Lonchophylla thomasi J. A. Allen, 1904

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 : 54-57

Lonchophylla thomasi J. A. Allen

VOUCHER MATERIAL: 15 females (AMNH *266100, *266107, *266108, *266109, *267147, *267148, *267149, *267451, *267452, *267939; MNHN *1995.1096, *1995.1097, *1995.1098, *1995.1099, *1995.1100) and 23 males (AMNH *266101, *266102, *266103, *266104, *266105, *266106, *266110, *266113, *266114, *266116, *266117, 267150, *267940, *267941, *267942, *267943; MNHN *1995.1101, *1995.1102, *1995.1103, *1995.1104, *1995.1105, 1995.1106, *1995.1107); see table 17 for measurements.

IDENTIFICATION: The most useful reference for identifying species of Lonchophylla is Taddei et al. (1983), who provided a key and discussed variation. We consulted descriptions and comparative measurements of Lonchophylla thomasi in Husson (1962, 1978), Hill (1964, 1980), Gardner (1976), Taddei et al. (1978, 1983), Swanepoel and Genoways (1979), and Brosset and Charles­Dominique (1990). No subspecies of L. thomasi are currently recognized (Taddei et al., 1983; Koopman, 1994).

Our voucher material, one of the largest series available from a single locality, conforms in all respects to previous descriptions of Lonchophylla thomasi .

FIELD OBSERVATIONS: We recorded 55 captures (possibly including some recaptures) of Lonchophylla thomasi at Paracou, of which 36 were in ground­level mistnets, 1 was in an elevated net, and 18 were at roosts. Of the 36 ground­level mistnet captures, 12 were in well­drained primary forest, 15 were in swampy primary forest, 1 was in creekside primary forest, and 8 were in manmade clearings. Our single capture in an elevated net was made at 18–21 m over a narrow dirt road. 7

We observed eight roosting groups of Lonchophylla thomasi at seven unique roost sites (one site was revisited once). Five roosts sites were inside hollow logs (e.g., fig. 27) and two were under fallen trees (like that shown in fig. 17). Three roost sites were in well­drained primary forest, three were in disturbed forest, and one was in secondary growth. Entire roosting groups were difficult to capture, but at least one contained multiple adult males (table 18).