Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 August 2023 | 15(8): 23669–23674
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8623.15.8.23669-23674
#8623 | Received 02
July 2023 | Final received 31 July 2023 | Finally accepted 05 August 2023
Historical and contemporary
perpetuation of assumed occurrence reports of two species of bats in Rajasthan,
India
Dharmendra Khandal
1, Ishan Dhar 2 & Shyamkant
S. Talmale 3
1, 2 Tiger Watch, Maa
Farm, Ranthambhore Road, Sawai
Madhopur, Rajasthan 322001, India.
3 Zoological Survey of India,
Western Regional Centre, Vidyanagar, Sector 29, Ravet
Road, PCNT Post, Pune, Maharashtra 411044, India.
1 dharmkhandal@gmail.com, 2 dhar.ishan@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 3 s_talmale@yahoo.co.in
Editor: Paul Racey,
University of Exeter, Penryn, UK. Date
of publication: 26 August 2023 (online & print)
Citation: Khandal, D., I. Dhar & S.S. Talmale
(2023).
Historical and contemporary perpetuation of assumed occurrence reports of two
species of bats in Rajasthan, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(8): 23669–23674. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8623.15.8.23669-23674
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: None.
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. Ishan Dhar became associated with Tiger Watch since 2015 and has actively participated in Tiger Watch conservation interventions ever since. He has also served on Tiger Watch’s Board of Directors since 2017. The youngest individual to do so. He has co-authored a book on the Village Wildlife Volunteer program titled Wildlife Warriors, along with multiple research articles in journals, the electronic and print media. 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 the authors contributed to this paper equally.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank
Mr. Dieter Gutmann and Mrs. Liz Gutmann, along with all the board of directors
at Tiger Watch for their encouragement and support.
Abstract: Hesperoptenus tickelli (Blyth, 1851) and Rhinopoma muscatellum
Thomas, 1903 have been reported to occur in Rajasthan. Yet, there has been no
empirical evidence of the occurrence of these bat species in the state. A
comprehensive literature review reveals that the inclusion of these bats in
accounts of chiropteran species in Rajasthan is due to the historical and
contemporary perpetuation of assumed occurrence reports.
Keywords: Chiroptera, empirical evidence, Hesperoptenus tickelli,
inclusion, literature review, Rhinopoma
muscatellum.
Introduction
The state of Rajasthan in
northwestern India has an established history of exploration and study when it
comes to the animal group Chiroptera. The observers
in the early period of exploration were not necessarily systematic, and some
chiropteran species recorded during this period in Blanford
(1888–91), Ryley (1914), and Wroughton (1918) were never
documented in the state afterwards. Post-independence, there were initial
contributions by Prakash (1963a,b, 1973), Agrawal
(1967), Biswas & Ghosh (1968) and Sinha (1970, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977,
1996; Khandal et al. 2022).
Sinha (1980) was the first to
conduct a systematic pan-Rajasthan study of Chiroptera
in the state, apropos extensive surveys in the field and a detailed perusal of
published literature. There were since also further contributions to the list
of chiropteran species documented in the state by Sinha (1981), Sharma (1986), Bhupathy (1987), and Senacha
& Dookia (2013). Srinivasulu
et al. (2013) also authored a very detailed chapter on species believed to
occur in the state (Khandal et al. 2022).
Khandal et al. (2022) nevertheless
documented that there was no empirical evidence for the occurrence of three
species: Eptesicus serotinus
pachyomus Tomes, 1857, Barbastella
darjelingensis Hodgson, in Horsfield,
1855 and Myotis blythii Tomes, 1857. An
extensive survey of published literature revealed that the three species were
not initially claimed to occur in Rajasthan at all, and that their inclusion in
accounts on chiropteran species occurring in Rajasthan was a result of the perpetuation
of assumed occurrence information (Khandal et al.
2022).
Tickell’s Bat Hesperoptenus
tickelli (Blyth, 1851), has not been reported for
over a century in Rajasthan. Why has this species never been encountered in the
state afterwards? Bates & Harrison (1997) raised the possibility of the
occurrence of the Small Mouse-tailed Bat Rhinopoma
muscatellum Thomas, 1903, in Rajasthan, but why
did Bates & Harrison (1997) themselves mark the locality with a “?” in an
accompanying distribution map? The authors therefore propose a review of
published literature like the one in Khandal et al.
