Idionycteris phyllotis - (G.M. Allen, 1916)
Allen's Big-eared Bat
Synonym(s): Corynorhinus phyllotis ;Plecotus phyllotis
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Idionycteris phyllotis (G. M. Allen, 1916) (TSN 180012)
Spanish Common Names: Un Murciélago
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.106433
Element Code: AMACC09010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Bats
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Idionycteris
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: Idionycteris phyllotis
Taxonomic Comments: This species formerly was included in the genus Plecotus (e.g., see Handley 1959). Hoffmeister (1986) cited external morphological, cranial, bacular, and chromosomal features in regarding Idionycteris as a genus distinct from Plecotus. Frost and Timm (1992) evaluated morphological and karyological characters and concluded that Idionycteris phyllotis and Euderma maculatum are sister species and that both belong in the genus Euderma (Idionycteris phyllotis would become E. phyllote). Chromosomal data presented by Qumsiyeh and Bickham (1993) also indicate a close relationship between Euderma and Idionycteris. However, Tumlison and Douglas (1992) examined morphological variation in plecotine bats and kept Idionycteris and Euderma as distinct genera. Jones et al. (1992) and Koopman (in Wilson and Reeder 1993) listed this species in the genus Idionycteris but did not cite the recent studies mentioned above. Bogdanowicz et al. (1998) examined morphological and chromosomal variation and concluded that Idionycteris phyllotis and Euderma maculatum should be regarded as generically distinct. In a study of mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequences, Hoofer and Van Den Bussche (2001) confirmed that these two genera were indeed closely related, but percent sequence distance coupled with previous morphologic and karyotypic data supported generic distinction between the two. Simmons (in Wilson and Reeder 2005) treated Idionycteris phyllotis and Euderma maculatum as generically distinct.

Tumlison (1993) examined geographic variation in cranial characters and divided I. phyllotis into two subspecies, phyllotis and hualapaiensis; however, the latter was distinguished from the former by only its smaller size.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 27Oct2014
Global Status Last Changed: 12May2011
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Spotty range from southern-central Mexico to southern Nevada, southern Utah, and western Colorado; winter distribution and ecology poorly known; status in Mexico is poorly known, but this bat probably is more numerous there than in the United States; overall population size presumed to be fairly large, though individual colonies are small (usually fewer than 100 individuals); trend is uncertain but probably relatively stable or slowly declining; roost sites are vulnerable to abandonment as a result of human activity, and they may be lost through mine closure or reactivation or through incompatible forest management practices or other factors that result in loss of large snags used as maternity roosts; protected at several locations in the United States.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3N4 (05Sep1996)

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

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

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: The range encompasses the southwestern United States and part of Mexico, from western Colorado (Hayes et al. 2009), southern Utah (Oliver 2000), and southern Nevada south through Arizona (northwestern, central, southeastern; Hoffmeister 1986) and New Mexico (Mogollon Plateau and western Socorro County in the San Mateo and Magdalena mountains; Frey 2004) to Distrito Federal and Michoacan in southern central Mexico (Simmons, in Wilson and Reeder 2005), including the Sierra Madre Occidental, Sierra Madre Oriental, and Sierra Volcanica Transversal. The range closely approaches California, but as of 2014 no records were available for that state. The winter range is not known. The elevational range extends from 403 to 3,225 meters, with most records at 1,100-2,500 meters (Czaplewski 1983).

Subspecies hualapaiensis: southern Nevada, southern Utah, and northern Arizona (Mohave County and Coconino County north of the Grand Canyon); subspecies phyllotis: remainder of range (Tumlison 1993).

Number of Occurrences:  
Number of Occurrences Comments: The number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using standardized criteria, but this species likely is represented by multiple subpopulations in the United States and presumably many more in the more extensive range in Mexico (detailed occurrence information is not available for the bulk of the range in Mexico). This species is relatively difficult to capture, and its tree and crevice roosts are difficult to detect without radiotelemetry, so it probably occurs in several to many areas where it has not yet been recorded.

Population Size: 10,000 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown. Given the wide range, it presumably exceeds 10,000. Arita (1993) indicated that in Mexico this species occurs in caves in groups of usually fewer than 100 individuals. Up to 100 individuals per roost have been observed in six roosts in the Coconino National Forest, Arizona (Mammal Diversity Review Notes 1996). In northern Arizona, 15 maternity roosts averaged 11 adults per roost (Solevsky and Chambers 2009). The species is rare in Utah (Oliver 2000).

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threats include recreational entry into occupied caves/mines, active mining in occupied tunnels, vandalism or closure of abandoned mines used as maternity roosts, and timber management practices and other factors that reduce the availability of large pine snags for roosting. Lack of adequate information for Mexican populations prevents precise range-wide assessment of the scope and severity of threat.

