Myotis evotis - (H. Allen, 1864)
Long-eared Myotis
Other English Common Names: Long-eared Bat, long-eared bat
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Myotis evotis (H. Allen, 1864) (TSN 179995)
French Common Names: chauve-souris à longues oreilles
Spanish Common Names: Un Murciélago
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.798516
Element Code: AMACC01070
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Bats
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Myotis
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: 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: https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/
Concept Reference Code: B05WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Myotis evotis
Taxonomic Comments: van Zyll de Jong and Nagorsen (1994) provisionally interpreted the very close morphological similarity between M. keenii and M. evotis in British Columbia and the adjacent northwestern United States as overlapping intraspecific variation rather than intergradation between the taxa; they noted the need for molecular data to resolve the situation.

A phylogenetic study based on mtDNA data, sequence divergence between M. evotis and the leibii group was small (2.9%) and within the intraspecific range. Further sampling of M. evotis is necessary to establish the level of divergence between M. evotis, as well as other long-eared Myotis, and the leibii group (Rodriguez and Ammerman 2004).

M. milleri in Baja California was treated as a distinct species in Wilson and Reeder (1993) but was included in M. evotis by Simmons (in Wilson and Reeder 2005).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 04Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 31Mar2015
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Widespread distribution in western North America; many occurrences in wide range of habitats; occurs regularly in low numbers across range; uses wide range of often plentiful roost sites; trend uncertain but probably relatively stable or slowly declining; no known major threats, but range, habitats, and threats during winter are poorly known.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4N5 (30May2014)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (19Apr2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Arizona (S3), California (S3), Colorado (S4), Idaho (S3), Montana (S4), Navajo Nation (S3S4), Nevada (S3), New Mexico (S4), North Dakota (SU), Oregon (S4), South Dakota (S1), Utah (S4?B), Washington (S4), Wyoming (S4)
Canada Alberta (S3S4), British Columbia (S5?), Northwest Territories (S1), Saskatchewan (S2)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Range includes western North America, from central British Columbia, southern Alberta, and southern Saskatchewan south along the Pacific Coast to Baja California, east through Montana and Idaho to the western Dakotas, and from Nevada, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado to New Mexico and Arizona (Manning and Jones 1989, Adams 2003, Reid 2006). Elevational range extends from near sea level along the Pacific Coast to around 2,900 meters in Utah and Wyoming (Manning and Jones 1989, Adams 2003).

Number of Occurrences:  
Number of Occurrences Comments: The number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using standardized/meaningful criteria, but the species is represented by a large number of collection/observation sites and locations (as defined by IUCN). As evidence of this, Verts and Carraway (1998) mapped more than 100 collection sites in Oregon, Hoffmeister (1986) mapped 52 localities in Arizona, and Nagorsen and Brigham (1993) mapped approximately 49 collection sites in British Columbia.

Population Size: 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but undoubtedly exceeds 10,000 and presumably exceeds 100,000. According to Barbour and Davis (1969), this bat is never abundant but regularly distributed. In Arizona, it appears to be widespread and occurs regularly, if not always commonly, in appropriate habitat (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1993). In the San Mateo Mountains of New Mexico, M. evotis was the most frequently captured bat in sampling during 19 years from 1971 to 2005 (Geluso and Geluso 2009). It is regarded as common in Utah (Oliver 2000) and is considered a widespread but relatively uncommon species in Montana and Oregon (Manning and Jones 1989, Eleanor Gaines, pers. comm., 1998). Tuttle and Taylor (1994) stated that mine colonies are usually in the dozens and mines can be used year round. Roosting and maternity colonies can range from 1 to 30 or 5 to 30 individuals, respectively (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 1997, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). Colony size is usually 12-30 individuals (Adams 2003).

