Search

In an effort to strengthen global capacity to prevent, detect, and control infectious diseases in animals and people, the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Emerging Pandemic Threats (EPT) PREDICT project funded development of regional, national, and local One Health capacities for early disease detection, rapid response, disease control, and risk reduction. From the outset, the EPT approach was inclusive of social science research methods designed to understand the contexts and behaviors of communities living and working at human-animal-environment interfaces considered high-risk for virus emergence. Using qualitative and quantitative approaches, PREDICT behavioral research aimed to identify and assess a range of socio-cultural behaviors that could be influential in zoonotic disease emergence, amplification, and transmission. This broad approach to behavioral risk characterization enabled us to identify and characterize human activities that could be linked to the transmission dynamics of new and emerging viruses. This paper provides a discussion of implementation of a social science approach within a zoonotic surveillance framework. We conducted in-depth ethnographic interviews and focus groups to better understand the individual- and community-level knowledge, attitudes, and practices that potentially put participants at risk for zoonotic disease transmission from the animals they live and work with, across 6 interface domains. When we asked highly-exposed individuals (ie. bushmeat hunters, wildlife or guano farmers) about the risk they perceived in their occupational activities, most did not perceive it to be risky, whether because it was normalized by years (or generations) of doing such an activity, or due to lack of information about potential risks. Integrating the social sciences allows investigations of the specific human activities that are hypothesized to drive disease emergence, amplification, and transmission, in order to better substantiate behavioral disease drivers, along with the social dimensions of infection and transmission dynamics. Understanding these dynamics is critical to achieving health security--the protection from threats to health-- which requires investments in both collective and individual health security. Involving behavioral sciences into zoonotic disease surveillance allowed us to push toward fuller community integration and engagement and toward dialogue and implementation of recommendations for disease prevention and improved health security. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42522-021-00036-9.

Genus Sinospelaeobdella Liu, Huang, and Liu gen. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 6C6D1652-EA38-4339-BD79-EA1A017B3AC3 Etymology: The name for the new genus derives from ���������� (Sinon), meaning Chinese / China, ������������o�� (spelaeon), cave, or subterranean, ��������� (bdella), land leech, Sino-spelaeo-bdella = Sinospelaeobdella. Type species: Sinospelaeobdella wulingensis Liu, Huang, and Liu, sp. n. Diagnosis: Medium-sized, body covered with papillae, lacking pigmentation. Three jaws present (trignathous), with tiny indistinct teeth. Five pairs of eyes, with anterior 4 pairs located dorsally on second, third, fourth, fifth annulus, respectively, forming a ���V��� shaped pattern, fifth pair on eighth annulus, very small in size, equally separated from each other as fourth pair. Gonopores separated by 2 annuli, with male gonopore in somite XII b2/a2 and female gonopore in somite XII b5/b6. One pair of auricular projection in somites XXV~XXVII. Last annulus dorsally with a very large median hemispherical projection; anus located at distal end of projection. Caudal sucker prominent, circular, ventrally with about 78 indistinct friction rays. Remarks: Although originally described as a member of the Haemadipsa, Borda & Siddall (2010) suggested that a new genus should be erected for H. cavatuses on basis a phylogenetic analysis of the family Haemadipsidae (sensu Borda et al. 2008). However, these authors did not make the necessary taxonomic changes for several reasons, including no inclusion of materials of H. cavatuses from the type location. Within Haemadipsidae, the new genus, Haemadipsa and Tritetrabdella share the common morphological feature of having three jaws (trignathous) and can easily distinguished from the duognathous members of the family. The three trignathous genera can be further separated by the number of annuli separating gonopores (Fig. 2), pigment and stripes on surface of body, friction rays, and several other morphological as well as biological characteristics (Table 3). Known species: Sinospelaeobdella cavatuses (Yang, Mo & Wang, 2009) comb. n.; and Sinospelaeobdella wulingenesis sp. n. Distribution: China: Yunnan (Yang et al. 2009), Hunan (present study); Laos: Luang Namtha (Borda & Siddall 2010), Vieng Phoukha, Phou Khoun, Vieng Thong (Steiner 2013); Myanmar (Steiner 2013). Photos from online (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alan_cressler/4239947572/in/photostream/[1/22/15, 12:30:21 PM]) suggests that the genus may be also distributed in Malaysia., Published as part of Huang, Taifu, Liu, Zhiwei, Gong, Xiaoyan, Wu, Tao, Liu, Hui, Deng, Jiaxin, Zhang, Youxiang, Peng, Qingzhong, Zhang, Libiao & Liu, Zhixiao, 2019, Vampire in the darkness: a new genus and species of land leech exclusively bloodsucking cave-dwelling bats from China (Hirudinda: Arhynchobdellida: Haemadipsidae), pp. 257-272 in Zootaxa 4560 (2) on pages 261-262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4560.2.2, http://zenodo.org/record/2627588, {"references":["Borda, E. & Siddall, M. E. (2010) Insights into the evolutionary history of Indo-Pacific bloodfeeding terrestrial leeches (Hirudinida: Arhynchobdellida: Haemadipisdae). Invertebrate Systematics, 24, 456 - 472. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2007.09.006","Borda, E., Oceguera-figueroa, A. & Siddall, M. E. (2008) On the classification, evolution and biogeography of terrestrial haemadipsoid leeches (Hirudinida: Arhynchobdellida: Hirudiniformes). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 46, 142 - 154. https: // doi. org / 10.1006 / mpev. 1999.0639","Yang, T., Mo, X. & Wang, D. B. (2009) A new species of cvernous blood-sucking land leech (Hirudinea, Haemadipsidae) in the west of Yunnan Province, China. Zoological Systematics, 34, 125 - 129. [in Chinese]","Steiner, H. (2013) Biospeleological research in the Lao PDR. 16 th International Congress of Speleology, 2013, 413 - 419. Available from: http: // www. laoscaveproject. de / Reports / Volume 1 - 2 % 20 Bio. pdf (accessed 25 October 2018)"]}