Cockrum et al. (1996) reported that the major roost in the tunnel at Union Pass in Mohave County, Arizona, was destroyed by the relocation of the highway and destruction of the tunnel.

Maternity colonies are easily disturbed, often resulting in abandonment (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1997). Limited data suggest that this bat may abandon mines that have been gated to prevent recreational entry, even if the gates are permeable to other bat species (Western Bat Working Group 2005).

This species is not known to incur significant mortality by wind turbines. It is not known to be affected by white-nose syndrome.

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

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Long-term Trend Comments: Population trends are not definitely known, but global extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, number of subpopulations, and population size probably have not declined substantially (>30 percent) compared to the historical situation. Barbour and Davis (1969) and Hoffmeister (1986) pointed to the paucity of pre-1955 records for Arizona and discussed the possibility that this species has only recently expanded its range to Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico. However, Hoffmeister (1986) found no factor (e.g., habitat change) that might account for this possible change, and the increased incidence of this species in the United States may reflect increased survey effort and improved methodology.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Increased efforts are needed to improve our knowledge of the distribution and abundance of this species throughout its range.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) The range encompasses the southwestern United States and part of Mexico, from western Colorado (Hayes et al. 2009), southern Utah (Oliver 2000), and southern Nevada south through Arizona (northwestern, central, southeastern; Hoffmeister 1986) and New Mexico (Mogollon Plateau and western Socorro County in the San Mateo and Magdalena mountains; Frey 2004) to Distrito Federal and Michoacan in southern central Mexico (Simmons, in Wilson and Reeder 2005), including the Sierra Madre Occidental, Sierra Madre Oriental, and Sierra Volcanica Transversal. The range closely approaches California, but as of 2014 no records were available for that state. The winter range is not known. The elevational range extends from 403 to 3,225 meters, with most records at 1,100-2,500 meters (Czaplewski 1983).

Subspecies hualapaiensis: southern Nevada, southern Utah, and northern Arizona (Mohave County and Coconino County north of the Grand Canyon); subspecies phyllotis: remainder of range (Tumlison 1993).

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, NM, NV, UT

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 Apache (04001), Cochise (04003), Coconino (04005), Gila (04007), Graham (04009), Mohave (04015), Navajo (04017), Yavapai (04025)
NM Catron (35003), Grant (35017), Sierra (35051), Socorro (35053)
NV Clark (32003)
UT Garfield (49017), Grand (49019), Kane (49025), San Juan (49037), Washington (49053), Wayne (49055)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
13 Elephant Butte Reservoir (13020211)+, Caballo (13030101)+, Mimbres (13030202)+
14 Upper Dolores (14030002)+, Upper Colorado-Kane Springs (14030005)+, Upper Lake Powell (14070001)+, Fremont (14070003)+, Escalante (14070005)+, Lower Lake Powell (14070006)+, Lower San Juan-Four Corners (14080201)+, Montezuma (14080203)+*
15 Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon (15010001)+, Grand Canyon (15010002)+, Kanab (15010003)+, Hualapai Wash (15010007)+, Upper Virgin (15010008)+*, Lower Virgin (15010010)+, Las Vegas Wash (15010015)+, Middle Little Colorado (15020008)+, Chevelon Canyon (15020010)+, Canyon Diablo (15020015)+, Havasu-Mohave Lakes (15030101)+, Sacramento Wash (15030103)+*, Big Sandy (15030201)+, Upper Gila (15040001)+, San Francisco (15040004)+, Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir (15040005)+, San Simon (15040006)+, Willcox Playa (15050201)+, Lower San Pedro (15050203)+, Black (15060101)+, Upper Salt (15060103)+, Big Chino-Williamson Valley (15060201)+, Upper Verde (15060202)+, Whitewater Draw (15080301)+
16 Ivanpah-Pahrump Valleys (16060015)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A big-eared bat.
General Description: Dorsal pelage tawny brown, with hairs dark brown at the base; wings and membranes unfurred; white patches behind enormous ears; flap (lappet) projects forward from base of ear (Whitaker 1996).
Diagnostic Characteristics: No other big-eared bat has lappets projecting from the ears and extending over the forehead (Hoffmeister 1986).
Reproduction Comments: In New Mexico, Arizona, and Durango, pregnant females bearing a single embryo have been collected in June. In Arizona, young are born in mid to late June and are volant by late July (Barbour and Davis 1969, Hoffmeister 1986). Lactating females have been found from the second week of June to the first week of August (Czaplewski 1983). Sexual segregation apparently occurs during the maternity season (Rabe et al. 1998, Solevsky and Chambers 2009).
Ecology Comments: Corynorhinus townsendii and Myotis thysanodes associate with I. phyllotis in maternity roosts. Males probably roost solitarily while females form maternity colonies.
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Seasonal movements are not well known (Czaplewski 1983). This species is a summer resident in New Mexico (Frey 2004). Individuals may move from higher elevation summer ranges to low elevation winter habitats (OFarrell, unpublished data, cited by Western Bat Working Group).

