1

Re: Bats - pipistrelles

Working with 6.13 last week it was very clear that the naming of pipistrelles was messy, with multiple terms not all being referenced properly.
Might there be some clarity put into the pipistrelles.

Im would hope that BCT has a position on this.

The issue is ensuring that the appropriate 'sense' of the term is returned from all possible places - i.e. whether the pipistrelle has been identified as 45 /55 khz or not.

Im no expert but I know I was confused.

MAtt

Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre
Tullie House Museum

2

Re: Bats - pipistrelles

Over a year later and I'm struggling with the same issue! Pipistrellus pipistrellus appears to have two recommended taxon list item keys: NHMSYS0000332675 and NHMSYS0020316957. I assumed at first that one referred to species (including the splits), the other to an aggregate but that isn't the case.

In order to have designations that are as up to date as possible we use the JNCC species designations list which conveniently includes a taxon version key. The problem is that the TVK listed for Pipistrellus pipistrellus (NBNSYS0000005099) only links to one of the two RTLIKs so some pipistrelle records have not had their statuses flagged.

Is there a reason for this confusing position? What can be done to rectify it?

Bob Saville
Lothian Wildlife Information Centre

3 (edited by Graham French 10-09-2009 12:06:13)

Re: Bats - pipistrelles

Hello Bob

I have just tried to get my head around Pipistrellus pipistrellus in the NHM species dictionary and how it relates to your problem.

The 2 taxon list item keys refer to different taxa in the NHM species dictionary
- NHMSYS0000332675 referes to Pipistrellus pipistrellus sensu stricto (=Pipistrellus pipistrellus 45kHz). Taxonversionkey NHMSYS0020001355
- NHMSYS0020316957 refers to Pipistrellus pipistrellus sensu lato (=Pipistrellus pipistrellus 45kHz + Pipistrellus pipistrellus 55kHz (=Pipistrellus pygmaeus)). Taxonversionkey NHMSYS0020001356 (=taxon list item key NHMSYS0020316957)

In JNCC designated list the 2 main taxonversionkeys used for Pipistrellus pipistrellus NHMSYS0020001356 and NBNSYS0000005099 refer to Pipistrellus pipistrellus sensu lato (a third one in the Wales NERC S.42 NHMSYS0020001355 refers to Pipistrellus pipistrellus sensu stricto) so if you don't want to include the welsh designated list then I would use the recommended tvk NHMSYS0020001356 refering to the Pipistrellus pipistrellus sensu lato.

Unfortunately this doesn't help your problem as what you really need to able to do is aggregate both the Pipistrellus pipistrellus sensu lato taxon and the Pipistrellus pipistrellus sensu stricto taxon.  There is an entry for this in the NHM species dictionary but I am not sure that Recorder handles aggregation.The NBN Gateway does but the aggregates are not up to date and is something I have been recently looking into, though not in time for the next update of the species dictionary planned for this month.

After all that, I haven't come up with a way of rectifying your problem, though have succeed in giving myself a headache!

Best wishes

Graham
NBN technical liaison officer

4

Re: Bats - pipistrelles

Hi Graham

Thanks a lot for spending time getting your head around this and making some sense of it.  As you say it doesn't help with the designations issue!

Cheers

Bob

5 (edited by Matt_tullie 08-09-2010 10:58:56)

Re: Bats - pipistrelles

Two years on and Im going to fire this one up again.

The need with Pipistrelles (as I see it) is to seperate out the strict and broad senses of Pipistrellus pipistrellus.

Now these senses ARE identified in the common name and in the attribute of the taxon.
BUT there is no difference in the recommended taxon name of these two.
So if you are reporting on bats, you dont know whether your pip is a strict 45khz pip or just an unknown UK pip (i.e. the 45 /55 aggregate), because they are both reported as Pipistrellus pipistrellus.

Another issue is 'Myotis' has a common name of 'Unidentified bat' which its not. Its an 'unidentified Myotis'.
'Chiroptera' is an unidentified bat in my book.

Can we either change the RTN of Pipistrellus pipistrellus (s.l.) or the RTN's of the 45 and 55 Pips to ensure these can be seperated?

In our DTB representing 14873 seperate species, this is a unique problem. No other taxon we report on has the same issue! (not sure this is entirely true actually).[Corrected - one of six]

Thankin you.

MAtt

Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre
Tullie House Museum

6

Re: Bats - pipistrelles

Do these things ever get changed Matt?

This seems like another one of those taxonomic failures in the dictionary which everyone recognises and hates, but no-one wants to take responsibility for solving.

Grrrr!

Rob Large
Wildlife Sites Officer
Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre

7

Re: Bats - pipistrelles

Well gad dammit it, if nobodys going to do anything about it,
Im just gonna build myself my OWN list and by Jimminy Ill use that.

Then, well then maybe Ill cut me some trees, and perhaps build me a house, and then, I might just get me a wife.

Now thats the spirit of the prairie!

M

[Note to self: already have a wife].

Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre
Tullie House Museum