Talk:Inland forest bat

Australia: New South Wales / Western Australia / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Inland forest bat is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Mammals: Bats Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Bats Task Force (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

notes[edit]

@Enwebb: this article is interesting for the paucity of information, so I am drilling down to see what can be gleaned. It was included in paper that developed a non-destructive means of field identification of LBBs (borrowing the acronym little brown birds I suppose) by using the female morphology (Queale). I had noticed a lot of emphasis in other research on the male genitalia as a diagnostic, but noted some doubt on the forms of the baculum as uniformly shaped within some conceptions. It wasn't clear to me at the time if the more recent author was suggesting it is not a reliable means of identification or the specimens were from more than one species. cygnis insignis 11:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis insignis I didn't get this ping notification, sorry! Thanks once more for expanding yet another bat article. Yes, there's definitely an emphasis on bacula morphology in bat identification and species differentiation. I think it comes from the biological species concept--bats with different baculum morphology might not interbreed. Though, of course, the BSC doesn't hold true for a lot of species. Enwebb (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for everything you have done here on my current fascination. I know there is another thread to which I did not how to reply, but did read your response. Rather than rely on ping notifications I will start centralising discussion at the sub-project (task force) page, I am a little more confident in being able to contribute to broader discussion, and will avoid distracting you personally.

@Enwebb: I had supposed that was the premise, that it was based on a 'reproductive barrier' (the term eludes me) and that these morphological diagnoses were incorporated in later revisions for continuity in descriptions on taxa. I am thinking out loud here, when I should be reading up on diversity in mammalian genitalia, it inspired several interesting but digressive lines of enquiry in my mind. I need to stable my hobby horses and focus on our shared goal, nevertheless, if you happen to see some discussion of reproduction in 'microbats' I would be appreciative (if you point out that is already in an article here, I will be horribly embarrassed, but still appreciative ;-) ). Cheers, cygnis insignis 02:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]