Talk:Bat/Archive 1

Early text
Hum. The issue of whether we should use common vs scientific names has been discussed. The current tenative agreement is to largely keep things as they are and if anything move content from scientific names to common names. Remember, this is a wiki so making article names that are easy to link to and recognize is the best way to do things. Most mere mortals will only link to bat when wanting to link to the animal and will not know what the scientific name is. Since the other bat is also well known as a baseball bat how about we simply have the content about Chiroptera at bat and provide a link to baseball bat at the bottom. Otherwise, all the links to bat the animal will have to be changed to Chiroptera and will have to be constantly updated as new articles linking to bat are made. See what had been done with the Jellyfish article for an example. --maveric149

There are cricket bats, as well as baseball bats. There may even be bats that eat crickets, as well as cricket bats. I think it's all very batty. -phma


 * LOL :) However, the Chiroptera are the only example I can think of that are only known by just plain old bat (you first have to establish context for the other uses). As a biologist I was at first tempted to only use scientific names for things, but as a wikipedian wanting to make direct and valid linking as easy as possible for contributors and as a person who truely wants to democratize science, I am inclined to use common names whenever they exist as page titles. Anybody accidently linking to bat meaning to link to baseball bat can easily fix the link. I don't think that there will be nearly as many links to bat that are not intended to be for the animal -- It would be a stretch to think somebody could come up with a great, comprehensive article about baseball bats that really would cause a lot of linking to it anyway. Unfortunetely the Chiroptera do not have a naturally disambiguated and easy to remember common name. --maveric149

"Plain old bat" you say -- Hmmm! That is only slightly less pejorative than "old bitch" --Eclecticology

If and when the article at bat gets large and technical enough we could then split it between bat (which would have the general lay description) and Chiroptera (which could have the cladistics and more technical info). For the reasoning behind the move see my comments above. --maveric149
 * In response to someone's move of the entire Aves article to Birds, I went ahead and divided the material on a similar basis. Classification details are perhaps better placed on the latin name. --Eclecticology, Friday, June 7, 2002
 * Sounds like a good compromise to me. --maveric149

Sacred
Bats are sacred in England? -- IHCOYC 14:34 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What sort of statement/question is that? I presume you are a none English speaker by it?

Bats (all species) are fully protected by law in the UK, not just in England ie, it is illegal to disturb them or even handle one without permission. Steve-nova


 * But sacred would mean they are revered, in a religious kind of way. That is not the case in the UK! Agree with Ihcoyc. Pcb21| Pete 15:19, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * And I quote from dictionary.com's description of the word Sacred: "properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office." and "secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.". Sacred is the right word and isn't *always* based in religion SmUX 13:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In normal English usage, "sacred" always implies reverence or respect (through either religious or secular tradition). Bats attract no such traditional reverence or respect in England. The proper term is "protected" (by law). FredV 11:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 7 Nov 2007

are bats invertabrates? you guys dont tell people nothin! Notta thing!
 * This comment is out of place, but, since you ask, bats are mammals (see taxobox). All mammals (together with all fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds) are vertebrates. FredV 11:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

20% of all mammals are bats?
This BBC article says that "Bats make up 20% of mammals." If someone can confirm this factoid, it might make an interesting addition to the article. --NeuronExMachina 00:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some 1100 bats and some 5500 mammals makes exactly 20 percent. Ucucha 09:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe you, but where are those numbers from? --Acefox 05:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Mammal Taxonomy, and probably also MSW 3rd edition. It may be something more or less. In any case, the number of bat species is increasing with great speed. Ucucha|... 05:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It's true. They're are the most numerous of all mammals next to rodents. Dora Nichov 03:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's -species-. 1 in 5 species of living mammals is a kind of bat. Talzhemir  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.15.94 (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear that you're saying 20% of unique types of mammals are bats not 20% of all living mammals are bats, that's a little different.Arthurian Legend (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

any more information on how about a bat goes about making the chirp noises
how do the bats go about making the chirping sounds, all 3 animals do use echolocation, but each has different parts that are unique to the species that should be documented in some way.

Might also do to mention, the "chirp" lasts just 0.01sec (10 millisec), & all bats are said to have individual calls... Trekphiler 05:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually Bats makes sound called altrasonic sound which the normal human auditory organ cannot pick up this used for movement also the same kind of sound that the ship use to view the sea bed so that it can navigate safely. It is the echo that the Bat received from the sound they make that they use in navigating the way around, because the Bat cannot see with their eyes, they literarily blind. 29 April 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerolee (talk • contribs) 11:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Megabats vs microbats
There are some statements in the article which apply only to microbats, not all bats. If no one objects, I will modify or delete the incorrect statements, possibly moving the statements to the microbat article.


 * All bats are active at night or at twilight, so the eyes of most species are poorly developed

The eyes of megabats are highly developed.


 * The teeth resemble those of the insectivores.

The milk teeth of the two types of bats are distinct (http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/funeral.html). I suspect that the adult teeth are distinct as well, but I don't know.

Does anyone know whether one-way valves are in the arteries of megabats and microbats?

Nereocystis 00:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There are also some microbats, for example in the familie Phyllostomidae, that are active at days, I thought. Ucucha (talk)  19:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Referring to the separately evolved capacity for flight between megabats and microbats, the article says "if so, the Microchiroptera would have uncertain affinities." But it is unclear what "uncertain affinities" means. A link to a definition, or a brief explanation contained within the same paragraph, would be helpful. Robert K S 04:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

no bat has poorly developed eyes! It's a myth! Bats aren't blind! Dora Nichov 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody who is more knowledgable than I clean up the megabats evolution section. At the edit that I saw, it was quite confusing. If that section is trying to say that they have developed from primates then edit all the sections where it says essentially therefore they aren't. If they aren't stop saying "therefore they aren't when the evidence given seems to say they are." If it's not clear then lay out the two arguments instead of mixing them together. Thanks. If it has been corrected by the time somebody sees this post, please delete this post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.18.219.154 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture label wrong?
The image used, Image:Big-eared-townsend-fledermaus.jpg is described on its page as a Big eared townsend bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), yet this article calls it a Leaf-nosed bat in the hover text.

