http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom	http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/format	name_CH1_1980	name_MSW1_1982	name_CH3_1991	name_MSW2_1993	name_Koopman_1994	name_MSW3_2005	name_HMW_2019	name_BatNames_2022	name_MDD_2022	name_IUCN_2022	name_BatNames_2023	name_MDD_2023	name_MDD_2025_2.0	name_batnames_2025_1.7	name_MDD_2025_2.2	column151	taxonomic_notes_concatenated	column171	synonyms_CH1	subspecies__MSW2	synonyms__MSW1	synonyms_CH3	synonyms_MSW2	subspecies_Koopman94_interpreted	subspecies_MSW3_interpreted	synonym_MSW3_interpreted	subspecies_HMW_interpreted	synonym_HMW_interpreted	subspecies_batnames_interpreted	synonym_batnames_interpreted	synonym_MDD_interpreted	synonym_IUCN_interpreted	subspecies_batnames2023_interpreted	synonym_batnames2023_interpreted	synonym_MDD2023_interpreted	synonym_MDD2025_interpreted	subspecies_batnames2025_interpreted	synonyms_batnames2025_interpreted	nominalNames	column391	docOrigin_CH1	commonName_CH1	distribution_CH1	docOrigin_MSW1	column451	typeLocality_MSW1	authority_MSW1	year_MSW1	citation_MSW1	distribution	comment_MSW1	docOrigin_CH3	commonName_CH3	distribution_CH3	docOrigin_MSW2	authority_MSW2	year_MSW2	citation_MSW2	comments_MSW2	distribution_MSW2	typeLocality_MSW2	docOrigin_Koopman94	authority_Koopman94	year_Koopman94	description_Koopman94	distribution_Koopman94	diversity_Koopman94	subspecies_Koopman94	page	rank	name	authority	year	parent	parent_rank	corrected_name	actual_species_count	claimed_species_count	dental_formula	description	diversity	full_subspecies_text	name_line	species_index	subspecies	synonym	text	docOrigin_MSW3	order_MSW3	family_MSW3	subfamily_MSW3	tribe_MSW3	name_MSW3	genus_MSW3	subgenus_MSW3	species_MSW3	authoritySpeciesAuthor_MSW3	(parentheses (1=author & date in parentheses)_MSW3	authoritySpeciesYear_MSW3	actualDate_MSW3	citation_MSW3	volume_MSW3	issue_MSW3	pages_MSW3	type_species_MSW3	commonName_MSW3	typeLocality_MSW3	distribution_MSW3	status_MSW3	synonym_MSW3	comments_MSW3	docId_HMW	docOrigin_HMW	docISBN_HMW	docName_HMW	docMasterId_HMW	docPageNumber_HMW	derivedFrom_HMW	name_HMW	family_HMW	genus_HMW	species_HMW	authoritySpeciesAuthor_HMW	authoritySpeciesYear	commonNames_HMW	taxonomy_HMW	subspeciesAndDistribution_HMW	descriptiveNotes_HMW	habitat_HMW	foodAndFeeding_HMW	breeding_HMW	activityPatterns_HMW	movementsHomeRangeAndSocialOrganization_HMW	statusAndConservation_HMW	bibliography_HMW	distributionImageURL_HMW	verbatimText_HMW	docOrigin_batnames	family_batnames	name_batnames	genus_batnames	subgenus_batnames	species_batnames	authoritySpeciesAuthor_batnames	date_batnames	parentheses_batnames (1=author & date in parentheses)	citation_batnames	docPageNumber_batnames	common Name_batnames	synonyms_batnames	type_locality_batnames	Distribution_batnames	CITES_batnames	IUCN_batnames	comments_batnames	docOrigin_MDD	name_MDD	phylosort_MDD	mainCommonName_MDD	otherCommonNames_MDD	subclass_MDD	infraclass_MDD	magnorder_MDD	superorder_MDD	order_MDD	suborder_MDD	infraorder_MDD	parvorder_MDD	superfamily_MDD	family_MDD	subfamily_MDD	tribe_MDD	genus_MDD	subgenus_MDD	specificEpithet_MDD	authoritySpeciesAuthor_MDD	authoritySpeciesYear_MDD	authorityParentheses_MDD	originalNameCombination_MDD	authoritySpeciesCitation_MDD	authoritySpeciesLink_MDD	holotypeVoucher_MDD	holotypeVoucherURIs_MDD	typeLocality_MDD	typeLocalityLatitude_MDD	typeLocalityLongitude_MDD	nominalNames_MDD	taxonomyNotes_MDD	taxonomyNotesCitation_MDD	countryDistribution_MDD	continentDistribution_MDD	biogeographicRealm_MDD	iucnStatus_MDD	extinct_MDD	domestic_MDD	flagged_MDD	CMW_sciName_MDD	diffSinceCMW_MDD	MSW3_matchtype_MDD	MSW3_sciName_MDD	diffSinceMSW3_MDD	docOrigin_IUCN	internalTaxonId_IUCN	NAME_IUCN	kingdomName_IUCN	phylumName_IUCN	className_IUCN	orderName_IUCN	familyName_IUCN	genusName_IUCN	speciesName_IUCN	authoritySpeciesAuthorYear_IUCN	taxonomicNotes_IUCN	assessmentId_IUCN	scientificName_IUCN	redlistCategory_IUCN	redlistCriteria_IUCN	yearPublished_IUCN	assessmentDate_IUCN	criteriaVersion_IUCN	language_IUCN	rationale_IUCN	habitat_IUCN	threats_IUCN	population_IUCN	populationTrend_IUCN	range_IUCN	useTrade_IUCN	systems_IUCN	conservationActions_IUCN	realm_IUCN	yearLastSeen_IUCN	possiblyExtinct_IUCN	possiblyExtinctInTheWild_IUCN	scopes_IUCN	docOrigin_batnames2023	FAMILY_batnames2023	GENUS_batnames2023	SUBGENUS_batnames2023	SPECIES_batnames2023	authoritySpeciesAuthor_batnames2023	authoritySpeciesYearbatnames2023	PARENTHESES_batnames2023 (1=AUTHOR & DATE IN PARENTHESES)	CITATION_batnames2023	PAGES_batnames2023	COMMON NAME_batnames2023	SYNONYMS_batnames2023	TYPE LOCALITY_batnames2023	DISTRIBUTION_batnames2023	CITES_batnames2023	IUCN_batnames2023	COMMENTS_batnames2023	name MDD2023	id_MDD2023	phylosort_MDD2023	mainCommonName_MDD2023	otherCommonNames_MDD2023	subclass_MDD2023	infraclass_MDD2023	magnorder_MDD2023	superorder_MDD2023	order_MDD2023	suborder_MDD2023	infraorder_MDD2023	parvorder_MDD2023	superfamily_MDD2023	Family_mdd2023	subfamily_MDD2023	tribe_MDD2023	genus_MDD2023	subgenus_MDD2023	specificEpithet_MDD2023	authoritySpeciesAuthor_MDD2023	authoritySpeciesYear_MDD2023	authorityParentheses_MDD2023	originalNameCombination_MDD2023	authoritySpeciesCitation_MDD2023	authoritySpeciesLink_MDD2023	holotypeVoucher_MDD2023	holotypeVoucherURIs_MDD2023	typeLocality_MDD2023	typeLocalityLatitude_MDD2023	typeLocalityLongitude_MDD2023	nominalNames_MDD2023	taxonomyNotes_MDD2023	taxonomyNotesCitation_MDD2023	distributionNotes_MDD2023	distributionNotesCitation_MDD2023	subregionDistribution_MDD2023	countryDistribution_MDD2023	continentDistribution_MDD2023	biogeographicRealm_MDD2023	iucnStatus_MDD2023	extinct_MDD2023	domestic_MDD2023	flagged_MDD2023	CMW_sciName_MDD2023	diffSinceCMW_MDD2023	MSW3_matchtype_MDD2023	MSW3_sciName_MDD2023	diffSinceMSW3_MDD2023	docOrigin_MDD2025	sciName	id	phylosort	mainCommonName	otherCommonNames	subclass	infraclass	magnorder	superorder	order	suborder	infraorder	parvorder	superfamily	family	subfamily	tribe	genus	subgenus	specificEpithet	authoritySpeciesAuthor	authorityParentheses	originalNameCombination	authoritySpeciesCitation	authoritySpeciesLink	typeVoucher	typeKind	typeVoucherURIs	typeLocality	typeLocalityLatitude	typeLocalityLongitude	taxonomyNotes	taxonomyNotesCitation	distributionNotes	distributionNotesCitation	subregionDistribution	countryDistribution	continentDistribution	biogeographicRealm	iucnStatus	extinct	domestic	flagged	CMW_sciName	diffSinceCMW	MSW3_matchtype	MSW3_sciName	diffSinceMSW3	docOrigin_batnames2025	Family	Genus	Subgenus	Species	Author	Date	Parentheses (1=author & date in parentheses)	Citation	Pages	Common Name	Synonyms	Type Locality	Distribution	CITES	IUCN	Comments	column3781	column3791	subtribe	CONCAT_ALTNAMES
