Atti 1° Convegno Italiano sui Chirotteri (/999): 5/-6/

Bat research in Latium, Central Italy: topics, history and perspectives.

I Chirotteri del Lazio, Italia Centrale: status e prospettive.

Crucitti P., Malori M. & Rotella G. Societa Romana di Scienre Naturali. SRSN, Via Fratelli Maristi 43, I-DO J37 Roma

E-Mail: socrom.scinattiiflashnet.it

ABSTRACT - An outline of the present knowledge on the bat fauna of Latium, Central Italy, is reported, scanning it at the species level, together with some considerations on the future evolution of the research on the bat fauna of this territory.

Key words: Chiroptera, Latium, Distribution, Bioecology, Conservation

RIASSUNTO - E' discussa, nel presente contributo, una revisione dello stato delle conoscenze sulla chirotterofauna del Lazio, Italia centrale, preceduta da una breve ana­lisi storica insieme a considerazioni sullo sviluppo futuro delle ricerche sulla chirottero­fauna di tale territorio.

Parole chiave: Chirotteri, Lazio, Distribuzione, Bioecologia, Conservazione

INTRODUCTION Latium, one of the most extensive region of Italy, 17203 square krns, is located in

the central portion of the Italian peninsula, between the upper course of the river Elvella and the Promontory of Gaeta (Mount Orlando). The variety of landscapes is a conse­quence of the unevenness of its boundaries. Latium is very disomogeneous for three main reasons, climatological, geomorphic and vegetational diversity: nevertheless, the various litotypes and orographyc systems produce natural regions well characterised from the morphological and vegetational viewpoints. Latium's biogeographic position is favourable and representative of Italian diversity owing a wide variety of phytoclimato­logical situations including temperate (to the North and the Northeast; lower subalpine termotype to the lower hilly termotype), transitional temperate (lower/upper termotype), transitional mediterranean and mediterranean, well represented by the broad stripe between the coastal and the hinterland, Rome and neighbouring countries included (middle mesomediterranean termotype-upper termomediterran termotype) (Blasi, 1994).

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND As frequently occurs, the history of bats in Latium reflects a broad spectrum of

human attitudes towards them, ranging from the persecution to almost complete igno­rance: in consequence, our knowledge of historical changes in the status of their popu­lations is extremely variable, though mostly rather poor. This lack of knowledge is sur­prisingly acute, in view of the renewed interest for this secretive group of small mam­mals (Crucitti, 1990). The study of bats in Latium began comparatively late, just one century ago. The work of Carruccio (1898) on the vertebrates of Rome and the Roman Campagna is probably the first comprehensive list of this mammals for a territory of the region. In the list of bats preserved in the regional collection of the Zoological Museum of the Royal University of Rome, Carruccio mentions two families, Phyllorinidae

51

Crucitti P.. Malon M. & Rotella G.