Sinospelaeobdella wulingensis Liu, Huang, and Liu sp. n. (Figs 2C, 3A, 4) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: E70EA940-DB1C-4ED8-95F4-04E46 D14383 A Etymology: The specific name is derived from the type locality in “Wuling Mountains”, a mountain range stretching from western Hunan Province to eastern Guizhou Province and southeastern Hubei Province of China. Holotype: Adult, intact, undissected. Shuiniu cave, Jishou city, Hunan, China, March 2017, leg. Huang, Taifu, coordinates 28°21′43″N, 109°48′33″E, 379 m a.s.l. (HNSND1). Paratypes: 20 adults, intact, undissected: 5 adults (HNSND2–6), Shuiniu cave, Jishou city, Hunan, China, December 2016, leg. Huang, Taifu, coordinates 28°21′43″N, 109°48′33″E, 379 m a.s.l.; 5 adults (HNTLD1–5), Tangle Cave, Jishou City, Hunan, China, December 2016, leg. Huang, Taifu, coordinates 28°18′9″N, 109°39′2″E, 337 m a.s.l.; 5 adults (HNJZPD1–5), Jiuzhaiping Cave, Jishou City, Hunan, China, December 2016, leg. Huang, Taifu, coordinates 28°17′17″N, 109°38′56″E, 377 m a.s.l.; 5 adults (HNJJD1–5), Jinji Cave, Yongshun County, Hunan, China, 2017-06, leg. Huang, Taifu, coordinates 28°46′52″N, 110°14′6″E, 906 m a.s.l. Diagnosis: Bloodsucking land leech, medium body size, approximately long conical, lack of pigment and stripe. Eyes five pairs, second pair is the largest, fifth pair present and smallest. Testisacs in ten pairs, first pair of testes situated in XIII/XIV, dorsal to vas deferens. Crop ceca 14 pairs; last annulus with a large hemispherical projection with anus on top. Caudal sucker diameter greater than maximum body breadth, dorsally with one pair of auricular projection and about 78 friction rays; friction rays indistinct ventrally. Description: Body length 22.70± 5.02 mm (n = 21), anterior (oral) sucker breadth 2.30± 0.35 mm, maximum body breadth 4.27± 0.72 mm, posterior (caudal) sucker diameter 5.36± 0.73 mm. Caudal sucker diameter 1.2 times greater than maximum body breadth. Body medium in size, roughly long conical, dorsally slightly convex, ventrally flattened. Body rather small in anterior 1/3, smallest posterior to head and widest in 2/3. Head and sucker whitish opaque and otherwise dark red or black, obviously due to host blood ingested; specimens preserved in alcohol creamy white. Surface of body lacking pigmentation or stripes, dorsally and ventrally. Annuli with papillae and sensilla dorsally, and indistinctly so ventrally. Entire body with 27 somites and 94 annuli in total. Somites I–IV 1-annulate; somite V 2 -annulate; somites VI– VII 3 -annulate; somite VIII 4 -annulate; somites IX–XXII 5-annulate (b1+b2+a2+b5+b6); somite XXIII 3-annulate [b1+b2+(a2+a3)]; somites XXIV 2-annulate; somites XXV–XXVII singularly annulate. Edge of anterior sucker lamelliform; mouth large. A large auricular projection present on each side of somite XXV. Last annulus dorsally with a very large median hemispherical projection; anus located at middle of a transverse depression on top of projection. Caudal sucker nearly circular, dorsally with 3 rows of papillae and about 78 friction rays; friction rays indistinct ventrally. Three jaws present (trignathous), tall and pyramidal, median jaw larger than lateral jaws, teeth of jaws tiny and indistinct; salivary papillae absent on all jaws. Five pairs of eyes, with anterior 4 pairs located dorsally on second, third, fourth, fifth annulus, respectively, forming a “V” shaped pattern; fifth pair on eighth annulus, equally separated from each other as fourth pair. All eyes, except second pair, very small and spot-like; second pair of eyes much larger; fourth and fifth pairs of eyes separated by two annuli. Crop with 14 pairs of caeca, one pair in each of somites IX–XXIII; first four pairs simple and small, increasing in size in each subsequent pair, observable only in specimens immediately after bloodsucking and not observed in reproductive individuals (probably due to being pressed by clitellum); caeca from 5th pair on (in somite XIII) much larger, last pair of caeca (in somite XXIII) stretched posteriorly to somite XXVII. Male gonopore in somite XII b2/a2. Female gonopore in XII b5/b6. Gonopores separated by two annuli. Male reproductive system with 10 pairs of testisacs, first pair of testes located between vagina sac and ganglion XIV over vas deferens; vas deferens posteriorly connected to epididymis. Epididymis consisted of multiple lobular tubes, located on sides of ganglia XII and XIII, anteriorly connected to ejaculatory bulb by a small short tube. Ejaculatory bulb large and spindly, connected by a short tube with spherical penis sac buried inside prostate gland. Penis sac located on lower left side (rarely on right side) of ganglion XI, about 2 to 3 times as large as ejaculation bulb, connected to male gonopore by short tube. Female reproductive system consisted of a pair of spheroidal ovaries located to left of ganglion XII; ovary connected to vagina sac via a short oviduct connected to a large chief oviduct wrapped by protein glands. Vagina sac spheroid and large, approximately 5 to 6 times size of penis sac, connected by thick vaginal duct to female gonopore located posterior to ganglion XI. Remarks: The new species can be separated from the S. cavatuses comb. n. using morphological characteristics listed in Table 4 and illustrated Fig. 3, and by COI sequence distance (Table 5). Specifically, S. wulingensis sp. n. differs from S. cavatuses comb. n. in that the 2nd pair of eyes are the largest, and the 5th pair of eyes was present (Fig. 3A) while in the latter species, the 1st pair of eyes are the largest and the 5th pair of eyes are usually absent (Yang et al. 2009; Fig. 3B). Additionally, S. wulingensis sp. n. can be distinguished from S. cavatuses comb. n. by the location of the 1st pair of testes, the number of caeca, and body size and measurement of other body parts (Table 4). Biology: Sinospelaeobdella wulingensis sp. n. lives on the ceiling of wet karstic caves, a stable microhabitat with an average temperature at 17°C and relative humidity at 91%. The new species is monoecious, allogeneic, and breeds continuously throughout the year although reproductive individuals are more frequently observed between September and October of the year. During mating, paired individuals cling to cave wall using caudal sucker and intertwine with each other over anterior part of the body (Fig. 5A). Reproductive individuals (Fig. 5B) have large body size and have a distinct anterior white clitellum consisted of 17 annuli. Cocoons (Fig. 5C) are irregularly globular, consisted of an outer layer of foamy structure with polygonal cells and a central spherical egg sack; fresh cocoons are most frequently seen in October through December. Larvae (Fig. 5D) are white to pinkish, very active, and more blood thirsty than adults, and are seen between March to April. Both adults and larvae suck blood on hindfoot (Fig. 5E) of several bat species, including Rhinolophus sinicus Andersen, R. pearsonii Horsfield, R. pusillus Temminck, R. macrotis Blyth and Hipposideros armiger (Hodgson). Distribution: The new species is currently known from Jishou City, Guzhang and Yongshun Counties in the Wuling Mountains in northwestern Hunan Province, China. The species is likely to also occur in mountainous areas of neighboring Guizhou, Hubei, Sichuan, and Guangxi Provinces where caves are relatively common in mountains with limestone rock formation (Zhang & Zhu 2012).