Leaf-nosed bats do not include Corynorhinus, according to the Leaf-nosed bat article. --Singkong2005 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to be fixed now - I trust that it is indeed a Big eared townsend bat --Singkong2005 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why bat fly at night.
Is there any reason why bat fly during the night. Is it possible because as a warm blooded mammals, the temperature generated during flying can reach dangerous level if the bat fly under sunlight? Yosri 12:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's more likely to be related to having evolved from a nocturnal animal and to fill ecological niches not previously occupied by birds. --Aranae 20:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's less birds at night, so that's where a flying mammal could fit in. Dora Nichov 03:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

>> AND...there's plenty of nocturnal flying insects. I wonder what Darwin says about how food-supply drives evolution.


 * Many bats likely fly at night due to their food source is active at that time. Due to their ability to locate food through the use of ecolocation (insead of by sight), there is no advantage to fly during the day.  www.crittercatchersinc.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.15.94 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think bats most likely fly at night just because their shrew-like insectivore ancestors were nocturnal. Talzhemir

Number of species
I really want to see the number of species given in the article, as most people have no idea at all what a large percentage of mammal species the bats are. I used the figure from 20% of all mammals are bats? above on this page. We can tweak this as necessary, but as I say, I think it really belongs in the article (and in the introductory section, to boot). -- Writtenonsand 20:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There 1100+ species (1144 according to my own listing), but these numbers are in state of flux: last year 11 new species (and two new genera) were described, and some others have been resurrected. I think it'd be safe to say that there are 1100-1150 species of bats, which is about 20% of the total of 5500+ mammals. Ucucha (talk)  19:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be, 1 in 5 *species* is a bat. Talzhemir

Torpor
I have read that bats enter a state of torpor during the day is this all bats (Mega & micro) this could do with mentioning some where.--SuperJ587 13:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoary bat & List of Australian bats
I created the first article and then found that the second linked to it. However, it's a different type of bat (Hoary Wattled bat). One thing I did notice that several of the "Vespertilionidae" were listed as "Chanlinolobus" a quick (and I admit it's not always a relilable guid) search of Google would indicate that "Chalinolobus" is the more correct spelling. See the search results for "Chanlinolobus dwyeri" and "Chalinolobus dwyeri". I changed them based on that but would ask that someone else reveiw.

Also please review the Hoar bat article as I am basing it on a Canadian book printed in Nunavut yet the bat is found in other countries and needs that input. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bats evolved from civets
What source is this from as I haven't been able to find it anywhere147.188.27.81 12:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's crap. If it is in the article, it should be deleted as soon as possible. Ucucha 13:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Chickens are NOT eaten by bats, they are to big.
 * Yes, I've looked at the article and I see no links to any proof of this. It sure sounds odd, but truth is stranger than fiction.  The point is the statement needs support.  --SafeLibraries 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently the oldest bat fossil is 60 million years old and civets didn't exist as a group that early. Although who knows with the recent shake up, but it's certainly a strong enough claim to need strong proof.

Most experts say microbats are descended from shrew-like animals and megabats from lemur-like ones. Dora Nichov 08:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not so anymore. Nowadays many mammalogists seem to accept the notion that bats are a monophyletic group, which apparently evolved from something near the ancestry of the Carnivora. Microbats are not monophyletic; the so-called "Yinochiroptera" (Rhinolophidae, Rhinonycteridae, Megadermatidae, Rhinopomatidae, Craseonycteridae and Nycteridae) are more closely related to Pteropodidae than to the other microbats ("Yangochiroptera"), although that may be a slightly more controversial position. Ucucha 10:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lot of bigs words there, Ucucha! I like animals and know a lot 'bout them, but those are big words even for me. *Whew!* Dora Nichov 09:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A good number of studies of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA of bats show they're close to insectivores first (with carnivores a close second).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200001/ai_mark08990667 http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/9/1334 Morphology agrees. The primitive bat specimen found in 2003 is an insect-eater (as most bats today still are). It could fly but it has insectivore-like, not echo-locating, ear parts. http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/02/13/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight I'm just a *little* sad-- I really did want to think us primates were closely related to those marvellous flyers. Those gliding colugos are just posers. ;) Talzhemir  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.15.94 (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, molecular evidence shows that bats are part of the taxon Scrotifera, which also includes carnivores, cetartiodactyls, pangolins, and perissodactyls. Core insectivores (shrews, moles, hedgehogs, and solenodons) are the sister group to this clade; together they form the Laurasiatheria.
 * The articles you cite don't really support your statement that insectivores are bats' closest relatives (assuming you mean modern core insectivores, i.e. shrews, hedgehogs, and moles). The first article does indeed mention a relationship between bats and carnivores, but that is not surprising when they don't include other Laurasiatheria. The second study is based on mtDNA, which is not considered very reliable, especially for deep relationships (and even then, it does not support a bat-insectivore clade, but instead shows Scrotifera).
 * Of course, that does not mean that bats could not have descended from an insectivore ancestor, though the molecular data don't directly proof that. Personally, I'd speculate that the Laurasiatheria descend from some inconspicuous shrew-like animal, which may have looked like modern shrew-moles or gymnures, which then gave rise to a grade of condylarths from which the carnivores, artiodactyls and perissodactyls descended. Perhaps bats developed from some arboreal offspring of those.
 * And don't be sad - we lost the bats, but we got far more back (Euarchontoglires). ;-) Ucucha 13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Longevity
Recently a Brandt's Bat Myotis brandtii at least 41 years old was discovered in Russia. --Anshelm &#39;77 22:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

One very interesting aspect of bat biology not really mentioned in the article is their longevity. Most mammals of a corresponding size (e.g. mice)live just a few years. Ophiuchus13 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The longest lifespan I've found for a shrew (species undetermined) – which are similar in size and metabolic rate – was 4 years. --Anshelm &#39;77 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thin as a drink of water
I'm having a hard time believing "bat bathing".
 * Some people enjoy bat bathing; standing at an opening to a cave they wait until the bats leave, surrounding them in a 'sea' of bats.