line:xlsx:hash://sha256/181a039844a33e66a35a457b7ece741051086608e425a040051b79581d606b97!/Sheet1!/L1292	application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger	Pteropus niger		[MSW2] See Bergmans (1990).; [MSW3] niger species group. Reviewed by Bergmans (1990).; [HMW] Vespertilio vampirus niger Kerr, 1792 , La Réunion Island , Mascarene Islands ( France ). Pteropus niger is in the vampyrus group. Monotypic.; [batnames2022]  vampyrus species group; see Almeida et al. (2014). Reviewed by Bergmans (1990).; [batnames2023]  vampyrus species group; see Almeida et al. (2014). Reviewed by Bergmans (1990).; [batnames2025_1.7] vampyrusspecies group; see Almeida et al. (2014). Reviewed by Bergmans (1990).						fuscus, mauritianus, vulgaris.			fuscus, mauritianus, rufus, pteropus, vulgaris			niger	niger - fuscus, mauritianus, rufus, pteropus, vulgaris	niger, caninus, fuscus, mauritianus, rufus, vulgaris, vulgare, pteropus		niger	niger - fuscus, mauritianus, rufus, pteropus, vulgaris	niger, caninus, fuscus, mauritianus, rufus, vulgaris, vulgare, pteropus 	niger, vampirus, fuscus, mauritianus, rufus, vulgaris, vulgaris, pteropus 	niger 	niger - fuscus, mauritianus, pteropus, rufus, vulgaris	niger (Kerr, 1792)|vampirus (de LacÃ©pÃ¨de, 1799) [preoccupied]|fuscus Ã‰. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803|mauritianus (Hermann, 1804)|rufus Tiedemann, 1808 [preoccupied]|vulgaris Ã‰. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1810|vulgaris (J. E. Gray, 1871) [preoccupied]|pteropus C. H. Merriam, 1895		Corbet, G.B. and Hill, J.E. 1980. A World List of Mammalian Species. British Museum (Natural History), London, 226 pp.	Greater Mascarene flying	Reunion, Mauritius; * fox	Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. and Koeppl, J.W. 1982. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Allen Press, Lawrence, 694 pp.	Pteropus niger	Mascarene Isis., Reunion Isl. (France).	Kerr	1792	Anim. Kingdom, 1:90.	Distribution: Confined to the Mascarene islands where known only subfossil from Rodriguez, apparently now extinct in Reun ion, but still surviving on Mauritius.		Corbet, G.B. and Hill, J.E. 1991. A World List of Mammalian Species. Third edition. Oxford University Press, London, 243 pp. ISBN 0-19-854017-5	Greater Mascarene flying fox	f Reunion, Mauritius; ref. 4.17; V	Koopman, K.F. 1993. Order Chiroptera. Pp. 137–242 in Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 1206 pp.	Kerr	1792	In Linnaeus, Anim. Kingdom, 1:90.	See Bergmans (1990).	Mascarene Isis (Reunion Isl, Mauritius Isl, subfossil on Rodriquez Isl).	Mascarene Isis, Reunion Isl (France).		KERR	1792	Ears very short and nearly concealed in fur. Tibia hairy dorsally. Size relatively large (forearm length, 159-171 mm).	Distribution: Confined to the Mascarene islands where known only subfossil from Rodriguez, apparently now extinct in Reun ion, but still surviving on Mauritius.	No sub species.		24	species	P. niger	KERR	1792	Pteropus	genus	Pteropus niger				Ears very short and nearly concealed in fur. Tibia hairy dorsally. Size relatively large (forearm length, 159-171 mm).	No sub species.		21. P. niger (KERR 1792) [niger group],	21	NA			Don E. Wilson & DeeAnn M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, 2,142 pp. (Available from Johns Hopkins University Press, 1-800-537-5487 or (410) 516-6900, or at http://www.press.jhu.edu).	CHIROPTERA	Pteropodidae			Pteropus niger	Pteropus		niger	Kerr	y	1792		In Linnaeus, Anim. Kingdom	1		90		Greater Mascarene Flying Fox	Mascarene Isls, Réunion Isl (France).	Mascarene Isls (Réunion Isl, Mauritius Isl, subfossil on Rodrigues Isl). Madagascar records are probably erroneous (Bergmans, 1990).	CITES – Appendix II. IUCN/SSC Action Plan (1992) – Vulnerable: Limited Distribution. IUCN 2003 – Vulnerable. Extinct on Réunion Isl, see Cheke and Dahl (1981).	fuscus E. Geoffroy, 1803; mauritianus Hermann, 1804; rufus Tiedemann, 1808 [not E. Geoffroy, 1803]; pteropus Merriam ex Brisson, 1895; vulgaris E. Geoffroy, 1810.	niger species group. Reviewed by Bergmans (1990).	03AD87FAFF99F6778C6637ECF77EF5EA	Handbook of the Mammals of the World – Volume 9 Bats, Barcelona: Lynx Edicions	978-84-16728-19-0	hbmw_9_Pteropodidae_16.pdf.imf	hash://md5/ff94ff82ffc4f62a891e341cffa5ff9b	160	zip:hash://sha256/ec5fd314a06aba1a7b0b72f23e54ac625ae272bd98f82f1d01f4c09627d9e8e0!/treatments-xml-main/data/03/AD/87/03AD87FAFFA2F64D8CB5334BFBBFFBBF.xml	Pteropus niger	Pteropodidae	Pteropus	niger	Kerr	1792	Roussette des Mascareignes @fr | Maskarenen-Flughund @de | Zorro volador de las @es | slas Mascarenas @en | Black-spined Flying Fox @en | Black-Spined Fruit Bat @en | Mauritian Flying Fox @en | Mauritius Fruit Bat @en	Vespertilio vampirus niger Kerr, 1792 , La Réunion Island , Mascarene Islands ( France ). Pteropus niger is in the vampyrus group. Monotypic.	Mauritius and Réunion Is.	Head-body 230 mm (tailless), ear 21 mm , mindfoot 51 mm , forearm 159-171 mm (males) and 143- 162 mm (females); weight 380- 340 g (males). Males are on average larger than females. Snout of the Greater Mascarene Flying Fox is blackish; head is yellowish or yellowish brown and dark russet-brown on top; eyes are large, with brown irises; and ears are small, pointed, and almost hidden in fur, with outer margin clearly concave and without conspicuous basal ear patches. Males and females are similar in color; sides of back and rump are buffy, contrasting with dark russet-brown of mantle and densely furred with 30-35-mm dark brown mid-back area (spinal track); anterior part of mantle is tinted with chestnut, lightening to dark cinnamon-rufous on occiput; middorsal hairs are 26 mm long; hairs of mantle are ¢. 27 mm ; short, dense fur above extends about one-third along forearm. Tibia is thickly haired above. Venter is dark reddish brown, darker on throat; hairs on middle of abdomen are ¢. 26 mm ; anal region is buffy or ocherous bufty; and humerus, proximal part of forearm, and tibia are densely furred in the same color. Wings are blackish brown; uropatagium is narrow, with central part hidden by fur; underside is furred from outer side of forearm to line connecting elbow with knee. Skull and dentition is typical pteropine.	Forested areas, primarily in mountain ranges with restricted access.	The Greater Mascarene Flying Fox is primarily frugivorous but also eats leaves and blossoms from 18 plant species. It feeds on fruits or flowers from at least 31 plant genera in 26 families.	Litter size of the Greater Mascarene Flying Fox is one, exceptionally two. Mating starts in April-May, and births occur in August-December (peak in October) after gestation of 4:6-6-3 months when commercial plants (e.g. mango and litchi) are fruiting. Mating couples generally copulate well out of sight from main roosting groups.	The Greater Mascarene Flying Fox is primarily nocturnal, but some individuals forage during the day. After foraging, they return to the same roost they departed from or to a new one. During dry season (August-December), roosts in northwestern Mauritius are more frequently used. Roosts are found in native tall trees ( Labourdonnaisia , Sapotaceae ) or exotic tall trees such as Eucalyptus ( Myrtaceae ), Tabebuia ( Bignoniaceae ), Araucaria ( Araucariaceae ), or Albizia ( Fabaceae ).	Greater Mascarene Flying Foxes will travel up to 92 km to forage in different habitats, including orchards. Population on Réunion of only c.40 individuals resulted from recent wind-driven immigration from Mauritius or a release from a captive colony following closing of Parc Zoologique de Saint Denis in 2006/2007.	CITES Appendix II. Classified as Endangered on The [UCN Red List. Population of the Greater Mascarene Flying Fox declined more than 50% in the last few years to a current estimate of ¢.37,000 individuals chiefly due to a governmentimplemented culling in 2015 and 2016 (30,938 and 7350 bats killed, respectively). Illegal hunting and accidental deaths from collisions with powerlines (6000 bats in 2016) are also threats. Habitat loss, increased risks of major cyclones, and introduction of competing alien animals such as Long-tailed Macaques (Macaca fascicularis) affect its current status. It occurs in Black River Gorges National Park, butthis did not protect them from culling. It recolonized Réunion after being extirpated for over a century.	