Genus Sinospelaeobdella Liu, Huang, and Liu gen. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 6C6D1652-EA38-4339-BD79-EA1A017B3AC3 Etymology: The name for the new genus derives from Σινων (Sinon), meaning Chinese / China, σπηλαιoν (spelaeon), cave, or subterranean, βδελλα (bdella), land leech, Sino-spelaeo-bdella = Sinospelaeobdella. Type species: Sinospelaeobdella wulingensis Liu, Huang, and Liu, sp. n. Diagnosis: Medium-sized, body covered with papillae, lacking pigmentation. Three jaws present (trignathous), with tiny indistinct teeth. Five pairs of eyes, with anterior 4 pairs located dorsally on second, third, fourth, fifth annulus, respectively, forming a “V” shaped pattern, fifth pair on eighth annulus, very small in size, equally separated from each other as fourth pair. Gonopores separated by 2 annuli, with male gonopore in somite XII b2/a2 and female gonopore in somite XII b5/b6. One pair of auricular projection in somites XXV~XXVII. Last annulus dorsally with a very large median hemispherical projection; anus located at distal end of projection. Caudal sucker prominent, circular, ventrally with about 78 indistinct friction rays. Remarks: Although originally described as a member of the Haemadipsa, Borda & Siddall (2010) suggested that a new genus should be erected for H. cavatuses on basis a phylogenetic analysis of the family Haemadipsidae (sensu Borda et al. 2008). However, these authors did not make the necessary taxonomic changes for several reasons, including no inclusion of materials of H. cavatuses from the type location. Within Haemadipsidae, the new genus, Haemadipsa and Tritetrabdella share the common morphological feature of having three jaws (trignathous) and can easily distinguished from the duognathous members of the family. The three trignathous genera can be further separated by the number of annuli separating gonopores (Fig. 2), pigment and stripes on surface of body, friction rays, and several other morphological as well as biological characteristics (Table 3). Known species: Sinospelaeobdella cavatuses (Yang, Mo & Wang, 2009) comb. n.; and Sinospelaeobdella wulingenesis sp. n. Distribution: China: Yunnan (Yang et al. 2009), Hunan (present study); Laos: Luang Namtha (Borda & Siddall 2010), Vieng Phoukha, Phou Khoun, Vieng Thong (Steiner 2013); Myanmar (Steiner 2013). Photos from online (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alan_cressler/4239947572/in/photostream/[1/22/15, 12:30:21 PM]) suggests that the genus may be also distributed in Malaysia.

Hierarchical clustering is an effective method to save energy in immobile WSNs. In last decade, with the mobility applications of WSNs increasing rapidly, hierarchical clustering of mobile WSNs is becoming a high-effective and high-efficient method to save energy, such as LEACH-M, LEACH-ME, and MBC. We propose an improved LEACH protocol, which uses a fuzzy inference system (FIS) to select cluster heads (CHs). This proposed LEACH is called LEACH-FIS. This FIS considers the node’s residual energy, density, speed and direction. The interesting thing of LEACH-FIS is that, by referring the speed change (and direction change) degree relative to its neighbors, this FIS classifies the node’s speed (and direction) into the corresponding membership-function value. Simulation results show that the network lifetime of LEACH-FIS is 52.8%, 66.1% and 22.6% higher than LEACH-M, LEACH-ME, and MBC, respectively.

The current methods of detecting flight conflicts are difficult to grasp the overall conflict situation in the air, which is not conducive to the controllers to make accurate judgment on different conflict situations. In this paper, a method to identify key nodes of flight conflict based on complex network theory is proposed. Firstly, a conflict situation network model was built based on the ACAS protection area model. Then node degree centrality, closeness centrality and PageRank were used to evaluate the comprehensive importance of all nodes in the conflict situation network by AHP method. And we can find out the key conflict locations and conflict aircrafts based on the evaluation results of the index. The simulation results show that the model can effectively identify the key conflict aircrafts and positions in the airspace. And It can help controllers fully grasp the air security situation by classifing the air conflict situation levels.

Bei, Yongjian, Meng, Shaoquan, Li, Guifen, Xie, Wenhai, Li, Jiazhou, Zhang, Libiao (2012): First record of nest site and egg guarding in the caecilian Ichthyophis bannanicus (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae). Journal of Natural History 46 (13-14): 859-865, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2011.652985, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2011.652985

Rhinolophus affinis Horsfield, 1823 Intermediate horseshoe bat FA — 48.8–54.8 mm, mass — 9.0– 15.3 g. Fortyseven males and 55 females were captured from Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Henan, Sichuan and Yunnan. The FMAXE values for echolocation calls are very variable, ranging between 70.0 to 88.5 kHz at different sites. Individuals from Hainan, Guangdong and Guangxi called at relatively low frequencies (70.0 to 74.3 kHz), those from Yunnan called at 82.6 to 83.7 kHz, while those from Jiangxi called at higher frequencies, 88.1 to 88.5 kHz. In Fujian, bats called at 71.9 to 86.1 kHz. Even in the same cave bats called at very different frequencies. For example, in Jinkuang Cave (Fujian), 10 bats were captured, of which seven called at 71.9 to 73.2 kHz, while another three bats called at 85.7 to 86.1 kHz. This raises the possibility that cryptic species may be present, and this is currently under investigation using molecular phylogenetic methods. Call frequencies for this species in Malaysia were previously reported as 77.6 kHz (FA 49.3 mm) (Kingston et al., 2000) and 76 kHz (FA 51 mm) (Heller and Helversen, 1989). In China R. affinis is most easily confused with R. sinicus, from which it is best distinguished by its straight-sided lancet and the long second phalanx of the third digit (66.3–80.4% of the length of the metacarpal: Csorba et al., 2003). Rhinolophus affinis is also typically a larger species, though overlap occurs with R. sinicus at forearm lengths between 50–53 mm. There is extensive overlap in call frequency, but only a small overlap in forearm length between R. affinis and R. sinicus (Fig. 3). The bats calling at R. affinis from Guangdong, although one R. sinicus called at 73.4 kHz. Our molecular studies suggest that unequivocal separation can be achieved by sequencing the control region of mtDNA (authors’ unpublished data), though this assumes an absence of introgression. Previous records from China: Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Henan, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003; Yu et al., 2006). Ecological Notes All roosts were found in caves except for one tree roost where a single individual was located. Numbers were typically in single figures, although up to 21 bats were recorded at one site. Although widespread, this species was not abundant., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on pages 73-75, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["KINGSTON, T., G. JONES, A. ZUBAID, and T. H. KUNZ. 2000. Resource partitioning in rhinolophoid bats revisited. Oecologia, 124: 332 - 342.","HELLER, K. - G., and O. V. HELVERSEN. 1989. Resource partitioning of sonar frequency bands in rhinolophoid bats. Oecologia, 80: 178 - 186.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp.","YU, Y., H. X. NIU, Y. M. WANG, and Q. W. LU. 2006. Karyotype analysis of two Rhinolophus species from Henan. Sichuan Journal of Zoology, 25: 739 - 742. [in Chinese with English abstract]."]}

