Artibeus (Artibeus) lituratus (Olfers)

Figures 38, 39

VOUCHER MATERIAL: 15 females (AMNH *267204, *267495, *267496, *267497, *268506, *268507, *268509, *268510, *268512, *268513; MNHN *1995.1151, *1995.1152, *1995.1153, *1995.1154, *1995.1155) and 10 males (AMNH *266346, *267206, *267492, *268511, *268514, *268515; MNHN *1995.1156, *1995.1157, *1995.1158, *1995.1159); see table 38 for measurements.

IDENTIFICATION: Characters useful for separating Artibeus lituratus from A. jamaicen­sis at Paracou are discussed in the preceding species account. Descriptions and compara­tive measurements of A. lituratus can also be found in Goodwin and Greenhall (1961), Hill (1964), Tamsitt and Valdivieso (1966), Swanepoel and Genoways (1979), Davis (1984), Koepcke and Kraft (1984), Handley (1987), Brosset and Charles­Dominique (1990), Lim and Wilson (1993), and Mar­ques­Aguiar (1994). As noted earlier, Hus­son’s (1962, 1978) account of ‘‘ Artibeus li­turatus fallax ’’ was apparently based on a composite series of A. lituratus and A. ja­maicensis.

Two subspecies of Artibeus lituratus are generally recognized: A. l. palmarum (Cen­tral America to northwestern Peru, northern Colombia, northern Venezuela, Trinidad to St. Vincent) and A. l. lituratus (throughout Amazonia to northern Argentina) (Davis, 1984; Koopman, 1994; Marques­Aguiar, 1994). Artibeus intermedius, considered a distinct species by many authors (e.g., Davis, 1984; Koopman, 1993, 1994), may represent a subspecies of A. lituratus endemic to Mexico and Central America (Marques­Aguiar, 1994).

Our voucher material conforms closely with most previous qualitative descriptions of Artibeus lituratus (except Husson’s) in the literature cited above. In particular, measure­ments of our specimens fall within the range of variation previously reported for A. l. lituratus in the Guianas and elsewhere in northern South America.

FIELD OBSERVATIONS: We recorded 53 cap­tures (possibly including some recaptures) of Artibeus lituratus at Paracou, of which 40 were in ground­level mistnets and 12 were in elevated mistnets; in addition, 1 individual was shot at night. Of the 40 ground­level mistnet captures, 17 were in well­drained pri­mary forest, 8 were in swampy primary forest, 3 were in creekside primary forest, 3 were in manmade clearings, and 9 were over roadside puddles. Of the 12 individuals cap­tured in elevated nets, 11 were taken between 10 and 23 m above a narrow dirt road, and 1 was taken at 5–8 m in the subcanopy of swampy primary forest. The shot bat was found hanging from a palm frond about 10 m above the ground in well­drained primary forest.