(2022), on H. tickelli and R. muscatellum, to determine precisely why there might be
no empirical evidence for their occurrence in Rajasthan.
Observations
Tickell’s Bat Hesperoptenus
tickelli (Blyth, 1851)
Bates & Harrison (1997) in
their book ‘Bats of the Indian Subcontinent’, mentioned the locality of Nasirabad in Rajasthan for H. tickelli
by citing “INDIA: Rajasthan: Nusserabad” (Blanford 1888–91). However, Bates & Harrison (1997) do
not show this locality on their distributional map for H. tickelli and it is not specified why. This species
occurs in India, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal, and Myanmar; within India, it occurs
in localities in Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh,
West Bengal, and the Andaman Islands (Bates & Harrison, 1997). However, it
is not in Blanford (1889–91) but in Dobson’s (1878)
‘Catalogue of Chiroptera in the British Museum’ that
we first see mention of the locality “Nusserabad, India”
in connection to specimens of Vesperugo tickelli from the “E.I. House Collection”. This is the first mention of specimens from
the ambiguous location in India—Nusserabad. There is
also no mention of the name of the collector or the date of collection of these
specimens, and in a span of almost a century and a half since, no reports of
occurrence from ‘Nasirabad’ nor any other locality in
Rajasthan.
An examination of ‘A Catalogue of
the Mammalia in the Museum of The Hon. East India Company’ by Horsfield (1851), only includes a reference to a “dried
specimen” for Nycticejus isabellinus that had been presented by the Asiatic
Society of Bengal with the description “Hab. Central India”. Anderson’s (1881)
‘Catalogue of Mammalia in the Indian Museum, Calcutta’ provides details of
the specimens collected from Chaibasa (Jharkhand)
(type specimen) by S.R. Tickell in 1842, the Andaman Islands by R.C. Tytler in 1864, Singhbum
(Jharkhand) by an unnamed museum collector in 1869, Surguja
(Chhattisgarh) by W.T. Blanford in 1871, and from Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) and Tenasserim (Myanmar) by W.T. Blanford in 1871 and 1878, respectively. There is no
mention of any specimen collected from ‘Nusserabad’.
It is Blanford (1888–91) who first connected
Rajasthan to this species, “Peninsula of India (Nusserabad
in Rajputana; Bombay; Chybassa; Jashpur,
Sirguja in SW Bengal)” for Vesperugo
tickelli.
Blanford (1888–91) thus connected the
ambiguous locality of Nusserabad which was first
mentioned by Dobson (1878) as just “Nusserabad, India”
to “Rajputana”. Blanford (1888–91) cited the
published literature on this species at the time (Blyth 1851, 1863; Horsfield 1851; Kelaart 1852;
Dobson 1876, 1877, 1878; Anderson 1881) in his account. Therefore, it appears
that the inclusion of Rajputana (now Rajasthan) was assumed by Blanford (1888–91). What could have informed such an
assumption by Blanford (1888–91)? As seen in Khandal et al. (2022) there were (and still are) several
towns called ‘Nasirabad’ in India (at least three
outside of Rajasthan in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh in
modern-day India). In British India (including modern-day Pakistan), the number
of localities named ‘Nasirabad’ would climb to at
least six. So why specifically ‘Nasirabad’ in
Rajasthan?
Although he is not named in accounts connected
to this species (Blyth 1851, 1863; Horsfield 1851; Kelaart 1852; Dobson 1876, 1877, 1878; Anderson 1881; Blanford 1888–91; Wroughton 1918;
Ellerman & Morrison-Scott 1951; Sinha 1980; Bates & Harrison 1997; Srinivasulu et al. 2013), it was the association of the
reputed cavalry officer-cum-specimen collector Captain W.J.E Boys to the
cantonment town of Nasirabad in Rajasthan, that drove
early naturalists to perpetuate similar assumptions in connection to three
other bat species (Khandal et al. 2022). It is
therefore possible that a similar sequence of events transpired because of the
absence of a precise locality and collector information for the relevant
specimens in Dobson’s (1878) account. Following Blanford’s
(1888–91) inclusion of ‘Rajputana’ to the occurrence area of this species, Wroughton (1918) was the next to further perpetuate this
assumption. In the Bombay Natural History Society’s Mammal Survey of India,
Burma (Myanmar) and Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Wroughton
(1918) wrote “Other localities: Rajputana, Thana district, Bombay; Kanara;
Madras (Jerdon) (B.M.)” for this species. Therefore,
like Blanford (1888–91), it appears that Wroughton (1918) also interpreted Dobson’s (1878) “Nusserabad, India” to mean Rajputana (B.M. = British
Museum), for Jerdon (1874) does not mention any
locality in Rajasthan for this species. All the specimens obtained in the
survey, however, were obtained from other parts of India (Wroughton
1918; Bates & Harrison 1997). Like Wroughton
(1918), Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) further perpetuated the assumption
of ‘Rajputana’ in the occurrence area of this species in their checklist of
Palearctic and Indian Mammals—1758 to 1946, “India—Rajputana, Orissa, Bombay,
Madras, Ceylon, Bengal, Bhutan duars (Blanford also quoted it from the Andaman Islands and
Moulmein district, Burma)”.
