Uroderma bilobatum Peters, 1866

Garbino, Guilherme S. T. & Nogueira, Marcelo R., 2017, On the mammals collected by Friedrich Sellow in Brazil and Uruguay (1814 – 1831), with special reference to the types and their provenance, Zootaxa 4221 (2), pp. 172-190 : 177-178

Uroderma bilobatum Peters, 1866 (ZMB_MAM 411)

Peters (1866a) described the genus Uroderma based on a specimen donated to him by Dr. Eduard Rüppell. At that time, Peters associated this specimen with Wagner’s (1943) Phyllostoma personatum , a taxon then recognized as belonging to the genus Artibeus (not Phyllostoma G. Cuvier, 1800 ) ( Fig. 3 ). Peters (1866a), in fact, appears to have considered Uroderma as a subgenus of Artibeus , characterizing the new specimen as an Artibeus with five upper and five lower cheek teeth (Gardner 2008b).

The identity of Wagner’s Phyllostoma personatum , however, is uncertain. Peters (1866b) himself later stated that Wagner’s description of P. personatum , i.e. an animal with four facial stripes and a single dorsal one, tail absent, and narrow uropatagium, is not unambiguous and may represent a large Chiroderma such as C. doriae , or a Platyrrhinus such as P. lineatus (also see Rehn [1901] and Gardner [2008b]). As stated by Gardner (2008b:345), the only way to confirm the identity of Phyllostoma personatum Wagner, 1843 is to find the type specimen, if it still exits, presumably collected by Natterer in Ipanema ( Pelzeln 1883).

Based on the difficulty to define Phyllostoma personatum and the lack of specimens clearly attributed to it, Peters (1866b) decided that the specimen donated by Rüppell was a distinct species. Based on four specimens, one from " St. Paulo in Brasilien " (ZMB_MAM 411), collected by Sellow, two from Cayenne (ZMB_MAM 409, 410), collected by Delbruck, and the Rüppell’s specimen in the Frankfurt museum, whose provenance is not known ( Andersen 1908:220), Peters (1866b:394–395) described Uroderma bilobatum . Andersen (1908:220) designated as lectotype the subadult ZMB_MAM 411 (skin and skull) from Sellow, supposedly from São Paulo ( Figs. 2 c, e, 3). Consequently, the type locality of Uroderma bilobatum became “ St. Paulo, in Brasilien ” ( Andersen 1908).

Most authors have assigned São Paulo, Brazil, as the type locality of U. bilobatum (e.g., Andersen 1908; Husson 1962; Davis 1968; Baker & Clark 1987; Koopman 1993; Simmons 2005; Gardner 2008b). However, references to “Ipanema, São Paulo,” as the type locality of Phyllostoma personatum , can also be found in the literature ( Vieira 1942, 1945, 1955; Cabrera 1958; Husson 1978; Taddei & Reis 1980, p. 364; Peracchi & Nogueira 2010). Vieira (1942) appears to have initiated this error, and some subsequent authors followed him (see Gardner 2008b:344–345). The reason behind Vieira’s assignment, however, is not clear, but seems to be an attempt to restrict the type locality. Although Vieira (1942:363) had recognized that Peters’ (1866a) species was not a junior synonym of Wagner´s (1843) Uroderma personatum , he included Stenoderma (Uroderma) personatum in the synonymy of U. bilobatum , a name combination previously used by Pelzeln (1883) based on a specimen collected by Natterer in “Ypanema”. This specimen was probably the same one used by Wagner (1843) to describe Phyllostoma personatum (S. Engelberger pers. comm.), but Vieira may have considered it to be an additional specimen ( Pelzeln [1883] is not unequivocal in this respect). This interpretation is plausible if we consider Vieira's (1945:403) later statement that Natterer collected a specimen of U. bilobatum in Ipanema. Vieira (1942) did not explicitly attempt to introduce type locality restrictions, but some of his assignments have been accepted as such (e.g., Husson 1978:123).

There is a discrepancy between labels that also can be a source of confusion concerning the information associated with the lectotype of U. bilobatum . The old catalogue entry of the Berlin museum says “ Uroderma bilobatum var. personatus , Brasil, Sellow,” while the specimen label reads “ Uroderma bilobatum Ptrs. , 411, Sao Paulo, Sello” ( Figs. 2 c–3).