An August telemetry study of 12 post-lactating females from a mine in the Black Mountains (Arizona) demonstrated high roost fidelity; bats traveled between 70-100 kilometers roundtrip nightly to forage in the next mountain range to the east, despite the presence of many abandoned mines in the foraging area (Brown and Berry 2004).

In northern Arizona, 15 maternity roosts were an average distance of 1.6 km from capture sites; bachelor roosts were approximately 12 km from capture sites (Solevsky and Chambers 2009).

Riverine Habitat(s): Aerial
Palustrine Habitat(s): Aerial, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Bare rock/talus/scree, Cliff, Desert, Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Grassland/herbaceous, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Subterranean Habitat(s): Subterrestrial
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: Habitat is primarily wooded areas (e.g., ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, pine-oak, Mexican woodland, oak brush) in mountains and canyons but also includes riparian (e.g., cottonwood, willow, tamarisk) woodland or tall shrubland, desert scrub, and open arid habitats (Cockrum and Musgrove 1964, Barbour and Davis 1969, Czaplewski 1983, Hoffmeister 1986, Rabe et al. 1998, Oliver 2000, Adams 2003, Brown and Berry 2004); habitat ranges from Mohave desert scrub of low desert ranges to white fir forest (Hoffmeister 1986). These bats often roost in rock crevices, caves, and mines, and so they are often found near cliffs, rocky slopes, and lava flows (Adams 2003). They are frequently netted along streams or over ponds.

Maternity colonies of 30 to 150 individuals have been found in mine shafts, boulder piles, sandstone crevices, lava beds, and beneath the loose bark of large ponderosa pine snags (Cockrum and Musgrove 1964, Czaplewski 1983, Rabe et al. 1998, Morrell et al. 1999, Adams 2003). In southern Utah, maternity roosts used by at least 15 individuals were in three cracks of the same cliff face; the roosts were on a large northwest-facing cliff, in the eastern side of a small box-canyon, with piñon-juniper woodland on ridge tops and bottoms of canyons (elevation ca. 1,800 m); roosts were in the top one-half of the cliff face, which was tall and highly fractured, with a large talus slope at the base (Siders and Jolley 2009). In northern Arizona, most maternity colonies were under sloughing bark of large-diameter ponderosa pine snags (Solevsky and Chambers 2009). Bachelor roosts were in vertical sandstone cliff faces in piñon-juniper woodlands. Of 11 maternity roosts in snags located in 1993-1995, only one continued to function as a roost in 2006-2007 (Solevsky and Chambers 2009).

Hibernating individuals have been found in a cave in an area of pinyon-juniper woodland in northern Arizona (Hoffmeister 1986), but in general winter ecology is poorly known.

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet includes soft-bodied insects, primarily moths, but also beetles, roaches, and flying ants. Most food probably is gleaned from vegetation or captured in flight.
Adult Phenology: Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Winter habits are poorly known. Emerges to forage late in evening; most often taken in nets after 9 p.m. (Hoffmeister 1986).
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 12 centimeters
Weight: 13 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Most aspects of the ecology of this species need further study.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Small and Medium Bats

Use Class: Bachelor colony
Subtype(s): Diurnal Roost, Foraging Area, Nocturnal Roost
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An area occupied either historically or at present by a persisting or recurring population of males during summer (approximately May through August). Includes mist net captures away from roost sites obtained during the summer months 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. In certain regions, recorded echolocation sequences of individuals may be considered reliable observations for certain species that can be confidently identified by their echolocation calls alone, although caution must be used in determining Location Use Class for such observations during the breeding season.
Mapping Guidance: 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: 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 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.

In two studies, male MYOTIS SODALIS foraged a maximum of 2.0 and 4.2 kilometers from their summer roosts (summarized in USFWS 1999).

