Fleming Et Al 2009

Annals of Botany 104: 1017– 1043, 2009
doi:10.1093/aob/mcp197, available online at www.aob.oxfordjournals.org

INVITED REVIEW
The evolution of bat pollination: a phylogenetic perspective

Theodore H. Fleming1,*, Cullen Geiselman2 and W. John Kress3
1
Emeritus, Department of Biology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA, 2Institute of Systematic Botany, The
New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458, USA and 3Department of Botany, MRC-166, National Museum of Natural
History, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA
Received: 2 April 2009 Returned for revision: 27 May 2009 Accepted: 13 July 2009 Published electronically: 29 September 2009
† Background Most tropical and subtropical plants are biotically pollinated, and insects are the major pollinators.
A small but ecologically and economically important group of plants classified in 28 orders, 67 families and
Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

about 528 species of angiosperms are pollinated by nectar-feeding bats. From a phylogenetic perspective this
is a derived pollination mode involving a relatively large and energetically expensive pollinator. Here its ecologi-
cal and evolutionary consequences are explored.
† Scope and Conclusions This review summarizes adaptations in bats and plants that facilitate this interaction and
discusses the evolution of bat pollination from a plant phylogenetic perspective. Two families of bats contain
specialized flower visitors, one in the Old World and one in the New World. Adaptation to pollination by bats
has evolved independently many times from a variety of ancestral conditions, including insect-, bird- and
non-volant mammal-pollination. Bat pollination predominates in very few families but is relatively common
in certain angiosperm subfamilies and tribes. We propose that flower-visiting bats provide two important benefits
to plants: they deposit large amounts of pollen and a variety of pollen genotypes on plant stigmas and, compared
with many other pollinators, they are long-distance pollen dispersers. Bat pollination tends to occur in plants that
occur in low densities and in lineages producing large flowers. In highly fragmented tropical habitats, nectar bats
play an important role in maintaining the genetic continuity of plant populations and thus have considerable con-
servation value.
Key words: Angiosperms, nectar-feeding bats, plant phylogeny, pollen dispersal, pollination modes.
IN T RO DU C T IO N and the ability to carry large pollen loads considerable dis-

tances. Compared with many insects, birds and bats are excel-
The floral biology of angiosperms is dominated by biotic pol-
lent in promoting outcrossing, and as a result, most
lination, especially in the tropics where up to 99 % of species
vertebrate-pollinated plants have hermaphroditic breeding
in some habitats are animal-pollinated (Bawa, 1990). Insects
systems; very few are dioecious (Renner and Ricklefs, 1995).
account for most of these interactions, and pollination by ver-
This review focuses on the evolution of bat pollination in
tebrates is relatively uncommon. In a variety of lowland tropi-
tropical and subtropical angiosperms. This is to address two
cal forests, for example, pollination by birds and bats occurs in
fundamental evolutionary questions: what are the causes and
only 3 – 11 % of species (Devy and Davidar, 2003). Overall,
what are the consequences of the evolution of this pollination
bird pollination is more common than bat pollination both
method? Ancillary questions include: (1) how many times
locally and globally and occurs in nearly 500 genera of
during angiosperm history and in what places has bat pollina-
plants; bat pollination occurs in approximately 250 genera
tion evolved? (2) What are the phylogenetic consequences of
(Sekercioglu, 2006). At least six families or subfamilies of tro-
bat pollination? How many higher level taxa (genera, tribes,
pical and subtropical birds are strongly adapted for nectar-
subfamilies, families, etc.) have evolved in association with
feeding. By comparison, only two families of tropical bats
bat pollination? And (3) by what phylogenetic routes has bat
contain flower-visitors, and morphologically specialized
pollination evolved? How often have bat-pollinated flowers
nectar-feeders are in the minority in both of these families
evolved from insect-, bird-, or non-volant mammal-pollinated
(Fleming and Muchhala, 2008).
flowers? Before examining these questions, we provide a brief
Compared with most insects, flower-visiting birds and bats
overview of flower-visiting bats and the basic characteristics of
are much larger, have greater energy requirements because
bat pollination. We then examine this pollination mode from a
of their endothermic metabolism, can carry larger pollen
phylogenetic and biogeographical perspective for both plants
loads, are longer-lived and may be cognitively more sophisti-
and bats. Finally, we discuss the various evolutionary routes
cated. Despite the potentially greater costs to plants to attract
that have resulted in bat pollination.
and reward these larger pollinators, the benefits of vertebrate
pollination can be substantial, especially in habitats where
insect activity is limited by harsh climatic conditions (e.g. F LOW E R-V IS ITI NG BAT S
on tropical mountains; Cruden, 1972). Positive aspects of ver-
tebrate pollination include potentially more reliable visitation Only two of the 18 currently recognized families of bats
(Simmons, 2005) contain species that are morpholo-
* For correspondence. E-mail tedfleming@dakotacom.net gically specialized for nectar-feeding. We discount the
# The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved.
For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
1018 Fleming et al. — Evolution of bat pollination
Mystacinidae, which is endemic to New Zealand and contains As described in detail by Freeman (1995) and others,
one genus, Mystacina, that is known to visit terrestrial flowers specialized nectar bats in the two families share a common
(Lord, 1991), as being highly evolved for flower-visiting. set of morphological features. These include an elongated
Insectivory is by far the most common feeding mode in bats rostrum, dentition that is reduced in size and number of
and is undoubtedly the ancestral feeding mode in the order teeth, and a long tongue tipped with hair-like papillae which
Chiroptera (Simmons et al., 2008). The two families that is used to collect nectar rapidly during brief flower visits.
contain nectar-feeding bats (hereafter ‘nectar bats’) include Despite sharing these morphological characteristics, pteropo-
Pteropodidae (Old World flying foxes and their relatives), dids and phyllostomids differ in several important aspects
which occurs throughout tropical and subtropical regions of that affect their interaction with flowers. First, glossophagine
Africa including Madagascar, Asia including Indonesia, bats are significantly smaller than their pteropodid counter-
Australia and Papua New Guinea, and Pacific islands, and parts. Mean glossophagine mass is about 14 g (range 7.5 –
Phyllostomidae (American leaf-nosed bats), which inhabits 30 g) compared with 38 g (range 13.2 – 82.2 g) in pteropodids
tropical and subtropical regions of the Americas. These (Fleming and Muchhala, 2008). Second, the range of rostral
two families occur in different suborders of Chiroptera and tongue lengths (relative to overall size) of phyllostomids
(Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera for pteropodids and is much greater than that of pteropodids (Muchhala, 2006a;