A citation was requested and not forthcoming, then the [Bat bathing] article was deleted, and the material deleted here, re-added, re-deleted, re-added. There is not another reference to this anywhere Googlable except derived from here. And while I could imagine someone might think it delicious to stand in a stream of hungry bats, notwithstanding the note about clumsiness and rabidity, it doesn't seem important to the article as a whole. I'm removing this mention and the non-existent link, and assume that any actual citations will accompany re-introduction. Shenme 08:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I found this an interesting concept so decided to look it up. I found a few links on google but nothing conclusive.  Try http://www.trendpediawiki.com/Bat_bathing
 * One thing I have noticed, and this is probably an important point...*EVERY* single site that mentions this phenomena uses the *exact* same words mentioned above (that "some people enjoy...") so it is feeling more and more like an urban myth to me. However, reading the above link I gave, I notice that the "danger" mentioned above (rabidity) would only be an issue if the person "bathing" were to move...it's obvious when you think about it, they'll find a way around you fairly easily using their sonar and will only be a danger if you move or if they're vampire bats (muahahahahah, scrub that last bit about vampire bats :-)) SmUX 13:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mm, "bat bathing" *is* potentially hazardous. The first thing a lot of Mexican Free-tails like to do when they come out of a bridge, for breakfast, is to take a crap.  Better call it bat-FECES-bathing.  The bats living at Inner Space Caverns sometimes fly close to humans, and on rare occasions, they very very lightly collide with us.  As I've seen these bats fly through a quarter-sized hole at full speed without slowing down, if they run into a human they're very likely doing this on-purpose.  The downtown-Austin colony is protected by a fenced area but I live in Texas near the Round Rock/Pflugerville I-35 bat colony, which only got a fence fairly recently.  Before then, yes, people liked to walk up the bridge to let the millions of emerging bats flutter past them.  The bats did typicall contact people. Talzhemir  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.15.94 (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hipposideridae
This is a family mentioned in the German and Dutch wikipedias, apparently defined by Lydekker in 1891, that isn't on the list here. Is it missing or has it since been placed somewhere else in the taxonomy? Rigadoun (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some experts ("lumpers") classify hipposiderid bats as members of the family Rhinolophidae, whereas others ("splitters") break hipposiderids out into their own family, the Hipposideridae. The first method (considering hipposiderids to be within the family Rhinolophidae) is the more traditional approach I believe, whereas recent techniques (e.g. molecular systematics) indicate that hipposiderids may be distinct enough to warrant elevation to family status.  Either way, these two groups of bats are each others' closest relatives, so the choice of names and who to include where is something of a taxonomic-semantic issue. Tomwithanh 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do bats leave their caves left way?
Is it true that bats leave their caves flying always the left way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.92.81.83 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Never heard of that before. Dora Nichov 08:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they'd have to leave the caves the right way if they're going to manage to get out ;) -JC 03:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Dora Nichov 01:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

From Reference desk/Science
Do bats only spiral left when they leave caves?

David Winkelaar
 * I did a nice long search on this piece of trivia, and it turns out that it has been asked and answered with silliness, many times. The big bat caves of North America always seem to have counter-clockwise exit spirals, but nobody has systematically confirmed it with every cave.  There was even an unreferenced suggestion that they have different directions in the north and south hemispheres, just like bathtubs! (not!). --Zeizmic 01:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The air in a cave tends to be at a different temperature than the air just outside. If this air is warmer than the outside air, it generates a thermal.  One of the best ways for flying animals to gain altitude is to spiral around in a thermal -- and guess what happens if a swarm of bats don't all spiral around in the same direction? --Carnildo 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This would make a nice addition to the article, if someone could find a reference. -- Beland 02:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What's this about vectors for pathogens?
"Bats are natural reservoirs or vectors for a large number of zoonotic pathogens including rabies, SARS, Henipavirus (ie. Nipah virus and Hendra virus), West Nile virus and possibly ebola virus."

Where are the references for this? Most mammals can carry rabies, so I think that's a given. But is there evidence of bats carrying SARS, West Nile, and ebola? Have there been instances when these viruses have been passed on to humans, and is it common enough to warrant being in this article? Sounds to me like this is just trying to give bats a bad name.

Nekopan 03:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I’ve added references to this section. Bats are recognised as important vectors for many human pathogens. There is strong evidence that they the primary reservoir for rabies (preceding canine rabies) and a number of recently emerged pathogens, such as SARS and henipaviruses, originated from bats. Rhys 04:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

___

Vampirate: From what I understand bats are not more likely to transmit rabies than any other mammal, and in fact few cases are acturally caused by bat bites.

There's definitely some vandalism on this page. I don't know exactly how to deal with it, so I'll let the pros do it. Just pointing it out.


 * Per the CDC, the vast majority of rabies cases in the US in the period from 1990-2001 were caused by bats. I've added a reference.  Of 36 cases, 27, or 75%, were contracted from bats.  Of the nine remaining, two in Texas were contracted from either dogs or coyotes.  The other seven were contracted from dog bites in foreign countries: Ghana, Haiti, India, Mexico (2), Nepal, and the Phillipines.  My guess is that vaccinations of pets are either not required or not strictly enforced in these countries.