Overall Threat Impact: Low
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Overall, no major threats are known. Locally, these bats may be affected to some degree by a multitude of factors, including the closure of abandoned (unsurveyed) mines, recreational caving, some forest management practices, and activities (such as highway construction, water impoundments, blasting of cliffs for avalanche control) that impact cliff faces or rock outcrops (Bogan et al. 2005). Broadcast application of pesticides to combat insect pests potentially has a detrimental impact on bat food resources or on the bats themselves, but population impacts are uncertain. Toxic impoundments associated with resource extraction are a potential source of bat mortality or contamination (Buseck and Keinath 2004).

Forest management practices that result in reduced availability of roost sites in snags and trees with loose bark may have a negative effect on these bats. Roosts under exfoliating bark may be relatively short-lived resources (Vonhof and Barclay 1996, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 1997). However, stumps (Vonhof and Barclay 1997, Waldien et al. 2000) and rock crevices (if available) (Snider et al. 2013) may provide numerous suitable alternate roosts.

Increased incidence of wildfires might negatively affect bat food resources or degrade local environmental conditions, but substantial populations of M. evotis can persist even in extensively burned areas where suitable rock-crevice roosts are available (Snider et al. 2013).

This species is subject to mortality from turbines at wind energy facilities. Arnett and Baerwald (2013) estimated that approximately 3,730-7,330 individuals were killed by turbines in the United States and Canada during the period 2000-2011. Given the ongoing increase in turbine installation, this mortality may increase significantly during the foreseeable future. Although the current impact of turbine-associated mortality on the overall M. evotis population is probably relatively small, the reproductive rate for this species is low, and the ability of regional populations to sustain current and future levels of impact is uncertain.

As of mid-2014, this species was not known to be affected by white-nose syndrome.

The impact of potential threats associated with pollution and climate change are unknown.

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 distribution and abundance probably have been relatively stable or slowly declining.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Long-term Trend Comments: Long-term trend is uncertain, but available evidence suggests that overall area of occupancy and abundance probably have declined to some (but not a large) degree as a result of various forms of habitat alteration.

In the San Mateo Mountains of New Mexico, M. evotis appeared to increase in abundance between 1971 and 2005 (after accounting for fluctuations related to annual variations in precipitation) (Geluso and Geluso 2009).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Range includes western North America, from central British Columbia, southern Alberta, and southern Saskatchewan south along the Pacific Coast to Baja California, east through Montana and Idaho to the western Dakotas, and from Nevada, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado to New Mexico and Arizona (Manning and Jones 1989, Adams 2003, Reid 2006). Elevational range extends from near sea level along the Pacific Coast to around 2,900 meters in Utah and Wyoming (Manning and Jones 1989, Adams 2003).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
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, CO, ID, MT, ND, NM, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY
Canada AB, BC, NT, SK

