Parastrellus hesperus - (Allen, 1864)
Canyon Bat
Other English Common Names: Western Pipistrelle
Synonym(s): Pipistrellus hesperus (H. Allen, 1864)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Pipistrellus hesperus (H. Allen, 1864) (TSN 180024)
Spanish Common Names: Un Murciélago
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103623
Element Code: AMACC03010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Bats
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Parastrellus
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: Pipistrellus hesperus
Taxonomic Comments: Hoofer et al. (2006) revised the generic status of American pipistrelles and transferred Pipistrellus hesperus to the genus Parastrellus and Pipistrellus subflavus to the genus Perimyotis.

See Findley and Traut (1970) for information on geographic variation and subspecies. Subspecies santarosae was referred to as maximus by Hall (1981). The relationships of the genera Eptesicus and Pipistrellus are unclear; for several Old World species there is some uncertainty as to which is the appropriate genus (see Morales et al. 1991 and Hill and Harrison 1978).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 06Nov2014
Global Status Last Changed: 05Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large range in western United States and Mexico; numerous collection/observation sites; extensive roosting and foraging habitat; common to abundant in much of range; probably relatively stable or slowly declining; no major threats.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Sep1996)

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 (S5), California (SNR), Colorado (S4), Idaho (S3), Navajo Nation (S5), Nevada (S3S4), New Mexico (S4), Oklahoma (S3), Oregon (S3), Texas (S5), Utah (S4), Washington (S3)

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 the western United States and western Mexico, from southeastern Washington, eastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, Utah, western and southeastern Colorado, and southwestern Oklahoma (probably also the panhandle) southward through California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas to Baja California and Michoacan and Hidalgo, Mexico (Barbour and Davis 1969; Armstrong et al. 1994; Verts and Carraway 1998; Oliver 2000; Adams 2003; Simmons, in Wilson and Reeder 2005; Reid 2006; Geluso 2007; Hayes and Wiles 2013). The species probably occurs in extreme southwestern Wyoming (Bogan and Cryan 2000). The species is known to winter in Nevada, California, Arizona, and Texas, but the limits of winter range are not well known. Elevational range extends to about 2,100 meters in Texas (Ammerman et al. 2012) and 2,900 meters in Colorado (hibernaculum; Armstrong et al. 1994).

Area of Occupancy: >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Area of occupancy is not precisely known, but it is very large.

Number of Occurrences:  
Number of Occurrences Comments: The number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using standardized criteria, but the species is represented by a very large number of collection/observation sites in both the United States and Mexico.

Population Size: 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but certainly exceeds 100,000. This is one of the most common bats of the desert regions of southwestern North America.

Overall Threat Impact: Low
Overall Threat Impact Comments: No major threats are known. Locally these bats may be negatively affected to some degree by various activities (e.g., mining, road construction, dam construction, agricultural development, livestock grazing) that destroy or alter roost sites or foraging areas, but roosts appear to be extremely numerous and usually not vulnerable, and the extent of suitable foraging habitat is vast. Broadcast applications of pesticides may have localized direct and indirect negative effects, but population impacts are undocumented.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Trend over the past 10 years or three generations is uncertain, but distribution and abundance probably has been relatively stable or slowly declining.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Long-term Trend Comments: Long-term trend is unknown, but distribution and abundance probably have not changed very much (small decline at most).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Range includes the western United States and western Mexico, from southeastern Washington, eastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, Utah, western and southeastern Colorado, and southwestern Oklahoma (probably also the panhandle) southward through California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas to Baja California and Michoacan and Hidalgo, Mexico (Barbour and Davis 1969; Armstrong et al. 1994; Verts and Carraway 1998; Oliver 2000; Adams 2003; Simmons, in Wilson and Reeder 2005; Reid 2006; Geluso 2007; Hayes and Wiles 2013). The species probably occurs in extreme southwestern Wyoming (Bogan and Cryan 2000). The species is known to winter in Nevada, California, Arizona, and Texas, but the limits of winter range are not well known. Elevational range extends to about 2,100 meters in Texas (Ammerman et al. 2012) and 2,900 meters in Colorado (hibernaculum; Armstrong et al. 1994).

