198.

Sombre Serotine

Eptesicus tatei

French: Sérotine de Tate / German: Tate-Breitfliigelfledermaus / Spanish: Eptesicus de Tate

Other common names: Sombre Bat

Taxonomy. Eptesicus tate: Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951,

Darjeeling, India.

Taxonomic status of Epfesicus tater is uncertain, and it has been suggested to be a synonym or subspecies of E. nilsson, although additional samples are needed to confirm this conclusion because distribution of E. tate: is so disconnected from that of E. nilssonii . Eptesicus tater was originally named Nycticeius atratus by E. Blyth in 1863, but this name was preoccupied by Amblyotis atratus by F. Kolenati in 1858 (synonym of E. nilssonii) and was renamed by J. R. Ellerman and T. C. S. Morrison-Scott in 1951. Monotypic.

Distribution. Known only from type locality in NE India (West Bengal).

Descriptive notes. Head—body 48-5 mm,tail 45-9 mm, ear 15-3 mm, forearm 43-4 mm (type specimen). Fur of the Sombre Serotine is long, dense, and described as black throughout, although later descriptions describe it as rich dark brown dorsally and paler ventrally. Ears are oval, with rounded tips, longitudinally folded conch, convex inner margins, slightly hollowed outer margin beneath tips, angular emargination opposite base of tragus, terminating in rounded lobe (with small triangular notch); tragus has small rounded lobe on outer side basally, is expanded above, convex externally and above, and has slightly concave inner margin. Wings attach at bases of toes, and last caudal vertebra is free from uropatagium. Skull characteristics have not been described. I? is very long and slightly bifurcated at extremity, and I° is minute, scarcely rising above level of gum and close to base of T°.

Habitat. Probably temperate forests.

Food and Feeding. No information.

Breeding. No information.

Activity patterns. No information.

Movements, Home range and Social organization. No information.

Status and Conservation. Classified as Data Deficient on The IUCNRed List. The Sombre Serotineis currently known only from three specimens collected in the 1850s in a single locality (only two of them seem to be preserved). Absolutely nothing is known of its ecology and threats, and additional sampling is desperately needed to clarify its status.

Bibliography. Bates & Harrison (1997), Blyth (1863), Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951), Kolenati (1858), Mallick (2007), Molur et al. (2016).