(Rhinolophidae Bell, 1836), with 2 species, and Gymnorhinidae (Vespertilionidae Gray, 1853 and Molossidae Gill, 1872), with 13 species, 7 genera and 15 species in all, among which "Synotus barbastellus Schreb.", "Vespurgo noctula Schreb.", Vespertilio Capaccinii Bp.", "V.Daubentoni (Leisl.)", "Vmurinus Lin.", "Vespertilio mystacinus Leisl.", "Nyctinomus cestoni Savi", Moreover, Carruccio emphasises the difficulties to achieve specimens of this cryptic and nocturnal mammals, beside all for the repulsion of people among them, ending with the expectation to find in the territory "Rhinolophus euryale Bias." and "Vesperugo leisleri Kuhl" and possibly some other species collected in other Italian regions by Bonaparte, Comalia, Doria, Lessona and Ninni. Forty years later, Gulino and Dal Piaz (1939) published the first check-list of Italian bats: the three, currently recognised, families included, according to these Authors, 27 species, 17 of which were recorded for Latium, mainly from Rome and neighbouring countries: the presence of 3 Rhinolophidae, 13 Vespertilionidae and I Molossidae is pointed out; the quotations of "Myotis (myotis) nattereri Kuhl", "Pipistrellus nathusii (Keis. e Blas.)", "Barbastella barbastellus (Schreb.)" and "Nyctinomus taeniotis (Raf.)' are noteworthy. A further contribution is that of the prominent zoologist Alberto Stefanelli (1942). In an ancient volcanic cave of Rome, now disappeared, four year monthly observations ena­ble Stefanelli to establish the degree of the parasitic specificity of the Nycteribiidae, Diptera Pupipara, for their hosts, six species of bats, 3 Rhinolophidae and 3 Vespertilionidae. After the Second World War, the knowledge on the bats of Latium increased slowly, especially in the fifties. Three short contributions of the distinguished parasitologist Marcello Ricci dealt with the description of new species of the bat elminthofauna (Capillariinae) and a check-list of ectoparasites (Acarina, Diptera and Aphaniptera)(Ricci, 1949a,b, 1953): in his last paper, Ricci mentions 2 males Myotis daubentoni collected in an ancient villa of Pantano Borghese near Frascati, Rome, a doubtful record (Crucitti, 1989b). Bats of an ancient site of the Roman countryside, Ostia Antica, have been the object of analytical investigations: results of bat banding and displacement experiences made here, were published by Prof. Benedetto Lanza (1958), the Author of the first comprehensive syntheses on the Italian bat fauna, a section of the fourth volume of "Fauna d'Italia" (1959), a basic monograph, though "very old and have only an historical value" (Amori et al., 1996:3): nevertheless, the general weight of this work remains unquestionable. The production of Giovanni Dinale is summarised in about twenty contributions between 1958 and 1973 mainly as a result of bat-banding, first in Liguria and afterwards in Latium. Dinale's statements has been strongly affected by the application of theoretical models to field data and the scarcity of biological obser­vations: nevertheless, some considerations on bat-banding techniques and the age at sexual maturity of the Rhinolophidae are of a certain interest (Dinale, 1963, 1965, 1968). Contoli (1977) published the list of the mammal fauna of the Tolfetano-Cerite district in which II species of bats are recorded, a work based mainly on Biocca and Crivaro col­lections and the unpublished file of the ltalian subterranean fauna of Sbordoni. In his work, Contoli gives a certain credit to some statements of Silvio Bruno (1973) an untru­stworthy Author, who reports for the area Myotis oxygnathus, Vespertilio serotinus and Tadarida teniotis. During the sixties and the seventies numerous works were published on the "Notiziario del Circolo Speleologico Romano", first of all the periodically upda­ted check-list of the caves of the region (C.S.R., 1963; Dolci, 1965, 1966, 1967; Sbordoni, 1966; Agnoletti and Trovato, 1970; Pansecchi and Trovato, 1973; Felici, 1977; Agostini et al., 1979; Zapparoli, 1980). Carchini et al. (1982) published a contribution

52

Atti 1° Convegno Italiano sui Chirotteri (1999): 51-61

on geology, morphology. climate and biota concerning the Valmarino cave, Southern Latium, in which 6 species of bats are recorded. Finally, Lanza and Finotello (1985) published the up-to-date and annotated check-list of the Italian Chiroptera. Our resear­ches on the bat fauna of Latium started in the seventies, just with the institution of the Societa Romana di Scienze Naturali (SRSN). Twenty original contributions on distribu­tion and bioecology apart from many popular papers, were published. In the same period. the foundation of a microtheriological collections, an extremely valuable source of bat phenodiversity (cf. Contoli, 1996), in which samples of 18 species of bats from Latium are stored, has been started. Therefore, distributional data on the bats of this area were gathered from existing, recent, literature, zoological collections and field observa­tions (two hundred days of visits to approximately 150 sites, mostly caves). The fol­lowing list includes, for each of the better known species, a discussion of some bioeco­logical patterns mainly based on recently collected data (1980-1995): distribution, phe­nology, population size, sex ratio and the structure of aggregations. It is the first time that such a work is undertaken in Latium and could led to a better understanding of the cur­rent status of the different species.

THE SPECIES Rhinolophus euryale Blasius, 1853. The Mediterranean Horseshoe bat is recorded

for 17 sites (Crucitti and Tringali, 1985; Crucitti et al., 1992, 1993). Roosts are natu­ral caves and hypogean structures of the Antiappennine and the Central Appennine from the sea level up to about 850 m a.s.l. At La Pi1a cave, Sabini Mts, whose popu­lation has been already studied by Dinale (1963,1968), this species disappears com­pletely during the winter (Crucitti et al., 1993). However, up till 1992, single indivi­dual s or small scattered colonies were found. An important population has been recently discovered in an abandoned mine near the village of Allumiere, Tolfetano­Cerite district: between December and February, the highest number of R.euryale was observed (January 1995: 1274 individual bats): the species completely disappeared between March and April (Crucitti et 01., in press). R.euryale is considered in regres­sion in France (Beaufort et al., 1996). Caves with large colonies require conservation measures.

Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Schreber, 1774). The Greater Horseshoe bat is recor­ded of 40 sites (Crucitti and Tringali, 1985; Crucitti et al., 1992,1993). Roosts are natu­ral, Limestone and volcanic, caves, and hypogean structures (in spring, in buildings too; Maenza, Lepini Mts) between the sea level till up 1200 m a.s.l.: 76% of the hibernating individuals were reported between 0 up to 600 m a.s.1. (Crucitti, 1994). Greatest aggre­gations roost in caves of territories in fairly natural conditions: 245 individual bats in a limestone cave near Bassiano, Lepini Mts; 182 bats in a mine placed in the mixed beech­wood of Allumiere and 178 in a volcanic cave of the valley of the river Biedano near Blera, Tolfetano-Cerite district: in these aggregations, a biased sex ratio in favour of males has been recognized, adult females is the rarest age class (Crucitti and Chine, 1994). Higher levels of abundance are found between December and February (Crucitti et al., 1993; Crucitti et al., in press). It is considered vulnerable, endangered or rare throughout Europe (Beaufort et al., 1996; Libois, L996; Mitchell-Jones, 1996). Apparently, in some caves of Latium it is reduced, while in others it seems stable. It is the most widespread cave bat in the region.