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, NM, NN, NV, OK, OR, TX, UT, WA

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 La Paz (04012)*, Maricopa (04013), Mohave (04015)*, Pima (04019), Pinal (04021)
ID Gooding (16047), Nez Perce (16069), Owyhee (16073), Twin Falls (16083)
NV Churchill (32001), Clark (32003), Elko (32007), Esmeralda (32009), Eureka (32011), Humboldt (32013), Lander (32015), Lincoln (32017), Lyon (32019), Mineral (32021), Nye (32023), Pershing (32027), Washoe (32031), White Pine (32033)
WA Adams (53001)+, Benton (53005)+, Douglas (53017)+, Grant (53025)+, Kittitas (53037)+, Lincoln (53043)+, Okanogan (53047)+, Stevens (53065)+, Yakima (53077)+
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
15 Lake Mead (15010005)+*, Lower Virgin (15010010)+*, White (15010011)+, Muddy (15010012)+, Meadow Valley Wash (15010013)+, Las Vegas Wash (15010015)+, Havasu-Mohave Lakes (15030101)+*, Imperial Reservoir (15030104)+*, Middle Gila (15050100)+, Upper Santa Cruz (15050301)+, Rillito (15050302)+, Lower Salt (15060106)+, Agua Fria (15070102)+
16 Upper Humboldt (16040101)+, Middle Humboldt (16040105)+*, Rock (16040106)+, Lower Humboldt (16040108)+, Lower Quinn (16040202)+, Smoke Creek Desert (16040203)+*, Thousand-Virgin (16040205)+, Pyramid-Winnemucca Lakes (16050103)+, Granite Springs Valley (16050104)+, Middle Carson (16050202)+, Carson Desert (16050203)+, East Walker (16050301)+*, Walker (16050303)+*, Walker Lake (16050304)+*, Dixie Valley (16060001)+, Gabbs Valley (16060002)+, Southern Big Smoky Valley (16060003)+, Spring-Steptoe Valleys (16060008)+, 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 Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (17020001), Colville (17020003), Methow (17020008), Upper Columbia-Entiat (17020010), Moses Coulee (17020012), Upper Crab (17020013), Banks Lake (17020014), Lower Crab (17020015), Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids (17020016), Lower Yakima, Washington (17030003), Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Salmon Falls (17040213)+, Big Wood (17040219)+, Bruneau (17050102)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, East Little Owyhee. Nevada, (17050106)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)+, Lower Salmon (17060209)+, Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula (17070101)
18 Upper Amargosa (18090202)+, Death Valley-Lower Amargosa (18090203)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Copulation occurs in fall and winter. Gestation lasts about 40 days. Births occur in late May, June, or early July (Verts and Carraway 1998, Kuenzi et al. 1999, Adams 2003, Ammerman et al. 2012). Litter size usually is 2, less often 1. Young fly at about 1 month. Maternity colonies comprise no more than a dozen individuals (adults and juveniles; Koford and Koford 1948); births may occur solitarily.
Ecology Comments: Individuals tend to roost singly or in very small groups.
Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: These bats generally are regarded as nonmigratory, but seasonal status is poorly known in the northwestern portion of the range in Washington and Oregon (Verts and Carraway 1998).
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Bare rock/talus/scree, Cliff, Desert, Grassland/herbaceous, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral, Urban/edificarian, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Subterranean Habitat(s): Subterrestrial
Habitat Comments: Habitat includes desert mountain ranges, desert scrub flats, shrub-steppe, rocky canyons, and associated riparian zones, particularly in areas with cliffs and most often (but not always) close to water (Barbour and Davis 1969, Wilson and Ruff 1999, Verts and Carraway 1998, Adams 2003). In some areas, these bats range into coniferous forest/woodland at higher elevations. Roosts include crevices in cliffs, rock outcrops, caves, mines, and buildings, and possibly sometimes rodent burrows and spaces under rocks. Night roosts may include sagebrush shrubs (Johnson and Cassidy 1997). The bats hibernate in caves, mine tunnels (Kuenzi et al. 1999), or rock crevices. Typically they visit water and drink immediately after emergence each evening. Young are born in rock crevices or in buildings.
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet includes various small insects, especially those in swarms (Wilson and Ruff 1999). Foraging occurs along short circuits 2-15 meters above ground;
Adult Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: These bats are known to hibernate but may be sporadically active throughout the winter in some areas (O'Farrell and Bradley 1970, Ruffner et al. 1979, Geluso 2007, Ammerman et al. 2012). Often they emerge well before dark and remain out later in the morning than other bats. They are most active early in the evening, rest during the night, and forage again near dawn.
Length: 9 centimeters
Weight: 6 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
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: 01Apr2015
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.