Rhinolophus rex G. M. Allen, 1923 King horseshoe bat Rhinolophus paradoxolophus (Bourret, 1951) Bourret’s horseshoe bat These taxa appear to be very closely related and there has been some disagreement in the literature regarding whether or not they represent discrete species. For these reasons they are considered together here. Rhinolophus rex has previously been separated from R. paradoxolophus on the basis of small differences in external, cranial and dental measurements with the former considered to be the fractionally larger species. For example, R. paradoxolophus has a forearm length of 50.5–57 mm, R. rex 56.5–63 mm (Csorba et al., 2003). In our surveys, several bats captured in Guangxi had forearm lengths that would classify them as R. paradoxolophus, while our Yunnan bat had a forearm length that fits the measurements for R. rex. Despite these size differences, these bats called at similar call frequencies. Francis (in Eger and Fenton 2003) record- ed R. paradoxolophus at 22–25 kHz in Lao PDR, and hence it appears that the call frequencies used by R. paradoxolophus and R. rex are identical. Eger and Fenton (2003) recorded R. paradoxolophus at 43 kHz in China, but presumably measured the third harmonic of a signal with a fundamental at about 14 kHz. We consider that the small differences in body size are inadequate descriptors of taxonomic distinctiveness between R. paradoxolophus and R. rex, and given that their echolocation calls are very similar we suggest they are probably the same taxon. Rhinolophus paradoxolophus occurs at more southerly locations than R. rex, and the forms are probably best recognized as geographical races (subspecies). Because R. rex (1923) was named before R. paradoxolophus (1951) we suggest that the taxa are synonymised under the name R. rex and considered as one species. An account of the biology of R. paradoxolophus is given by Eger and Fenton (2003). Rhinolophus rex FA — 51.6–57.3 mm, mass — 10.8–14 g. Four males and 10 females were captured in Guangxi, Guizhou and Yunnan. Rhinolophus rex calls at a very low frequency, FMAXE 23.7–26.4 kHz, with calls dominated by the second harmonic. Previous records from China (for R. rex): Chongqing, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes This species is restricted to southern provinces where it is only encountered in small numbers in caves. Echolocation calls are audible at close range to the unaided ear., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on pages 78-79, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, 1844 Blyth’s horseshoe bat Rhinolophus osgoodi Sanborn, 1939 Osgood’s horseshoe bat We consider these taxa together because it is not clear whether or not they are in fact conspecific (Corbet and Hill, 1992; Simmons, 2005). Csorba et al. (2003) consider R. osgoodi as a distinct species on the basis of lancet shape, its short upper canine and long palatal bridge, but recognise that specific distinctness of this taxon has not been accepted widely in the past. Rhinolophus osgoodi has only previously been recorded from one site (Nguluku, north of Likiang) in Yunnan. Osgood (1932) initially considered this taxon to be a subspecies of R. lepidus, and its specific status was introduced by Sanborn (1939) on the basis of its relatively long forearm and small cranial measurements. One male was captured in Fumin County, Yunnan on 4 November 2005, FA 43 mm, FMAXE 92 kHz. One female (FA 45.4 mm, FMAXE 95.2 kHz) was netted in Dali County, Yunnan Province on 4 September 2003. The Dali bat had a relatively long upper canine more typical of R. lepidus than R. osgoodi (Csorba et al., 2003), despite being captured close to the type locality for R. osgoodi. The similarities in forearm length and call frequencies of these bats suggest they may belong to the same taxon. Pottie et al. (2005) reported that R. lepidus in Singapore calls at 97.8 kHz, and had a FA of 39.9 mm, whereas this species in Malaysia calls at around 100 kHz and has a FA that ranges from 37.0– 43.9 mm (Kingston et al., 2000). More work is warranted to determine if R. osgoodi is distinct from R. lepidus. Previous records from China (R. lepidus): Anhui, Fujian, Guangxi, Guangdong, Guizhou, Hainan, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Rhinolophus osgoodi: Yunnan. Ecological Notes Seldom encountered and appeared to be rare and not widespread. Records were from caves., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on pages 76-77, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["SANBORN, C. C. 1939. Eight new bats of the genus Rhinolophus. Publications of the Field Museum of Natural History Zoology, 24: 37 - 43.","SIMMONS, N. B. 2005. Order Chiroptera. Pp. 312 - 525, in Mammal species of the World: a taxonomic and geographic reference, 3 rd edition (D. E. WILSON and D. M. REEDER, eds.). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2142 pp.","OSGOOD, S. I. 1932. Mammals of the Kelley-Roosevelts and Delacour Asiatic expeditions. Publications of the Field Museum of Natural History Zoology, 18: 193 - 339.","POTTIE, S. A., D. J. W. LANE, T. KINGSTON, and B. P. Y. - H. LEE. 2005. The microchiropteran bat fauna of Singapore. Acta Chiropterologica, 7: 237 - 247.","KINGSTON, T., G. JONES, A. ZUBAID, and T. H. KUNZ. 2000. Resource partitioning in rhinolophoid bats revisited. Oecologia, 124: 332 - 342.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Rhinolophus stheno K. Andersen, 1905 Lesser brown horseshoe bat FA — 41.8–47.1 mm, mass — 10.3 ± 1.4 g (n = 6). Four males and three females were captured in Yunnan Province. These were the first records of R. stheno from China, and a detailed description was given in Zhang J. S. et al. (2005). The echolocation calls indicated that the FMAXE of R. stheno was about 87.2 kHz, while Robinson (1996) reported 85–90 kHz (FA 46 mm), and Kingston et al. (2000) documented 86.1 kHz (FA 48.8 mm), both in Malaysia. Soisook et al. (2008) recently elevated R. microglobosus to species status and consider it distinct from R. stheno in Southeast Asia. Whereas R. stheno typically echolocates with FMAXE of 85–88 kHz, R. microglobosus calls at 92–101 kHz. Rhinolophus stheno had forearm lengths between 43.2–48.1 mm, whereas R. microglobosus was smaller on average (FA — 41.4–46.3 mm). Rhinolophus stheno was found in the Thai-Malaysian peninsular and central Vietnam, with R. microglobosus distributed further north, also in Myanmar, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Lao PDR and hence closer to the border with China (Soisook et al., 2008). Nonetheless, our echolocation call frequency measurements are consistent with the Chinese bats being R. stheno rather than R. microglobosus. Ecological Notes These records were the first for China: the bats were roosting in caves., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 80, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["ROBINSON, M. F. 1996. A relationship between echolocation calls and noseleaf, widths in bats of the genera Rhinolophus and Hipposideros. Journal of Zoology (London), 239: 389 - 393.","KINGSTON, T., G. JONES, A. ZUBAID, and T. H. KUNZ. 2000. Resource partitioning in rhinolophoid bats revisited. Oecologia, 124: 332 - 342.","SOISOOK, P., S. BUMRUNGSRI, C. SATASOOK, V. D. THONG, S. S. H. BU, D. L. HARRISON, and P. J. J. BATES. 2008. A taxonomic review of Rhinolophus stheno and R. malayanus (Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae) from continental Southeast Asia: an evaluation of echolocation call frequency in discriminating between cryptic species. Acta Chiropterologica, 10: 221 - 242."]}