53

Q

Crucitti P, Malori M. & Rotella G.

Rliinolophus hipposideros (Bechstein, 1800). The Lesser Horseshoe bat is recorded of 30 sites (Crucitti and Tringali, 1985; Crucitti et al., 1992,1993). Hibernates in natu­ral/artificial caves and small hypogean structures such as the Etruscan graves, from the sea level up to 1200 m a.s.l.: 63% of the hibernating individuals have been found between 601 up to 1200 m a.s.l. (Crucitti, 1994). Only in two caves, more than 10 indi­vidual bats were counted in the same visit, 15 in a limestone cave of the Sabini Mts, and 18 in a mine near Allumiere: the highest number of individuals, mostly adult males, has been found in December (Crucitti, 1985; Crucitti et al., 1990, Crucitti et al.. in press). At present, it is doubtful to consider the Lesser Horseshoe bat really threatened in Latium, in spite of its low density too. In most of the European countries is considered as vulne­rable (Beaufort et al., 1996; Peshev, 1996; Santos-Reis and Mathias, 1996), rare (Mitchell-Jones, 1996) or extinct in recent times (Thissen and Hollander, 1996).

Myotis blythii (Tomes, 1857) and Myotis myotis (Borkhausen, 1797). Italian popu­lations of M.blythii are referred to M.h.oxygnathus (Monticelli, 1885) (Amori et al., 1996). Species of the subgenus Myotis have been recorded for 17 natural/artificial caves of Latium, from the sea level up to about 1400 m a.s.l. (Crucitti and Tringali, 1985; Crucitti et al., 1992 and in press). The analysis of 14 morphometric characters has been applied to specimens of this subgenus from six caves of Latium; they were quite equally shared between the Lesser mouse-eared bat and the Mouse-eared bat (Crucitti and Contestabile, 1987). Species of large Myotis seem to be widespread in the region though characterised by low density, all the colonies number less than 40 individuals: 36 bats, 30 of which were females, in an artificial cave of Tarquinia (Crucitti, unpublished); 23 bats, both M.biythii and M.myotis, in a volcanic cave near Blera (Crucitti et al., 1992). Large colonies of these bats have substantially decreased throughout Europe (Stebbings and Griffith, 1986). Trend of Latium populations is unknown.

Myotis capaccinii (Bonaparte, 1837). The Long-fingered bat is recorded for 12 capture sites, natural/artificial caves and hypogean structures, e.g. the corridors of the Cisterne delle Terme in Ostia Antica (Rome) already studied by Lanza (1958); it has been found from the sea level up to 800 m a.s.l. This bat frequently hibernates in caves with inner water system or placed along fluvial valleys; also found near lakes (Vico). During winter, solitary bats or small scattered colonies have been found: in March and April, numbers increased rapidly to some tens of individuals often associated to large clusters of Miniopterus schreibersii. Many papers (Crucitti, 1981, 1985, 1993; Crucitti and Chine, 1990; Crucitti et al., 1992) dealt with the social structure of winter and early spring aggregations and the results may be summarised as follows: l-aggrega­tions of the Long-fingered bat may be considered monosexual, being composed mostly by males, some of which were found with swollen testicular area and few of which with small notches on one ear (adults"): 2-bats associated to the clusters of Miniopterus schreibersii, generally at their edge as "satellite" aggregations, are always males; 3-females has been rarely found and roost, as solitary bats, often in the same cave and period in which male groups hibernates. Trend of some Latium populations of the Long-fingered bat seems quite stable (Crucitti, 1993; Crucitti et al., 1992, 1993). It is considered rare and in regression in France (Beaufort et al., 1996), vulne­rable and rare in Bulgaria (Peshev, 1996).

54

Atti 1° Convegno Italiano sui Chirotteri (1999): 51-61

Mvotis daubentonii (Kuhl, 1817). Only one recent record. In 1990. a female of the Daubenton's bat was collected at the entrance of an artificial cave. a long corridor of Roman origin near the shore of the Lake Nerni, Rome (Crucitti, 1989b). The distribution of Latium populations in unknown. This bat is considered one of the most abundant spe­cies and appears moderately common throughout Europe (Stebbings and Griffith, 1986).