Aimeida et al. (2014) | Andersen (1912b) | Bergmans (1991) | Caceres (2011) | Cheke & Dahl (1981) | Florens et al. (2017) | Kingston et al. (2018) | Nyhagen et al. (2005) | Oleksy et al. (2018)		186. Greater Mascarene Flying Fox Pteropus niger French: Roussette des Mascareignes / German: Maskarenen-Flughund / Spanish: Zorro volador de las Islas Mascarenas Other common names: Black-spined Flying Fox , Black-Spined Fruit Bat , Mauritian Flying Fox , Mauritius Fruit Bat Taxonomy. Vespertilio vampirus niger Kerr, 1792 , La Réunion Island , Mascarene Islands ( France ). Pteropus niger is in the vampyrus group. Monotypic. Distribution. Mauritius and Réunion Is. Descriptive notes. Head-body 230 mm (tailless), ear 21 mm , mindfoot 51 mm , forearm 159-171 mm (males) and 143- 162 mm (females); weight 380- 340 g (males). Males are on average larger than females. Snout of the Greater Mascarene Flying Fox is blackish; head is yellowish or yellowish brown and dark russet-brown on top; eyes are large, with brown irises; and ears are small, pointed, and almost hidden in fur, with outer margin clearly concave and without conspicuous basal ear patches. Males and females are similar in color; sides of back and rump are buffy, contrasting with dark russet-brown of mantle and densely furred with 30-35-mm dark brown mid-back area (spinal track); anterior part of mantle is tinted with chestnut, lightening to dark cinnamon-rufous on occiput; middorsal hairs are 26 mm long; hairs of mantle are ¢. 27 mm ; short, dense fur above extends about one-third along forearm. Tibia is thickly haired above. Venter is dark reddish brown, darker on throat; hairs on middle of abdomen are ¢. 26 mm ; anal region is buffy or ocherous bufty; and humerus, proximal part of forearm, and tibia are densely furred in the same color. Wings are blackish brown; uropatagium is narrow, with central part hidden by fur; underside is furred from outer side of forearm to line connecting elbow with knee. Skull and dentition is typical pteropine. Habitat. Forested areas, primarily in mountain ranges with restricted access. Food and Feeding. The Greater Mascarene Flying Fox is primarily frugivorous but also eats leaves and blossoms from 18 plant species. It feeds on fruits or flowers from at least 31 plant genera in 26 families. Breeding. Litter size of the Greater Mascarene Flying Fox is one, exceptionally two. Mating starts in April-May, and births occur in August-December (peak in October) after gestation of 4:6-6-3 months when commercial plants (e.g. mango and litchi) are fruiting. Mating couples generally copulate well out of sight from main roosting groups. Activity patterns. The Greater Mascarene Flying Fox is primarily nocturnal, but some individuals forage during the day. After foraging, they return to the same roost they departed from or to a new one. During dry season (August-December), roosts in northwestern Mauritius are more frequently used. Roosts are found in native tall trees ( Labourdonnaisia , Sapotaceae ) or exotic tall trees such as Eucalyptus ( Myrtaceae ), Tabebuia ( Bignoniaceae ), Araucaria ( Araucariaceae ), or Albizia ( Fabaceae ). Movements, Home range and Social organization. Greater Mascarene Flying Foxes will travel up to 92 km to forage in different habitats, including orchards. Population on Réunion of only c.40 individuals resulted from recent wind-driven immigration from Mauritius or a release from a captive colony following closing of Parc Zoologique de Saint Denis in 2006/2007. Status and Conservation. CITES Appendix II. Classified as Endangered on The [UCN Red List. Population of the Greater Mascarene Flying Fox declined more than 50% in the last few years to a current estimate of ¢.37,000 individuals chiefly due to a governmentimplemented culling in 2015 and 2016 (30,938 and 7350 bats killed, respectively). Illegal hunting and accidental deaths from collisions with powerlines (6000 bats in 2016) are also threats. Habitat loss, increased risks of major cyclones, and introduction of competing alien animals such as Long-tailed Macaques (Macaca fascicularis) affect its current status. It occurs in Black River Gorges National Park, butthis did not protect them from culling. It recolonized Réunion after being extirpated for over a century. Bibliography. Aimeida et al. (2014), Andersen (1912b), Bergmans (1991), Caceres (2011), Cheke & Dahl (1981), Florens et al. (2017), Kingston et al. (2018), Nyhagen et al. (2005), Oleksy et al. (2018).	Simmons, N.B. and A.L. Cirranello. 2022B. Bat Species of the World: A taxonomic and geographic database. Accessed on 10/11/2022.	Pteropodidae	Pteropus niger	Pteropus		niger	Kerr	1792	1	In Linnaeus, Anim. Kingdom	0.1042	Greater Mascarene Flying Fox	 fuscus E. Geoffroy, 1803; mauritianus Hermann, 1804; rufus Tiedemann, 1808 [not E. Geoffroy, 1803]; pteropus Merriam ex Brisson, 1895; vulgaris E. Geoffroy, 1810.	Mascarene Isls, RÃ©union Isl (France).	Mascarene Isls (RÃ©union Isl, Mauritius Isl, subfossil on Rodrigues Isl). Madagascar records are probably erroneous (Bergmans, 1990).	Appendix II	Endangered	 vampyrus species group; see Almeida et al. (2014). Reviewed by Bergmans (1990).	Mammal Diversity Database. (2023). Mammal Diversity Database (Version 1.11) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7830771 released 15 April 2023	Pteropus niger	23	Greater Mascarene Flying Fox	Black-spined Flying Fox|Black-Spined Fruit Bat|Mauritian Flying Fox|Mauritius Fruit Bat	Theria	Placentalia	Boreoeutheria	Laurasiatheria	CHIROPTERA	PTEROPODIFORMES	NA	NA	PTEROPODOIDEA	PTEROPODIDAE	PTEROPODINAE	PTEROPODINI	Pteropus	NA	niger	Kerr	1792	0	Vesp[ertilio]._vampirus_niger	Kerr, R. (1792). The Animal Kingdom, or Zoological System, of the celebrated Sir Charles LinnÃ¦us; being a translation of that part of the Systema NaturÃ¦, as lately published, with great improvements, By Professor Gmelin of Goettingen. - Together with numerous additions from more recent zoological writers, and illustrated with copperplates. Class I. Mammalia. A. Strahan & T. Cadell, London and W. Creech, Edinburgh, 90.	https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/119041#page/140/mode/1up	NA		La RÃ©union Island, Mascarene Islands (France).			niger (Kerr, 1792)|caninus (Blumenbach, 1797)|fuscus Ã‰. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803|mauritianus (Hermann, 1804)|rufus Tiedemann, 1808 [preoccupied]|vulgaris Ã‰. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1810|vulgare (J. E. Gray, 1870)|pteropus Merriam, 1895	NA	NA	Mauritius|Reunion	Africa	Afrotropic	EN	0	0	0	Pteropus_niger	0	sciname match	Pteropus_niger	0	IUCN. 2022. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on [28 September, 2022].	18743	Pteropus niger	ANIMALIA	CHORDATA	MAMMALIA	CHIROPTERA	PTEROPODIDAE	Pteropus	niger	(Kerr, 1792)		90000000	Pteropus niger	Endangered	A4cde	2018	2017-11-19 00:00:00 UTC	3.1	English	<p>Listed as Endangered based on estimated population decline of 50% in 2015 and 2016 and projected continued decline of &gt;50% from January 2015 forward three generations (20 years). Observed decline is due to government-implemented mass culls in 2015 and 2016, illegal hunting and killing by the local population, and accidental mortality on powerlines. Projected declines are based on: i) continued hunting and culling pressures combined with reduced legal protection of the species; ii) continuing reduction in the extent and quality of forest, a key habitat that is relied upon for roosting and foraging); and iii) likelihood of a major cyclone occurring on Mauritius within three generations. </p>	<p><span lang="EN-US">Most known roost sites are in forest, mostly in the more forested parts of mountain ranges, in secure places with restricted access, on the leeward side and generally without exposure to full sun (Sookhareea 2011), but roosts are also found in forest remnants all over the island (Oleksy 2015). Roost sites number a few hundred trees (since each roost consists of a few tall trees), with accessible canopy structures, and with terminal branches strong enough to bear the weight of a few large bats. Favoured trees genera and tree species are a mixture of native and exotic species: Eucalyptus spp., Tecoma (Tabebuia pallida ), Araucaria spp., Bois noir (Albizia lebbek ), and the endemic Bois de natte (Labourdonnaisia glauca ). A substantial roost site was also located in the<span lang="EN"> Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam Botanical Garden, Pamplemousses, prior to the cull of 2015.