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Coconino (04005), Greenlee (04011), Navajo (04017)
CA Butte (06007), Fresno (06019), Humboldt (06023), Inyo (06027), Lake (06033), Lassen (06035), Los Angeles (06037), Madera (06039), Mariposa (06043), Mendocino (06045), Mono (06051), Napa (06055), Plumas (06063), San Benito (06069), San Bernardino (06071), San Diego (06073), Santa Clara (06085), Shasta (06089), Sierra (06091), Siskiyou (06093), Sonoma (06097), Tehama (06103), Trinity (06105), Tulare (06107), Tuolumne (06109)
ID Bannock (16005), Bear Lake (16007), Blaine (16013), Bonner (16017), Bonneville (16019), Boundary (16021), Butte (16023), Caribou (16029), Clearwater (16035), Custer (16037), Fremont (16043), Idaho (16049), Latah (16057), Lemhi (16059), Lewis (16061), Nez Perce (16069), Owyhee (16073), Power (16077), Shoshone (16079), Valley (16085)
ND Billings (38007)*, Dunn (38025)*
NM Socorro (35053)
NV Churchill (32001), Clark (32003), Elko (32007), Esmeralda (32009), Eureka (32011), Humboldt (32013), Lander (32015), Lincoln (32017), Lyon (32019), Mineral (32021), Nye (32023), Washoe (32031), White Pine (32033)
OR Clackamas (41005), Douglas (41019), Harney (41025)*, Jackson (41029), Josephine (41033), Klamath (41035)*, Lake (41037)*, Lincoln (41041), Linn (41043)*, Malheur (41045)*, Polk (41053), Umatilla (41059), Union (41061), Wallowa (41063), Yamhill (41071)
SD Custer (46033), Fall River (46047), Harding (46063), Pennington (46103), Perkins (46105), Walworth (46129)
WA Chelan (53007), Clallam (53009), Douglas (53017), Ferry (53019), Garfield (53023), Grant (53025), Island (53029), King (53033), Kittitas (53037), Klickitat (53039), Lewis (53041), Lincoln (53043), Mason (53045), Okanogan (53047), Pend Oreille (53051), Pierce (53053), San Juan (53055), Skagit (53057), Skamania (53059), Snohomish (53061), Spokane (53063), Stevens (53065), Thurston (53067), Whatcom (53073), Whitman (53075), Yakima (53077)
WY Albany (56001), Big Horn (56003), Campbell (56005), Carbon (56007), Converse (56009), Crook (56011), Fremont (56013), Goshen (56015), Hot Springs (56017), Johnson (56019), Laramie (56021), Lincoln (56023), Natrona (56025), Niobrara (56027), Park (56029), Platte (56031), Sheridan (56033), Sublette (56035), Sweetwater (56037), Teton (56039), Uinta (56041), Washakie (56043), Weston (56045)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
10 Madison (10020007)+, Yellowstone Headwaters (10070001)+, Clarks Fork Yellowstone (10070006)+, Upper Wind (10080001)+, Little Wind (10080002)+, Popo Agie (10080003)+, Lower Wind (10080005)+, Badwater (10080006)+, Upper Bighorn (10080007)+, Nowood (10080008)+, Greybull (10080009)+, Big Horn Lake (10080010)+, Dry (10080011)+, North Fork Shoshone (10080012)+, South Fork Shoshone (10080013)+*, Shoshone (10080014)+, Upper Tongue (10090101)+, Middle Fork Powder (10090201)+, Upper Powder (10090202)+*, South Fork Powder (10090203)+, Clear (10090206)+, Little Powder (10090208)+, Upper Little Missouri (10110201)+, Middle Little Missouri (10110203)+*, Lower Little Missouri (10110205)+*, Angostura Reservoir (10120106)+, Beaver (10120107)+, Middle Cheyenne-Spring (10120109)+, Rapid (10120110)+, Upper Belle Fourche (10120201)+, Lower Belle Fourche (10120202)+, Redwater (10120203)+, West Missouri Coteau (10130106)+, Knife (10130201)+*, North Fork Grand (10130301)+, Grand (10130303)+, South Fork Moreau (10130304)+, Upper Moreau (10130305)+*, Upper North Platte (10180002)+, Pathfinder-Seminoe Reservoirs (10180003)+, Medicine Bow (10180004)+, Little Medicine Bow (10180005)+, Sweetwater (10180006)+, Middle North Platte-Casper (10180007)+, Glendo Reservoir (10180008)+, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)+, Upper Laramie (10180010)+, Lower Laramie (10180011)+, Cache La Poudre (10190007)+, Crow (10190009)+, Upper Lodgepole (10190015)+
13 Elephant Butte Reservoir (13020211)+
14 Upper Green (14040101)+, New Fork (14040102)+, Upper Green-Slate (14040103)+, Big Sandy (14040104)+, Bitter (14040105)+, Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir (14040106)+, Blacks Fork (14040107)+, Vermilion (14040109)+, Great Divide closed basin (14040200)+, Little Snake (14050003)+, Muddy (14050004)+
15 Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon (15010001)+, Kanab (15010003)+, White (15010011)+, Muddy (15010012)+, Las Vegas Wash (15010015)+, Chevelon Canyon (15020010)+, Canyon Diablo (15020015)+, Black (15060101)+, Upper Verde (15060202)+, Lower Verde (15060203)+