Myotis emarginatus (Geoffroy, 1806). Only two recent records, both from Northern Latium. Few individuals of the Notch-eared bat have been found in a volcanic cave of the valley of the river Biedano near Blera; one individual has been collected in an aban­doned building on the Mount Rufeno near Acquapendente (Crucitti, 1989b; Crucitti et al., 1992). Its status is unknown. According to Stebbings and Griffith (1986), large colo­nies are also found in the south. However, it is considered a vulnerable species in France (Beaufort et al., 1996), Belgium (Libois, 1996), Albania (Prigioni, 1996) and as endan­gered species in Portugal (Santos-Reis and Mathias, 1996).

Myotis nattereri (Kuhl, 1817). Only one recent record. A male of the Natterer's bat has been collected in La Portella cave near Nespolo, Sabini Mts (Crucitti et al., 1990). Therefore, the status of Latium populations is completely unknown. One of the most widespread species, but appears to be rare over large areas of Europe (Stebbings and Griffith, 1986). In Southern Sweden, total number supposed is 100-1000 individuals (Hansson and Fredga, 1996); in Belgium is considered vulnerable (Libois, ]996); in Britain is declining (Mitchell-Jones, 1996); it is considered rare both in Bulgaria (Peshev, 1996) and in Latvia (Pilats, 1996); endangered in Portugal (Santos-Reis and Mathias, 1996); uncommon in the Netherlands (Thissen and Hollander, 1996).

Pipistrellus kuhlii (Kuhl, 1817). The Kuhl's pipistrelle bat is certainly more wide­spread in comparison with the scarcity of field and collection data. In the urban and suburban habitat of Rome it is a very common species (Crucitti and Tringali, ]985). In a built-up house of Acilia (Rome), a small colonies located under the eaves of the terra­ce has been checked during the year 1984: at the end of April, 25 individuals were found (22 females): at the end of November, 16 individuals were found (10 females), at least 9 of which were adults, in view of the size of their buccal pads (Lanza, 1959). To establi­sh the status of this bat in Latium, much more information is needed. It is considered vul­nerable and rare in Bulgaria though its population distribution is stable (Peshev, 1996) and not threatened in Portugal (Santos-Reis and Mathias, 1996).

Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774). There is only one record from Latium of the Pipistrelle bat in the zoological collection of the SRSN, a female collected in the urban centre of Rome in 1970 (Crucitti and Tringali, ]985). However it is thought to be more widespread and abundant. This species is considered one of the most abundant bat in Europe (Stebbings and Griffith, 1986).

Nyctalus noctula (Schreber, 1774). In the collection of the SRSN no specimens of the Noctule bat are stored: however, 17 specimens from Rome are preserved in the zoo­logical collection of the Museum of Florence ("La Specola Museum'?") (Lanza, 1959). In July 1977, a large bat, flying high and quickly at nightfall was observed at Vallonina, Terminilllo Mt, Northern Latium. This bat is probably more common but, at present,

55

Crucitti P., Malori M. & Rotella G.

there are no available data on its distribution in Latium. The Noctule bat is widespread in Europe, but rare (Beaufort et al., 1996) and vulnerable (Libois, 1996; Peshev, 1996).

Hypsugo savii (Bonaparte, 1837). There are few records of Savi 's pipistrelle, mostly from the urban area of Rome and neighbouring countries (Crucitti and Tringali, 1985), but it is thought to be more widespread and abundant. It generally hibernates in buildings (Stebbings and Griffith, 1986). It is a protected species in Albania (Prigioni, 1996); it is vulnerable, rare and declining in Bulgaria (Peshev, 1996).

Eptesicus serotinus (Schreber, 1774). There are six records, five from the province of Rome, including suburban area, and one from the province of Rieti in the cave of S.Michele near Montorio in Valle, the spot at the highest elevation, 1014 m a.s.l. (Crucitti and Tringali, 1985; Crucitti et al., 1990). During winter, few or single indivi­duals have been found in artificial caves and in buildings. It is vulnerable and rare in Bulgaria (Peshev, 1996), but not threatened in Portugal (Santos-Reis and Mathias, 1996) and common in Belgium (Libois, 1996); in southernmost Sweden, only 100-1000 indi­viduals are estimate (Hansson and Fredga, 1996).

Barbastella barbastellus (Schreber, 1774). There are only two sites in Latium; the Inghiottitoio di Val di Varri, Cicolano district, a limestone cave where a female was ban­ded by G.Dinale (Dinale, 1965) and a male was collected; a small cave near the Monastery of S.Luca near Guarcino, Ernici Mts, in which one individual has been obser­ved (Crucitti and Tringali, 1985). Both records are not recent (1973); in the last 25 years, this species has never been recorded. It is considered to be one of Europe's rarest bats, occurring widely but sparsely (Stebbings and Griffith, 1986).