<span lang="EN-US"> ;However, the roost is seasonal, with a major colony arriving around October-November which coincides with the fruiting season. During the dry season (April-September) only a few bats are present. Roost sites represent day resting places. Many individuals collect at these roost sites, but the bats are highly vagile and move often from roost to roost, often over large distances and for a variety of reasons, such as disturbance, changes in prevailing wind, food availability, stage of the reproductive cycle. Satellite telemetry has shown that, during the night, the bats may travel up to 92 kilometres around the island to forage in different habitats, including human habitation and orchards. After foraging, they may return to their original roost or switch to new localities (Oleksy 2015). ; Roosts in the north-west of the island are much more heavily used during the dry season (Augustâ€“December). So, although roosts are often historic and used over many years, the number of bats using them can fluctuate markedly (and they may be deserted for part of the year), as happens with historic roosts after a major disturbance. Thus, although the roost sites are very important for conservation, and should be treated as such regarding their contribution to the maintenance of the population, they cannot be treated as individual units for a Red List assessment. In view of the nature of the major threats and the way the bats move around the island nightly and among roost sites, it is not possible to define any number of discrete locations within Mauritius: it is considered that the number of locations for this species is one, corresponding to the island of Mauritius. Moreover, mitochondrial sequence data from individuals from four roosts on the island indicate that the population is likely to be panmictic (Larsen et al . 2014). Half the plant species that have been identified as contributing to the diet of the species are native and half exotic (Nyhagen 2004, Nyhagen et al. 2005). However, recent studies indicate that fruit bats feed on more native and endemic fruits than previously known (Florens et al . 2017a), as well as leaves and blossoms (Oleksy 2016). The breeding season starts around May and the young are born during August to December, when commercial fruits such as mango and litchi are fruiting. Because both crops are widespread in Mauritius the bats feed on them widely, foraging in plantations (orchards), small holdings and gardens. Without the mix of natural food sources and some exotic food sources it is likely that the population and breeding success of the bats will decline to some extent. During May-July (mid dry season) bats have been found dead under the roosts, probably due to food shortages (R. Oleksy, pers. obs.) as has been suggested by autopsy reports (V. Tatayah, pers. obs.). Thus, there is a strong reliance on forest, both for roosting and for foraging. ;</span></p>	<p><span lang="EN-US">This species is threatened by: ; a) habitat destruction and decline in quality, specifically the loss of roosting and feeding trees; b) invasive alien plants that reduce flowering and fruiting of trees and animal species, namely monkeys, that destroy food resources, especially fruits; c) cyclones; d) persecution in response to conflict over fruit crops; e) illegal hunting; and f) accidental deaths e.g., electrocution on powerlines. These threats commonly interact. a). Habitat destruction and decline in quality : There are no data on threats to specific roost sites, although there has been a progressive net loss of larger native trees within protected forests (Florens et al. 2017b). Losses include the commonly used roost tree Labourdonnaisia glauca . Decline of large trees is probably even faster in the more invaded forest (which consist of about two thirds of the remaining â€˜nativeâ€™ forests). Threats to bats at roost sites in Mauritius (e.g., hunting, cyclones, human disturbance) can impact many roosts at one time and in no pattern. In the case of an intense cyclone, a very large number of roosts can be damaged at the same time, and the roosts damaged will depend on details of the movement of the cyclone and its strength. Forest habitats suitable for roosting and important for feeding, particularly at certain times of year, have seen major decline of what is already a habitat much depleted in both area and quality. Native forests are highly fragmented (Safford 1997, Florens 2013) and dominated by invasive alien plants, particularly in the wet forests (Florens 2008, Florens et al. 2016). The total extent of forest cover in Mauritius is c . 25% of total land area, but much of this is planted forests and shrubland (14%). Only about 5% is native forest (Hammond et al . 2015), of which only one third (1.7%) is has more than 50% native canopy cover. The remaining native forest (3.3%) has less than 50% native canopy cover (Safford 1997, Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security 2015). In 2013, the extent of native forest with &gt; 50% plant canopy cover, so of â€œreasonable qualityâ€, was estimated at around 2,600 ha (Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security 2015). While the significant holdings by government have shown little decline in recent years, natural habitat on private holdings has declined, and that decline is likely to continue. Illegal habitat destruction has also been recorded in Mauritius, even in protected areas, including some prime foraging habitats like the Cabinet Nature Reserve (Florens 2013). Declining habitat quality in the remaining protected areas is also of great concern. Density of large trees (&gt;10 cm diameter) has roughly halved in about 70 years even in lesser invaded and protected native forests (Florens et al. 2017b). This equates to a rate of loss of about 5% large tree density per generation of P. niger , with likely consequences for the islandâ€™s P. niger carrying capacity. Although potential foraging area for bats has increased following the wider introduction of fruit farms, especially for litchi and mango, these are only available for a short period of the year (October-December). Most of the year, the bats would not survive without forest foraging. Moreover, foraging on fruit crops has brought the species into conflict with people and precipitated persecution by individuals and government-implemented mass culls. b). Invasive plant and animal species : Invasion of native forests by alien plants is of conservation relevance to Pteropus niger sub populations on Mauritius as it reduces production of flowers and fruits among natives (Monty et al. 2013), including those that produce fruits taken by P. niger (Nyhagen et al. 2005, Baider and Florens 2006, Krivek 2017). <span lang="EN-US">Introduced Crab-eating Macaques (Macaca fascicularis ) further reduce the abundance of native fruits available to P. niger, taking fruits of key species before they ripen enough for bat consumption (Nyhagen 2004). For example, Baider and Florens (2006) reported losses &gt; <span lang="EN-US">95% of all the fruits of Sideroxylon grandiflorum (Sapotaceae), an endemic canopy tree reliant upon P. niger for seed dispersal. They observed similar levels of damage to unripe fruit for several ebony species, e.g., the common Black Ebony (Diospyros tessellaria ) and the rarer D. nodose , and for Mimusops maxima (Sapotaceae), another important canopy tree of wet forests. These trees are important native fruit trees for P. niger , that tends to eat mostly ripe fruit (Krivek 2017). <a name="_Hlk491861085">The population of macaques was reduced to an estimated 8,000 animals between 2006-2007, as wild animals were trapped for export for medical research (Sussman et al . 