phyllostomids, respectively) and are only distantly related. Fleming and Muchhala, 2008). The glossophagine Anoura
The Pteropodidae contains 43 genera and about 186 species fistulata of the northern Andes, for instance, has the longest
(Simmons, 2005), of which only six genera and 15 species, tongue (but not the longest rostrum) relative to its body
originally grouped together in the subfamily Macroglossinae, length of any mammal (Muchhala, 2006a). Third, all glosso-
are morphologically specialized for flower visiting phagine bats typically hover when visiting flowers whereas
(Andersen, 1912) (Appendix 1). Molecular phylogenies of specialized pteropodids always land on flowers before
bats (Jones et al., 2005; Teeling et al., 2005) suggest that feeding (Fig. 2). Visits to flowers by members of both families,
this family is approximately 56 million years old and that its however, are brief and usually last ,2 s (e.g. Horner et al.,
crown group dates from about 26– 28 Ma. Its place of origin 1998; von Helversen and Winter, 2003; Srithongchuay et al.,
was tropical Asia (Teeling et al., 2005). Giannini and 2008). Opportunistic flower visitors in both families are gener-
Simmons’ (2005) phylogenetic hypothesis of Pteropodidae ally larger than specialized flower visitors (up to about 1000 g
implies that frugivory is its basal feeding mode (insectivory in pteropodids and 50 g in phyllostomids) and land on flowers
is virtually absent in the family) and that specialized nectariv- rather than hover to feed (Fig. 2). In summary, New World
ory has evolved independently three times – twice in Asia/ specialized nectar bats are smaller in size with longer
Australasia and once relatively recently in Africa – making tongues and hover whereas their Old World counterparts are
the Macroglossinae paraphyletic (Kirsch and La Pointe, larger with shorter tongues and do not hover. Because of
1997). In addition to the morphologically specialized these differences, we might expect plants visited by special-
species, many primarily frugivorous taxa (e.g. Pteropus, ized nectar-feeding phyllostomids to produce smaller flowers
Cynopterus, Epomophorus) are opportunistic flower visitors with smaller nectar volumes per flower than those visited by
and pollinators (Baker and Harris, 1957; Ayensu, 1974; their pteropodid counterparts (von Helversen, 1993).
Marshall, 1985; Banack, 1998; Elangovan et al., 2000; The taxonomic richness of flower-visiting bats in both hemi-
Campbell et al., 2007) (Appendix 1). The Pteropodidae is spheres varies among regions and within regions with latitude,
unique among bats in that its members do not use ultrasonic habitat and elevation (Fleming, 1993, 1995). At the regional
echolocation for communication, orientation or foraging. level, generic richness, which is used as a surrogate for morpho-
Examples of specialized and opportunistic nectar-feeding pter- logical diversity throughout this review, in Pteropodidae is
opodids are shown in Fig. 1. 12 (including one genus of specialized nectarivore) in Africa,
The New World flower-visiting counterparts of pteropodids 14 (two) in mainland Asia, nine (two) in Papua New Guinea,
are members of a monophyletic clade of Phyllostomidae con- five (two) in Australia, and 21 (four) in the islands of south-east
taining the subfamilies Glossophaginae, Phyllonycterinae and Asia and the western Pacific for a total of about 186 species
Brachyphyllinae. We will call this clade ‘glossophagines’. In (Nowak, 1994; Simmons, 2005). Generic richness in plant-
contrast to pteropodids, phyllostomids are echolocating bats visiting phyllostomids is 23 (ten specialized) in South
whose ancestral feeding mode was insectivory (Ferrarezzi America, 21 (11) in Mexico and Central America, and 13
and Gimenez, 1996). Both nectarivory and frugivory are (five) in the West Indies for a total of about 108 species
derived feeding modes, and echolocation is used in addition (Nowak, 1994; Simmons, 2005). At the local or community
to vision and olfaction to locate food (von Helversen and level, species richness in pteropodids averages 2.3 specialized
von Helversen, 1999). The glossophagine clade contains 16 nectar bats (n ¼ 4 sites; range, 1–3) whereas it averages 4.4
genera and about 38 species (Simmons, 2005) (Appendix 1). specialized species in phyllostomids (n ¼ 14 sites; range, 2–6;
The family Phyllostomidae is younger than the Pteropodidae Fleming and Muchhala, 2008). In both families, the number of
and dates from 39 Ma (Jones et al., 2005; Teeling et al., species of nectar bats per habitat declines steadily with an
2005). Glossophagines are younger still and date from about increase in elevation and includes only one or two species
12 Ma (Davalos, 2004). In addition to the morphologically above 2000 m (Heaney et al., 1989; Fleming et al., 2005).
specialized glossophagines, a number of frugivorous or omni- An analysis of community trends in phyllostomid nectar bats
vorous phyllostomids are opportunistic flower-visitors with a comparison with their avian analogues, hummingbirds
(Appendix 1). Examples of specialized and opportunistic (Fleming et al., 2005), showed that (1) the highest species rich-
nectar-feeding phyllostomids are shown in Fig. 1. ness (S) in nectar bats occurs in lowland moist or wet tropical
Fleming et al. — Evolution of bat pollination 1019
A E
B F