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Barrell, J. 1969. Flora of the Gunnison Basin; Gunnison, Saguache and Hinsdale Counties, CO: A Study in the Distribution of Plants. Natural Land Institute, Rockford, IL.

  • 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., and P. M. Cryan. 2000. The bats of Wyoming. Pages 71-94 in J. R. Choate, editor. Reflections of a naturalist: papers honoring Professor Eugene D. Fleharty. Fort Hayes Studies, Special Issue 1.

  • 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

  • Bradley, Robert D., D. S. Carroll, M. L. Clary, C. W. Edwards, I. Tremann-Boege, M. J. Hamilton, R. A. Van Den Bussche, and C. Jones. 1999. Comments on some small mammals from the Big Bend and Trans-Pecos regions of Texas. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 193:1-6.

  • Bureau of Land Management. Life History Summaries.

  • COCKRUM, E.L., B. MUSGROVE, AND Y. PETRYSZYN. 1996. BATS OF MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA: POPULATIONS AND MOVEMENTS. OCCAS. PAPERS MUS., TEXAS TECH UNIV. 157:1-71.

  • Caire, W., J. D. Tyler, B. P. Glass, and M. A. Mares. 1989. Mammals of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Oklahoma. 567 pp.

  • 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.

  • Dowler, R. C., T. C. Maxwell, and D. S. Marsh. 1992. Noteworthy records of bats from Texas. The Texas Journal of Science 44(1):121-123.

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

  • Easterla, David A. 1973. Ecology of the 18 species of Chiroptera at Big Bend National Park, Texas. Pages 90-96, 117-126, 126-131. Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO. 165 pp.

  • 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., and G. L. Traut. 1970. Geographic variation in Pipistrellus hesperus. Journal of Mammalogy 51:741-765.

  • Fleckenstein, J.W. 2000. Survey of bats in Moses Coulee, Douglas Co., Washington. Report to The Nature Conservancy. 32pp. Unpublished.

  • 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. 2007. Winter activity of bats over water and along flyways in New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 52:482-492.

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

  • Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd ed. John Wiley, New York. 2 vols.

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

  • 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.

  • Hayes, G., and G. J. Wiles. 2013. Washington bat conservation plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. viii + 138 pp.

  • Hill, J. E., and D. L. Harrison. 1987. The baculum in the Vespertilioninae (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) with a systematic review, a synopsis of Pipistrellus and Eptesicus, and the descriptions of a new genus and subgenus. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology Series 52:225-305.

  • Hoofer, S. R., R. A. Van Den Bussche, and I. Horácek. 2006. Generic status of the American pipistrelles (Vespertilionidae) with description of a new genus. Journal of Mammalogy 87:981-992.

  • Hoofer, Steven R., Ronald A. Van Den Bussche, and Ivan Horácek. 2006. Genetic status of the American Pipistrelles (Vespertilionidae) with description of a new genus. Journal of Mammalogy, 87(5):981-992.

  • JONES, CLYDE AND ROBERT D. BRADLEY. 1999. NOTES ON RED BATS, LASIURUS (CHIROPTERA: VESPERTILIONIDAE), OF THE DAVIS MOUNTAINS AND VICINITY, TEXAS. TEXAS JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, 51:341-344.