Date: 29Mar2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s):
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An area occupied either historically or at present by a persisting or recurring breeding population during spring/summer (approximately May through August). Includes mist net captures away from colony sites obtained even if the associated roost site is not known. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals. In certain regions, echolocation sequences of individuals may be considered reliable observations for certain species that can be confidently identified by their echolocation calls alone, although caution must be used in determining Location Use Class for such observations during the breeding season.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: 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.
Date: 02Jul2014
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Hibernaculum
Subtype(s): Pre-hibernation roost site, Hibernaculum
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A site occupied either historically or at present by a recurring population of hibernating individuals. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals. EO also includes immediately surrounding areas used by bats immediately before hibernation, where these areas are known.
Mapping Guidance: Cave/mine passages should be projected to the surface for the purpose of mapping EO boundary.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: These bats sometimes move long distances between different hibernacula. For example, individuals of M. LUCIFUGUS and M. SEPTENTRIONALIS have been recorded flying up to 219 and 89 kilometers respectively between hibernacula during the winter months (Linzey 1998, Griffin 1940). However,
such movements are not a good basis for distinguishing occurrences (occurrences would become too expansive). The assigned separation distance is intended to generate occurrences that consist of spatially proximate hibernacula.

Separation distances suggested take into account the fact that, during the fall, some bats (e.g. M. SODALIS) swarm and mate at their hibernaculum, and males roost in trees nearby during the day and fly to the cave during the night. In two studies, M. SODALIS males roosted within a maximum of 5.6 kilometers of the hibernaculum (Kiser and Elliott 1996; Craig Stihler, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, pers. observ., October 1996, cited in USFWS 1999).

Although they do not generally fly from one hibernaculum to another, hibernating bats are known to wake and move around to some extent within their hibernating site. As long as the areas are connected (even though they may not be passable by humans) the bats could be expected to move from one part of the system to another (e.g. MYOTIS SODALIS, Clawson et al. 1980).

Date: 29Mar2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson

Use Class: Maternity colony
Subtype(s): Colony Site, Foraging Area, Nocturnal Roost
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An area occupied either historically or at present by a persisting or recurring population of breeding females and their young during summer (approximately May through August). Includes mist net captures away from colony sites obtained during the summer months even if the associated roost site is not known. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals. In certain regions, echolocation sequences of individuals may be considered reliable observations for certain species that can be confidently identified by their echolocation calls alone, although caution must be used in determining Location Use Class for such observations during the breeding season.
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: 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.

Nursing female Myotis sodalis moved an average of 1.04 kilometers from roost to center of foraging area, giving a mean foraging diameter of 2.08 kilometers; however, post-lactating females moved more than twice as far, travelling an average of 2.6 kilometers (Garner and Gardner 1992). In Indiana, 11 foraging adult females that were tracked for 2-7 days moved up to 8.4 km from their roost; home range during this brief period averaged 3.35 square kilometers (Sparks et al. 2005). Myotis grisescens females move up to 6.6 kilometers (Tuttle 1976). Female M. septentrionalis had an average foraging home range of 61.1 hectares (Menzel et al. 1999), equivalent to a circle with a diameter of 880 meters.

Date: 08Mar2001
Author: Cannings, S.

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Diurnal Roost, Foraging Area, Nocturnal Roost
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A site occupied either historically or at present by a recurring population of migrating or otherwise nonhibernating individuals during the nonbreeding season. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals. In certain regions, recorded echolocation sequences of individuals may be considered reliable observations for certain species that can be confidently identified by their echolocation calls alone.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: 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.

In California, Fellers and Pierson (2002) studied a group of Corynorhinus townsendii inhabiting a maternity colony site after the nursery season had passed and found that the mean center of female foraging activity was 3.2 kilometers from the diurnal roost, whereas the mean center of male foraging activity was only 1.3 kilometers from the roost. No bats traveled more than 10.5 kilometers from the roost, and individuals showed considerable loyalty to the primary roost. Otherwise, little movement data are available.

Date: 19Apr2001
Author: Cannings, S.
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: 02May2014
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.

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

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

  • Bogdanowicz, W., S. Kasper, and R. D. Owen. 1998. Phylogeny of plecotine bats: reevaluation of morphological and chromosomal data. Journal of Mammalogy 79:78-90.

  • 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)

  • Brown, P. E., and R. D. Berry. 2004b. Foraging habitat and home range of Allen's big-eared bat (Idionycteris phyllotis) in the Arizona Desert as determined by radio-telemetry. Bat Research News 45:207-208.

  • Clawson, R. L., R. K. LaVal, M. L. LaVal, and W. Claire. 1980. Clustering behavior of hibernating Myotis sodalis in Missouri, USA. Journal of Mammalogy 61:245-53.

  • Cockrum, E. L., B. Musgrove, and Y. Petryszyn. 1996. Bats of Mohave County, Arizona: populations and movements. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University 157: 171.

