Choeronycteris mexicana - (Tschudi, 1844)
Mexican Long-tongued Bat
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Choeronycteris mexicana Tschudi, 1844 (TSN 180062)
Spanish Common Names: Un Murciélago
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101310
Element Code: AMACB02010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Bats
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Choeronycteris
Genus Size: A - Monotypic genus
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
Concept Reference Code: B93WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Choeronycteris mexicana
Taxonomic Comments: This species was regarded as monotypic by Jones and Carter (1976), Koopman (in Wilson and Reeder 1993), and Simmons (in Wilson and Reeder 2005); nominal subspecies ponsi from northwestern Venezuela is now regarded as a subspecies of Choeroniscus periosus (Simmons, in Wilson and Reeder 2005).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 22Oct2014
Global Status Last Changed: 14Apr2008
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Broadly distributed across a wide range of habitats from Central America to the southwestern United States; many roost sites and locations, but information on abundance and population trend is not available for most of range; local colonies include small numbers of individuals; uses various roost structures that are not in short supply; apparently threatened by loss of food supplies (nectar and pollen of agave and cacti) and wanton killing, but degree of threat needs further investigation; occurs in several protected areas.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2 (05Sep1996)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Arizona (S3), California (S1), New Mexico (S2S3), Texas (S1)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: NT - Near threatened

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Range extends from the southwestern United States (Hoffmeister 1986, Cryan and Bogan 2003, Ammerman et al. 2012) southward through Mexico (e.g., López-González and García-Mendoza 2006, Riechers-Pérez and R. Vidal-López 2009) to El Salvador and Honduras (Arroyo-Cabrales et al. 1987). In the United States, this species is known from southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico (Cryan and Bogan 2003) and scattered locations in western and southern Texas (Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, Hidalgo County; Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, Cameron County; Midland County; Hays County) (Davis and Schmidly 1994, Balin 2009, Schmidly 2004, Ammerman et al. 2012), with rare or irregular occurrences in southern California (San Diego area; Olson 1947, Huey 1954, Barbour and Davis 1969), northern Arizona (Grand Canyon National Park), and Las Vegas, Nevada (Constantine 1987). Usual elevational range extends from about 300 to 2,400 meters (Adams 2003). Roost sites in Arizona and New Mexico were at elevations of 975-1,846 meters (mean 1,478 meters) (Cryan and Bogan 2003; see also Fleming et al. 2003).

Number of Occurrences:  
Number of Occurrences Comments: The number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using standardized criteria. Also, this species roosts in small groups or singly, so roosting occurrences may be difficult to detect. Nevertheless, it appears that the species is represented by a relatively large number of roost sites and locations (as defined by IUCN). For example, as of the late 1990s, in a small portion of the northern part of the range, about 100 roost sites had been identified in southern Arizona (Bill Peachey, pers. comm., 1998).

Population Size: 10,000 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but given the broad range probably exceeds 10,000. According to Reid (1997), this species is fairly common in desert scrub, deciduous forest, and pine-oak forest of Central America and southeastern Mexico. It was rated as widespread but relatively scarce in Mexico by Arita and Prado (1999).

Roosts generally include small numbers of individuals (usually a dozen or fewer), but counting roosts in close proximity some colonies may reach 40-50 individuals (Hoffmeister 1986, Western Bat Working Group 1998, Ammerman et al. 2012). Cryan and Bogan (2003) found 104 individuals in 18 sites in Arizona and New Mexico; mean group size was 4.5 (range 1-17).

Fewer than 1,500 individuals have been documented since the species was discovered in 1844 (Petryszyn and Cockrum, cited by Cryan and Bogan 2003). According to the Western Bat Working Group (1998), fewer than 400 individuals have been observed in the United States since 1906. According to Bill Peachey (pers. comm., 1998), from 1884-1994 only 700 individuals were collected in Arizona. Abundance in Arizona is currently thought to be fewer than 1,000 individuals (Bill Peachey, pers. comm., 1998).