Cory T. Carvalho (1980:55), citing Pelzeln (1883), reported U. bilobatum in São Paulo and added two additional localities, Piquete and Botucatu. Since Carvalho based his records on specimens housed at MZUSP, we verified all bat specimens in this collection from Botucatu (12 specimens) and Piquete (44 specimens) ; none of which are U. bilobatum . Moreover, in the MZUSP, there is a series of Platyrrhinus lineatus composed of eight specimens from Atafona, Rio de Janeiro ( MZUSP 15725–15732 ), misidentified as Uroderma bilobatum by C. T. Carvalho. Another vouchered specimen record from São Paulo is a pregnant female captured in Itirapina ( Sato et al. 2015). We examined photographs of this specimen and conclusively identify it as belonging to the genus Platyrrhinus .

The record from Fazenda Providência, Rio de Janeiro ( Avilla et al. 2001), is based on an animal that escaped ( Peracchi & Nogueira 2010), and another potential record from São Carlos, São Paulo ( Muylaert et al. 2014), is based on an intentionally released animal (R. Muylaert pers. comm.). The first and only record from Paraná was reported by Reis et al. (1998:97), where the species is marked with an asterisk. In a footnote on the following page (p. 98), the authors explain that the marked species “… were captured after the publication [sic] of the works done in the region”. By contacting researchers that have worked in the mammal collection of Universidade de Londrina, where the bats reported in Reis et al. (1998) were vouchered, we confirmed that there are no specimens of Uroderma in the collection (pers. comm., C.B. Batista, G.Z. Resende, I.P. Lima). Therefore, subsequent reports of U. bilobatum for the state of Paraná and southern Brazil ( Reis et al. 2003, 2006; Miretzki 2003; Passos et al. 2010), all based on the record presented by Reis et al. (1998), should be disregarded.

The forests of southern and southeastern São Paulo have been intensively sampled with mist nets for more than 20 years and there is no vouchered evidence confirming the presence of U. bilobatum in the state ( Trajano 1985; Fenton et al. 1999; Gregorin & de Vivo, 2001; Passos et al. 2003; Arnone 2008). In addition, the species has not been confirmed in the heavily sampled states of Rio de Janeiro ( Peracchi & Nogueira 2010) and Espírito Santo ( Mendes et al. 2010).

The southernmost localities where Uroderma bilobatum is known to occur, based on voucher specimens, are Caratinga (19°47’’S 42°08’W), state of Minas Gerais ( Tavares et al. 2010), Itapebi (15°57’S 39°32’W), state of Bahia ( Faria et al. 2006), and Itagibá (14°17’S 39°50’W) ( ZUEC 275 ), also in the state of Bahia. The route travelled by Sellow in eastern Brazil included Itapebi ( Fig. 1 ). Therefore , based on Sellow’s itinerary, the absence of the species from several intensively sampled states, and on the known occurrence of the species, it seems that the type locality of Uroderma bilobatum cannot be more restricted than “ eastern Brazil ”.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Localities traveled by Friedrich Sellow between 1814 and 1831, and main vegetation types along the route. For locality coordinates, see Gazetteer in Appendix I.

FIGURE 2. Bats supposedly collected by Friedrich Sellow in eastern Brazil. a) Sturnira lilium (ZMB _ MAM 412), mistakenly labeled as the type of Phyllostoma spiculatum Lichtenstein; b) Lectotype of Chiroderma villosum (ZMB _ MAM 408); c) Lectotype of Uroderma bilobatum (ZMB _ MAM 411); d) detail of the anterior dentition of ZMB _ MAM 408; e) detail of the anterior dentition of ZMB _ MAM 411 (Photo: Hwa Ja Götz). White scale bar = 10 mm, graduated bar = 1 mm each division.

FIGURE 3. Page of ZMB mammal collection catalog, handwritten by Wilhelm Peters, with the entries for the three bat specimens supposedly collected by Friedrich Sellow in eastern Brazil (ZMB _ MAM 408, 411, 412). The asterisk denotes type material.