2011). However, macaque numbers have increased over the last decade, </a><span lang="EN-US">with censuses suggesting a wild population of 30,000<span lang="EN-US">â€“40,000 (Trask et al. 2013), and more recent estimates of 50,000. The immediate and cumulative effects of invasive plants and monkeys combined limit the abundance of native fruits available to bats in the forest remnants. Moreover, only 500 ha or so of Mauritian native vegetation has been freed from alien plants out of the 90-km square or so (i.e., less than 4% of native vegetation is recovering from alien plant invasion â€“ but not of monkey impacts). The vast majority of the native vegetation (96%) continues to degrade under the impact of invasive plants <span lang="EN-US">(Florens et al . 2017b)<span lang="EN-US">. c). Cyclones : Cyclones cause direct mortality to island fruit bats, destroy roost trees, and reduce fruit and flower resources resulting in starvation and/or compromised reproduction (McConkey et al. 2004). Dramatic population declines/extirpation following cyclones have been observed in island Pteropus populations in Tonga (McConkey et al. 2004), Samoa (Craig and Syron 1992, Craig et al . 1994), Christmas Island (Richards and Hall 2012), and neighboring Rodrigues. Cheke and Dahl (1981) report previous declines of P. niger on Mauritius following cyclones Carol (1960) and Claudette (1979), based on accounts from hunters and a report by Jones (1980). Mauritius has been hit by at least 38 cyclones (winds &gt; 120 km/hr) in the last 86 years (one cyclone every 2.26 years). This gives a mean of 8-9 such cyclones during three generations (taken as 20 years) among which an average of at least two have devastating winds exceeding 210 km/hr. ; In the previous 20 years (three generations), the Mauritius Meteorological Services reported 11 cyclones/severe tropical storms, of which four were classified as intense (sustained winds &gt; 159 km/hr) or very intense (&gt; 210 km/hr). Although the last very intense tropical cyclone was in 2002, the risk remains high and recent trends and climate change forecasts suggest that frequency of strong cyclones is on the increase (Webster et al . 2005, Kuleshov et al . 2010, Kuleshov 2014). Maximum wind speeds are also likely to increase (Elsner et al . 2008, Deo and Ganer 2014) as is the rate at which cyclones intensify (Kishtawal et al . 2012). Climate change simulations for Mauritius further suggest a decrease in rainfall (Howells et al . 2013), which would likely negatively affect the availability of fruit and flower resources and lower the islandâ€™s carrying capacity. d). Persecution in response to conflict over fruit crops : Foraging on soft fruits has brought P. niger into conflict with fruit growers, both â€œbackyardâ€ and commercial, particularly during the litchi season in November-early January. Pressure from fruit growers resulted in a mass cull of the species by the Government from November-December 2015. The cull was carried out by Special Mobile Force using rifles of 0.22 calibre, and 26,225 cartridges 12 bore were used. Although the original target figure was 20% of the population (Anon. 2015), the total reported by the Commission of Police, as communicated by Honourable M. Seeruttun, the Minister of Agro-Industry and Food Security in Parliamentary Debate of 24 May 2016 (Anon. 2016) was 30,938. Per the Ministerâ€™s response, â€œthe culling of bats was carried out in various regions throughout the island where bats exist, and these regions are mainly forest areas on both State and private lands. The island was split into four regions: the northern, southern, western and central eastern regions, and the culling exercise was carried out on different sites in those regionsâ€. ; The December 2016 cull killed 7,380 bats (Anon. 2017). During the 2015 cull, although bats were still protected from private action, illegal take of bats for sport or control increased from an estimated 2,000 bats per year (Hutson and Racey 2013) to about 5,000 individuals (<a href="http://www.mauritian-wildlife.org">www.mauritian-wildlife.org</a>), and possibly as many as 6,000 (V. Tatayah, pers. comm). Collectively, losses since October 2015 â€“ January 2017 are c . 50% ((38,318 bats culled + 10,000 illegal take + 2,000 powerline fatalities)/2015 pre-cull population of 99,438) (Vincenot et al . 2017). Although P. niger was ;protected under law by the Wildlife and National Park Act of 1993, in the 20+ years of legal protection, no fines were levied on those taking bats illegally (Florens 2013). ; The Wildlife and National Park Act of 1993 was repealed by the Native Terrestrial Biodiversity and National Parks Act (2015). Although the species is still protected from hunting, Clause 36 allows establishment of a Special Technical Committee specifically for â€œthe purpose of controlling wildlifeâ€ that has attained â€œpest statusâ€, and it was under this Clause that the culls of 2015 and 2016 were enacted. This erosion of protection for P. niger increases the ease and hence probability that the government will continue to implement future culls. Assessment of the species will be implemented should other culls take place. The Sugar Protocol, which gave <span lang="EN">African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States<span lang="EN-US"> (ACP) countries<span lang="EN"> preferential access to the EU market, expired in 2009. Consequently, there has been some conversion of land from sugar cane production to other uses, including fruit crops (Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security 2015). ; This suggests that fruit grower-bat conflicts are likely to persist (and possibly increase) over the next three generations, unless mitigation measures are adopted (netting of trees, planting dwarf varieties, pruning). Given the weakened legal protection, and continuing conflict with fruit-growers, future government-implemented culls are considered probable, and illegal killing of bats by the public likely to remain at current levels (at least 5,000 per year) without explicit intervention. e). Hunting : Hutson and Racey (2013) estimated that illegal take of bats for sport or control was c . 