Plecotus auritus (Linnaeus, 1758). There is only one record from Latium, a female collected in a cave near Carpineto Romano, Lepini Mts, 1155 m a.s.l. (Crucitti and Contestabile, 1987). Probably it is more common and widespread in the region. It is common in Britain (Mitchell-Jones, 1996) and in Belgium (Libois, 1996), but uncom­mon and declining in Bulgaria (Peshev, 1996); generally, it is considered uncommon in large part of Southern Europe (Stebbings and Griffith, 1986).

Plecotus austriacus (Fischer, 1829). There is only one record from Latium, a fema­le collected in an abandoned building near Centocamere, Musignano, Viterbo province (Crucitti and Contestabile, 1987). Probably, it is more common and widespread in the region. It is common and stable in Bulgaria (Peshev, 1996); very rare in Britain (Mitchell-Jones, 1996); not threatened in the mainland of Portugal (Santos-Reis and Mathias, 1996).

Miniopterus schreibersii (Kuhl, 1817). The Bent-winged bat is recorded of 15 sites, mostly in the Antiappennine, from the sea level till up 1000 m a.s.l. Found primarily in natural/artificial caves next to the watershed of rivers where it forms large and mixed colonies (with Rieuryale and M.capaccinii). Clusters of many hundred bats, till up 2538 estimated individuals, have been observed in a winter quarter, a volcanic cave near Blera; other caves are probably used as transient quarters or spring-summer refuges (Crucitti, 1993; Crucitti and Tringali, 1985; Crucitti et al.. 1992, 1993). Locally very

56

Atti I" Convegno Italiano sui Chirotteri (7999): 51-61

abundant, the Bent-winged bat is vulnerable to various disturbances: caves with large colonies require immediate protection measurements. In France it is uncommon and in regression (Beaufort et al., 1996).

Tadarida teniotis (Rafinesque, 1814). The European free-tailed bat has been conside­red as a rare bat in Latium (Crucitti and Tringali, 1985). In the collection of the Museo Civico di Zoologia of Rome there are four specimens in very bad conditions collected in Rome at the beginning of the century. At present, this species may be considered as a component of the bat fauna of the town. During the 5th lTC, September 1989, the spe­cies has been recorded at the Coliseum with the bat-detector (J.Gaisler, personal com­munication, IX.1989). On 10 September 1993, a group of 125 individuals was found on a terrace of a building of Viale Libia next to the urban centre: bats were removed at the Zoological Museum of the University of Rome "La Sapienza" where most of the speci­mens are actually stored (Vigna Taglianti, personal communication, IX.1993): 16 speci­mens, 8 males and 8 females, were examined by us (highest values of the forearm length: males, 63.0 mm, females, 61.3 mm; highest values of the tail length; males and females, 50.0 mm). One of these specimens is stored in the vertebrate collection of the Societa Romana di Scienze Naturali, number 924. Few other records are known, all from Southern Latium. A dried specimen probably collected in the Ruins of Circe is stored in the zoological collection of the Circeo National Park's Museum (Crucitti and Tringali, 1985). Corsetti (1990) discovered this species in a suburban house of Latina. The status of this bat in Latium is undetermined. It is considered rare in France (Beaufort et al., 1996), Bulgaria (Peshev, 1996) and the mainland of Portugal (Santos-Reis and Mathias, 1996).

CONCLUSIONS Italian Chiroptera are 29 species, 24.8% of all Italian mammal species (Amori et al.,

1996). On that account, the mammalian species richness of Latium is comparatively high, as a consequence of bat biodiversity too. The extant bat fauna of Latium consists of at least 19 species: in comparison, the bat fauna of Toscana of at least 24 species (Agnelli et al., this congress; province of Grosseto, 21 species (Sforzi and Ragni, 1997) and that of Umbria of at least 13 species (Vernier, 1984). Scaravelli (personal communi­cation, 28th March 1998) establish the presence of Nyctalus leisleri (Kuhl, 1817) in Latium: after this finding, the number has arisen to at least 20. However, a certain increa­se is still possible, since 3 species of Myotis, M.bechsteinii (Kuhl, 1817), Mimystacinus (Kuhl, 1817) and M.brandtii (Eversmann, 1845) are recorded in the Abruzzo National Park, an area in which 13 species of bats are gathered (Zava and Violani, 1995). As sta­ted by Amori et al. (1996:4): "It can be said that none of the species of Chiroptera pre­sent in Italy is really threatened though they should all be considered as having an inde­terminate status because little is known about their population sizes. Some of these spe­cies are considered rare in Italy mainly because of lack of data", there is still little infor­mation to assess the status of most species. However, the amount of information about the Rhinolophidae, Myotis capaccinii and Miniopterus schreibersii is quite satisfactory, the locality of some important winter populations are well known and protection mea­surement may be properly planned. On the Italian territory, R.hipposideros, M.capacci­nii. M.nattereri and B.barbastellus are considered as endangered, R.euryale, Rferrume­quinum, M.b/ythii, Muiaubentonii, M.emarginatlls, M.m)'otis and N.noctu/a as vulnera­