  • Cockrum, E. L., and B. G. Musgrove. 1964. Additional records of the Mexican big-eared bat, Plecotus phyllotis (Allen), from Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy 45:472-474.

  • Czaplewski, N.J. 1983. Idionycteris phyllotis. Mammalian Species 208:1-4.

  • Fellers, G. M., and E. D. Pierson. 2002. Habitat use and foraging behavior of Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy 83:167-177.

  • Frey, J. K. 2004. Taxonomy and distribution of the mammals of New Mexico: an annotated checklist. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 240. 32 pp.

  • Frost, D. R., and R. M. Timm. 1992. Phylogeny of plecotine bats (Chiroptera: "Vespertilionidae"): proposal of a logically consistent taxonomy. Am. Mus. Novitates 3034:1-16.

  • Garner, J. D., and J. E. Gardner. 1992. Determination of summer distribution and habitat utilization of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in Illinois. Illinois Department of Conservation. Final Report, Project E-3. Springfield, IL, 23 pp.

  • Griffin, D. R. 1940b. Migrations of New England bats. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 86:217-246.

  • Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.

  • Handley, C. O., Jr. 1959. A revision of American bats of the genera Euderma and Plecotus. Proceedings U.S. National Museum 110:95-246.

  • Hayes, M. A., K. W. Navo, L. R. Bonewell, C. J. Mosch, and R. A. Adams. 2009. Allen's big-eared bat (Idionycteris phyllotis) documented in Coloado based on recordings of its distinctive echolocation call. Southwestern Naturalist 54:499-501.

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

  • Hoofer, S. R., and R. A. Van Den Bussche. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of plecotine bats and allies based on mitochondrial ribosomal sequences. Journal of Mammalogy 82:131-137.

  • 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.

  • Kiser, J. D. and C. L. Elliott. 1996. Foraging habitat, food habits, and roost tree characteristics of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) during autumn in Johnson County, Kentucky. Final report, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frankfort, Kentucky. 65pp.

  • Linzey, D. W. 1998. The mammals of Virginia. McDonald and Woodward, Blacksburg, VA. 459 pp.

  • Mammalian Species, nos. 1-604. Published by the American Society of Mammalogists.

  • Menzel, M. A., R. Odom, S. Owen, W. M. Ford, B. R. Chapman, K. V. Miller, J. Edwards, and P. Wood. 1999b. Investigation of foraging habitat use by bats with a focus on Northern Long-eared Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis): a comparison of methods. IN M. K. Clark, editor. Abstracts from the 1999 Colloquium on the conservation of mammals in the Southeastern United States. Available at: http://www.batworkinggroups.org/sbdnnews.htm. Accessed 2001-06-12.

  • Morrell, T. E., M. J. Rabe, J. C. Devos, Jr., H. Green, and C. R. Miller. 1999. Bats captured in two ponderosa pine habitats in north-central Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 44:501-506.

  • Oliver, G. V. 2000. The bats of Utah: a literature review. Publication No. 00-14, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City.

  • Poché, R. M. 1975. New record of the bat Plecotus phyllotis from Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 35:452.

  • Qumsiyeh, M. B., and J. W. Bickham. 1993. Chromosomes and relationships of long-eared bats of the genera Plecotus and Otonycteris. Journal of Mammalogy 74:376-382.

  • Rabe, M. J., T. E. Morrell, H. Green, J. C. DeVos, Jr., and C. R. Miller. 1998a. Characteristics of ponderosa pine snag roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:612-621.

  • Siders, M. S., and W. Jolley. 2009. Roost sites of Allen's lappet-browed bats (Idionycteris phyllotis) . Southwestern Naturalist 54:201-203.

  • Solevsky, B. G., and C. L. Chambers. 2009. Roosts of Allen's lappet-browed bat in northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:677-682.

  • Tumlison, R. 1993. Geographic variation in the lappet-eared bat, Idionycteris phyllotis, with descriptions of subspecies. J. Mamm. 74:412-421.

  • Tumlison, R., and M. E. Douglas. 1992. Parsimony analysis and the phylogeny of the plecotine bats (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Journal of Mammalogy 73(2):276-285.

  • Tuttle, M. D. 1976a. Population ecology of the gray bat (Myotis grisescens): philopatry, timing, and patterns of movement, weight loss during migration, and seasonal adaptive strategies. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Occasional Papers (54):1-38.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS. 1999. Agency draft Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) revised recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 53 pp.

  • Western Bat Working Group. 2005b. Idionycteris phyllotis species account. 2005 Update by: Patricia Brown and Lyle Lewis. Original account by: Michael J. O'Farrell. http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/idph.pdf

  • Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1996. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, USA. 937 pp.

  • 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.