2,000 bats per year. Since the 2015 cull, although bats were still protected from private action, illegal take of bats for sport or control increased to an estimated 5,000 individuals (<span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.mauritian-wildlife.org">www.mauritian-wildlife.org</a>), and possibly as many as 6,000. This offtake by hunters contributes to a sizeable annual mortality rate that will influence the long-term viability of the population. Therefore, it is important to devise methods to estimate the figure with greater accuracy and to reduce the number through enforcement and management of public perceptions. f). Accidental deaths : It is estimated that approximately 1,000-2,000 bats land and die on power lines each year (<span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.mauritian-wildlife.org">www.mauritian-wildlife.org</a>, V. Tatayah, pers. obs.). In addition, several hundred to a thousand bats die each year in poorly-set nets used to exclude bats from fruit crops. Bats become entangled in slack nets and die of dehydration, starvation or are actively persecuted and killed by people. ;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>	<p>There has been a range of population estimates (of total number of individuals on Mauritius) with the first estimate of 10,000 individuals in 1974 (Cheke and Dahl 1981). A.S. Cheke (pers. comm. 2012) admits that this was a crude estimate based on counts of a few colonies and talks with hunters and other anecdotal sources<a name="_Hlk494359517">. </a><a name="_Hlk495316838"></a><a name="_Hlk495316272">Robin (2007) identified 54 occupied roosts, of which 36 were categorized during pre-assessment into size classes (&lt;300, 300-600, 600-900, &gt; 900). 24 of the 36 sites were selected in a stratified random design for evening dispersal counts (two sites for each size class from each of three geographic regions [East, West, North]). Based on the counts from the 24 sites sampled twice, she estimated that the population of the 36 sites to be about 15,700 bats. This is a partial population estimate as it did not account for bats roosting at the remaining 18 </a>known sites. The Mauritian government has carried out counts since 2003, and data are available for 2006, 2010, 2013 and 2016. These give figures of 22-25,000 for 2006, 49-56,000 for 2010 (Sookhareea 2011), and 92,000 for 2013 (NPCS 2013) using a range of methods, but predominantly disturbance counts. These figures were questioned by the IUCN SSC Bat Specialist Group because of widespread use of disturbance counts. In disturbance counts, the colony to be counted is disturbed by a loud noise (such as a fire cracker under the roost) that causes the bats to disperse. Most animals fly out at the same time and in multiple directions, so standardized counts are challenging. Moreover, recent satellite telemetry data suggest that bats move widely across the island within and among nights (Oleksy 2015). Similarly, repeated counts of Robin (2007) over successive days, as well as separated by several weeks, exhibited high variance. Both disturbance counts and among-roost movements can lead to an over-estimation of the population. In 2016, the population was surveyed by the National Parks and Conservation Service (NPCS) using only evening dispersal counts and roost counts. To minimize error from movement of bats among roosting areas, the 2016 survey was conducted over three weeks, a shorter period than in previous years, and several roosts were counted simultaneously, although nightly movement of bats among roosts could not be accounted for. The 2016 population was estimated at 62,500 (+/- 7 % due to observer error) which gives an upper bound of 66,875, lower 58,125. Although there is some variability in the timing and methods of counts from 2003 to 2016, they provide good evidence that the population was increasing prior to the 2015 cull, although the scale of that increase is uncertain. An increase is likely since there was no significant cyclone in that period, and major cyclones result in heavy losses, from which the population is slow to recover. The number of known roost sites has also increased from c . 14 in 2003 (Nyhagen 2004) to c . 54 (Robin 2007, Sookhareea 2011), 63 in 2013 (NPCS 2013), and 83 in 2016. In 2007 a small subpopulation (10-20 animals) was identified on RÃ©union (where the species formerly occurred, but has been extinct for well over 100 years). These animals are generally assumed to have blown over from Mauritius (as suggested for other stray individual records since 2000), although it is possible they were released from a captive colony following the closure of Parc Zoologique de Saint Denis in 2006-7 (V. Tatayah pers. comm.). The population was recently estimated at about 40 individuals (Probst and Sanchez 2015). However, breeding appears limited and erratic on RÃ©union, so this subpopulation has not been considered for the purposes of this assessment. In October-November 2015, the government of Mauritius implemented a cull, and reported that 30,938 bats were killed (Anon. 2016). From this, and the 2016 NPCS survey of 62,500, the pre-cull 2015 population was at least 93,438 individuals (62,500 + 30,938). To this we add a conservative estimate of 5,000 individuals killed illegally in 2015 (<span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.mauritian-wildlife.org">www.mauritian-wildlife.org</a>), either hunting for sport or food or trapped in nets, and a further 1,000 powerline fatalities (<a href="http://www.mauritian-wildlife.org">www.mauritian-wildlife.org</a>) to calculate total estimated fatalities in 2015 as 36,938 individuals. This suggests that the pre-cull population of 2015 was c . 99,438 individuals (2015 combined fatalities + 2016 population estimate). From this baseline of 99,438 individuals, the 2015 fatalities (36,938 individuals) represented 37.15% of the 2015 population. This does not account for off-site mortality of animals injured during the cull or mortality of orphaned young (the cull occurred in the middle of the breeding season). A second cull was implemented in December 2016, killing a further 7380 individuals (Anon. 2017). Illegal killing and powerline fatalities are conservatively estimated at 6000 in 2016, thus total population losses from October 2015 to January 2017 reached 50% ((38,318 bats culled + 10,000 illegal take 2,000 powerline fatalities)/2015 pre-cull population of 99,438). If illegal killing and powerline fatalities remain at 6,000 per year, population growth models indicate that the species could be reduced by 64-80% within the next 12-20 years, depending on model assumptions. Life history and fecundity data are limited for Pteropus niger, so model parameters were based on those of P. poliocephalus as reported in McIlwee and Martin (2002). The most conservative assumptions were made, that is, the highest values for survival and fecundity were selected and fecundity was assumed not to decline in old age. Specifically, we assumed only 30% mortality of individuals in their first year, and 10% thereafter until year 15 when all remaining individuals died. Note these are background mortality rates, and do not include deaths from powerlines or illegal killing. We modeled that 20% of females bred in their second year, and 90% in the third year until 15 years and females gave birth to a maximum of one young per year. ; This generated a generation time of 6.67 years and the maximum (or intrinsic) rate of increase per capita, r<sub>max</sub>, of 0.122 (comparable to that of models in McIlwee and Martin 2002, as would be expected). These values were used in a simple logistic growth model to evaluate the consequence of annual offtake (mortality arising from human activities) of 6000 a year. Evidence of starvation was detected in dead bats collected in 2015, prior to the cull (V. Tatayah, pers. obs.), when the population is inferred to be less than 100,000. As 2015 was a drought year, carrying capacity was generously estimated at 150,000 individuals. With a starting population of 62,500, carrying capacity of 150,000, and offtake of 