57

Crucitti P., Malori M. & Rotella G.

ble, Pkuhlii. Ppipistrellus, Hisavii, Eserotinus. Pauritus, Eaustriacus, Mischreibersii and Eteniotis as lower risk species (Dondini and Vergari, in Calvario and Sarrocco, 1997). The available data on the distribution and bioecology are a function of the diffi­culties to localise certain type of sites; we have adequate data about strictly troglophi­lous species and insufficient data about species which hibernates in buildings and espe­cially in hollow trees. However, the preference for certain biotopes, e.g. rivers and lakes (M.capaccinii, M.daubentonii) is well known; the selection of certain sites, e.g. caves, in which no more than 6-7 species are found at the same time, Rhinolophidae, M. blythii, M.capaccinii, M.myotis and M.schreibersii (Crucitti and Tringali, 1987; Crucitti. 1989a) and the buildings of the urban and suburban areas (Pkuhlii, Ppipistrellus, H.savii) is well known too. The case of the city of Rome is paradigmatic as a consequence of its anti­quity and huge structural complexity. The bat fauna of the Eternal City has been recen­tly listed by Cignini and Zapparoli (1995) which record Rhinolophus [errumequinum, Myotis myotis, Nyctalus noctula, Pipistrellus pipistrellus, Pipistrellus kuhli, Pipistrellus savii. Besides, this list may be enriched with Eptesicus serotinus and Tadarida teniotis. However, many years of research are still required to assess the distribution and the sta­tus of most species of bats in Latium.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are very grateful to Marco Andreini. Francesco Bubbico and Paolo Moscatelli

for skilful technical assistance; finally, to Professor Benedetto Lanza for suggestions and criticism.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Agostini, S., Terragni, F. & Zapparoli, M. (1979). La Grotta Patrizi (La 183) nel comu­

ne di Cerveteri. Notiz. Circolo spel. Romano, 24 : 3-20. Agnelli. P., Dondini, G., & Vergari, S. (1998). Atlante dei Chirotteri della Toscana: risul­

tati preliminari. Riassunti 10 Convegno Italiano sui Chirotteri, Castell' Azzara (Grosseto), 28-29 marzo 1998.

Agnoletti, P. & Trovato. G. (1970). Aggiornamento all'elenco catastale delle grotte del Lazio. Notiz.Circolo spel.Rornano, 15:83-107.

Amori, G., Angelici, FM., Prigioni, c., & Vigna Taglianti, A. (1996). The mammal fauna of Italy: a review. Hystrix (n.s.), 8: 3-7.

Beaufort. F (de), Maurin. H. & Haffne, P. (1996). Terrestrial mammal fauna and threa­tened species in France. Hystrix (n.s.) 8: 23-29.

Blasi, C. (1994). Fitoclimatologia del Lazio. Universita "La Sapienza"-Roma Dipartimento di Biologia Vegetale - Regione Lazio Assessorato Agricoltura-Foreste Caccia e Pesca, Usi Civici.

Bruno, S. (1973). Aspetti naturalistici dei Monti della Tolfa. Natura e Montagna, 2: 33­46.

Carchini, G., Giglio, G.. Rampin,i M. & Sbordoni, V. (1982). Studi ecologici nella grot­ta di Valmarino.I: Morfologia, clima, datazione e popolamento faunistico. Lavori Soc.it.Biog., N.S., 7: 869-892.

Carruccio, A. (1898). Indications principales sur les vertebres de la nouvelle collection regionale du Musee Zoologique de la R.Universite de Rome Boll.Soc.romana St.zool., 7: 178-203.

Cignini, B. & Zapparoli, M. (1995). La fauna di vertebrati terrestri. In: L'ecosistema

58

Atti /0 Convegno Italiano sui Chirotteri (1999): 5/-6/

Roma. Ambiente e territorio (B. Cignini, G.Massari and S.Pignatti eds), Fratelli Palombi Editori, Roma: 106-115. .

Contoli, L. (1977). Mammiferi del Tolfetano-Cerite (Lazio). In: Ricerche ecologiche, floristiche e faunistiche nel comprensorio Tolfetano-Cerite-Manziate, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, quaderno n.227, Roma: 191-226.

Contoli, L. (1996). Sulle collezioni museali nella studio della biodiversita fenetica. Museol.sci.-suppI.Atti 10° Congresso AN.M.S. Bologna 1994: 51-59.

Corsetti, L. (1990). 11 Molosso di Cestoni, Tadarida teniotis, nell' ambiente suburbano di Latina, Lazio (Italia centrale). Hystrix (n.s.), 2: 47-52.