Overall Threat Impact: High - medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The degree of threat is unknown rangewide but thought to be moderate in Arizona (Bill Peachey, pers. comm., 1998). The major threat is loss of food supplies (nectar and pollen of agave and columnar cactus) due to development, ranching practices, harvesting (e.g., agave harvest for tequila production in Mexico), or other activities that reduce or degrade agave and/or columnar cactus populations, which can take decades to recover (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 1997; Bill Peachey, pers. comm., 1998; Western Bat Working Group 1998). Loss of mesic corridors of riparian vegetation may be a threat in Arizona and New Mexico (Cryan and Bogan 2003).

Shooting is a problem in some areas of Arizona. In Mexico, killing is a problem and can wipe out some small local populations. Mexican populations are highly persecuted as they are associated with evil, the devil, and often mistaken as vampire bats (Bill Peachey, pers. comm., 1998).

Disturbance of roost sites is another significant threat (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 1997). Recent observations indicate that roosts are vulnerable to disturbance only during two very brief periods during the year (Bill Peachey, pers. comm., 1998). First, when young are first born (possibly for a period of only a few hours) and left to hang in the roost while the mother forages. Second, just before young are able to fly. At this time the young are too large to be carried by the mother and are left hanging in the roost. Disturbance of the roost during these two periods could cause young to fall and die. The remainder of the time, the mother carries the young while foraging.

Adults are quite wary and generally take flight when disturbed, but they are not much affected by occasional roost disturbance (Bill Peachey, pers. comm., 1998). They readily move among roosts in a small area, and sometimes they soon return to their original roosting site after being disturbed; they use a wide range of roost structures, and availability of suitable roost structures likely does not limit this bat's overall distribution (Cryan and Bogan 2003).

Locally, these bats may be negatively affected by recreational caving (i.e., frequent or ill-timed cave entry), natural or intentional mine closure, renewed mining, or mine reclamation (Western Bat Working Group Workshop 1998).

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Trend over the last 10 years or three generations is uncertain, but distribution and abundance probably have been slowly declining.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Long-term Trend Comments: Based on habitat loss and degradation, this species likely has undergone a long-term decline in distribution and abundance, but the degree of decline is uncertain. In 1999, Cryan and Bogan (2003) found this species in 18 of 24 historical sites in southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, suggesting lack of major decline.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Protection Needs: This species would benefit from protection of suitable habitats located away from human population centers.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Range extends from the southwestern United States (Hoffmeister 1986, Cryan and Bogan 2003, Ammerman et al. 2012) southward through Mexico (e.g., López-González and García-Mendoza 2006, Riechers-Pérez and R. Vidal-López 2009) to El Salvador and Honduras (Arroyo-Cabrales et al. 1987). In the United States, this species is known from southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico (Cryan and Bogan 2003) and scattered locations in western and southern Texas (Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, Hidalgo County; Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, Cameron County; Midland County; Hays County) (Davis and Schmidly 1994, Balin 2009, Schmidly 2004, Ammerman et al. 2012), with rare or irregular occurrences in southern California (San Diego area; Olson 1947, Huey 1954, Barbour and Davis 1969), northern Arizona (Grand Canyon National Park), and Las Vegas, Nevada (Constantine 1987). Usual elevational range extends from about 300 to 2,400 meters (Adams 2003). Roost sites in Arizona and New Mexico were at elevations of 975-1,846 meters (mean 1,478 meters) (Cryan and Bogan 2003; see also Fleming et al. 2003).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AZ, CA, NM, TX

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: Sechrest, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Cochise (04003), Coconino (04005), Graham (04009), Pima (04019), Pinal (04021), Santa Cruz (04023)
CA Orange (06059), San Diego (06073), Ventura (06111)
NM Hidalgo (35023)*
TX Cameron (48061)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
12 South Laguna Madre (12110208)+
15 Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon (15010001)+, Animas Valley (15040003)+*, Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir (15040005)+*, San Simon (15040006)+, Middle Gila (15050100)+, Willcox Playa (15050201)+, Upper San Pedro (15050202)+, Lower San Pedro (15050203)+, Upper Santa Cruz (15050301)+, Rillito (15050302)+, Brawley Wash (15050304)+, San Cristobal Wash (15070203)+, San Simon Wash (15080101)+, Rio De La Concepcion (15080200)+, Whitewater Draw (15080301)+, San Bernardino Valley (15080302)+, Cloverdale (15080303)+*
18 Ventura (18070101)+, Newport Bay (18070204)+, Aliso-San Onofre (18070301)+, San Luis Rey-Escondido (18070303)+*, San Diego (18070304)+, Cottonwood-Tijuana (18070305)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A long-tongued bat.
Reproduction Comments: Litter size is 1. Births occur apparently in June and early July in Arizona and New Mexico; young have been reported as early as mid-April in Sonora, Mexico; a pregnant female that gave birth shortly after capture was collected in May in northern Tamaulipas; pregnant and lactating females have been recorded on March and June in Coahuila (Schmidly 1991, Ammerman et al. 2012); September pregnancy has been reported in Jalisco. This species does not form large maternity colonies.
Ecology Comments: These bats are not numerous at any place where they occur; they do not form sizeable aggregations (usually fewer than 50 individuals). They are very wary and quickly take flight when disturbed (Hoffmeister 1986).