Hipposideros pomona K. Andersen, 1918 Pomona leaf-nosed bat FA — 40.5–44.2 mm, mass — 5.2–7.0 g. Forty males and 49 females were captured from Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan and Yunnan. Hipposideros pomona emitted different call frequencies at different sites. The bats in Yunnan called between 120.8– 125.6 kHz and had FA values of 41.5–44.2 mm. Bats in Guangdong called between 125–129 kHz, with FA values of 40.6–43.0 mm. In Hainan calls were recorded at 121 kHz (FA 38–42 mm). Shek and Lau (2006) reported that H. pomona in Hong Kong emitted echolocation calls at 129.6 (range 125.7– 132.5) kHz. Previous records from China: Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Hunan, Sichuan, Yunnan, (Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes Most records were from caves in the south of China, but small population was found under the bed in an abandoned house in Hainan. One large roost was found., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on pages 81-82, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["SHEK, C., and C. T. Y. LAU. 2006. Echolocation calls of five horseshoe bats of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Biodiversity, 13: 9 - 12.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Hipposideros pratti Thomas, 1891 Pratt’s leaf-nosed bat FA — 79.3–90.8 mm, mass — 48–57.3 g. Nine males and 13 females were captured in Fujian, Guangxi, Henan, Sichuan and Yunnan. The bats in Fujian called with FMAXE values 58.2 kHz; bats from Guangxi called at 59.2–61.6 kHz, and those from Henan at 61.0–61.9 kHz. Previous records from China: Anhui, Fujian, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hunan, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes Females with pups were captured in early July in Sichuan. Maternity colonies in caves may contain hundreds of bats., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 82, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Schreber, 1774) Greater horseshoe bat FA — 56.5–62.0 mm, mass — 16.5–32.6 g. A widespread bat in China: we captured bats in Beijing, Guangxi, Henan, Hubei, Jiangxi, Jilin, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, Tianjin and Yunnan. Bats assigned to R. ferrumequinum in China have lower call frequencies and longer forearms (72.0–83.5 kHz, 56.5–62.0 mm, respectively) than those sampled in continental Europe and the UK (81–84 kHz, 50.6–59.0 mm FA in UK — Heller and Helversen, 1989; Jones and Rayner, 1990; Park et al., 2000; Andrews and Andrews, 2003; Ransome 2008). Genetic analyses of microsatellite loci and mitochondrial DNA reveal deep divisions among populations within China, and also between the Chinese populations and those from the Middle East and Europe (Rossiter et al., 2007; Flanders et al. 2009). Bats from southwest China typically emitted echolocation calls with FMAXE at 72.0 kHz to 73.9 kHz (Yunnan and Sichuan, respectively), while those from east China are higher again (♂♂ 74.8–76.8 kHz; ♀♀ 76.4–77.1 kHz). Moreover, bats from Japan that are usually considered a discrete subspecies (R. f. nippon) show a further decrease in call frequency (ca. 65 kHz — Taniguchi, 1985; Fukui et al., 2004) and are typically larger than most bats on the Chinese mainland. In conflict with this general trend was one bat from Jilin that emitted echolocation calls at 65 kHz and also appeared to show greater mtDNA sequence affiliation to the bats from Japan. Hence it is likely that the nippon lineage has recolonised China from Japan (Flanders et al., 2009). Such large differences in call frequency and corresponding genetic distinctiveness suggest that populations of this species in China might warrant taxonomic revision. Previous records from China: Anhui, Beijing, Fujian, Gansu, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hebei, Henan, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Jilin, Liaoning, Ningxia, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Shandong, Shanghai, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes Although widespread, the species was rarely encountered in large numbers. It was always found in caves. Breeding was confirmed in Du Cave, Tianjin where young were noted during late June. The species appears to eat mainly moths and beetles, as in Britain (Jones, 1990). Analysis of 60 droppings from Beijing collected in August 2003 revealed average percentage volumes of 96.9% moths, 2.7% beetles, 0.4% dipterans., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on pages 75-76, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["HELLER, K. - G., and O. V. HELVERSEN. 1989. Resource partitioning of sonar frequency bands in rhinolophoid bats. Oecologia, 80: 178 - 186.","JONES, G., and J. M. V. RAYNER. 1990. Foraging behavior and echolocation of wild horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and R. hipposideros (Chiroptera, Rhinolophidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 25: 183 - 191.","PARK, K. J., G. JONES, and R. D. RANSOME. 2000. Torpor, arousal and activity of hibernating greater horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Functional Ecology, 14: 580 - 588.","RANSOME, R. D. 2008. Greater horseshoe bat. Pp. 298 - 306, in Mammals of the British Isles: handbook, 4 th edition (S. HARRIS and D. W. YALDEN, eds.). The Mammal Society, Southampton, 800 pp.","ROSSITER, S. J., P. BENDA, C. DIETZ, S. ZHANG, and G. JONES. 2007. Rangewide phylogeography in the greater horseshoe bat inferred from microsatellites: implications for population history, taxonomy, and conservation. Molecular Ecology, 16: 4699 - 4714.","TANIGUCHI, I. 1985. Echolocation sounds and hearing of the greater Japanese horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum nippon). Journal of Comparative Physiology, 156 A: 185 - 188.","FUKUI, D., N. AGETSUMA, and D. A. HILL. 2004. Acoustic identification of eight species of bat (Mammalia: Chiroptera) inhabiting forests of southern Hokkaido, Japan: potential for conservation monitoring. Zoological Science, 21: 947 - 955.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Coelops frithii Blyth, 1848 East Asian tailless leaf-nosed bat FA — 35.0– 39.1 mm, mass — 5.0– 5.5 g. Four males and 17 females were captured in Hainan and Fujian. The Hainan C. frithi (FA — 35.0–37.0 mm) were slightly smaller than bats from Fujian (FA — 36.0– 39.1 mm). The bats emitted echolocation calls dominated by a broadband component with FMAXE 141 kHz (start frequency 199 kHz, end frequency 117 kHz), although a higher constant frequency component may have been missed because of sampling rate restrictions of the recording equipment. Previous records from China: Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Sichuan and Yunnan, (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes Appears to have a very restricted distribution in southern China. Found only in small numbers in three caves., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 82, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Aselliscus stoliczkanus (Dobson, 1871) Stoliczka’s Asian trident bat FA — 39.8–47.3 mm, mass — 5.0– 7.5 g. Fourteen males and 16 females were captured in Guangxi, Guizhou and Yunnan. Bats called with FMAXE values between 118.4–130 kHz (n = 5). On 2 September 2003, one juvenile female was netted in Yunnan, which called at 118.4 kHz (FA — 44.4 mm), while adult male in this cave called at 119.3 kHz (FA — 45.6 mm). One adult female was netted in Yunnan on 26 November 2006, calling at 130 kHz (FA — 39.8 mm). Another juvenile male was captured in Guizhou on 1 November 2005, which had a dominant call frequency at 120.3 kHz (FA — 44.0 mm). On 5 September 2006, two males and one female were captured in Guangxi, that female called at 125.4 kHz dominant frequency (FA — 44.7 mm, mass — 7.0 g), two males both called at 122.9 kHz (FA — 42.7 and 43.9 mm, mass both — 5.0 g). Echolocation calls are described further in Li et al. (2007). Previous records from China: Guizhou, Guangxi, Jiangxi and Yunnan (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes Only small numbers were found and all records were from caves in southern provinces., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 82, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["LI, G., Y. WANG, H. ZHAO, K. M. HELGEN, L. LIN, G. JONES and S. ZHANG. 