16 Upper Bear (16010101)+, Central Bear (16010102)+, Bear Lake (16010201)+, Hamlin-Snake Valleys (16020301)+, Southern Great Salt Lake Desert (16020306)+, Pilot-Thousand Springs (16020307)+, Upper Humboldt (16040101)+, North Fork Humboldt (16040102)+, South Fork Humboldt (16040103)+, Middle Humboldt (16040105)+, Rock (16040106)+, Little Humboldt (16040109)+, Upper Quinn (16040201)+*, Lower Quinn (16040202)+*, Smoke Creek Desert (16040203)+, Massacre Lake (16040204)+, Thousand-Virgin (16040205)+*, Truckee (16050102)+, Middle Carson (16050202)+, East Walker (16050301)+*, West Walker (16050302)+, Walker Lake (16050304)+*, Dixie Valley (16060001)+, Gabbs Valley (16060002)+, Southern Big Smoky Valley (16060003)+, Northern Big Smoky Valley (16060004)+*, Diamond-Monitor Valleys (16060005)+, Long-Ruby Valleys (16060007)+, Spring-Steptoe Valleys (16060008)+, Dry Lake Valley (16060009)+, Fish Lake-Soda Spring Valleys (16060010)+, Ralston-Stone Cabin Valleys (16060011)+, Hot Creek-Railroad Valleys (16060012)+*, Cactus-Sarcobatus Flats (16060013)+, Sand Spring-Tikaboo Valleys (16060014)+, Ivanpah-Pahrump Valleys (16060015)+
17 Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Moyie (17010105)+, Lower Clark Fork (17010213)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+, Priest (17010215)+, Pend Oreille (17010216)+, Upper Coeur D'alene (17010301)+, South Fork Coeur D'alene (17010302)+, St. Joe (17010304)+, Lower Spokane (17010307)+, Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (17020001)+, Kettle (17020002)+, Colville (17020003)+, Sanpoil (17020004)+, Okanogan (17020006)+, Similkameen (17020007)+, Methow (17020008)+, Lake Chelan (17020009)+, Upper Columbia-Entiat (17020010)+, Moses Coulee (17020012)+, Upper Crab (17020013)+, Banks Lake (17020014)+, Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids (17020016)+, Upper Yakima (17030001)+, Naches (17030002)+, Snake headwaters (17040101)+, Gros Ventre (17040102)+, Greys-Hobock (17040103)+, Palisades (17040104)+, Salt (17040105)+, Lower Henrys (17040203)+, Teton (17040204)+, American Falls (17040206)+, Portneuf (17040208)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Goose (17040211)+, Birch (17040216)+, Big Lost (17040218)+, Big Wood (17040219)+, Bruneau (17050102)+, Upper Owyhee (17050104)+, South Fork Owyhee (17050105)+, Middle Owyhee (17050107)+, North Fork Payette (17050123)+*, Upper Grande Ronde (17060104)+, Wallowa (17060105)+, Lower Grande Ronde (17060106)+, Lower Snake-Tucannon (17060107)+, Palouse (17060108)+, Rock (17060109)+, Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203)+, Lemhi (17060204)+, Lower Middle Fork Salmon (17060206)+, Middle Salmon-Chamberlain (17060207)+, Lower Salmon (17060209)+, South Fork Clearwater (17060305)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula (17070101)+, Umatilla (17070103)+, Middle Columbia-Hood (17070105)+, Klickitat (17070106)+, Upper Cowlitz (17080004)+, Upper Willamette (17090003)+, South Santiam (17090006)+*, Yamhill (17090008)+, Clackamas (17090011)+, Hoh-Quillayute (17100101)+, Upper Chehalis (17100103)+, Alsea (17100205)+, North Umpqua (17100301)+, South Umpqua (17100302)+, Umpqua (17100303)+, Upper Rogue (17100307)+*, Middle Rogue (17100308)+, Applegate (17100309)+*, Illinois (17100311)+, San Juan Islands (17110003)+, Upper Skagit (17110005)+, Sauk (17110006)+, Snoqualmie (17110010)+, Puyallup (17110014)+, Nisqually (17110015)+, Skokomish (17110017)+, Puget Sound (17110019)+, Lake Abert (17120006)+*, Warner Lakes (17120007)+, Guano (17120008)+, Alvord Lake (17120009)+*
18 Mad-Redwood (18010102)+, Middle Fork Eel (18010104)+, Gualala-Salmon (18010109)+, Williamson (18010201)+*, Sprague (18010202)+*, Lost (18010204)+, Upper Klamath (18010206)+*, South Fork Trinity (18010212)+, Goose Lake (18020001)+*, Lower Pit (18020003)+, North Fork Feather (18020121)+, Middle Fork Feather (18020123)+, Upper Yuba (18020125)+, Battle Creek (18020153)+, Clear Creek-Sacramento River (18020154)+, Paynes Creek-Sacramento River (18020155)+, Thomes Creek-Sacramento River (18020156)+, Big Chico Creek-Sacramento River (18020157)+, Upper Putah (18020162)+, Upper Kern (18030001)+, Upper Kaweah (18030007)+, Upper King (18030010)+, Upper San Joaquin (18040006)+, Upper Merced (18040008)+, Upper Tuolumne (18040009)+, Coyote (18050003)+, Salinas (18060005)+, Santa Ana (18070203)+, San Diego (18070304)+, Cottonwood-Tijuana (18070305)+, Honey-Eagle Lakes (18080003)+, Mono Lake (18090101)+, Eureka-Saline Valleys (18090201)+, Upper Amargosa (18090202)+, Antelope-Fremont Valleys (18090206)+, Southern Mojave (18100100)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small bat (long-eared myotis).
Reproduction Comments: Births have been recorded in June-July. Litter size is 1.Young and lactating females were recorded in late July in New Mexico. Female and newborn young were recorded in late June in California. Male young-of-year about adult size were observed in early August in South Dakota. Maximum longevity is at least 22 years (Tuttle and Stevenson 1982). Reproductive females form small maternity colonies (generally fewer than 30 adults). In southwestern Colorado, reproductive females roosted alone or in small groups of 2-3 individuals (Snider et al. 2013).
Ecology Comments: Nonreproductive females and males generally roost singly or in small groups (Rancourt et al. 2005, Solick and Barclay 2006).
Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: The winter range is not known. This species is probably migratory (Banfield 1974).