Mexican long-tongued bats are important pollinators of agaves and columnar cacti (e.g., Rocha et al. 2005).

Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: In some areas, these bats evidently migrate seasonally in accordance with food availability (Arroyo-Cabrales et al. 1987) and metabolic requirements (Valiente-Banuet et al. 1996) . For example, southern U.S. populations probably migrate to Mexico for winter, though there is a December record for Texas (Schmidly 1991). No evidence of migration to follow food sources was found in south-central Mexico (Valiente-Banuet et al. 1996).
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cliff, Desert, Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Subterranean Habitat(s): Subterrestrial
Habitat Comments: This species uses a wide range of habitats, including desert shrublands, deep mountain canyons with dense riparian vegetation, montane oak-conifer woodlands and forests, and tropical deciduous forests. In daytime, these bats roost in caves, rock fissures, old mines, and rarely buildings, often in relatively mesic areas near food sources; typically in relatively exposed sites in shallow caves or near entrances of more extensive structures (Arroyo-Cabrales et al. 1987, Cryan and Bogan 2003, Ammerman et al. 2012). Pregnant females and females with young roost in rock fissures, caves, mine tunnels, and rarely buildings.
Adult Food Habits: Frugivore, Nectarivore
Immature Food Habits: Frugivore, Nectarivore
Food Comments: Diet includes nectar, fruits, and pollen (Valiente-Banuet et al. 1996, Godínez-Alvarez and Valiente-Banuet 2000); primarily nectar and pollen in Arizona (Hoffmeister 1986), mainly from columnar cacti, many Agave species, and Fouquieria. These bats may sometimes ingest insects.
Adult Phenology: Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: These bats do not hibernate.
Length: 8 centimeters
Weight: 21 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Better information is needed on life history, behavior, distribution, abundance, population trend, seasonal movement patterns, degree of threat, and roosting and foraging requirements
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Phyllostomid Bats

Use Class: Bachelor colony
Subtype(s): Roost Site, Foraging Area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An area occupied either historically or at present by a persisting or recurring bachelor male population. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals.
Mapping Guidance: The EO includes both the colony site and the associated foraging areas. If separate, the colony site and foraging areas are bounded by separate polygons; that is, areas over which the bats simply commute to and from foraging areas and the colony are not included in the EO.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Movement characteristics of these highly mobile bats would suggest separation distance of a few to many tens of kilometers. However, this would result in occurrences of unwieldy spatial scope. It is impractical to attempt to delineate occurrences on the basis of discrete populations. Instead, the assigned separation distance is intended to generate occurrences that consist of spatially proximate roost sites and capture locations. However, include in the same occurrence (1) any roost sites between which individuals are known to move, regardless of how far apart they are, and (2) known significant foraging areas of occurrences that are based on roost sites.
Date: 24Mar2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Maternity colony
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Colony Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An area occupied either historically or at present by a persisting or recurring population of breeding females and their dependent young during lactation. Includes collections or mist net captures of pregnant or nursing females away from roost sites even if the actual roost site(s) are not known. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more pregnant or nursing females.
Mapping Guidance: The EO includes both the colony site and the associated foraging areas. If separate, the colony site and foraging areas are bounded by separate polygons; that is, areas over which the bats simply commute to and from foraging areas and the colony are not included in the EO.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Movement characteristics of these highly mobile bats (see following) would suggest separation distance of a few to many tens of kilometers. However, this would result in occurrences of unwieldy spatial scope. It is impractical to attempt to delineate occurrences on the basis of discrete populations. Instead, the assigned separation distance is intended to generate occurrences that consist of spatially proximate roost sites and capture locations. However, include in the same occurrence (1) any roost sites between which significant numbers of individuals are known to move, regardless of how far apart they are, and (2) known significant foraging areas of occurrences that are based on roost sites.