2007. Echolocation calls, diet, and phylogenetic relationships of Stoliczka's trident bat Aselliscus stoliczkanus (Hipposideridae). Journal of Mammalogy, 88: 736 - 744.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Hipposideros larvatus (Horsfield, 1823) Intermediate leaf-nosed bat FA — 55.5–64.1 mm, mass — 12.1–24.5 g. A common bat species in south China that was captured in Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan and Yunnan. Echolocation call frequencies differ according to site. The bats in Hainan on average emitted higher call frequencies (FMAXE — 86.5–87.8 kHz) and had longer forearms (61–64 mm) than those in Guangxi (84.8–88 kHz, FA — 55.5–61.6 mm), and Guangdong (FMAXE — 83.2–85.6 kHz, FA — 67.8– 62.2 mm). Bats in Yunnan emitted even lower call frequencies (79.2–84 kHz) and had forearm lengths measuring between 57.5–64.1 mm. Kingston et al. (2000) reported that H. larvatus in Malaysia calls at 100.0 kHz (FA — 58.5 mm), and Thabah et al. (2006) claimed that in one cave on north-east India, bats identified as H. larvatus emitted calls with FMAXE values at either 85 kHz or 98 kHz, leading the authors to propose the name Hipposideros khasiana for bats of the 85-kHz phonic type. Chinese H. larvatus was phylogenetically closest to Malaysian bats (100–102 kHz), but might deserve raising to specific status given the considerable difference in call frequency (Thabah et al., 2006). Previous records from China: Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Yunnan (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes Found in subtropical areas of southern China where it can occur in large numbers (roosts of several hundred individuals) in caves. They were also found in the shelter (Fangkong Cave 2) around the abandoned airport, Ningming County., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 81, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["KINGSTON, T., G. JONES, A. ZUBAID, and T. H. KUNZ. 2000. Resource partitioning in rhinolophoid bats revisited. Oecologia, 124: 332 - 342.","THABAH, A., S. J. ROSSITER, T. KINGSTON, S, ZHANG, S. PAR- SONS, K. M. MYA, A. ZUBAID, and G. JONES. 2006. Genetic divergence and echolocation call frequency in cryptic species of Hipposideros larvatus s. l. (Chiroptera: Hipposideridae) from the Indo-Malayan region. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 88: 119 - 130.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Rhinolophus luctus Temminck, 1834 Woolly horseshoe bat FA 66.3–72.8 mm, mass 26.5–49.5 g. Six males and four females were captured in Fujian, Hainan, Hunan and Jiangxi provinces. The call frequency of R. luctus in China (32.6–34.9 kHz) is lower than that in Malaysia (FMAXE 42 kHz), while the forearm length shorter is in Malaysia (63.4 mm — Kingston et al., 2000). Pottie et al. (2005) reported that R. luctus called at 42.6 kHz in Singapore, but these authors did not collect individuals of this species, identifying them from their echolocation calls. Given the geographic variation in call frequency and forearm length, cryptic species may therefore be present in this taxon, although more work is needed to confirm this. Previous records from China: Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes This species was seldom encountered and was always found in small groups. All records were from caves., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 77, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["KINGSTON, T., G. JONES, A. ZUBAID, and T. H. KUNZ. 2000. Resource partitioning in rhinolophoid bats revisited. Oecologia, 124: 332 - 342.","POTTIE, S. A., D. J. W. LANE, T. KINGSTON, and B. P. Y. - H. LEE. 2005. The microchiropteran bat fauna of Singapore. Acta Chiropterologica, 7: 237 - 247.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Rhinolophus rex G. M. Allen, 1923 King horseshoe bat Rhinolophus paradoxolophus (Bourret, 1951) Bourret’s horseshoe bat These taxa appear to be very closely related and there has been some disagreement in the literature regarding whether or not they represent discrete species. For these reasons they are considered together here. Rhinolophus rex has previously been separated from R. paradoxolophus on the basis of small differences in external, cranial and dental measurements with the former considered to be the fractionally larger species. For example, R. paradoxolophus has a forearm length of 50.5–57 mm, R. rex 56.5–63 mm (Csorba et al., 2003). In our surveys, several bats captured in Guangxi had forearm lengths that would classify them as R. paradoxolophus, while our Yunnan bat had a forearm length that fits the measurements for R. rex. Despite these size differences, these bats called at similar call frequencies. Francis (in Eger and Fenton 2003) record- ed R. paradoxolophus at 22–25 kHz in Lao PDR, and hence it appears that the call frequencies used by R. paradoxolophus and R. rex are identical. Eger and Fenton (2003) recorded R. paradoxolophus at 43 kHz in China, but presumably measured the third harmonic of a signal with a fundamental at about 14 kHz. We consider that the small differences in body size are inadequate descriptors of taxonomic distinctiveness between R. paradoxolophus and R. rex, and given that their echolocation calls are very similar we suggest they are probably the same taxon. Rhinolophus paradoxolophus occurs at more southerly locations than R. rex, and the forms are probably best recognized as geographical races (subspecies). Because R. rex (1923) was named before R. paradoxolophus (1951) we suggest that the taxa are synonymised under the name R. rex and considered as one species. An account of the biology of R. paradoxolophus is given by Eger and Fenton (2003). Rhinolophus rex FA — 51.6–57.3 mm, mass — 10.8–14 g. Four males and 10 females were captured in Guangxi, Guizhou and Yunnan. Rhinolophus rex calls at a very low frequency, FMAXE 23.7–26.4 kHz, with calls dominated by the second harmonic. Previous records from China (for R. rex): Chongqing, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes This species is restricted to southern provinces where it is only encountered in small numbers in caves. Echolocation calls are audible at close range to the unaided ear.