Relatively little is known regarding migration and use of hibernacula, but probably this bat migrates short distances between summer habitat and winter retreats (Manning and Jones 1989, Arizona Game and Fish Department 1993).

Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cliff, Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Grassland/herbaceous, Shrubland/chaparral, Urban/edificarian, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Subterranean Habitat(s): Subterrestrial
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: These bats occupy a diverse array of habitats, including lowland, montane, and subalpine woodlands, forests, shrublands, and meadows, wooded stream courses, and areas over water bodies (Findley et al. 1975, Hoffmeister 1986, Manning and Jones 1989, Armstrong et al. 1994, Oliver 2000, Adams 2003). Within a particular region, the range of occupied habitats may be more restricted. Daytime roosts are in buildings, railroad trestles, snags and hollow trees, spaces behind loose bark of trees or stumps, mines, caves, rock crevices (including those on the ground), erosional cavities and channels in the ground, and similar sites (Barbour and Davis 1969; Vonhof and Barclay 1996, 1997; Oliver 2000; Waldien et al. 2000; Rancourt et al. 2005; Solick and Barclay 2006; Nixon et al. 2009; Snider et al. 2013). In southwestern Colorado, researchers found 33 roosts of reproductive females in rock crevices and 1 in a juniper snag; the bats often switched roosts (Snider et al. 2013). Frequent use of rock crevices also has been documented in Washington (Rancourt et al. 2005) and Alberta (Solick and Barclay 2006). Frequent roost switching (within small roosting home-ranges) occurred in a ground-roosting population in Alberta (Nixon et al. 2009). Small maternity colonies of 12-30 individuals have been found in buildings in British Columbia (Cowan and Guiguet 1965), and a group of adults and young were found in an uninhabited ranch house in Colorado (Barbour and Davis 1969). In northeastern Washington, roosts of reproductive females were in crevices in small basalt rock formations (Rancourt et al. 2005). See Vonhof and Barclay (1996, 1997) for information on characteristics of roosts in trees and stumps in British Columbia. Hibernation sites are poorly known.
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet includes various insects, obtained over water or among trees, or by picking prey from foliage, tree trunks, rocks, or the ground; individuals may fly slowly around shrubs searching for emerging moths or perhaps nonflying prey. See Manning and Jones (1989).
Adult Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: These bats hibernate at least in the northern portion of the range, but winter habits generally are poorly known. In Alberta, Individuals frequently became torpid in summer; the degree and frequency of torpor was much higher in nonreproductive females than in pregnant or lactating females (Solick and Barclay 2006).

