ИСТИНА

Since publication of the “Bats of Vietnam” guide in which know bat fauna of this country was counted 95 species, this number was significantly enlarged. The latest checklist (Dang Ngoc Can et al., 2008) contains mention of 111 bat species, however part of them are undoubtedly based on misidentifications. Meantime current knowledge let us suppose presence of a number of cryptic species, so the whole number of bats in Vietnamese fauna presumably exceed 110. Part of the species new to country were based on new faunal records, however there is a set of genera and species groups with huge cryptic diversity gradually uncovering due to latest investigations, including both more intent morphological comparison as well as molecular studies. One of the well known “hot spots” in bat taxonomy (and not only in Vietnam of cause) is the genus Myotis. One species of mouse-eared bats, M. phanluongi, was recently described by us; this form is sympatric with closely related M. siligorensis, segregating from the latter by the inhabiting altitude. Two other species groups, demonstrating cryptic diversity, are M. muricola s. lato and M. horsfieldii. In both several well-divided genetic lineages were revealed. Moreover, whiskered bats from Indochina has certain morphological difference from the Nepalese specimens came from area close to terra typica, which led us to suppose that actually the “true” M. muricola is absent in Vietnam. The known diversity in Murina was about twice enlarged in latest years. Three new species were already described just from Vietnam but the current results suppose presence of at least two or three another undescribed forms. On the whole, tube-nosed bats demonstrate incredible ability for local speciation and high level of endemism. One more taxonomic “hot spot” is the genus Hipposideros. At least two Vietnamese “species” – H. pomona and H. larvatus – actually represent species complexes consisting of several distinct genetic lineages. While these lineages in the former complex are morphologically similar, H. larvatus s. lato is paraphiletic against such a well-defined species as H. armiger and H. turpis. I would like to express thanks for their help to Vladimir Lebedev (ZMMU), Alex Borisenko, Nataly Ivanova, Paul Hebert (Biodiversity Institute of Ontario), Judith Eger (Royal Ontario Museum), Andrei Kuznetzov and Nguen Dang Hoi (Vietnamese-Russian Tropical Centre). Part of the molecular results would be a part of ongoing publication (Francis et al., in press).