RHINOLOPHIDAE During our surveys, 12 species of horseshoe bats were captured (for capture sites, measurements and status, see Table 1; for representative echolocation calls, see Fig. 2; see also Appendix), of which two represent new records for China: R. marshalli and R. stheno. We also captured bats that fit descriptions of R. siamensis, recognised as a distinct species in Smith and Xie (2008). Among these 12 species, R. ferrumequinum and R. pusillus are common and widespread in China., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 73, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["SMITH, A. T., and Y. XIE (eds.). 2008. A guide to the mammals of China. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 576 pp."]}

Rhinolophus macrotis Blyth, 1844 Big-eared horseshoe bat Rhinolophus siamensis Glydenstolpe, 1917 Thai horseshoe bat We consider these taxa together because their distinctiveness from each other has long been questioned. Rhinolophus siamensis was formerly included in R. macrotis, but was recently considered as a distinct taxon on the basis of its smaller size and higher echolocation call frequency (Francis et al., 1999; Hendrichsen et al., 2001). Indeed, Simmons (2005) treats R. siamensis as a distinct species. It was first described (as a subspecies of R. macrotis) from north-west Thailand (Gyldenstolpe, 1917), and is sympatric with the larger R. macrotis in Vietnam and Lao PDR (Csorba et al., 2003). A paratype specimen of R. siamensis has a forearm length of 37.1 mm, whereas R. macrotis can reach 48 mm (Csorba et al., 2003). Heller and Helversen (1989) and Kingston et al. (2000) reported that R. macrotis in Malaysia calls at 48 kHz (FA 46.5 mm and 45.5 mm, respectively), which is close to values from the large bats typical of this species in China. We have found typical R. macrotis and a smaller form (that fits with descriptions of R. siamensis) in sympatry (even in the same cave) in Guangxi, supporting their status as separate species. Detailed analyses of genetic and call frequency variation of these taxa are currently underway (authors’ unpublished data) to clarify their taxonomic status, and to determine whether one does indeed correspond to R. siamensis and whether additional cryptic species may be present. Sun et al. (2008) identified a ‘new’ cryptic species of R. macrotis from Jianxi, though on the basis of body size and call frequency we believe that their ’new’ small species is probably R. siamensis. Wu et al. (2008) described a new, small cryptic species in the R. macrotis group from Guangdong, Guangxi and Jiangxi, which they named R. huananus. The forearm length of this bat was 39.3–43.1 mm, and hence overlapped with that found by Sun et al. (2008). Although Wu et al. (2008) argued that the body size of R. huananus was intermediate between that of R. siamensis and R. macrotis, they were not able to examine any specimens of the former. Francis (2008) gives the forearm length of R. siamensis in Thailand as 38–42 mm. We therefore believe that R. huananus may be a synonym of R. siamensis, and until further evidence is forthcoming we consider the large and small bats in the R. macrotis group in China as R. macrotis and R. siamensis, respectively. Our criteria for separation of R. macrotis and R. siamensis are conservative because they are based on individuals where both call frequency and forearm length were recorded — we have found no overlap in either parameter between the taxa. Bats with FA> 46 mm and FMAXE R. macrotis. If FA 58 kHz then bats were assigned to R. siamensis. Rhinolophus macrotis FA — 46.9–49.9 mm (n = 5), mass — 8.7–9.4 g (n = 4). Two males and four females typical of R. macrotis were caught from Beijing, Guangxi and Sichuan. The echolocation calls ranged in FMAXE from 47.2–53.9 kHz. Previous records from China (for all bats identified as R. macrotis — may include records of R. siamensis because this species was not previously considered distinct): Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Shaanxi, Yunnan and Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes The species is relatively uncommon, and always found in small numbers. Records are widespread, extending north to Beijing from subtropical regions of China. All bats were captured in caves. Rhinolophus siamensis FA — 39.2–45.4 mm (n = 22), mass — 5.5–6.4 g (n = 10). Thirty-seven bats (14 ♂♂ and 23 ♀♀) could be readily assigned to this taxon, and there was no overlap with either forearm length or FMAXE of the larger R. macrotis. Echolocation calls had FMAXE ranging from 60.0–69.3 kHz (n = 22). Recorded from Fujian, Guangxi, Guizhou, Jiangxi, and Yunnan Ecological Notes Rhinolophus siamensis appears to be widespread in southern China, and was recorded more frequently than R. macrotis, which may extend further northwards given the new record from Beijing. The two species were sympatric (even found in the same cave) in Guangxi. Rhinolophus siamensis was previously recorded from Yunnan according to Smith and Xie (2008). All records were from caves., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on pages 77-78, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["FRANCIS, C. M., A. GUILLEN, and M. F. ROBINSON. 1999. Order Chiroptera: bats. Pp. 225 - 235, in Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 status report (J. W. DUCKWORTH, R. E. SALTER, and K. KHOUNBOLINE, eds.). IUCN, Vientiane, Laos, 274 pp.","HENDRICHSEN, D. K., P. J. J. BATES, B. D. HAYES, and J. L. WALSTON. 2001. Recent records of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from Vietnam with six species new to the country. Myotis, 39: 35 - 122.","SIMMONS, N. B. 2005. Order Chiroptera. Pp. 312 - 525, in Mammal species of the World: a taxonomic and geographic reference, 3 rd edition (D. E. WILSON and D. M. REEDER, eds.). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2142 pp.","GYLDENSTOLPE, N. 1917. Zoological results of the Swedish expedition to Siam 1911 - 1912 and 1914 - 1915. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingare, 57: 1 - 59.","HELLER, K. - G., and O. V. HELVERSEN. 1989. Resource partitioning of sonar frequency bands in rhinolophoid bats. Oecologia, 80: 178 - 186.","KINGSTON, T., G. JONES, A. ZUBAID, and T. H. KUNZ. 2000. Resource partitioning in rhinolophoid bats revisited. Oecologia, 124: 332 - 342.","SUN, K. - P., J. FENG, T. L. JIANG, J. MA, Z. - Z. ZHANG, and L. - R. JIN. 2008. A new cryptic species of Rhinolophus macrotis (Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae) from Jiangxi Province, China. Acta Chiropterologica, 10: 1 - 10.","WU, Y., M. MOTOKAWA, and M. HARADA. 2008. A new species of horseshoe bat of the genus Rhinolophus from China (Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae). Zoological Science, 25: 438 - 443.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp.","SMITH, A. T., and Y. XIE (eds.). 2008. A guide to the mammals of China. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 576 pp."]}