The time of emergence and temporal pattern of foraging seems to vary among different locations or circumstances (see Manning and Jones 1989. In Alberta, individuals foraged all night, every night, regardless of ambient temperature or reproductive condition, and they spent only a small proportion of the night roosting (Chruszcz and Barclay 2003).

Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 10 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: More information is needed on winter range, winter roosting requirements, foraging habitat requirements, use/acceptance of bat gates, abundance, trend, specific threats, and overall effect of threats.
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
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.

Use Class: Roost
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An area occupied either historically or at present by a persisting or recurring population during summer  (approximately May through August). Includes counts of individuals from roost sites obtained during the summer months during pup rearing and summer residence periods. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals during roost counts.
Mapping Guidance: EO includes both the colony site and an approximation of 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.
Date: 01Dec2017
Author: Staffen, R.
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: 31Mar2015
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 02Apr2015
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.

  • Andersen, M.D. 2011. HUC10-based species range maps. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Andersen, M.D. 2011. Maxent-based species distribution models. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1993. Bats of Arizona. Arizona Wildlife Views, Special Heritage Edition. Vol. 36(8). 36 pp.

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1997. MYOTIS EVOTIS. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 3 pp.

  • Armstrong, D. M., R. A. Adams, and J. Freeman. 1994. Distribution and ecology of bats in Colorado. University of Colorado Museum, Natural History Inventory 15:1-82.

  • Armstrong, D.M. 1972. Distribution of Mammals in Colorado. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. University of Kansas Printing Service, Lawrence. 415 pp.

  • Armstrong, D.M. 1972. Distribution of mammals in Colorodo. Univ. Kans. Mus. Nat. Hist. Monog. 3: 1-415.

  • Arnett, E. B., and E. F. Baerwald. 2013. Impacts of wind energy development on bats: implications for conservation. Pages 435-456 in R. A. Adams and S. C. Pedersen (editors). Bat evolution, ecology, and conservation. Springer Science+Business Media, New York.

  • BEAUVAIS, G.P. 1999. VERTEBRATES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN ON THE PITCHFORK RANCH. Unpublished report for the Pitchfork Ranch by WYNDD-University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 438 pp.

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

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

  • Beck, W.H. 1958. A guide to Saskatchewan mammals. Special Publication No. 1. Saskatchewan Natural History Society, Regina, Saskatchewan.

  • Belitsky, D.W. 1981. Small mammals of the Salt Wells-Pilot Butte Planning Unit. BLM Rock Springs District.

  • Bogan, M. A. 1994. Research determines status and distribution of bats on the Colorado Plateau. Colorado Plateau 4(3): 1, 6-7.

  • Bogan, M. A., E. W. Valdez, and K. W. Navo. 2005b. Myotis evotis long-eared myotis. Western Bat Working Group species account developed for the 1998 Reno Biennial Meeting, updated at the 2005 Portland Biennial Meeting.

