Oochoristica antrozoi n. sp., a Tapeworm from the Pallid Bat in California

1954 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marietta Voge
Keyword(s):  
Pallid Bat

BILE DUCT ADENOCARCINOMA IN A PALLID BAT (ANTROZEOUS PALLIDUS)

1982 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARK BECK ◽  
J. BECK ◽  
EDWIN B. HOWARD
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Pallid Bat

Feeding Habit of the Pallid Bat

1942 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. E. Borell
Keyword(s):  
Feeding Habit ◽  
Pallid Bat

Functional Anatomy of the Primary Downstroke Muscles in the Pallid Bat, Antrozous pallidus

1981 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 795 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Hermanson ◽  
J. Scott Altenbach
Keyword(s):  
Functional Anatomy ◽  
Antrozous Pallidus ◽  
Pallid Bat

Food Habits of the Pacific Pallid Bat

1923 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 260-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. T. Hatt
Keyword(s):  
Food Habits ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Pallid Bat

scholarly journals Mesquite bugs, other insects, and a bat in the diet of pallid bats in southeastern Arizona

PeerJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. e6065
Author(s):  
Nicholas J. Czaplewski ◽  
Katrina L. Menard ◽  
William D. Peachey
Keyword(s):  
Late Summer ◽  
Geographic Range ◽  
Western North America ◽  
Noninvasive Method ◽  
Antrozous Pallidus ◽  
Soil Piping ◽  
Pallid Bats ◽  
Small Vertebrate ◽  
Bat Wing ◽  
Pallid Bat

The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) is a species of western North America, inhabiting ecoregions ranging from desert to oak and pine forest. They are primarily insectivorous predators on large arthropods that occasionally take small vertebrate prey, and are at least seasonally omnivorous in certain parts of their geographic range where they take nectar from cactus flowers and eat cactus fruit pulp and seeds. Until recently, mesquite bugs were primarily tropical-subtropical inhabitants of Mexico and Central America but have since occupied the southwestern United States where mesquite trees occur. Using a noninvasive method, we investigated the bats’ diet at the Cienega Creek Natural Preserve, Arizona, by collecting food parts discarded beneath three night roosts in soil-piping cavities in a mesquite bosque. We also made phenological and behavioral observations of mesquite bugs, Thasus neocalifornicus, and their interactions with the mesquite trees. We determined that the bats discarded inedible parts of 36 species in 8 orders of mainly large-bodied and nocturnal insects below the night-roosts. In addition, one partial bat wing represents probable predation upon a phyllostomid bat, Choeronycteris mexicana. About 17 of the insect taxa are newly reported as prey for pallid bats, as is the bat C. mexicana. The majority of culled insect parts (88%) were from adult mesquite bugs. Mesquite bug nymphs did not appear in the culled insect parts. After breeding in late summer, when nighttime low temperatures dropped below 21 °C, the adult bugs became immobile on the periphery of trees where they probably make easy prey for opportunistic foliage-gleaning pallid bats. Proximity of night-roosts to mesquite bug habitat probably also enhances the bats’ exploitation of these insects in this location.

Response selectivity for multiple dimensions of frequency sweeps in the pallid bat inferior colliculus

1994 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 1061-1079 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z. M. Fuzessery
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Colliculus ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Central Nucleus ◽  
Frequency Change ◽  
Frequency Range ◽  
Low Frequencies ◽  
Response Properties ◽  
Sweep Direction ◽  
Pallid Bat

1. While hunting, the pallid bat uses passive sound localization at low frequencies to find terrestrial prey, and echolocation for general orientation. It must therefore process two different types of acoustic input at the same time. The pallid bat's echolocation pulse is a downward frequency-modulated (FM) sweep from 60 to 30 kHz. This study examined the response selectivity of single neurons in the pallid bat's central nucleus of the inferior colliculus (ICC) for FM sweeps, comparing the response properties of the high-frequency population, tuned to the biosonar pulse, with the low-frequency population, tuned below the pulse. The working hypothesis was that the high-frequency population would exhibit a response selectivity for downward FM sweeps that was not present in the low-frequency population. 2. Neurons were tested for their selectivity for FM sweep direction, duration, frequency range and bandwidth, and rate of frequency change. The extent to which they responded exclusively to tones, noise, and FM sweeps was also examined. Significant differences in the response properties of neurons in the two populations were found. In the low-frequency population, all neurons responded to tones, but only 50% responded to FM sweeps. Only 23% were selective for sweep direction. In the high-frequency population, all neurons responded to FM sweeps, but 31% did not respond to tones. Over one-half of this population was selective for sweep direction, and of those that were selective, all preferred the downward sweep direction of the biosonar pulse. A large percentage (31%) responded exclusively to downward sweeps, and not to tones or upward sweeps. None of the cells in either population responded to noise, or did so only at very high relative thresholds. 3. Both populations contained neurons that were selective for short stimulus durations that approximated the duration of the biosonar pulse, although the percentage was greater in the high-frequency population (58% vs. 20%). In the high-frequency population, 31% of the neurons tested for duration responded exclusively to both the sweep direction and duration of the biosonar pulse. 4. Downward FM-selective neurons, with one exception, were generally insensitive to the rate of frequency change of the FM sweep, as well as the frequency range and bandwidth of the sweep. They responded similarly to both the full 60- to 30-kHz sweep and to 5-kHz bandwidth portions of the full sweep.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document