 * This does seem a little odd, because only 17% of reported animal cases in the US occur in bats. Raccoons make up the largest part of that population, with about 40% of the cases.  However, raccoons are not stealthy, flying creatures capable of biting someone unnoticed while he or she sleeps.  Bat bites are small, and even when noticed are often mistaken for insect bites, again per the CDC.--TychaBrahe 20:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bat gestation period?
I came here specifically looking for this info, but it's not part of the article. A quick search of google gives me http://members.fortunecity.com/anemaw/bat.htm which says 50-60 days although another site (http://www.desertusa.com/jan97/du_bats.html) says 60-240 days although reading down to "breeding" it says 50-60 again. Another site explains this a little more clearly, at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Adventist_Youth_Honors_Answer_Book/Nature/Bats_-_Advanced ...which says it is between 44 days and 8 months dependant on species SmUX 13:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was giving lots of talks about bats for Bats Northwest (www.batsnorthwest.com) and the question came up about gestation. I was horrified, as a zoologist, to not know such a basic thing about the mammals that I had been so

Only mammals capable of flight?
Humans fly, perhaps it should say unaided flight, or include that notion in parantheses. 75.8.32.11 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think humans can fly. Airplanes can fly, but they're not mammals...  Otherwise, all animals can fly (on other flying animals - like a deer being carried by hundreds of pigeons or whatever other frightening imagery you'd like to picture) - I think this is an "it goes without saying" clause.  -JC 23:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Human cannot fly without a man-made machine to allow them to achieve flight. Birds can fly, and strictly speaking, are mammals (warm-blooded animals), so the statement is untrue. Should a change be made? Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because birds are not mammals. 'Mammal' does not simply mean 'warm blooded animal'. Anaxial (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, mammals do not just mean to be warm-blooded there are various other characteristics. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

I would very strongly suggest that the primary meaning of bat is not bat the animal. Other types of bats are just as common (baseball, cricket, etc). Mglovesfun 20:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A baseball bat is called a baseball bat, a cricket bat is called a cricket bat. If anyone types in "bat" expecting to see an article about baseball bats, that's their fault for not being specific. Crazysuit 02:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Crazysuit. This article already includes a prominent link to other "bat" articles. Of all the Bat (disambiguation) articles (including separate articles for baseball bat, cricket bat and Club (weapon)), the animal is the only thing commonly known as just "bat". The only non-prepended, singular, non-acronym "bat" needing a DAB parenthetical is Bat (guided bomb). / edg ☺ ★ 03:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Edgarde. Ewlyahoocom 05:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Crazysuit Reginmund 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the animal meaning is pretty overwhelming for this term. --Yath 20:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. A cricket bat and a baseball bat are often called merely a bat. And "bat" as slang for "language". Let page plain bat be the disambig. Anthony Appleyard 13:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 06:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

False Vampire Bat confusion
The list of bat families includes this:


 * Superfamily Rhinolophoidea
 * Megadermatidae (False vampires)

I followed the link to False vampires and found myself at Spectral Bat, which isn't a Megadermatidae at all. I changed the link to Ghost Bat, but it got reverted. I was thinking that a disambiguation page was in order for the term False Vampire, maybe to these pages:


 * Ghost Bats are also known as the Australian False Vampire Bat, but are in the family Megadermatidae.
 * Spectral Bats are also known as Linnaeus's False Vampire Bat, False Vampire Bat and Spectral Vampire Bat.
 * Big-eared Wooly Bats are also known as Peter's Wooly False Vampire Bat.
 * Some web pages describe Heart-nosed Bats as the African False Vampire (e.g. http://www.americazoo.com/goto/index/mammals/62.htm)
 * And there's the Lesser False Vampire Bat as well.

What do you think?

Also:


 * Which of these would be meant by the term "Old world False Vampire"?
 * Should bat pages have an uppercase "B" in bat? Some do (like all those above), some don't, like Bulldog bats, Fisherman bats and Leaf-nosed bats.

I should point out, I know nothing about bats! --Twirlip 09:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the Ghost Bat, Heart-nosed Bat and Lesser False Vampire Bat are all members of the family Megadermatidae, so there is some point in calling that family "false vampire bats". The Spectral Bat and Big-eared Wooly Bat are phyllostomids and their most common English names do not include the word "vampire", so I think "false vampire bat" should be the title of the article about megadermatids, possibly with a "sea also" to Vampyrum spectrum, the Spectral Bat. An Old World False Vampire can be any megadermatid.
 * To answer your second question, species names are written in uppercase, while family and genus names are written in lowercase. So, "Spectral Bat", which is about the species Vampyrum spectrum, has a capital, but "leaf-nosed bat", which is about the family Phyllostomidae, does not. Ucucha 06:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

At least two known species of bat are cannibalistic, feeding on other bats
Cannibalism is eating members of the same species (as defined in Wikipedia). The two species of bat mentioned feed on other species of bats. I cannot find any reference to them eating members of their own species.

I suggest that this sentence should be changed to "at least two known species of bat feed on other bats ..."

Ophiuchus13 19:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm convinced. I say, go ahead and make this change. (Interestingly, however, I don't think you were correct when you said "as...Wikipedia". Last time I checked, no where on wikipedia is the matter of "cannibalism" in animals other than humans talked about.  Where did you see that?).Chrisrus (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A secret legend of becoming a bat!
The legenf that You are going to read is never to be wroten on any type off paper before. Only few people heard it, and soon they dajd...

...Their corpses were to be found stretched across the miles, but no one ever seen the executor, ever. It was to be given* (die legend) from mouth to mouth thru all kind of generations of secret society of special care antifants**(reffer to Orr Middle).

This is how the bat was to be made by mother nature and her hobbits: Firstlee there was a tiny gray mouse. The mouse name is safetly secure under all kind of all kinds of the newest safe cryptological methods, that even chinese people from the far branch of hun's brench*** (is famous for easily breaking codes) never forawere. The mouse was fascinated in interest of having something between her arms and even both beefs**** (is not what U think pervert). She wanted so much that the passion take over her life, and made her and outsider of other sicks mices. They loved to laugh as she undoubtely was making another preparation for an invention that could keep her off the ground, and the failed project always landed in the puddle. The phantom became an obsession. She started to drop the equipment and climb up the triangulated cliff***** (not Richards) of 12 inches hight just too jump up with the wide spreaded arms and try to fly away with it's energetic coliberated moves.

