RELDIANA: ZCX)LOGYor on forest roads and paths. No species of Molossus seem to roost in caves; rather, they are found in small colonies under palm leaves, in hollow trees, under roofs, in sheds and attics, in crevices of cliffs, and under bridges. Pro mopsPromops consists of two Neotropical species, P. centralis and P. nasutus, which are difficult to distinguish from some species of Eumops on the PCA (fig. 4).Promops is very Molossus-like, but is slightly less robust in jaw proportions (mean relative dentary thickness is 12 per cent, see table 6) and in development of sagittal and lambdoidal crests. Like Molossus, Promops has ears neither joined by a band over the nose nor completely separated, moderately deep basisphenoid pits, lips without wrinkles, narrow-tipped wings, and V-shaped M^'s.Unlike Molossus, Promops bears a vestigial PM^( fig. 10).Nearest neighbor distances and correlation place the two species of Promops closest to one another, but the next nearest neighbors are members of Molossus, particularly M. trinitatus (size-out distance, table 7). The latter is a species of Molossus of slightly less robust build than other species of the genus, and its similarity to Promops is substantiated by its positioning on the PCA plots ( fig. 4). Besides Molossus, Promops has near neighbors among species of Eumops, particularly £. glaucinus, E. maurus, and E. underwoodi. These neighbors are closer than Molossops or species of Cynomops.The intrageneric distance, size-out, is 0.313, a compact average third only to that of Cheiromeles and Cynomops (table 5). The size-in average is large, 0.559, a reflection of the size difference between the two species.Among genera, Promops averages 0.687 in size-out distance from Molossus, 0.704 from Molossops, and 0.775 from Cynomops (table 8). It is farthest from Cheiromeles at 1.260.The larger Promops centralis (GSL = 20.0 mm) is about the size of Molossus pretiosus, and the smaller Promops nasutus (GSL = 17.7 mm) is about the size of M. molossus or M. bondae. Like Molossus, both species of Promops are very similar in shape to each other.Ecologically, species of Promops are probably like those in Molossus in that they have the same narrow-tipped wings, but they may take foods that are not as hard because they have slightly less robust jaws and skulls. Food and flight data are nonexistent. Sf)ecies of Promops have been found under bark in the tops of trees (Brosset, 1966), obtained from hollow trees Oones, 1966), and captured over a shallow pond surrounded by pine-oak forest (LaVal, 1%9). MoptSpecies of Mops lie to the lower left of Molossus on the PCA plots (fig. 4).OTU's included in the cluster of Mops are: M. brachyptera, M. condylura, M. congica, M. demonstrator, M. leonis, M. midas, M. mops, M. nanula, M. niangarae, M. niveiventer, M. sarasinorum, M. trevori, M. thersites, Xiphonycteris spurrelli, and one species of Chaerephon, C. jobensis. These bats are found mostly in Africa, but a few species occur in the Indo-Australian region. Mops is presently regarded as a subgenus of ...

The most derived fruit-eating bats have small canines, wide palates and molars with a distinctive labial rim. Paracone and metacone have moved from a dilambdodont position in the middle of the tooth to the labial side of the tooth where they form the labial cutting edge. Along with the welldeveloped and close fitting labial cutting edges of the premolars and canines, this cutting edge skirts nearly the entire perimeter of the palate. The labial rim of the lower teeth fit inside the labial rim of the upper teeth like two cookie cutters nesting one inside the other. Frugivores have a greater allocation of tooth area at the anterior end of the toothrow, while animalivorous species have more at the posterior end of the toothrow. The area occupied by canines of predators of struggling prey is greater than that for bats that eat non-struggling prey like fruit. In addition, frugivores have wider palates than long while many carnivores have longer palates than wide. Omnivores appear to have a more equal allocation of space to more kinds of teeth, particularly the incisors and nonmolariform premolars, on the toothrow than do frugivores or animalivores. The mechanical nature of different food items is discussed and the suggestion made that describing foods in terms of their texture may be more important in tooth design than whether they are fruit or insect or vertebrate.

No abstract

No abstract

Large animalivorous bats include carnivorous, piscivorous and insectivorous microchiropterans. Skull proportions and tooth morphology are examined and interpreted functionally. Four widefaced bats from four families are convergent in having wide skulls, large masseter muscle volumes and stout jaws, indicating a powerful bite. Three of the four also have long canine teeth relative to their maxillary toothrows. Carnivorous bats have more elongate skulls, larger brain volumes and larger pinnae. The wide-faced bats are all dral emitters and have heads positively tilted relative to the basicranial axis. The carnivorous species are nasal-emitting bats and have negatively tilted heads. The orientation of the head relative to the basicranial axis affects several characters of the skull and jaws and is not correlated with size. The speculation that the type of echolocation may be more of a determinant of evolutionary change than the feeding mechanism is addressed. Wide-faced bats are thought to be capable of eating hard prey items (durophagus) and are probably nondiscriminating, aurally less sophisticated insect generalists while the carnivorous and nondurophagus insectivorous bats may be more discriminating and aurally more sophisticated in what they eat.