalanx of
the Fourth Digit 4D2P (mm) |
NA |
NA |
11.2–14.0 |
12.5–14.1 |
9.96 |
11.49 |
12.23 |
11.23±1.16 |
11.56 |
11.93 |
11.75±0.26 |
Nose-leaf |
NA |
11.17±0.09 |
NA |
NA |
9.92 |
10.19 |
10.06 |
10.06±0.14 |
10.56 |
10.89 |
10.73±0.23 |
For figure &
images - - click here for full PDF
References
Agrawal, V.C. (1967). New mammal records
from Rajasthan. Labdev. Journal of Science
& Technology 5(4): 342–344.
Bates, P.J.J. & D.L. Harrison (1997). Bats of the Indian
Subcontinent. Harrison Zoological Museum Publication, Seven oaks,
Kent 258 pp.
Bates, P., O. Tun, M. M.
Aung, A. Lu, M.R. Lum & M.M. Sein (2015). A review of Hipposideros lankadiva Kelaart, 1850 (Chiroptera: Hipposideridae) with a description of a new subspecies from
Myanmar. Tropical Natural History 15(2): 191─204.
Bhupathy, S. (1987). Occurrence of the bicoloured leaf-nosed bat (Hipposideros
fulvus) in Rajasthan. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 84(1): 199–200.
Biswas, B. & R.K. Ghosh (1968). New records of
mammals from Rajasthan, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society
65: 481–482.
Blanford, W.T. (1891). The Fauna of
British India, Mammalia. Taylor & Francis, London, 617pp.
Bohra, D. L. (2011). Conservation status
of Bats in Bikaner District of Rajasthan. Small Mammal Mail 3(1): 26─27.
Dookia, S., G. Singh &
R. Mishra (2017). Re-sighting record of Fulvous Leaf-nosed Bat Hipposideros fulvus
Gray, 1838 (Mammalia: Chiroptera: Hipposideridae)
from Thar Desert, Rajasthan, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 9(1):
9764–9767. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2657.9.1.9764-9767
Ellerman, J.R. & T.C.S. Morrison-Scott (1951). Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals 1758 to 1946. British
Museum (Natural History), 810 pp.
Lacoeuilhe A., N. Machon, J.F. Julien, A. Le Bocq
& C. Kerbiriou (2014). The Influence of Low
Intensities of Light Pollution on Bat Communities in a Semi-Natural Context. PLOS
ONE 9(10): e103042. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103042
Menon, V. (2014). Indian Mammals: A
Field Guide. Hachette India, 528 pp.
Prakash, I. (1963a). Taxonomic and
biological observations on the bats of the Rajasthan desert. Records of the
Indian Museum 59(1961): 149–170.
Prakash, I. (1963b). Zoogeography and
evolution of the mammalian fauna of Rajasthan desert. Mammalia 27:
342─351.
Prakash, I. (1973). The ecology of
vertebrates of the Indian desert, pp. 369–420. In: Mani, M.S. (ed.). Ecology
and Biogeography in India. W. Junk, The Hague, 725 pp.
Ryley, K.V. (1914). Bombay Natural
History Society’s Mammal Survey of India. No. 12. Palanpur
and Mt. Abu. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 22(4):
684–699.
Saha, A., M.M. Feeroz & M.K. Hasan (2015). Indian roundleaf
bat, Hipposideros lankadiva:
first record for Bangladesh. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 112:
165─193.
Senacha K.R. & S. Dookia (2013). Geoffroy’s Trident Leaf-nosed bat, Asellia tridens
(Geoffroy, E., 1813) from India. Current Science 105(1): 21─22.
Sharma, S.K. (1986). Painted bats and
nests of Baya Weaver Bird. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 81: 196.
Sinha, Y.P. (1969). Taxonomic status of Rousettus
seminudus (Mammalia: Chiroptera:
Pteropidae). Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 65: 764─767.
Sinha, Y.P. (1970). Taxonomic notes on
some Indian bats. Mammalia 34: 81─92.
Sinha, Y.P. (1973). Taxonomic studies on
the Indian Horseshoe Bats of the genus Rhinolophus Lacepede.
Mammalia 37: 603─630.
Sinha, Y.P. (1975). New records of Bats (Chiroptera) from Rajasthan. Science & Culture 41:
608–610.
Sinha, Y.P. (1976). New record of the
Indian Sheath-tailed bat, Taphozous longimanus, from Rajasthan with remarks on winter fat
deposition in T. kachhensis. Science &
Culture 42: 168─170.
Sinha, Y.P. (1977). A new and a rare
record of fruit bat (Pteropidae) from Rajasthan
(Mammalia: Chiroptera). Science & Culture 43:
264─265.
Sinha Y.P. (1980). The bats of
Rajasthan: taxonomy and zoogeography. Records of the Zoological Survey of
India 76(1–4): 7–63.
Sinha, Y.P. (1981). New record of
Black-bearded tomb bat, Taphozous melanopogon melanopogon Temminck from Rajasthan. Geobios 8(5): 225–226.
Sinha, Y.P. (1996). Bats in Indian Thar
Desert, pp. 349–352. In: Ghosh, A.K., Q.H. Baqri
& I. Prakash (eds.). Faunal Diversity in the Thar Desert: Gaps in
Research. Scientific Publication, Jodhpur, 410 pp.
Srinivasulu, C., B. Srinivasulu & Y.P. Sinha (2013). Chapter 21.
Chiropteran Fauna of Rajasthan: Taxonomy, Distribution and Status, pp. 505–548.
In: Sharma, B.K., S. Kulshreshtha & A.R. Rahmani (eds.). Faunal Heritage of Rajasthan, India:
General Background and Ecology of Vertebrates. Springer Science+Business
Media, New York, 661 pp.
Srinivasulu, C., P.A. Racey & S. Mistry (2010). A key to the bats
(Mammalia: Chiroptera) of South Asia. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 2(7): 1001–1076. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2352.1001-76
Venugopal, P. (2020) An integrated
approach to the taxonomy of hipposiderid bats in
South Asia. PhD dissertation. School of Biological Sciences, University of
Bristol.
Wason, A. (1978). Observations on
homing ability of some insectivorous bats. Zeitschrift
für Säugetierkunde 43: 305–306.
Wason, A. & S.D. Misra (1981). Observations on the directional differences in
homing ability of the rat-tailed bat, Rhinopoma
microphyllum (Brunnich).
Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 46: 331─332.
Wroughton, R.C. (1913). Bombay Natural
History Society’s Mammal Survey of India, Report No 7 (with K.V. Ryley).
Central Provinces. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 22(1):
45─48