Murina tenebrosa (Gloomy Tube-nosed Bat)

[sebbe67]

Scientific Name: Murina tenebrosa
Species Authority Yoshiyuki, 1970
Common Name/s: English – Gloomy Tube-nosed Bat, Tsushima Tube-nosed Bat

Listed as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct), because it has not been collected again since 1962 despite some survey effort and is currently known only from one specimen. There has been significant destruction of the forest on the island from which it was collected, although the habitat requirements of the species are not known. Further surveys are needed to confirm whether or not this species still survives.

This species is known only from the type specimen collected in 1962 from Tsushima Island, Japan (Abe, et al., 2005). There is also a possibility that a bat collected on Yaku Island represents the same species (Abe, et al., 2005).

Recent surveys on Tsushima Island, including both cave searches in winter (2005; K. Armstrong pers. comm.) and mist-netting efforts about 10 years ago during the summer (Maeda pers. comm.), have not recorded this species. The species could possibly be extinct.

The type specimen was collected in a cave, although it could be a tree-hollow or foliage dwelling species dependent on large trees.

www.iucnredlist.org/details/13948

[Melanie]

SPECIES Murina (Murina) tenebrosa

Author: Yoshiyuki, 1970.
Citation: Bull. Natl. Sci. Mus. Tokyo, 13: 195.
Common Name: Gloomy Tube-nosed Bat
Type Locality: Japan, Tsushima Isls, Kamishima Isl, Sago.
Distribution: Tsushima Isls (Japan), perhaps Yakushima (Ryukyu Isls, Japan).
Status: IUCN 2003 and IUCN/SSC Action Plan (2001) – Critically Endangered.
Comments: Subgenus Murina. Reviewed by Yoshiyuki (1989).

www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=13802674

[Bhagatí]

distribution map. Link:
www.jpnrdb.com/search.php?mode=map&q=01020040068

another link:
www.type.kahaku.go.jp/TypeDB/mammalia/8812
with Type Specimen
Type Status Holotype

[Melanie]

Source: www.type.kahaku.go.jp/TypeDB/mammalia/8812

[Sebbe]

This bat is listed as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct), because it has not been collected again since 1962 despite some survey effort and is currently known only from one specimen. There has been significant destruction of the forest on the island from which it was collected, although the habitat requirements of the species are not known. Further surveys are needed to confirm whether or not this species still survives. In addition, taxonomic revision is needed because it is possible that this species is a synonym of M. ussuriensis (Fukui, D. pers. comm. 2018).

www.iucnredlist.org/species/13948/22096705#assessment-information

[Sebbe]

Extinct or still out there? Disentangling influences on extinction and rediscovery helps to clarify the fate of species on the edge.

Each year, two or three species that had been considered to be extinct are rediscovered. Uncertainty about whether or not a species is extinct is common, because rare and highly threatened species are difficult to detect. Biological traits such as body size and range size are expected to be associated with extinction. However, these traits, together with the intensity of search effort, might influence the probability of detection and extinction differently. This makes statistical analysis of extinction and rediscovery challenging. Here we use a variant of survival analysis known as cure rate modelling to differentiate factors that influence rediscovery from those that influence extinction. We analyse a global dataset of 99 mammals that have been categorised as extinct or possibly extinct. We estimate the probability that each of these mammals is still extant, and thus estimate the proportion of missing (presumed extinct) mammals that are incorrectly assigned extinction. We find that body mass and population density are predictors of extinction, and body mass and search effort predict rediscovery. In mammals, extinction rate increases with body mass and population density, and these traits act synergistically to greatly elevate extinction rate in large species that also occurred in formerly dense populations. However, when they remain extant, larger-bodied missing species are rediscovered sooner than smaller species. Greater search effort increases the probability of rediscovery in larger species of missing mammals, but has a minimal effect on small species, which take longer to be rediscovered, if extant. By separating the effects of species characteristics on extinction and detection, and using models with the assumption that a proportion of missing species will never be rediscovered, our new approach provides estimates of extinction probability in species with few observation records and scant ecological information.

www.researchgate.net/publication/305201346_Extinct_or_still_out_there_Disentangling_influences_on_extinction_and_rediscovery_helps_to_clarify_the_fate_of_species_on_the_edge

[Sebbe]

Evidence for modern extinction in plants and animals.

We summarise evidence of extinction reported in Red List accounts of plants (170 species) and animals (816 species) listed as extinct (EX) or extinct in the wild (EW) under different versions of the Red List. We find that types of evidence and their frequency of use are remarkably consistent across plants, animals and Red List versions. The most common evidence is ‘long time missing, fewer than half of species accounts discuss search effort, and accounts of 15 % of EX/EW plants and 27 % of animals provide no reason for the EX/EW listing. We review use of extinction probability models for EX, EW and Critically Endangered species flagged as possibly extinct, and find that 155 species have been subjects of extinction probability models. Nearly all models applied to birds and mammals agree that the species are extinct. Seventeen statistical models for estimating the probability that a species is extinct based on search effort, traits and detection rate have been published since 1993 and applied to EX, EW, or CR(PE) species. A tiny fraction (0.6 %) of Red List accounts currently include published model results; thus extinction probability modelling has been largely independent of Red Listing. This is likely to change, because since 2019, Red List guidelines provide templates for quantitative estimates of extinction likelihood. Combining statistical models with assessments of species' probability of extinction based on other criteria can strengthen extinction listings of plants and animals, and add to our understanding of the scale of modern species loss.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320724003343