Sinha (1980), however, wrote the
following on the occurrence of H. tickelli in
Rajasthan, “RAJASTHAN: Wroughton (1918) and Ellerman
& Morrison-Scott (1951) include “Rajputana” (=Rajasthan) in its range of
distribution, but no precise localities are mentioned. I have not been able to
collect any’ example but as informed by J.E. Hill (Brit. Mus.), the exact
locality of this species is Nasirabad (Rajasthan)”.
Sinha (1980) thus ignored Dobson (1878) and Blanford
(1888–91) in his review of literature but relied on the late J.E. Hill of the
British Museum. J.E. Hill was consistent with Blanford’s
(1888–91) assumption by connecting Nasirabad or Nusserabad to Rajasthan. Hill it should be noted however,
also perpetuated similar assumptions with other bat species (Khandal et al. 2022).
Like Bates & Harrison (1997)
before them, Srinivasulu et al. (2013) also include
the assumed locality Nasirabad in Rajasthan for H.
tickelli by citing Blanford
(1888–91). “Blanford puts on record the presence of Hesperoptenus tickelli (Blyth,
1855) from Nasirabad.” Srinivasulu
et al. (2013) thus also ignore Dobson (1878), who first wrote of specimens
collected from the ambiguous locality of Nusserabad
in India. Blanford (1888–91) was the first to connect
Nusserabad to Rajputana or Rajasthan, causing every
subsequent author to assume that H. tickelli
had been documented in Rajasthan.
In addition, an examination of
specimen deposits in the Natural History Museum of London (NHM) (separated from
the British Museum in 1963), and the Muséum d’histoire Naturelle Genève
revealed no specimens from Rajasthan (GBIF 2023a). Similarly, an extensive
examination of the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (JBNHS)
revealed no specimens from Rajasthan collected in surveys nor specimen
donations in proceedings for this species (Wroughton
1899, 1912, 1913, 1915, 1917, 1918; Brosset 1962;
Hill 1967).
Small Mouse-tailed Bat Rhinopoma muscatellum Thomas,
1903
While doubting the record of this
species for India, Bates & Harrison (1997) nevertheless categorically
articulated the possibility of R. muscatellum
specimens being collected from a locality called Genji
in Rajasthan, “Tamil Nadu: Genji (doubtful record,
restricted to Coromandel coast by Van Cakenberghe
& de Vree (1994) but possibly Genji
in Rajasthan)”. Bates & Harrison (1997) also marked Genji
in Rajasthan, along with a locality in Tamil Nadu with a “?” in a distributional
map of R. muscatellum lending further
credibility to this possibility. Considering that two species belonging to the
same genus do occur in Rajasthan, namely R. hardwickii
and R. microphyllum (Srinivasulu
et al. 2013), the possibility of the occurrence of this species in Rajasthan
has informally begun to gain plausibility. It is also possible that when viewed
alongside occurrence reports in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a report from a
locality in Rajasthan appeared to be a plausible extension of its occurrence
area to Bates & Harrison (1997).
According to Van Cakenberghe & de Vree (1994),
the source Bates & Harrsion (1997) cite for this
assumption, this species was likely collected at a locality called ‘Genji’ on the Coromandel coast in southeastern India based
on documentation provided with preserved specimens in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris.
Curiously, however, they were unable to find a locality named ‘Genji’ in the area. While Van Cakenberghe
& de Vree (1994) merely acknowledged that there
was also a locality named “Genji” in Rajasthan and
concluded that the specimens were from southeastern India, Genji
in Rajasthan was nevertheless marked on their distributional map for R. muscatellum, thereby lending credence to the
possibility that the specimens could have been collected in Rajasthan for the
very first time. Van Cakenberghe & de Vree (1994) also add the following about both the collector
and the specimens, “Mr. MAURICE MAINDRON – was in the neighbourhood
of Pondicherry and Karikal in September 1901, the
period in which these specimens were captured in Genji.