  • Johnson, R. E., and K. M. Cassidy. 1997. Terrestrial mammals of Washington State: Location data and predicted distributions. Volume 3 in Washington State Gap Analysis- Final Report (K. M. Cassidy, C. E. Grue, M. R. Smith, and K. M. Dvornich, eds.). Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, 304 pp.

  • Johnson, R.E. and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. Terrestrial mammals of Washington State: Location data and predicted distributions. Vol. 3 in Washington State Gap Analysis - Final report (K.M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. SMith, and K.M. Dvornich, eds.). Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UNit. University of Washington, Seattle, 304 pp.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr. and C. Jones. 1992. Revised checklist of recent land mammals of Texas, with annotations. The Texas Journal of Science 44(1):53-74.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., C. Jones, and D. J. Schmidly. 1988. Annotated checklist of recent land mammals of Texas. Occasional Papers The Museum Texas Tech University 119:1-26.

  • Jones, J. K., S. Demarais, and C. T. McAllister. 1995. Contribution to a bibliography of recent Texas mammals 1981-1990. Special Publications, The Museum Texas Tech University 38:1-64.

  • 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.

  • Koford, C. B., and M. R. Koford. 1948. Breeding colonies of bats, Pipistrellus hesperus and Myotis subulatus melanorhinus. Journal of Mammalogy 29:417-418.

  • Kuenzi, A. J., G. T. Downard, and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Bat distribution and hibernacula use in west central Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 59:213-220.

  • Lewis, S. E. 1995. Roost fidelity of bats: a review. Journal of Mammalogy 76(2):481-496.

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

  • 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.

  • Morales, J. C., S. W. Balllinger, J. W. Bickham, I. F. Greenbaum, and D. A. Schlitter. 1991. Genetic relationships among eight species of Eptesicus and Pipistrellus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Journal of Mammalogy 72:286-291.

  • O'Farrell, M. J. and W. G. Bradley. 1970. Activity patterns of bats over a desert spring. J. Mammal. 51(1):18-26.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. AN ANALYSIS OF THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF MAMMALIAN DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS IN TEXAS. ECOLOGY 71(5):1823-1832.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. PATTERNS OF MAMMALIAN SPECIES RICHNESS IN RELATION TO TEMPERATURE, PRODUCTIVITY, AND VARIANCE IN ELEVATION. J. MAMM. 71(1):1-13.

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

  • Ports, M. A., and P. V. Bradley. 1996. Habitat affinities of bats from northeastern Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 56:48-53.

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

  • Ruffner, G. A., R. M. Poche, M. Meierkord, and J. A. Neal. 1979. Winter bat activity over a desert wash in southwestern Utah. Southwestern Naturalist 24:447-453.

  • Schmidly, D. J. 1977. The mammals of Trans-Pecos Texas including Big Bend National Park and Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

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

  • Schmidly, David J. 1977. The Mammals of Trans-Pecos Texas. Texas A& M University Press. College Station, Tx. 225 pp.

  • Stangl, F.B., Jr., W.W. Dalquest, and S. Kuhn. 1993. Mammals from the Beach Mountains of Culberson County, Trans-Pecos Texas. Texas Journal of Science 45(1):87-96.

  • 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, Merlin D. 1988. America's neighborhood bats. University of Texas Press, Austin. 96 pp.

  • 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.

  • West, S.D., R. Gitzen, and J.L. Erickson. 1999. Hanford vertebrate survey. Final report for The Nature Conservancy. Unpublished.

  • Weyandt, Sarah E., T. E. Lee, JR., and J. C. Patton. 2001. Noteworthy record of the western yellow bat, Lasiurus xanthinus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), and a report on the bats of Eagle Nest Canyon, Val Verde County, Texas. The Texas Journal of Science 53(3):289-292.

  • 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.

  • Yancey II, Franklin D. 1997. The mammals of Big Bend Ranch State Park, Texas. Special Publication 39. 1 October 1997. Texas Tech University. Lubbock. 210 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 March 2018.
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 © 2018 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. 2018. 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.