  • 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

  • Buseck, R. S., and D. A. Keinath. 2004. Species assessment for western long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) in Wyoming. Report prepared for USDI Wyoming Bureau of Land Management by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Buseck, R.S. and D.A. Keinath. 2004. Species assessment for Western Long-Eared Myotis (Myotis evotis) in Wyoming. Report prepared for USDI Wyoming Bureau of Land Management by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Chruszcz, B. J., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2003. Prolonged foraging bouts of a solitary gleaning/hawking bat, Myotis evotis. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:823-826.

  • Clark, Tim W. and Mark R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas.

  • 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.

  • Coombs, E. M. [no date-1977?]. Wildlife observations of the hot desert region, Washington County, Utah, with emphasis on reptilian species and their habitat in relation to livestock grazing. A report to the Cedar City District, BLM by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

  • Cowan, I. M., and C. J. Guiguet. 1965. The mammals of British Columbia. Handbook of British Columbia Provincial Museum 11:1-414.

  • Durrant, S. D. 1952. Mammals of Utah, taxonomy and distribution. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 6: 1-549.

  • Ecology, conservation and management of western bat species. 1998. Bat species accounts and notes from the Western Bat Working Group Workshop, Reno, NV.

  • 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.

  • Findley, J. S., A. H. Harris, D. E. Wilson, and C. Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 360 pp.

  • Foster, D. A., L. Grignon, E. Hammer, and B. Warren. 1996. Inventory of bats in high plateau forests of central and southern Utah. National Park Service, Bryce Canyon National Park, Bryce Canyon, Utah. 16 pp.

  • Freeman, J. 1982. Statewide bat distribution study. Federal Aid report. Colorado Division of Wildlife.

  • 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.

  • Geluso, K. N., and K. Geluso. 2012. Effects of environmental factors on capture rates of insectivorous bats, 1971-2005. Journal of Mammalogy 93:161-169.

  • Gerhart, W.A., R.A. Olson. 1982. Handbook for evaluating the importance of Wyoming's riparian habitat to terrestrial wildlife. Wyoming Game and Fish Dept.

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

  • Hall, E.R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. The University of California Press, Berkeley.

  • Hardy, R. 1941. Some notes on Utah bats. J. Mammal. 22: 289-295.

  • Hasenyager, R. N. 1980. Bats of Utah. Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. Publ. No. 80-15, 109 pp.

  • Hayes, G. and G.J. WIles. 2013. Washington bat conservation plan. WA Dpt. Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA 138pp.

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

  • 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.

  • Krutzsch, P.H. and C.A. Heppenstall. 1955. Additional distributional records of bats in Utah. Journal of Mammalogy 36: 126-127.

  • Lechleitner, R.R. 1969. Wild mammals of Colorado. Boulder, CO: Pruett. 254 pp.

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

  • Long, C.A. 1965. The mammals of Wyoming. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 14: 493-758.

  • Manning, R. W., and J. K. Jones, Jr. 1989. Myotis evotis. Am. Soc. Mamm., Mammalian Species No. 329:1-5.

  • Manning, R. W., and J. K. Jones, Jr. 1989. Myotis evotis. Mammal. Species 329: 1-5.

  • McGee, M., D.A. Keinath, and G.P. Beauvais. 2002. Survey for rare vertebrates in the Pinedale Field Office of the USDI Bureau of Land Management (Wyoming). Unpublished report prepared for USDI Bureau of Land Management - Wyoming State Office by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database - University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • 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.

  • Merrill, E.H., T.W. Kohley, and M.E. Herdendorf. 1996. Wyoming Gap Analysis terrestrial vertebrate species map atlas. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie WY. 982 pp. in 2 volumes.

  • Ministry of Environment. 2017. Best Management Practices for Bats in British Columbia. Chapters 1-4. On-line. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eirs/viewDocumentDetail.do?fromStatic=true&repository=BDP&documentId=12460 (accessed 10 July 2017).