Forsaken! The feculiar experiments made her uncommon in the most of the civilized wereld and her ankles were getting to the gone. But for the unaware consiusness off the others something have had started to grow between, even suprising the fixated mouse. It was the flying membrane. Suddenly after hart years of bat tries & reading tomes of roten books the mouse flew ewej for the first time.

Uncontroled device had it's dark sides <[the 3rd teeths became so f***in bick that it's searching for bleed]>.

DEEP WARNING! Don't You should not send it to any 10 person You know or have e-post adress! It will give a butterfly chain reaction effect and it's very bad virus for hardware of Your computer.

The legend is oryginal and nowhere to be fount. Jerry Stringer (not Sprintger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.41.189 (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you for coming up with an original chain letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.21.240 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

1
I found the following citation in the "As vectors for pathogens" section with the target document no longer available on the CDC site. I am replacing this with an older document that covers a longer period of time; no revision to text appears to be necessary. (referring to this version)


 * Centers for Disease Control.   Table 2 - Cases of rabies in human being in the United States, by circumstances of exposure and rabies virus variant, 1990–2001.

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

2
The following citation which appeared alongside references "cons" and "Messenger2002" in the "As vectors for pathgens" section contains a link that returns "The address you are trying to access is invalid." The citation has been removed without replacement. (referring to this version)


 * Human Rabies — Kentucky and Montana, 1996, May 9, 1997/Vol. 46/No. 18

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is skelotor
I found this skeleton today. I don't know what it is, I think it might be a bat. Does anyone know what kind of bat or what article I could put this pic in.. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so; I'd think a bat would have longer fingers than this animal. Ucucha 13:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume that you're in Australia, so I've got no experience with your animals. However, you should be able to ID it by it's teeth, those lower incisors are pretty interesting looking. Did you keep the animal? Plcoffey (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a bat. It's not a carnivore- no fangs.  It's not a squirrel or a rat...  It has a mouth full of almost all 'carnassial' ("shearing") teeth, both upper and lower.  That's a marsupial trait. Based on the lower jaw, with 1 incisor, 5 carnassials, I'd say, it's a baby koala. http://www.boneclones.com/images/bc-66-lg.jpg   Talzhemir  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.15.94 (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording problem
At the end of the opening section is the sentence, "This role explains environmental concerns when a bat is introduced in a new setting." I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Can someone please fix it? -Freekee (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Habitat
I think this article should contain some mention of bat habitats. For example, where are they found geographically? In all continents? In humid climates or warm climates? Where do they live when they aren't flying? Nests in trees? Caves?

Bats live in caves, roosts in trees and pretty much any climate.

I have no knowledge of bats, but I think this would be a worthy addition for someone to add to this article. -Rktur (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

odd sentence in introduction
"Bats are present throughout most of the world, including Alaska."

...including Alaska?! I don't doubt it's true, but is it really necessary to say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.35.24 (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bat Conservation International link needed here, and separate BCI article needed also
Would someone please add a link to the major bat conservation organization? It's Bat Conservation International (BCI), www.batcon.org, founded by Merlin Tuttle, about whom there is a Wikipedia article.

There is no article about BCI here, if someone would like to write one. There is enough information on the BCI web site to at least create a stub article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.65.62 (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Are bats capable of terrestrial locomotion?
Can bats walk on the ground using their legs? Or can they only move through the air with their wings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.234.72 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I once saw one scampering across my lawn. But that is just my original research. Thincat (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, most are hardly able to walk, though they'd probably manage to walk a bit. However, the two species of the genus Cheiromeles, the naked bats of southeast Asia, can walk quite well.
 * Note that bats are a highly diverse order of well over 1000 species, so it's likely difficult to say much that is true for all of them. Ucucha 12:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Vampire bats can run at 2.5 miles per hour.  It's not clear if the galloping gait is a conserved ability or an atavism (revival) of a primitive bat talent.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050323151446.htm ]]User:Talzhemir|Talzhemri]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.15.94 (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are bats truly disappearing?
I have heard that bats are disappearing presumably because of West Nile disease fears and the mass killing off of mosquitoes and I would like to know if there is any truth to that. It is supposedly an sign of severe environmental damage. Can anyone comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rss245 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Airborne transmission of rabies? Stop the presses
Ok, I think this business about bats somehow transferring rabies to humans without physical contact needs something more than one very old reference in a study from 1962. Surely this would be more commonly known if it were true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Blood rush
Why is it they don't get dizzy hanging upside down all the time? I know super silly question but I'm sort of curious.

Mention that humans can hear bats clicking
I can hear some of the larger bats here in Taiwan clicking. This must not be one of their basic sounds, but one reserved for social occasions or something. Do mention what bat sounds humans can hear, lest some people get the idea they "can hear bat sounds that others can't" or something. And no, I don't think it is their wings making the clicking. Jidanni (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Camazotz
Should there be a link in mesoamerican mythology section to the article on Camazotz?70.112.71.2 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bat anatomy
A section on bat anatomy and skeletal system would be nice. Possibly with some x-rays or drawings. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