C G
D H
F I G . 1. Portraits of flower-visiting bats. Approximate body masses are in parentheses. (A) Glossophaga soricina (10 g), a basal glossophagine; (B)
Choeronycteris mexicana (16 g), a derived glossophagine; (C) Artibeus jamaicensis (45 g) and (D) Phyllostomus elongatus (60 g), two opportunistic flower-
visiting phyllostomids; (E) Syconycteris australis (20 g) and (F) Eonycteris spelaea (70 g), two specialized nectarivorous pteropodids; (G) Pteropus poliocepha-
lus (750 g) and (H) Epomophorus gambianus (100 g), two opportunistic flower-visiting pteropodids. Photo credits: Merlin D. Tuttle, Bat Conservation
International.
forests; (2) S increases asymptotically with rainfall with a visitors (compared with more specialized (coarse-grained)
plateau of about five species at annual rainfall levels of flower feeding in hummingbirds. Reflecting this last trend, it
2500 mm or more; (3) S in communities of both bats and hum- is common to find several different species of pollen on flower-
mingbirds changes seasonally as latitudinal and altitudinal visiting phyllostomids when captured at night or when pollen on
migrants move into and away from particular habitats; (4) stigmas is identified (e.g. Heithaus et al., 1975; Muchhala et al.,
species of Glossophaga represent the ‘core’ residents in terms 2009). A similar community-level analysis has not been made
of abundance and year-round presence in lowland communities, for pteropodid nectar bats and their Old World avian counter-
and species of Anoura are ‘core’ residents in montane commu- parts [e.g. sunbirds and honeyeaters; but see Fleming
nities; (5) nectar bats are larger in mass and jaw length in dry and Muchhala (2008) for a global analysis of the evolution
habitats than in wet habitats; and (6) average jaw length in of these vertebrates]. Based on their analysis, Fleming
nectar bat communities is positively correlated with average and Muchhala (2008) advocated a ‘three-world’ view concern-
corolla length of bat-pollinated flowers in that community – ing the evolution of vertebrate pollinators and their food
this implies that these bats are generalist (fine-grained) flower plants – the Neotropics, Africa (including Madagascar) and
A C
B D