Crucitti, P. (1981). Studi sull'organizzazione sociale dei Chirotteri.I.Struttura sociale di Myotis capaccinii (Chiroptera Vespertilionidae). Atti Soc. ita!' Sci. nat. Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Milano, 122: 236-242.

Crucitti, P. (1985). Aspetti della sociobiologia dei Chirotteri. Biologia contemporanea, 12: 69-77.

Crucitti, P. (1989a). Distribution, diversity and abundance of cave bats in Latium (Central Italy) (381-388). In: European Bat Research 1987, Y.Hanak, I. Horacek, J. Gaisler (eds.), Charles Univ.Press, Praha.

Crucitti, P. (1989b). Lista aggiomata dei Chirotteri del Lazio (Chiroptera). Riv. Mus. civ. Sc. nat. "E,Caffi" Bergamo, 14: 155-162.

Crucitti, P. (1990). Present Status of Bat Research in Italy. Bat Research News, 31: 3-8. Cruci tti, P. (1993). Caratteristiche della aggregazione Miniopterus schreibersii-Myotis

capaccinii nel Lazio, ltalia centrale (Chiroptera). Boll. Mus. reg. Sci. nat. Torino, 11: 407-422.

Crucitti, P. (1994). Distribuzione altitudinale di Rhinolophus [errumequinum e Rhinolophus hipposideros nel Lazio, ltalia centrale (Chiroptera). Boll. Mus. civ. St. nat. Verona, 18: 227-233.

Crucitti, P. & Tringali, L. (1985). Sulla distribuzione di alcuni Chirotteri italiani, parti­colarmente della regione laziale (Mammalia Chiroptera). Atti Soc. ital. Sci. nat. Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Milano, 126: 257-267.

Crucitti .P & Contestabile, R. (1987). Distribuzione dei Chirotteri nella regione laziale (Italia centrale) e lista delle specie dell' area. Rendiconti Seminario Facolta Scienze Universita Cagliari, 57: 167-177.

Crucitti, P. & Tringali, L. (1987). Distribuzione e diversita dei Chirotteri troglofili della regione laziale (Italia centrale). Hystrix, 2: 45-56.

Crucitti, P. & Chine, A (1990). Further remarks on winter and early spring sex ratio of Myotis capaccinii (Chiroptera) in Latium, Central Italy. Mammalia, 54: 659-660.

Crucitti, P., Malori, M., Rotella, G., Tringali. L. & Virdia, A (1990). Erpetofauna e terio­fauna dell' area sabina meridionale e del territorio Cicolano (Lazio, Italia centrale). Natura Bresciana, Ann. Mus. Civ. Sc. Nat. Brescia, 25: 231-254.

Crucitti, P., Andreini, M. & Leopardi, M. (1992). Una comunita troglofila di Chirotteri del Lazio settentrionale (Italia centrale) (Chiroptera). Atti Soc. ital. Sci. nat. Mus. civ. Stor.nat. Milano, 132: 89-104.

Crucitti, P., Andreini, M. & Morelli, R. (1993). Dinamica stagionale di cinque specie di Chirotteri del Lazio. Supp\. Ric. BioI. Selvaggina, 21: 555-569.

Crucitti, P. & Chine, A (1994). Rapporto sessi e struttura delle aggregazioni di Rhinolophus [errumequinum del Lazio, Italia centrale, durante il letargo. Hystrix (n.s.), 5: 79-87.

59

Crucitti P., Malori M. & Rotella G.

Crucitti, P, Andreini, M., Morelli, R. & Rotella, G. (in press). The structure and dyna­mics of a Rhinolophid bat community of Latium (Central Italy) (Chiroptera). Hystrix (n.s.).

C.S.R. (1963). Primo elenco catastale delle Grotte degli Abruzzi e Molise (al Settembre 1963). Notiz. Circolo spel. romano, 9:29-36.

Dinale G. (1963). Studi sui Chirotteri italiani 1.- Osservazioni sui Rhinolophus Euryale Blasius in Liguria e nel Lazio. Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, 74: 1-29.

Dinale G. (1965). Studi sui Chirotteri ital iani IV- Osservazioni su Myotis emarginatus (Geoffr.), Myotis capaccinii (Bp.), Nyctalus noctula (Schr.), Plecotus sp.e Barbastella barbastellus (Schr.), in alcune regioni italiane, Doriana Suppl. Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, 156: 1-5.

Dinale G. (1968). Studi sui Chirotteri italiani VII.- Sui raggiungimento della maturita sessuale nei Chirotteri europei ed in particolare nei Rhinolophidae. Archivio Zoologico Italiano 53: 51-71.

Dolci, M. (1965). Primo elenco catastale delle Grotte del Lazio (al Febbraio 1965). Notiz. Circolo spel. romano, 10: 3-11.

Dolci, M. (1966). Primo elenco catastale delle Grotte del Lazio (al Febbraio 1965). Notiz. Circolo spel. romano, II: 7-24.