NY Science Times article
Just wanted to mention this recent NY Times article on bats in case it could be of any use. Note the link to The Journal of Experimental Biology found in that article as well. Enjoy. -- ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bats By:Orlybel .H
Bats have been around for alomst 50 million years.They are also the only mammals that can fly.There are more than 900 kinds of bats.They also live in many places around the world.There are many kinds of bats but the two main bats are the micro bats and the mega bats.The mega bats are known as fruit bats and the mega bats are known as vanpire bats.Many people think bats are blind but they are not.They also have super hearing called Ecolocation.Most fruit bats do not use ecolocation.The fruit bat uses it's big eyes and long nose to find ripe fruit and flowers.This will be suprising because baby bats are called pups like dogs.Mother bats feed their pups milk.When the mother flies off to find food,the pups huddle together to keep warm.After one to three months,the pups are ready to fly.Yung bats have to practice ecolocation and somtimes fly beihind there mother to learn how to hunt.Bats live in many parts of the world.Tey sleep in many places were they will not be disturbed during the day.They roost in caves, trees, and old buildings.Bats that live in cooler countries hibernate during the winter.Many types of bat are becoming rarer because their habitats are being destroyed.Bats eat fruits such as bannanas,mangoes,and guavas.They also lick necter and pollen from flowers.The bats eat incects to.Useing ecolocation,they find moths,gnats,mosquitous,and other incects.Big bats like vanpire bats eat frogs,rodents,lizerds,birds,and even other bats.Vanpire bats take blood from cows,hores,and pigs.The vanpire bats bite is not poisonis but some bats have rabies.Bats are helpful by killing bugs for farmers and they make a medicen to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.26.85 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"...or even mistaken for insects"
Can anyone cite a single case of someone claiming this, besides the joke in the Calvin and Hobbes strip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.90.123 (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

where to go with material on muslim lore and the bat?
This material I posted was deleted by 21:59, 22 May 2009 Ohnoitsjamie (talk | contribs), stating OR/POV. On this User's Talkpage I explained why neither apply IMHO. I will now put it here, asking what other editors feel should be done with it. First some background on bat and Islam: its highlight has to be one of the most famous stories about one of Islam's most famous prophets, namely Isa. (Deleting it amounts to scrapping the mule topos from the Jesus-entering-Jerusalem story from a Wiki article on mules/donkeys in culture and religion...) Medieval Muslim commentators thought of it as almost ueber-wondrous, as if God had meant for it to be the ultimate example that He could actually step up His creative powers; He's not 'simply' creating straightforward living beings, but can 'do' surreal ones as well! As a result, discussions and remarks on the animal are to be found in very diverse material related to islamic culture. One will however not find a neat summary in existing (secondary) literature, the publication cited comes closest (being a commentary on a medieval islamic "encyclopaedia"). Now follows the proposed text, adapted after discussions: >>> The hard-to-define nature of the bat, a hybrid animal endowed with some inexplicable capacity for finding its way, was realized by authors in Classical Islam. By convention though, it was still grouped under ‘birds’. As such, this creature came in some major sources to replace the more common bird in the quranic story of the prophet Isa’s ‘resuscitating’ a bird of clay. Its true nature remained undecided: some argued for the bat’s special relation to Holy Writ, others assumed it to have a diabolic background.
 * BAT
 * chapter: "Cultural Aspects"
 * subheader: 'Bat in Islam and muslim Lore'

Radbod (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

can bats in the uk hurt you or your pets?
Ive woken up to find a bat in my bedroom and the cat having a field day ive shut myself in the living room but the cat is still with it im too scared to go in,can it hurt my moggy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.193.26 (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell is there a subsection that consists entirely of a pre-industrial origin myth?
00:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)== Why the hell is there a subsection that consists entirely of a pre-industrial origin myth? ==

I speak of "An Eastern Nigerian Myth on Why Bats Fly at Night."

It's a story. Do fictional narratives belong in encyclopedias? Certainly it could be linked as a reference, if it were found somewhere else, with a value-neutral summmary, but here, in its entirety?76.223.19.39 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not? The story is interesting and the title makes clear that it's a myth. It's information about the cultural atmosphere surrounding the bat. Pplbm (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't justify entry for something by saying that there is no justification to deny it. Under that logic, why not include all other myths pertaining to bats from cultures across the globe? Why is the Eastern Nigerian myth being singled out and represented? There must be some South American, or European myths we can include for fairness. Or better yet -- remove something thats blantly false from an Encyclopedia. I'm sure that the Eastern Nigerians have many other myths, pertaining to things like trees, cats, and other creatures. Should we include their "interesting" take on these subjects as well? 66.30.91.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

Indeed, why not include other myths about bats? If anyone has a South American or European (or Western Nigerian, why not?) myth about bats, by all means include it. (Although if we did gather a large enough group of such myths, perhaps having a seperate page, linked to from this one, on "bats in mythology" might be prudent.) Calling it "blatantly false" is preposterous. The thing is a myth, and openly declares itself to be a myth; where is the falsehood? There are many things various people might want to know about bats--not only their diet and habitat and biology but also our cultural perceptions of them; this myth is part of that; putting the word "interesting" in scare quotes suggests a somewhat narrow range of interest on someone's part. But with all do respect, I can and do justify entry for something by saying that there is no justification for denying it. The burden of proof is very much on the person who wants to exclude, not the one who wants to include. The bottom line is---is the presence of this brief section, which openly announces itself for what it is, harming anyone? Is the information utterly useless or uninteresting, or entirely unrelated to the page? I think the answer is "no" on all counts. Pplbm (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplbm (talk • contribs)


 * I'd suggest that the entire "Cultural aspects" section needs to be re-organised with appropriate sub-headings. The material in the opening paras currently has no sub-heading(s). There seems to be no reason why the Western Nigerian material could not remain, but I think it might benefit from being seriously condensed, with links. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can We Get A Better Map?
The current map used shows three globes over lapping each other and displaying almost the entire land on the planet in red (except for the extreme north)... Is there anyway we can get a single map that shows all of this information instead of having three over lapping pictures of globes? Invmog (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity

 * "Where rabies is not endemic, as throughout most of Western Europe, small bats can be considered harmless."

Is the intention to say that rabies is endemic throughout most of Western Europe (and so small bats can be considered harmless only in other places) or not endemic there (and so small bats can be considered harmless in places such as most of Western Europe)? I'm guessing it's the former, and that would agree with the map in the article Rabies. Dependent Variable (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing language
I request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. Rajkiandris--Rajkiandris (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bats in the bible?
Seeing as there are a significant number of people who adhere to the holy scriptures of Abrahamic faith as absolute truth maybe we should include that the bible (and thus, the Abrahamic God) classifies bats as a species of birds in Leviticus 11-13 to 11-19. I think it would fit most neatly under the 'Cultural Aspects' section.