Rhinolophus sinicus K. Andersen, 1905 Chinese rufous horseshoe bat The species is most easily confused with R. affinis, from which it is best distinguished by its straight-sided lancet and the relatively short second phalanx of the third digit (et al., 2003). Unequivocal separation can seemingly be performed by sequencing the control region of mtDNA (authors’ unpublished data). Echolocation call frequencies overlap with those emitted by R. affinis. Rhinolophus affinis is also typically a larger species, though overlap occurs with R. sinicus at forearm lengths between 50–53 mm (Fig. 4). Rhinolophus sinicus is very similar to R. thomasi from Myanmar, Vietnam, Lao PDR and Thailand, to which it is closely related and possibly conspecific. Call frequency for R. thomasi in Lao PDR is reported as 76–86 kHz (Francis and Habersetzer 1998), and so the two taxa overlap considerably in call frequency. Rhinolophus thomasi is reported to have smaller upper canines than R. sinicus (Francis 2008). FA — 42.6–52.6 mm, mass — 8.5–14.3 g. Seventy-four males and 43 females were captured from Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Hubei, Jiangxi, Sichuan, and Yunnan. The echolocation calls vary over the geographic range, from 73.4–88.5 kHz. The call frequencies (0 ± SD) of a sample of males (82.0 ± 2.0 kHz, n = 38) were lower than females (85.4 ± 1.9, n = 29 — Mann- Whitney W = 839, P ♂♂: 46.9 ± 1.5, n = 37; ♀♀: 46.6 ± 2.0, n = 29; Mann-Whitney W = 1325, P > 0.05). Previous records from China:, Anhui, Fujian, Gansu, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Hubei Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Tibet, Yunnan, Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes Widespread in caves in southern China, but never abundant. Maximum count was 24 bats in one cave in Jiangxi. An abandoned brick kiln was used by a solitary male in Xinyi County., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 80, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["FRANCIS, C. M., and J. HABERSETZER. 1998. Interspecific and intraspecific variation in echolocation call frequency and morphology of horseshoe bats, Rhinolophus and Hipposideros. Pp. 169 - 179, in Bat biology and conservation (T. H. KUNZ and P. A. RACEY, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 365 pp.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

HIPPOSIDERIDAE Seven species from the family Hipposideridae, including two common species (H. armiger and H. larvatus) were discovered during nine years of survey (for capture sites, measurements and status, see Table 1; for representative echolocation calls, see Fig. 4). One species (H. cineraceus) represents a new record for China., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on pages 80-81, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511

Hipposideros armiger (Hodgson, 1835) Great leaf-nosed bat FA — 86.0– 96.8 mm, mass — 41.0–63.0 g. A common species in China, captured in Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Henan, Sichuan, and Yunnan. Call frequencies vary with FMAXE values from 65.1–72.7 kHz recorded. Hipposideros armiger in the most southern area, Hainan, calls at the highest frequencies, 72.0–72.7 kHz (FA — 90.2–92.0 mm). FMAXE was 68 kHz in Guangdong, 68.0–68.8 kHz Guangxi, 64.8 kHz at three sites in Yunnan, 67.4–69.4 kHz in Sichuan. Gould (1979) reported that the call frequency of H. armiger is 66 kHz (FA — 91 mm) in Malaysia. Previous records from China: Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Hunan, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Yunnan, and Zhejiang (Zhang, 1997; Wang, 2003). Ecological Notes A common and widespread bat in southern China. Once observed feeding around streetlights. Typically found in caves, including some of the largest aggregations of bats noted. Young were already flying by mid-July in Sichuan., Published as part of Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian & Parsons, Stuart, 2009, Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae, pp. 71-88 in Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1) on page 81, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703, http://zenodo.org/record/3944511, {"references":["GOULD, E. 1979. Neonatal vocalizations of ten species of Malaysian bats (Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera). American Zoologist, 19: 481 - 491.","ZHANG, Y. Z. (ed.). 1997. Distribution of mammalian species in China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 280 pp.","WANG, Y. X. (ed.). 2003. A complete checklist of mammal species and subspecies in China: a taxonomic and geographic reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, 394 pp."]}

Zhang, Libiao, Jones, Gareth, Zhang, Jinshuo, Zhu, Guangjian, Parsons, Stuart (2009): Recent surveys of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from China. I. Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae. Acta Chiropterologica 11 (1): 71-88, DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465703