6,000 individuals per year and an additional 7,380 individuals removed by the cull of 2016, the population declines by 82% (to c . <span lang="EN-US">17,703) of the pre-culls value of 2015 in 16 years (2031), or in 2.4 generations. This threshold is reached within 12 years (2027) if carrying capacity is modeled at 100,000 individuals. <span lang="EN-US">These models assume constant mortality (of 6,000 per year), but it is likely that bats will prove more elusive as populations decline. A constant proportion model, in which anthropogenic mortality is 10% of the population total each year with a starting population of 62,500 and including the 2016 cull of 7,380, reported a reduction by 64% (K = 150,000) and 72% (K = 100,000) of pre-cull numbers within three generations. Because of the uncertainty of the level of illegal offtake current and projected, we assess the species conservatively as Endangered. However, we highlight these are simple models that do not account for environmental stochasticity, such as the probability of extreme weather events, especially cyclones, or the implementation of additional culls. Either event will trigger reassessment as they would likely precipitate population declines approaching 80% over three generations (2015-2034), justifying an assessment of Critically Endangered.</span></p>	Decreasing	<p><span lang="EN-US">This species was extirpated from RÃ©union in the early eighteenth century, and until recently has been restricted to the western Indian Ocean island of Mauritius (Bergmans 1999, Cheke and Hume 2008). <a name="_Hlk495317356">There are, however, recent records of a small subpopulation (c . 40 individuals) on RÃ©union from naturally recolonizing or released individuals (Probst and Sanchez 2015), so the species is no longer considered extinct on RÃ©union. </a>Cheke and Hume (2008) consider it possible that bats reported by Leguat in Rodrigues in 1691-1692 (Leguat 1708) might have been this species.</p>	This species is locally used for s<span lang="EN-US">port hunting and as a source of food.	Terrestrial	<p><u> Current conservation efforts </u> <u> </u> This species is listed on Appendix II of CITES. The Native Terrestrial Biodiversity and National Parks Act (2015) protects the species from hunting, but allows a Special Technical Committee to recommend population control measures of wildlife species that attain â€œpest statusâ€. The species occurs in protected areas, including the Black River Gorges National Park (Nyhagen 2004), nature reserves and mountain reserves, but these areas did not afford protection from the 2015 cull â€” bats were culled in â€˜Protected Areasâ€™, including Mountain Reserves, River Reserves, and even prime tourist sites such as the <span lang="EN">Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam Botanical Garden, Pamplemousses. IUCN Motion 15 â€œProtection of wild bats from culling programmesâ€ was overwhelmingly adopted by IUCN members during the IUCN World Conservation Congress 2016, with votes to accept from 94% of national and international NGOâ€™s and 97% of governments. The resulting IUCN Resolution WCC-2016-Res-019-EN: â€œurges governments to seek non-lethal solutions/mitigation measures to conflicts between humans and bats, as part of a strategy that combines scientific research on bat ecology and ecosystem services, as well as on life-history characteristics that support population models; and URGES governments to not authorise or sanction culls of wild bat populations unless there is peer reviewed evidence of the significant impact of bats on food security or public health, all non-lethal solutions have been exhausted, there is clear scientific evidence and opinion that a cull will resolve the issue and not threaten species survival, and any decision to authorise a cull is underpinned by rigorous scientific evidence regarding the population structure and dynamics of the species and understanding of the impact of the proposed cull â€™â€™. The Mauritian Wildlife Foundation (MWF) is collaborating with Chester Zoo (UK) and NPCS to try to understand the human-fruit bat conflict and take measures to address this conflict. ; These measures may range from education to practical mitigation measures. ; MWF has also instigated an education program supported by a Rufford Grant. The Ecosystem Restoration Alliance (ERA), Indian Ocean, is conducting a 3-year educational program by which all the schools and community centers will be reached. Along with NPCS, ERA is testing organic repellents as well as sound systems to deter bats in orchards- non-lethal net free solution. In June 2017, a joint initiative â€œThe people, bats and fruit industry of Mauritius: a process towards a common solutionâ€ was launched by the IUCN SSC Task Force on Human-Wildlife Conflict, with the Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security, (Government of Mauritius), and the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation (MWF), in consultation with representatives of the fruit-growing industry, the IUCN SSC Bat Specialist Group, and members of the scientific community in Mauritius and overseas. The parties proposed an Action Plan that focused on a netting to manage fruit bat damage to orchards, development of a national research strategy, and mediated dialogues. 1. Net Benefits Initiative A two-day stakeholder workshop on netting and management of fruit bat damage to orchards was held in August 2017 (Zimmerman et al. 2017). The meeting was hosted by the Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security via its Food and Agricultural Research Extension Institute (FAREI) and participants were drawn from small orchard owners, commercial orchard managers, netting importers and distributors extension officers and research staff from FAREI, researchers and staff of NPCS and MWF, fruit exporters, and fruit traders. In addition to the Mauritian participants, five specialists from overseas participated: lychee farmers with successful experience in netting against bats in Australia, an expert in fruit bat ecology and bat damage prevention from Thailand, and human-wildlife conflict experts from the IUCN SSC Task Force on Human Wildlife Conflict, and Chester Zoo. The workshop comprised presentations, site visits and breakout sessions wherein working groups discussed key issues and strategies for reducing damage by bats and improving lychee productivity more generally. Resulting recommendations focused on: 1. Nets and netting â€“ provision of white, 40% UV-treated small mesh-size nets and assistance with materials/construction of net frames. 2. Pruning of fruit trees â€“ to a maximum of 4 m (ideally 2 m). 3. Equipment and training â€“ mechanisms for assistance with equipment hire or purchase needed. 4. Model orchards â€“ of two types: a) existing orchards modified to improve production and ease of netting; and b) new orchards planted and managed to provide optimum production, ease of harvest and netting. 5. Development of export markets for tropical fruit â€“ recognizing that to be competitive in overseas markets crops must be ethically sourced. 6. Backyard growers â€“ behavior change (uptake of net use) requires peer-behavior incentive measures (social marketing, development of new social norms). 7. Continued dialogue and collaborative action. 2. Research Strategy A workshop is planned to identify the knowledge and research needs for managing the Mauritius fruit-bat conflict in the long-term. Participants will produce a jointly-designed research needs strategy, determine a plan of action and sequence of priorities, and build collaborations to tackle each action in turn going forward. 