  • Morgan, C. N., L. K. Ammerman, K. D. Demere, J. B. Doty, Y. J. Nakazawa, and M. R. Mauldin. 2019. Field identification key and guide for bats of the United States of America. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University, Number 360. Texas Tech University Natural Science Research Laboratory. 29 pp.

  • Nagorsen, D. W., and R. M. Brigham. 1993. Bats of British Columbia. Vol. I. The Mammals of British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver, 164 pp.

  • 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.

  • Nixon, A. E., J. C. Gruver, and R.M.R. Barclay. 2009. Spatial and temporal patterns of roost use by western long-eared bats (Myotis evotis). American Midland Naturalist 162:139-147.

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

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Rancourt, S. J., M. I. Rule, and M. A. O'Connell. 2005. Maternity roost site selection of long-eared myotis, Myotis evotis. Journal of Mammalogy 86:77-84.

  • Reid, F. A. 2006. A field guide to mammals of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Rodriguez, R. M., and L. K. Ammerman. 2004. Mitochondrial DNA divergence does not reflect morphological difference between Myotis californicus and Myotis ciliolabrum. Journal of Mammalogy 85:842-851.

  • Skinner, S. 1990. Bats. Wyoming Wildlife 54(9):17-25.

  • Snider, E. A., P. M. Cryan, and K. R. Wilson. 2013. Roost selection by western long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) in burned and unburned piñon-juniper woodlands of southwestern Colorado. Journal of Mammalogy 94:640-649.

  • Solick, D. I., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2006. Thermoregulation and roosting behaviour of reproductive and nonreproductive female western long-eared bats (Myotis evotis) in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84:589-599.

  • 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.

  • Tuttle, M. D. and A.A.R. Taylor. 1994. Bats and mines. Bat Conservation International, Inc. No. 3. 41 pp.

  • Tuttle, M. D., and D. Stevenson. 1982. Growth and survival of bats. Pages 105-150 in T. H. Kunz, editor. Ecology of bats. Plenum Press, New York.

  • 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.

  • Verts, B. J., and L. N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley. xvi + 668 pp.

  • Vonhof, M. J., and R.M.R. Barclay. 1996. Roost-site selection and roosting ecology of forest-dwelling bats in southern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:1797-1805.

  • Vonhof, M. J., and R.M.R. Barclay. 1997. Use of tree stumps as roosts by the western long-eared bat. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:674-684.

  • Waldien, D. L., J. P. Hayes, and E. B. Arnett. 2000. Day-roosts of female long-eared myotis in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:785-796.

  • 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.

  • Wildlife Management Information System (WMIS). 2006+. Geo-referenced wildlife datasets (1900 to present) from all projects conducted by Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Canada.  Available at http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/programs/wildlife-research/wildlife-management-information-services

  • 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: https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/

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

  • Worthington, D.J. 1991. Abundance and distribution of bats in the Pryor Mountains of south central Montana and north eastern Wyoming. Unpublished report, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula.

  • Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 1992. Wyoming Bird and Mammal Atlas.

  • Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1996. Nongame Bird and Mammal Plan, a plan for inventories and management of nongame birds and mammals in Wyoming. Prepared by B. Oakleaf, A.O. Cerovski, and B. Luce, Nongame Program Biological Services Section, Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 183 pp.

  • Zeveloff, S.I., and F.R. Collett. 1988. Mammals of the intermountain west. Univ. Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 365 p.

  • van Zyll de Jong, C. G., and D. W. Nagorsen. 1994. A review of the distribution and taxonomy of Myotis keenii and Myotis evotis in British Columbia and the adjacent United States. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:1069-1078.

  • van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1985. Handbook of Canadian Mammals. Vol. II, Bats. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. 212 pp.

  • van Zyll de Jong, C.G., 1985, Handbook of Canadian Mammals, Volume 2: Bats., National Museums of Canada.

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 March 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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.