2010
DOI: 10.3161/150811010x538016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Revalidation ofMyotis taiwanensisÄrnbäck-Christie-Linde 1908 and Its Molecular Relationship withM. adversus(Horsfield 1824) (Vespertilionidae, Chiroptera)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 29 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A lowland and mountain form of M. formosus were also distinguished and referred to M. flavus and M. watasei, respectively (Lin et al 2004;Jiang et al 2010), suggesting that the current taxonomy and species assignments in Taiwanese Myotis do not reflect the real diversity. Molecular studies further challenged the classical taxonomy by showing that taiwanensis was inadequately assigned to M. adversus and should rather be considered as a species on its own (Han et al 2010), and that latirostris was not related to M. muricola, not even to any other species of Myotis (Stadelmann et al 2007;Lack et al 2010;Ruedi et al 2013). However, none of these molecular surveys referred the analyzed specimens directly to available type material for a proper systematic arrangement, implying that their taxonomic recommendation could be questionable, as demonstrated in a recent review of species in the Chrysopteron subgenus (Csorba et al 2014;Kuo et al 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A lowland and mountain form of M. formosus were also distinguished and referred to M. flavus and M. watasei, respectively (Lin et al 2004;Jiang et al 2010), suggesting that the current taxonomy and species assignments in Taiwanese Myotis do not reflect the real diversity. Molecular studies further challenged the classical taxonomy by showing that taiwanensis was inadequately assigned to M. adversus and should rather be considered as a species on its own (Han et al 2010), and that latirostris was not related to M. muricola, not even to any other species of Myotis (Stadelmann et al 2007;Lack et al 2010;Ruedi et al 2013). However, none of these molecular surveys referred the analyzed specimens directly to available type material for a proper systematic arrangement, implying that their taxonomic recommendation could be questionable, as demonstrated in a recent review of species in the Chrysopteron subgenus (Csorba et al 2014;Kuo et al 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%