I'm not saying I agree with the biblical classification, I'm just saying it might be relevant mentioning that many people claim this to be true (even if they are not completely aware of it). I'm also unsure of how to word this.

Bats in the bible?
Seeing as there are a significant number of people who adhere to the holy scriptures of Abrahamic faith as absolute truth maybe we should include that the bible (and thus, the Abrahamic God) classifies bats as a species of birds in Leviticus 11-13 to 11-19. I think it would fit most neatly under the 'Cultural Aspects' section.

I'm not saying I agree with the biblical classification, I'm just saying it might be relevant mentioning that many people claim this to be true (even if they are not completely aware of it). I'm also unsure of how to word this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.81.208 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.51.176.114 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bat's
Do bat's leave for the winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.180.181 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bat's
Where do bats go in the winter in Ontario, Canada. do they stay here or go away where it is warm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.180.181 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * | This source says some migrate and some overwinter in caves and such.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
editsemiprotected

In the Classification and Evolution section it says:

"This hypothesis recognized differences between microbats and megabats and acknowledged that flight has just evolved only in one order of mammals."

I recommend this be changed to

"This hypothesis recognized differences between microbats and megabats and acknowledged that flight has only arisen once in mammals."

Emeryl (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I made the change. Ucucha 22:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How many times did bats evolve?
I take it from reading this article that there still exists the possibility that the megabats and microbats evolved separatly? The reference there supports only that they evolved once, but the sentence saying that this is inconclusive is not cited. Is it just the opinion of the author? If it is more than that, how can it be best cited?Chrisrus (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Microbats lack underfur? Really?
All the points listed under differences between Megabats and Microbats do not have a reference? Is it because it is common knowledge? Or Wikipedia entries do not care about such minute details?

"Microbats lack underfur". If by "underfur", the statement is referring to underhairs, then this is absolutely wrong. I would love to see someone point me to the source of this statement.

What is worrying is that there are numerous websites that copy Wikipedia entries verbatim and if a something is incorrect here, you can see the same misinformation everywhere on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.36.55 (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

129.2.36.55 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC) MC

Possibly a Featured Article
I think this is a really good article and I was wondering if the any of the regular editors here have thought about putting it up for peer review WP:PEER. It might make it to Featured Article. Any thoughts about that? Malke 2010  22:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Batflight visualization link
bat.flight.viz is a real time bat flight visualization, realized as part of my bachelor thesis at the University of applied Sciences Augsburg. It is an approach to visualize scientific data to make it understandable for a broad audience. All animations are based on real motion tracking data. I would like to ask, if the link to the website (www.batflightviz.com) can be added to the article. I think it would really enhance it! The Site uses the Unity3D-Webplayer plugin to display the interactive content, the plugin is available for all browsers and systems and is free! Thanks a lot! It would be nice if someone would please concern my link. Thanks! Bitflimmern (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Turner's Book
"In Dennis Turners book, The Vampire Bat, a scientist by the name of Dr. Greenhall conducted a study to find out if bats preferred the blood of wild or domestic animals. In this study, Greenhall had a sample size of 3,500 vampire bats. Of this group, eighty percent of them fed on the blood of cattle. Thus proving that vampire bats prefer the blood of domestic animals, rather than wild ones.[36]"

This section is very poor. I would edit, but I am not signed up to Wikipedia. First of all, without reference to the actual study, this section is better left out. If you want to retain it, it should be rephrased, the reference to "Dennis Turners [sic] book", with "a scientist by the name of Dr. Greenhall" makes it sound like a novel. Also the findings don't suggest that vampire bats prefer the blood of domesticated animals: cattle are large, stationary animals. Effectively, easy prey. It shows that the vampire bat prefers to prey on large, stationary animals, clustered close together nearby in a convenient field. It doesn't show that the prefer the BLOOD of cattle, or domesticated animals more generally. 77.99.7.242 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed as not "proof". Vsmith (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Viviparous (Live Birth)
Is the fact that bats are viviparous (i.e., develop young in the womb / live birth) mentioned in this article? If not, I think it would be worth mentioning explicitly somewhere in the reproduction section. I am not an expert on bats, so I would like some input on the matter before committing any edits. Thanks! --BBUCommander (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem especially significant in this article; as far as I'm aware, bats are no different from all other placental mammals in this respect. Ucucha 19:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, there is no mention in the article of bats being placental or any hint that they are viviparous. Since bats are unusual mammals in several respects (e.g., they fly and use echo location), I think it is worthwhile to be explicit about their mode of reproduction so that their relation to other mammals is more clear.  Additionally, a reproduction section which does not discuss the mode of reproduction seems to be an omission.  Could at least a brief or indirect mention be made? --BBUCommander (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree that it doesn't give "any hint" that they are viviparous, since it twice mentions them "giving birth", refers to the "foetus" and also to delayed implantation, all of which make it pretty clear (to me, anyway) that they have live young, and don't lay eggs. Having said that, if you believe he article would be improved by making this information clearer, by all means do so. Anaxial (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're being overly concilliatory to this idea. With mammals, you mention if they are not viviparous, as with monotremes.  Otherwise, it's assumed.  It'd be like mentioning that a bird isn't viviparous.  But I could be wrong, you never know with readers how much is assumed.  Chrisrus (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