Both localities are indeed situated on the Coromandel Coast”. It should also be
noted that early European naturalists in India were not necessarily consistent
with the spellings of the names of localities (as we have already seen with Nusserabad or Nasirabad). While a
locality spelt ‘Genji’ might not be located on the
Coromandel coast in Tamil Nadu, the authors have noted a locality in close
proximity to the coast named, ‘Gingee’ (12.25290N,
79.41600E) (Anonymous
2023). Thus, it is possible that this locality is what Maindron
meant by ‘Genji’.
Therefore, it is highly
improbable that Maurice Maindron ventured to Genji in Rajasthan in 1900–1901. In addition to being
inconsistent with what is documented about Maindron’s
travels (Van Cakenberghe & de Vree
1994), there is no documentation nor evidence of the occurrence of R.
muscatellum in Rajasthan, despite a long history
of chiropteran exploration in the state which has included numerous field
surveys. In consideration of the above information, a contemporary survey of
the field for R. muscatellum in Genji, Rajasthan appears unwarranted.
It should also be noted that the
collector of the specimens, Maurice Maindron
(1857–1911) had embarked on “25 years of almost continuous travel” after his
employment by the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris in 1875. His travels took him to, “New
Guinea (1876–1877), Senegal (1879 and 1904), India (1880–1881, 1896, and
1900–1901), Indonesia (1884–1885), Djibouti and Somalia (1893), and Arabia
(1896)” (Beolens et al. 2011). Considering that Maindron did indeed travel to other parts of the range of R.
muscatellum such as ‘Arabia’, it is possible that
the specimens were collected in a locality in west Asia (possibly the Persian
Gulf where the species is known to occur today) and subsequently mislabelled. This is not out of the realm of possibility,
as Benda & Mlíkovský (2008) noted that errors by
curators did occur in the British Museum historically (Khandal
et al. 2022). Therefore, we are of the opinion that Bates & Harrison (1997)
were prudent in considering this record of R. muscatellum
to be “doubtful” for India. Koopman (1993) excluded India and mentioned its
distribution only from “Oman, W Iran, S Afghanistan, perhaps Ethiopia”.
Following this exclusion, Alfred et al. (2002), Srinivasulu
& Srinivasulu (2012), Srinivasulu
et al. (2013), and Talmale & Saikia
(2018) also did not include R. muscatellum in
the Indian chiropteran list.
As with H. tickelli,
an examination of specimen deposits in the Natural History Museum of London
(NHM), and Muséum d’histoire
Naturelle Genève also revealed no specimens from not
only Rajasthan, but none from India (GBIF 2023b). A review of the Journal of
the Bombay Natural History Society also revealed no specimen deposits from
Rajasthan in surveys and proceedings.
Discussion
and Conclusion
Our literature review reveals
that even though these two species were never reported from Rajasthan, their
inclusion among chiropteran species occurring in the state was a result of the
perpetuation of assumptions, with reports of their occurrence in the state
perpetuated simply because of their being published. The report of H. tickelli follows a pattern of perpetuation observed in Khandal et al. (2022), while the report of R. muscatellum serves as a contemporary example of a
similar phenomenon. However, it is important to note that historical observers
were not systematic (Boshoff & Kerley 2010), and Blanford
(1888–91) who first assumed that H. tickelli
was reported from Rajasthan serves as a pertinent example. This is however by
no means an isolated incident.
Blanford (1888–91) also claimed that Hipposideros diadema
Geoffroy, 1813 had been “found by Mr. V Ball at Udaipur”. Udaipur is located in
southern Rajasthan. This report of occurrence in Rajasthan curiously does not
follow the pattern of perpetuation observed in this review with H. tickelli and the three species observed in Khandal et al. (2022). Despite extensive chiropteran
surveys, to date there is no evidence of the occurrence of H. diadema in Rajasthan, and it is only known to occur in,
“the Nicobar Islands and Myanmar to Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, New Guinea,
northern Australia and the Philippines” (Bates & Harrison 1997). The fact
that the report of H. diadema does not follow
the same pattern of perpetuation as H. tickelli
and the three species observed in Khandal et al.
