Uroderma convexum Lyon 1902
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
154. Pacific Tent-making Bat Uroderma convexum French: Uroderme de Lyon / German: Pazifik-Zeltfledermaus / Spanish: Urodermo de Lyon Other common names: Arcuate Tent-making Bat Taxonomy. Uroderma convexum lyon, 1902, “Colon, Colombia [= Colon, Colon, Panamal.” Until 2014, Uroderma was thought to include only two species, with U. bilobatum having six subspecies, some of which have been distinguished as valid species through morphometric, karyotypic, and molecular analyses. Uroderma b. molaris, described by W. B. Davis in 1968, with type locality in Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico, seemsto represent a synonym of U. convexum and not a subspecies. Easternmost karyotype of U. convexum (2n = 38) is in Melgar, Tolima Department, in the Colombian inter-Andean valley of the Magdalena River. Monotypic. Distribution. Atlantic side of S Mexico (except Yucatan Peninsula), Guatemala, and Honduras S along both sides of Central America in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama to N South America in W Colombia and W Ecuador. Descriptive notes. Head—body 59-69 mm (tailless), ear 12-18 mm, hindfoot 9-13 mm, forearm 40-44 mm; weight 13-20 g. The Pacific Tent-making Bat is medium-sized, with dark gray or gray-brown upperparts. Hairs are bicolored, with light pale bases. White stripe extends form back of head to rump. Facial stripes are prominent above and below eye, and upperstripe extends overhead to back of ear. Ears and noseleaft are prominently edged with yellow or white. Tail membrane is relatively long and Ushaped. Main difference between the Pacific Tent-making Bat and the Common Tentmaking Bat (U. bilobatum) is that the molar tooth row of the Pacific Tent-making Batis convex and less nearly parallel. Teeth also are slightly smaller in the Pacific Tent-making Bat, and its rostrum is shorter and broader, with flattened nasals. Chromosomal complement has 2n = 38 and FN = 44. Habitat. Lowlands of Pacific and Caribbean coast below 1200 m. Pacific Tent-making Bats spend much oftheir foraging time in riparian habitats; however, they also forage in mature and secondary forests and several anthropogenic habitats, contributing to dispersal of at least eleven species of plants. Food and Feeding. Diets of species of Uroderma primarily include fruit (mainly figs), followed by small amounts of pollen, nectar, and insects that are associated with fruits or flowers. The Pacific Tent-making Bat eats fruits from c.40 known plant species (13 genera and ten families). Besides Ficus (Moraceae), diets also include Piper (Piperaceae), Philodendron (Araceae), Cecropia (Urticaceae), Solanum (Solanaceae), Vismia (Hypericaceae), Quararibea (Malvaceae), Clusia (Clusiaceae), Brossmum (Moraceae), and Psidium (Myrtaceae). Breeding. Reproduction of the Pacific Tent-making Bat is bimodal polyestry, with young flyting and independently foraging at c.1 month of age. Mating system is harembased, with a single reproductive male and multiple females. Activity patterns. The Pacific Tent-making Batis nocturnal. It roosts in leaf tents, hollow logs, caves, unmodified leaves, and human buildings. One of the most used plants for tents is the coconut tree, but other introduced plants in anthropomorphic habitats such as plantations, gardens, and cattle ranches are used as roosts. Movements, Home range and Social organization. The number of individuals of Pacific Tent-making Bat in a roost depends on the type of roost. It is gregarious and usually found in groups of 15-59 individuals. Night feeding roosts can be up to 1800 m from day roosts, but males frequently restrict movements to fruiting plants within 100 m of their day roosts. Status and Conservation. Not assessed on The [UCN Red List. The Pacific Tent-making Bat was previously considered part of the Common Tent-making Bat, which is classified as Least Concern. A proper assessment of the recently recognized Pacific Tent-making Bat is needed to fully understand its conservation status. Bibliography. Baker & Clark (1987), Baker & Lopez (1970a), Baker, Atchley & McDaniel (1972), Davis (1968), Fleming et al. (1972), Giannini & Kalko (2004), Hoffmann et al. (2003), LaVal & Rodriguez-Herrera (2002), Lobova et al. (2009), Lyon (1902), Mantilla-Meluk (2014), Reid (2009), Rodriguez-Herrera & Wilson (1999), Sagot et al. (2013), Sampaio et al. (2008), Villalobos-Chaves etal. (2015).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,046 | 0,043 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».