Radio-telemetry studies indicate that Macrotus in the California desert forage within 10 km of their roost (Brown, in Wilson and Ruff 1999). Female Leptonycteris curasoae forage over large distances; actual distance dependent on separation of appropriate roosting cave and appropriate feeding habitat. In nursing season (early summer), mean flight distance to foraging area about 14 kilometers at the Bluebird Cave in Arizona, but will fly up to 50 to 100 kilometers from their day roost (USFWS 1995, Westland Resources 2000). Normally fly up to 30 kilometers from their day roost (T. Fleming, pers. comm.).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 10 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: IE distance is based on the foraging range of MACROTUS CALIFORNICUS (Brown, in Wilson and Ruff 1999). Mean flight distance of LEPTONYCTERIS CURASOAE to foraging area is farther (USFWS 1995).
Date: 29Mar2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Roost Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An area occupied either historically or at present by a persisting or recurring population of nonbreeding individuals. Includes mist net captures or other detections away from roost sites obtained during the nonbreeding season even if the actual roost site(s) are not known. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Movement characteristics of these highly mobile bats would suggest separation distance of a few to many tens of kilometers. However, this would result in occurrences of unwieldy spatial scope. It is impractical to attempt to delineate occurrences on the basis of discrete populations. Instead, the assigned separation distance is intended to generate occurrences that consist of spatially proximate roost sites and capture locations. However, include in the same occurrence (1) any roost sites between which individuals are known to move, regardless of how far apart they are, and (2) known significant foraging areas of occurrences that are based on roost sites.
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 10 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Foraging range of MACROTUS CALIFORNICUS (Brown, in Wilson and Ruff 1999). Mean flight distance of LEPTONYCTERIS CURASOAE to foraging area is slightly farther, 14 kilometers (USFWS 1995).
Date: 29Jan2002
Author: Cannings, S.
Notes: Includes bats in the genera MACROTUS, CHOERONYCTERIS, and LEPTONYCTERIS.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 25Mar2015
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 05Jun2015
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Adams, R. A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West: natural history, ecology, and conservation. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. xiii + 289 pp.

  • Ammerman, L. K., C. L. Hice, and D. J. Schmidly. 2012. Bats of Texas. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, Texas. xvi + 305 pp.

  • Arita, H. T. 1993. Conservation biology of the cave bats in Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy 74:693-702.

  • Arita, H. T., and K. Santos-del-Prado. 1999. Conservation biology of nectar-feeding bats in Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy 80:31-41.

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2006. Choeronycteris mexicana. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 7 pp.

  • Arroyo-Cabrales, J., et al. 1987. Choeronycteris mexicana. Mammalian Species 291:1-5.

  • Avila-Flores, R. and R. A. Medellín. 2004. Ecological, taxonomic, and physiological correlates of cave use by Mexican bats. Journal of Mammalogy 85:675-687.

  • Baker, R. J., C. S. Hood, and R. L. Honeycutt. 1989. Phylogenetic relationships and classification of the higher categories of the New World bat family Phyllostomidae. Systematic Zoology 38:228-238.

  • Baker, R. J., J. K. Jones, Jr., and D. C. Carter, editors. 1976. Biology of bats of the New World family Phyllostomatidae. Part I. Spec. Publ. Mus. Texas Tech Univ. (10):1-218.

  • Baker, R. J., J. K. Jones, Jr., and D. C. Carter, editors. 1977. Biology of bats of the New World family Phyllostomatidae. Part II. Spec. Publ. Mus. Texas Tech Univ. (13):1-364.

  • Balin, L. 2009. Mexican Long-tongued Bat (Choeronycteris mexicana) in El Paso, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist 54(2):225-226

  • Barbour, R. W., and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, Kentucky. 286 pp.

  • Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook. R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D.J. Schmidly, F.B. Stangl Jr., R.A. Van den Bussche and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 327:1-28. Available at: <http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP327.pdf> (Accessed April 1, 2015)

  • Constantine, D.G. 1987. Long-tongued bat and spotted bat at Las Vegas, Nevada. The Southwestern Naturalist 32(3):392.

  • Cryan, P. M., and M. A. Bogan. 2003. Recurrence of Mexican long-tongued bats (Choeronycteris mexicana) at historical sites in Arizona and New Mexico. Western North American Naturalist 63(3):314-319.

  • Davis, W. B., and D. J. Schmidly. 1994. The mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Press, Austin. x + 338 pp.

  • Fleming, T. H., T. Tibbetts, Y. Petryszyn, and V. Dalton. 2003. Current status of pollinating bats in southwestern North America. Pages 63-98 in T. J. O'Shea and M. A. Bogan, editors. Monitoring trends in bat populations of the United States and territories: problems and prospects. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR--2003-0003, 274 pp.

  • Gardner, A. L. 1977c. Feeding habits. Pages 293-350 in R. J. Baker, et al., eds. Biology of bats of the New World family Phyllostomidae. Part II. Special Publication. Museum Texas Tech Univ. (13):1-364.

  • Godínez-Alvarez, H. and A. Valiente-Banuet. 2000. Fruit-feeding behavior of the bats Leptonycteris curasoae and Choeronycteris mexicana in flight cage experiments: consequences for dispersal of columnar cactus seeds. Biotropica 32:552-556.

  • Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Department. 602 pp.

  • Huey, M. 1954. Choeronycteris mexicana from southern California and Baja California, Mexico. Journal of Mammology 35:436-437.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., and D. C. Carter. 1976. Annotated checklist, with keys to subfamilies and genera. Pages 7-38 in R. J. Baker, J. K. Jones, Jr., and D. C. Carter, editors. Biology of bats of the New World family Phyllostomatidae. Part I. Spec. Publ. Mus. Texas Tech Univ. (10):1-218.

  • López-González, C., and D. F. García-Mendoza. 2006. Murciélagos de la Sierra Tarahumara, Chihuahua, México. Acta Zoologica Mexicana (n.s.) 22(2):109-135.

  • New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 1997. Fish and Wildlife Information Exchange--VA Tech. Online. Available: http://www.fw.vt.edu/fishex/nm.htm. Accessed 14 April 1998, last update 29 October 1997.

  • Nowak, R. M. 1991. Walker's mammals of the world. Fifth edition. Vols. I and II. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore. 1629 pp.

  • Olson, A. C., Jr. 1947. First records of Choeronycteris mexicana in California. Journal of Mammalogy 28:183-184.

  • Reid, F. A. 1997. A field guide to the mammals of Central America and southeast Mexico. Oxford University Press, Incorporated New York, New York. 334 pp.

  • Riechers-Pérez, A. and R. Vidal-López. 2009. Registros de Choeronycteris mexicana (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) in Chiapas. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 80(3):872-879.

  • Schmidly, D. J. 1991. The bats of Texas. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, Texas. 188 pp.

  • Schmidly, D. J. 2004. The mammals of Texas. Revised edition. University of Texas Press, Austin. xviii + 501 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Lesser long-nosed bat recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 45pp.

  • Valiente-Banuet, A., M. del Coro Arizmendi, A. Rojas-Martinez, and L. Dominguez-Canseco. 1996. Ecological relationships between columnar cacti and nectar-feeding bats in Mexico. Journal of Tropical Ecology 12:103-119.

  • Van Den Bussche, R. A. 1992. Restriction-site variation and molecular systematics of New world leaf-nosed bats. J. Mammalogy 73:29-42.

  • Western Bat Working Group. 1998. Ecology, conservation and management of western bat species, bat species accounts (draft). Unpublished document prepared as preliminary information for a group workshop conducted in February 1998. Obtained from Bill Austin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 520-527-0849.

  • Westland Resources, Inc. 2000. Biological assessment, State prison expansion project. Job No. 498.02. Prepared for: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://www.adc.state.az.us/NEPA/BA.htm. Accessed 2001-06-12.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. Available online at: http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/index.cfm

  • Wilson, D. E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 750 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.