�ber die Orientierung der Flughunde (Chiroptera - Pteropodidae)

Möhres, Franz Peter; Kulzer, Erwin

doi:10.1007/bf00338621

Cited by 60 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent study (Waters and Vollrath, 2003) recorded click durations in R. aegyptiacus that were shorter than in previous studies (Möhres and Kulzer, 1956;Novick, 1958;von Herbert, 1985), and are closer in duration to those of dolphins than other terrestrial animals using similar signals, such as oil birds and cave swiftlets (Griffin, 1953;Suthers and Hector, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Among the Megachiropteran bats, only the genus Rousettus has developed vocal echolocation, producing signals by clicks of the tongue (Möhres and Kulzer, 1956). The clicks of Rousettus aegyptiacus Geoffroy 1810 are emitted in pairs and have been reported to be in the region of 0.6-1·ms duration, with a frequency range of 12-70·kHz and peak frequency at 20-40·kHz (von Herbert, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Echolocation signal structure in the Megachiropteran bat Rousettus aegyptiacus Geoffroy 1810

Holland

Waters

Rayner

2004

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

of the Gabor function fit to the early part of the signal demonstrates that the echolocation signals of R. aegyptiacus match the minimum spectral spread for their duration and amplitude and are thus well matched to its best hearing sensitivity. However, the low energy content of the signals and short duration should make returning echoes difficult to detect. The performance of R. aegyptiacus in obstacle avoidance experiments using echolocation therefore remains something of a conundrum.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 78%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Echolocation signal structure in the Megachiropteran bat Rousettus aegyptiacus Geoffroy 1810

Holland

Waters

Rayner

2004

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Brain adaptation to habitat complexity in bats K. Safi and D. K. N. Dechmann 183 wing area only in the Pteropodidae. This suggests that, while olfaction may play a role in the localization of food (Mö hres & Kulzer 1956;Luft et al 2003), the importance of it is likely to increase in denser habitat in this suborder. The reason for the tendency towards reduction in the main olfactory bulb size of non-phytophagous bats is unclear.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptation of brain regions to habitat complexity: a comparative analysis in bats (Chiroptera)

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vertebrate brains are organized in modules which process information from sensory inputs selectively. Therefore they are probably under different evolutionary pressures. We investigated the impact of environmental influences on specific brain centres in bats. We showed in a phylogenetically independent contrast analysis that the wing area of a species corrected for body size correlated with estimates of habitat complexity. We subsequently compared wing area, as an indirect measure of habitat complexity, with the size of regions associated with hearing, olfaction and spatial memory, while controlling for phylogeny and body mass. The inferior colliculi, the largest sub-cortical auditory centre, showed a strong positive correlation with wing area in echolocating bats. The size of the main olfactory bulb did not increase with wing area, suggesting that the need for olfaction may not increase during the localization of food and orientation in denser habitat. As expected, a larger wing area was linked to a larger hippocampus in all bats. Our results suggest that morphological adaptations related to flight and neuronal capabilities as reflected by the sizes of brain regions coevolved under similar ecological pressures. Thus, habitat complexity presumably influenced and shaped sensory abilities in this mammalian order independently of each other.

show abstract

“…thought to be used by only Rousettus and perhaps Eonycteris [Möhres and Kulzer, 1956;Kulzer, 1958;Gould, 1988]. In both megachiropteran groups, the echolocation signals are not vocalizations [Fenton et al, 1995].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphology of the External Nose in <i>Hipposideros diadema</i> and <i>Lavia frons</i> with Comments on Its Diversity and Evolution among Leaf-Nosed Microchiroptera

Göbbel¹

2001

Cells Tissues Organs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In some bats, a noseleaf is thought to help focus echolocation calls emitted through the nostrils. I studied the ontogenetic mode of the rhinarial cartilages and the associated facial muscles to assess how these rhinarial infrastructures interact with the noseleaf, and the inferred function of such a rhinarial complex. This study focuses on developmental stages of Hipposideros diadema and Lavia frons. Based on new data on these two rhinolophoids and a review of former studies concerning rhinopomatids, rhinolophoids and phyllostomids, the functional and phylogenetic implications of the rhinarial complex among leaf-nosed Microchiroptera are evaluated by the current study. Nasal emitting forms evolved several times independently in the Microchiroptera and share various features, irrespective of their phylogenetic position: the nostrils lie dorsally; the noseleaf has a well-developed horseshoe-shaped plate; the cartilago cupularis bears a large processus cupularis; M(iv) is extended on the lateral plate of the processus alaris superior. The unique similarities of the ontogenetic process of the nasal ‘resonators’ support the assumption that the rhinolophids + megadermatids and rhinopomatids may represent a natural group. In some features, the rhinolophids + megadermatids differ significantly from the phyllostomids. The noseleaf has a median flap and anterior-facing pockets. The processus alaris superior is half-tube-shaped or included in the lateral wall of the cupula nasi anterior. The cartilago accessoria and the attendant musculature perform an important function for supporting and moving the noseleaf. Similar emission of the echolocation pulses but alternative constructional designs of the external nose structures suggest that a separate history of rhinolophoids and phyllostomids might account for these differences.

show abstract

�ber die Orientierung der Flughunde (Chiroptera - Pteropodidae)

Cited by 60 publications

References 8 publications

Echolocation signal structure in the Megachiropteran bat Rousettus aegyptiacus Geoffroy 1810

Echolocation signal structure in the Megachiropteran bat Rousettus aegyptiacus Geoffroy 1810

Adaptation of brain regions to habitat complexity: a comparative analysis in bats (Chiroptera)

Morphology of the External Nose in <i>Hipposideros diadema</i> and <i>Lavia frons</i> with Comments on Its Diversity and Evolution among Leaf-Nosed Microchiroptera

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About