World distribution image
I found myself utterly confused when I saw the image File:World Bat Distribution 01.png in the infobox. First (and foremost) it is anything except apparent on the first look (in fact, after several looks) that this is an image of the world. After staring at it about five minutes (and almost standing on my head to view it) I finally figured out that is possibly what the image represents. I finally clicked on the image and read the description "The geographical distribution of bats". Secondly (but less important), it might help to have a brief title for the image above or below it instead of the quite vague "See article". I mean no personal offense to the creator of the image, but I think the previous image (File:Chiroptera.dist.gif) is immensely more informative. I'll wait for other comments before restoring. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The missing caption is pretty easy to fix, and (I suspect) fairly uncontroversial, so I've done so. As for which image to use, I happen to agree with you that the older image was clearer, but I can see a possibility for debate on that one. Anaxial (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * World Bat Distribution 01.png is wrong, in that the distribution of bats in Eurasia (Eptesicus nilssonii) and North America (Lasiurus cinereus and Myotis lucifugus) extends further north than shown there. Chiroptera.dist.gif comes closer, but maps in Wilson and Cole (2000) suggest the North American distribution of bats extends yet further north than shown there. Ucucha 11:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Readers want to know...
Why are there no bats in Ireland? It's not that cold! Chrisrus (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current image certainly seems to be fairly inaccurate as well as using a rather unusual map projection. (There are, as I'm sure you're aware, ten species of bat native to Ireland). It is looking as if the older image - while not perfect - is the more accurate of the two, and should be preferred until something better comes along. So I'll be bold, and change it. Anaxial (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Flight section?
Given that it's their defining characteristic, I was rather surprised to see there was neither an article on Bat flight (as there is for bird flight and insect flight) nor a substantial section of this otherwise long and excellent article about it (the closest thing is a section of the wing, which is more about morphology). The flight mechanism is broadly similar to birds, but has a variety of crucial differences which definitely warrant space. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly well-versed in the subject and am currently swamped with RL work, but I figured I could at least bring this to folks attention. Mokele (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While a more extensive look at their flight mechanics would probably make for a very interesting article section, I'd have to say it's not "their defining characteristic." To be clear, I still support someone adding such a section. -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bats and Creation
Bats were made by God. I would like your veiw of when bats were created, the 5th day, or the 6th day?
 * Bats appeared during the Eocene, somewhere on the order of the four trillionth day (that is, our modern 24-hour Earth day, which is of course not a very suitable concept in the early history of the Universe) of the existence of the Universe. Ucucha 20:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How could they appear? There has to be a reasonable explanation for it. I believe that bats were made by God during the creation of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.76.66 (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC) The reason the geological record is so poor concerning Bats is because of the size of their bones. The smaller the bones a species has (i.e. Bats, Shrews, Rodents and Glires in general)the less likly thay have been preserved. This difficulty increases with the age of the fossil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.163.52 (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC) So do I —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibleman77777 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC) The only reasonable thing is the Bible, which states that God created the earth in 7 days. You should read the Bible if you want the Truth about God, Jesus, Paul, and many other people from the history of the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibleman77777 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You believe incorrectly. You really should study some science to find out actual facts about the world and not ridiculous nonsense involving genies. 74.178.188.24 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the facts is that there is no evidence in support for an evolution of bats. So it's reasonable to consider other options. --41.18.184.81 (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What suggestion for editing the article are you trying to make? Please be specific. -- Fyrefly (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

this dexterious ability where it is able to drink in mid air
Regarding "Some bats like the little brown bat can use this dexterious ability where it is able to drink in mid air.[25]"

1. "Dexterious" is not a word.

2. This sentence makes little sense.

3. Perhaps (if this is what the original writer meant) it should say "Some bats, such as the little brown bat, are so dexterous that they can drink in mid-air."

3a. But that still leaves the problem about what's so tricky about drinking in mid-air. Where are they drinking from? Raindrops? Dewdrops?

Theoryofevrythng (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the problem sentence, which is already covered in the drinking section in much more detail. -- Fyrefly (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archive
This talk page needs be archived regularly. Placing the following template at the top of the page will cause MiszaBot to archive threads that have been inactive for 125 days but always leave a minimum of seven threads:

Any objections? --Fama Clamosa talk 13:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC) (time stamp pseudo-completed)


 * I think it's a great idea; I don't even think it would be a problem if you set it to 61 days and 4 minthreads. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are probably right. There are a dozen edits or so on this talk page per month, and Creationism is brought up every now and then, so a more ambitious trimming makes sense.  Maybe a FAQ box to deal with repeatedly posted threads is in place (should probably be discussed separately.) --Fama Clamosa (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll add the archiving now, at 61 + 4. If anyone wants it longer, we can change it.  Qwyrxian (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Fama Clamosa (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Habitats
I can't seem to find anything on this page about the habitats of bats. Should't there be something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryannie (talk • contribs) 18:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My guess is that there is nothing that can be said, in general, about the habitats of bats, because different orders and species live in widely different habitats. You'll need to check the details found in each of the orders, suborders, and species (see this list in Bat) for specifics.  If, however, you have references that would support general statements about the habitats of bats, I think that would be a good addition to this article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I must agree habitat and distribution need to be mentioned in the article. Maybe the quote below can be used to mention this in the lead?
 * Bats are one of the most widely distributed groups of mammals. Flight has enabled them to live all over the world apart from the Arctic, the Antarctic and a few isolated oceanic islands. There are bats in the far north of Scandinavia, as well as in the deserts of the south-western USA.
 * --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I found another reference for this:
 * Bats are found in almost every habitat available on Earth. Different species select different habitat during different seasons &mdash; ranging from seasides to mountains and even deserts &mdash; but bat habitats have two basic requirements: roosts, where they spend the day or hibernate, and places for foraging.  Bat roosts can be found in hollows, crevices, foliage, and even human-made structures; and include "tents" that bats construct by biting leaves.
 * --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think something like that would be very helpful in aiding people with furthering their research.
 * ~ Aryannie (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I made a first run and reorganized the article. I hope to return to it and add something small on habitats. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There I went, it's not much, --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the new habitat section. It's a simple summary, with two good citations. To be honest, I don't even think we want much more; since bat habitat is so varied, as soon as you started giving a few details, you'd end up giving more and more, and you'd end up with a section that's far too long and unwieldy.  I also like the reorganization.  Excellent work—thanks!  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those words. I guess you are right, we could be writing a separate article on bat habitats. -Fama Clamosa (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you did a great job! The new article has enough info that people can continue to research elsewhere, but is not to lengthy. -Aryannie (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)