Promops centralis Thomas, 1912

Simmons, Nancy B. & Voss, Robert S., 1998, The mammals of Paracou, French Guiana, a Neotropical lowland rainforest fauna. Part 1, Bats, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 237, pp. 1-219 : 168-169

Promops centralis Thomas

Figures 66 , 67

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figures

Fig. 66. Dorsal (A), ventral (B), and lateral (C) views of the skull of Promops centralis (AMNH 269114; female) from Paracou. Scale bar = 10 mm.

Fig. 67. Comparative palatal cross sections of (A) Molossus rufus (AMNH 269101; female), (B) M. sinaloae (AMNH 269107; female), and (C) Promops centralis (AMNH 269114; female).