(2022) only buttresses the notion that historical observers were not systematic
and at times resorted to data selection and interpretation methods that can
only be described as arbitrary.
There could be multiple causes
for error with the reporting of occurrence localities, and then the
perpetuation of erroneous occurrence reports. The report of H. diadema could very well have been the result of species
misidentification by the collector. Misreading and misinterpretation of
existing literature is yet another causal factor. For example, Khandal et al. (2023) documented that an erroneous citation
led to the perpetuation of the false report that the first occurrence record of
Hipposideros lankadiva
in Rajasthan was from the Bhim Bharak caves in Jodhpur district. A literature review by Khandal et al. (2023) revealed that the cited text
mentioned another species altogether, Hipposideros
fulvous by Wason (1978).
Assumptions, however, can skew
the reporting of occurrence localities and further result in the perpetuation
of erroneous results. Boshoff & Kerley (2010) have documented that a
paucity of geographical knowledge by historical observers can misinform
historical occurrence data. The pattern of the perpetuation of the possibility
of the occurrence of R. muscatellum in
Rajasthan by Van Cakenberghe & de Vree (1994) and Bates & Harrison (1997) has shown that
this is also possible in contemporary scientific literature. Historical
occurrence data bears relevance to conservation biology and thus can have
policy and management implications (Boshoff & Kerley 2010). The
perpetuation of erroneous historical occurrence data can therefore have very
damaging consequences for ecosystems. Therefore, pending the documentation of
empirical evidence of occurrence, H. tickelli
must be omitted from accounts of Chiroptera occurring
in Rajasthan, and R. muscatellum from accounts
of Chiroptera occurring in India.
References
Agrawal, V.C.
(1967). New mammal
records from Rajasthan. Labdev (Journal of
Science & Technology) 5(4): 342–344.
Alfred,
J.R.B., N.K. Sinha & S. Chakraborty (2002). Checklist of Mammals of India. Records
of the Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper No. 199: 1–289.
Anderson, J.
(1881). 156. Vesperugo tickelli,
pp. 132. In: Catalogue of Mammalia in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Part 1.
Primates, Prosimae, Chiroptera
and Insectivora. The Indian Museum, Calcutta. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/114629#page/154/mode/1up
Accessed on 18 June 2023.
Anonymous
(2023). Map showing
location of Gingee, Tamil Nadu, India. Google Earth.
https://earth.google.com/web/@12.25290682,79.4160149,3862.98237005a,0d,35y,0h,0t,0r?utm_source=earth7&utm_campaign=vine&hl=en.
Accessed on 30 June 2023.
Bates, P.J.J.
& D.L. Harrison (1997). Bats of the Indian Subcontinent. Harrison Zoological Museum
Publication, Sevenoaks, Kent, 258 pp.
Benda, P.
& J. Mlíkovský (2008). Nomenclatural notes on the Asian
forms of Barbastella bats (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Lynx
(Praha) 39(1): 31–46.
Beolens, B., M. Watkins & M. Grayson
(2011). Maindron, pp. 916. In: The Eponym Dictionary of Reptiles.
The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1606 pp.
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. (1888–91). Vesperugo
tickelli: p. 317 in: Mammalia. Taylor
& Francis,
London. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/89654#page/355/mode/1up
Accessed on 18 June 2023.
Blyth, E.
(1851). Report on
the Mammalia and the more remarkable species of birds inhabiting Ceylon. Journal
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 20: 153–185. Electronic version at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/124444#page/204/mode/1up.
Accessed on 18 June 2023.
Blyth, E.
(1863). 25. N. Tickelli. Blyth J.A.S XX, 157. p. 31 in: Catalogue
of the Mammalia in the Museum of the Asiatic Society. Savielle
& Craneburgh, Calcutta. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/47534709#page/45/mode/1up.
Accessed on 18 June 2023.
Brosset, A. (1962). The Bats of Central and Western
India: Part 1. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 59(1):
729–730. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/47854686#page/844/mode/1up.
Accessed on 29 July 2023.
Boshoff, A.F. & G.I.H. Kerley (2010). Historical mammal distribution data: How reliable are
written records? South
African Journal of Science 106 (1/2): 26–33.
Dobson, G.E.
(1876). 8. Vesperugo tickelli,
pp. 113–114. In: Monograph of the
Asiatic Chiroptera and Catalogue of the Species of
Bats in the Collection of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. Taylor & Francis, London. https://archive.org/details/b28107925/page/n7/mode/2up.