3. Mediated dialogues To resolve additional conflicts and build lasting working relationships. <u> Conservation needs/priorities </u> <u> </u> There is a clear need to maintain monitoring of the population size, population dynamics, and response to cyclones. The basic biology of Pteropus niger remains quite poorly known, and data are urgently needed to parameterize population growth and viability models. Specifically, studies that detail life history and demographic information, especially age-specific fecundity and mortality rates, and that quantify illegal offtake (hunting/killing) and mortality due to powerlines and net entanglement, are critical for modeling population viability. Regular surveys provide insights into population dynamics and a means by which conservation interventions could be assessed. Similarly, the intensity of other threats need to be quantified and ultimately reduced. Notably, competition with non-native frugivores and the effect of degradation and invasive plants on food availability in native forests, as these factors affect carrying capacity. Hunting and persecution need to be reduced through enforcement of the existing law that protect bats from public action (Native Terrestrial Biodiversity and National Parks Act 2015), and campaigns to change the public perceptions of bats. Public perceptions are entrenched and polarized, so research into campaign strategies that might prove effective is needed before widespread implementation. ; Ecological studies that can feed in to such campaigns include research into dietary phenology and movement ecology to provide further insights into the importance of P. niger as an agent of dispersal and pollination of the islandâ€™s native flora, as well as the extent, distribution and timing of P. niger â€™s exploitation of fruit crops. The culls of 2015 and 2016 were precipitated by conflicts with fruit-growers, particularly litchi growers. Although there have been both government (FAREI 2015) and independent (Oleksy 2016) evaluations of fruit loss to bats, continued long-term multi-site studies of the intensity of fruit crop-offtake by bats relative to other sources of loss (birds, fungi, wind) are needed. Bats will take some proportion of fruit crops, but use of dwarf varieties and pruning, and protection of crops with nets can reduce losses to marginal economic relevance. Sustainable resolution of this conflict is a conservation priority, and it is critical that the recent initiative â€œThe people, bats and fruit industry of Mauritius: a process towards a common solutionâ€ (see Conservation Actions) continue and that there is follow-up and implementation of recommendations arising (e.g., Zimmerman et al. 2017).</p>	Afrotropical		FALSE	FALSE	Global	Simmons, N. B., & Cirranello, A. L. (2023). Batnames.org Species List Version 1.4 (1.4). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8136157 	Pteropodidae	Pteropus		niger	Kerr	1792	1	In Linnaeus, Anim. Kingdom	0.104167	Greater Mascarene Flying Fox	 fuscus E. Geoffroy, 1803; mauritianus Hermann, 1804; rufus Tiedemann, 1808 [not E. Geoffroy, 1803]; pteropus Merriam ex Brisson, 1895; vulgaris E. Geoffroy, 1810.	Mascarene Isls, RÃ©union Isl (France).	Mascarene Isls (RÃ©union Isl, Mauritius Isl, subfossil on Rodrigues Isl). Madagascar records are probably erroneous (Bergmans, 1990).	Appendix II	Endangered	 vampyrus species group; see Almeida et al. (2014). Reviewed by Bergmans (1990).	Pteropus niger	1004481	23	Greater Mascarene Flying Fox	Black-spined Flying Fox|Black-Spined Fruit Bat|Mauritian Flying Fox|Mauritius Fruit Bat	Theria	Placentalia	Boreoeutheria	Laurasiatheria	CHIROPTERA	PTEROPODIFORMES	NA	NA	PTEROPODOIDEA	Pteropodidae	PTEROPODINAE	PTEROPODINI	Pteropus	NA	niger	Kerr	1792	0	Vesp[ertilio]._vampirus_niger	Kerr, R. (1792). The Animal Kingdom, or Zoological System, of the celebrated Sir Charles LinnÃ¦us; being a translation of that part of the Systema NaturÃ¦, as lately published, with great improvements, By Professor Gmelin of Goettingen. - Together with numerous additions from more recent zoological writers, and illustrated with copperplates. Class I. Mammalia. A. Strahan & T. Cadell, London and W. Creech, Edinburgh, 90.	https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/119041#page/140/mode/1up	NA		La RÃ©union Island, Mascarene Islands (France).			niger (Kerr, 1792)|caninus (Blumenbach, 1797)|fuscus Ã‰. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803|mauritianus (Hermann, 1804)|rufus Tiedemann, 1808 [preoccupied]|vulgaris Ã‰. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1810|vulgare (J. E. Gray, 1870)|pteropus Merriam, 1895	NA	NA				Mauritius|Reunion	Africa	Afrotropic	EN	0	0	0	Pteropus_niger	0	sciname match	Pteropus_niger	0	Burgin, C. J., Zijlstra, J. S., Becker, M. A., Handika, H., Alston, J. M., Widness, J., Liphardt, S., Huckaby, D. G., and Upham, N. S. (2025). How many mammal species are there now? Updates and trends in taxonomic, nomenclatural, and geographic knowledge. Journal of Mammalogy in revision: TBD. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.27.640393	Pteropus_niger	1004481	23	Greater Mascarene Flying Fox	Black-spined Flying Fox|Black-Spined Fruit Bat|Mauritian Flying Fox|Mauritius Fruit Bat	Theria	Placentalia	Boreoeutheria	Laurasiatheria	Chiroptera	Yinpterochiroptera	NA	NA	Pteropodoidea	Pteropodidae	Pteropodinae	Pteropodini	Pteropus	NA	niger	Kerr	1	Vespertilio Vampirus niger	Kerr, R. 1792. The Animal Kingdom, or Zoological System of the celebrated Sir Charles Linnaeus. Class I. Mammalia. A. Strahan, T. Cadell, and W. Creech, Edinburgh, 462 pp.	https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/38664108	untraced (number not known)	nonexistent		La RÃ©union Island, Mascarene Islands (France).			NA	NA				Mauritius|RÃ©union	Africa	Afrotropic	EN	0	0	0	Pteropus_niger	0	sciname match	Pteropus_niger	0	Simmons, N. B., & Cirranello, A. L. (2025). Batnames.org Species List Version 1.7 (1.7). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14796586	Pteropodidae	Pteropus		niger	Kerr	1792	1	In Linnaeus, Anim. Kingdom	0.104167	Greater Mascarene Flying Fox	fuscus E. Geoffroy, 1803; mauritianus Hermann, 1804; rufus Tiedemann, 1808 [not E. Geoffroy, 1803]; pteropus Merriam ex Brisson, 1895; vulgaris E. Geoffroy, 1810.	Mascarene Isls, RÃ©union Isl (France).	Mascarene Isls (RÃ©union Isl, Mauritius Isl, subfossil on Rodrigues Isl). Madagascar records are probably erroneous (Bergmans, 1990).	<a href='https://cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php' target='_blank'>Appendix II</a>	<a href='https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/18743/86475525/' target='_blank'>Endangered</a>	vampyrusspecies group; see Almeida et al. (2014). Reviewed by Bergmans (1990).		Mammal Diversity Database. (2025). Mammal Diversity Database (Version 2.2) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15007505	NA	Pteropus niger; Pteropus niger; Pteropus niger; Pteropus niger; Pteropus niger; Pteropus niger; fuscus; mauritianus; rufus; pteropus; vulgaris; fuscus; mauritianus; rufus; pteropus; vulgaris; niger; caninus; fuscus; mauritianus; rufus; vulgaris; vulgare; pteropus; Roussette des Mascareignes; Maskarenen-Flughund; Zorro volador de las; slas Mascarenas; Black-spined Flying Fox; Black-Spined Fruit Bat; Mauritian Flying Fox; Mauritius Fruit Bat; Greater Mascarene Flying Fox; Black-spined Flying Fox; Black-Spined Fruit Bat; Mauritian Flying Fox; Mauritius Fruit Bat; Greater Mascarene Flying Fox; Greater Mascarene Flying Fox; P. niger