Dolci, M. (1967). Primo elenco catastale delle Grotte del Lazio (al Febbraio 1965). Notiz. Circolo spel. romano, 12: 17-50.

Dondini, G. & Vergari, S. (1997). Chirotteri. In: Calvario E., Sarrocco S. (eds.). Lista Rossa dei Vertebrati Italiani. WWF Italia. Settore Diversita Biologica. Serie Ecosistema Italia. OB6.

Felici, A. (1977). It carsismo nei Monti Lepini (Lazio). It territorio di Carpineto Romano. Notiz. Circolo spel. romano, 22: 3-230.

Gulino, G. & Dal Piaz, G. (1939). I Chirotteri Italiani. Elenco delle specie con annota­zioni sulla loro distribuzione geografica e frequenza nella penisola. Boll. Musei Zoo1. Anat. Comp. Torino, 47: 61-103.

Hanson, L. & Fredga, K. (1996). The mammal fauna of Sweden. Hystrix, (n.s.), 8: 31­33.

Lanza, B. (1958). Inanellamento di Chirotteri nella zona di Ostia Antica (Roma) e risul­tati di esperienze sui ritorno alluogo di cattura. Doriana Suppl. Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, 93: 1-8.

Lanza, B. (1959). Chiroptera (pp. 187-473). In: Toschi A. & Lanza B. (eds.). Fauna dItalia. IV Mammalia. Generalita, Insectivora, Chiroptera - Calderini, Bologna.

Lanza, B., & Finotello, P L. (1985). Biogeografia dei Chirotteri italiani. Boll. Mus. Reg. Sci. Nat. Torino, 3: 389-420.

Libois, R. M. (1996). The current situation of wild mammals in Belgium: an outline. Hystrix, (n.s.), 8: 35-41.

Mitchell-Jones, A. 1. (1996). The status and distribution of mammals in Britain. Hystrix, (n.s.) 8: 43-53.

Pansecchi, E, & Trovato, G. (1973). Aggiornamento all'elenco catastale delle Grotte del Lazio (al Febbraio 1965). Notiz. Circolo spel. romano, 18: 21-35.

Peshev, D. (1996). Review of the status of mammals in Bulgaria. Hystrix, (n.s.), 8: 55­59.

Pilats, V (1996). A short description of the Latvian mammal fauna. Hystrix, (n.s.), 8: 61­66.

60

Atti [0 Convegno ltaliano sui Chirotteri ([999): 51-6l

Prigioni, C. (1996). Distribution of mammals in Albania. Hystrix, (n.s.), 8: 67-73. Ricci. M. (1949 a). Trichuroides chiropteri, n. gen., n. sp. parassita della vescica urina­

ria di M. myotis (Bork.). (Nematoda: Trichuroidea). Rivista di Parassitologia, 10: 181-186.

Ricci, M. (1949 b). Nuove Capillarie (Capillariinae Nematoda) in Chirotteri italiani. Rivista di Parassitologia, 10: 187-196.

Ricci, M. (1953). Contributo alla conoscenza degli ectoparassiti dei Chirotteri italiani. L - Insecta. Rivista di ParassitoJogia, 14: 219-226.

Santos-Reis, M. & Mathias M. L. (1996). The historical and recent distribution and sta­tus of mammals in Portugal. Hystrix, (n.s.), 8: 75-89.

Sbordoni, V. (1966). L'inghiottitoio di Camposecco: note descrittive e faunistiche. Notiz. Circolo spel. romano, 11: 3-6.

Sforzi, A. & Ragni, B. (1997). Atlante dei mammiferi della Provincia di Grosseto. Museo di Storia Naturale della Maremma.. Suppl. Atti Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Maremma, 16.

Stebbings, R. E. & Griffith, E (1986). Distribution and status of bats in Europe. Monks Wood Experimental Station Abbots Ripton Huntingdon Cambs.

Stefanelli. A. (1942). Affinita sistematiche dei Chirotteri e parassitismo dei Nycteribiidae, Diptera Pupipara. Rivista di Parassitologia, 6: 1-44.

Thissen, J.B.M. & Hollander, H. (1996). Status and distribution of mammals in the Netherlands since 1800. Hystrix, (n.s.), 8: 97-105.

Vernier, E. (1984). Osservazioni intorno alla distribuzione dei pipistreJli in Umbria in base a recenti dati e a nuove raccolte. III Convegno Triveneto di Speleologia, 17-18 Novembre 1984 - Vicenza.

Zapparoli, M. (1980). Note sulla fauna delle cavita artificiali di Roma. Notiz. Circolo spel. romano, 25: 27-57.

Zava, B. & Violani, C. (1995). Osservazioni sui chirotteri del Parco Nazionale dAbruzzo. Boll. Mus. reg. Sci. nat. Torino, 13: 265-282.

61