Accessed on 18 June 2023.
Dobson, G.E.
(1877). XII. Notes on a collection
of Chiroptera from India and
Burma. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 46(2): 310–313. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35548400#page/324/mode/1up
Accessed on 18 June 2023.
Dobson, G.E.
(1878). 46. Vesperugo tickelli,
pp. 240–241. In: Catalogue of the
Chiroptera in the
Collection of the British
Museum. Taylor & Francis, London. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/116007#page/289/mode/1up
Accessed on 18 June 2023.
Ellerman, J.R. & T.C.S. Morrison-Scott
(1951). Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals 1758 to 1946. British Museum (Natural History), London, 810
pp.
GBIF (2023a). Global Biodiversity
Information Facility Occurrence. Accessed on 29th July 2023. https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.duf7ph
GBIF (2023b). Global Biodiversity
Information Facility Occurrence. Accessed
on 29th July 2023. https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.t2cjmy
Hill, J.E.
(1967). The Bats of the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 64(1): 1–9. Electronic version at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/48069318#page/11/mode/1up
Accessed on 29 July 2023.
Horsfield, T. (1851). Nycticejus
isabellinus, Blyth, p.
38. In: A Catalogue of the Mammalia in the Museum of the
Hon. East India Company.
J&H Cox, London. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/23832316 Accessed on June 18th 2023.
Jerdon, T.C. (1874). The Mammals
of India: A Natural History of All the Animals Known to Inhabit Continental India. John Wheldon, London,
335 pp.
Kelaart, E.F. (1852). Nycticejus
tickelli Blyth., p. 24.
In: Prodromus Faunæ
Zeylanicæ; being Contributions to the Zoology of
Ceylon. Ceylon. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Prodromus_Faunae_Zeylanicae/NoteAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Tickelli Accessed on
18 June 2023.
Khandal, D., I. Dhar,
D.L. Bohra & S.S. Talmale
(2022). Natural history notes on three bat species. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(8):
21501–21507. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7995.14.8.21501-21507
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
Koopman, K.F. (1993). Order Chiroptera,
pp. 137–241. In: Wilson, D.E. & D.M. Reeder (eds.).
Mammal species of the
world, a taxonomic and geographic reference, Second ed.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., 1207 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. The Hague (W. Junk), 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.
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 83 (Supp.): 196.
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(4): 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
(2012). South Asian
Mammals: Their Diversity, Distribution, and Status. Springer, New York, 468 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.
Talmale, S.S. & U. Saikia (2018). A Checklist of Indian Bat Species (Mammalia: Chiroptera). Version 2.0. Online publication is available
at www.zsi.gov.in (Last update: May 2018). https://zsi.gov.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/Checklist/Checklist%20of%20Indian%20Chiroptera.pdf
Accessed on 25 June 2023.
Van Cakenberghe, V. & F. De Vree
(1994). A revision
of the Rhinopomatidae Dobson 1872, with the
description of a new subspecies (Mammalia: Chiroptera).
Senckenbergiana Biologica
72 (1–2): 1–24.
Wason, A. (1978). Observations on homing ability
of some insectivorous bats. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 43:
305–306.
Wroughton, R.C. (1899). Some Konkan bats. Journal of
the Bombay Natural History Society 12: 716–725. Electronic version at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7148470#page/867/mode/1up
Accessed on 29 July 2023.
Wroughton, R.C. (1912). Report No. 5: Dharwar. Mammal Survey of India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 21(4): 1170–1195. Electronic version at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/30222630#page/539/mode/1up
Accessed on 29 July 2023.
Wroughton, R.C. (1913). Report No. 6: Kanara. Mammal
Survey of India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 22(1):
29–44. Electronic version at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/30155481#page/71/mode/1up
Accessed on 29 July 2023.
Wroughton, R.C. (1915). Mammal Survey of India, Burma
& Ceylon. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 24(1):
79–110. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/30151613#page/149/mode/1up
Accessed on 29 July 2023.
Wroughton, R.C. (1917). Report No. 27: Bhutan Duars. Mammal Survey of India, Burma & Ceylon. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 25(1): 63–71. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/5454763#page/112/mode/1up
Accessed on 29 July 2023.
Wroughton, R.C. (1918). Summary of the Results from the
Indian Mammal Survey of the Bombay Natural History Society. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 25(4): 593. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/5454542#page/739/mode/1up
Accessed on 18 June 2023.