F I G . 2. Nectar-feeding bats visiting flowers. (A) Glossophaga soricina at flowers of Mabea occidentalis (Euphorbiaceae); (B) Artibeus jamaicensis on a flower
of Ochroma pyramidale (Bombacaceae s.s.); (C) Eonycteris spelaea on flowers of Durio zibethinus (Bombacaceae s.s.); (D) Pteropus conspicillatus at flowers of
Castanospermum australe (Fabaceae). Photo credits: Merlin D. Tuttle, Bat Conservation International.
Asia/Australasia – rather than a simple New World/Old World nectarivores and frugivores throughout the tropics are often
dichotomy. This trichotomy is more applicable to nectar- food-limited (T. H. Fleming and W. J. Kress, unpubl. res.).
feeding birds than it is to bats, and we will deal only with a Finally, species richness of bat-pollinated plants within New
New World/Old World comparison in this review. and Old World communities is generally similar, averaging
A particularly important result of the Fleming et al. (2005) 11.9 (range 4 – 33 species) in the New World and 16.8
study and one that was extended to Old World nectarivores as (range 4– 28) in the Old World (Fleming, 2005). The species
well as New and Old World avian and chiropteran frugivores richness values of nectar-feeding birds and their food plants
by Fleming (2005) was the relationship between their species are generally higher than those of bats except for Old World
richness and that of their food plants. In the New World, S flowers in which, on average, bat plants slightly outnumber
of both nectar-feeding and frugivorous bats and birds is posi- bird plants at the community level (Fleming, 2005).
tively correlated with S of their food plants. Although the
intercepts of the regression lines for these relationships dif-
fered (higher in frugivores than in nectarivores), the slopes
of the two regressions were the same (about 0.38) and indi- B AT F LOW E R S A N D T H E B A S I C S O F B AT
cated that for both groups, the ratio of plant species to POL L I N AT I O N
animal species is 3 : 1. That is, it takes an average of three
species of flowers or fruits to support one species of vertebrate Bat flowers
nectarivore or frugivore. Fleming (2005) interpreted this Pollination biologists have long recognized a set of plant
relationship to indicate that resource S controls consumer S characteristics (syndromes) that are associated with different
in New World nectarivores and frugivores. Interestingly, a kinds of pollinators. The classic characteristics of bat-
similar correlation does not appear to exist in communities pollinated flowers (the ‘chiropterophilous syndrome’), as
of Old World bat and bird nectar-feeders and fruit-eaters. In described by Faegri and van der Pijl (1979) and modified by
neither group did the regression coefficient differ from zero, Howe and Westley (1988), include nocturnal anthesis, drab
which implies that consumer diversity is not (or is less coloration (i.e. white or green), musty smell, flowers often
likely to be) limited by flower or fruit resource diversity. located on branches or tree trunks (cauliflory) or suspended
This does not imply, however, that populations of these consu- on long stalks (flagelliflory), and tubular or radially symmetri-
mers are not food-limited. A review of data bearing on this cal flowers, often of the ‘shaving brush’ type, that produce
issue clearly indicates that populations of vertebrate relatively large amounts of hexose-rich nectar. Dobat and
A B C

D F
G H
F I G . 3. Bat-pollinated flowers, corolla or perianth length (when known), and their pollinators. (A) Agave palmeri (Asparagales: Agavaceae), corolla tube 45–
60 mm, glossophagine bats; (B) Musa acuminata (Zingiberales: Musaceae), perianth 70 mm, opportunistic and specialized pteropodid bats; (C) Heliconia solo-
monensis (Zingiberales: Heliconiaceae), perianth 45– 75 mm, specialized pteropodid bats; (D) Canna liliiflora (Zingiberales: Cannaceae), glossophagine bats; (E)
Vriesia sp. (Poales: Bromeliaceae), glossophagine bats; (F) Psittacanthus acinarius (Santalales: Loranthaceae), corolla 50–75 mm, glossophagine bats; (G)
Calyptrogyne ghiesbreghtiana (Arecales: Arecaceae), rachilla 220 mm, opportunistic phyllostomid bats; (H) Phenakospermum guyannense (Zingiberales:
Strelitziaceae), perianth up to 280 mm, opportunistic phyllostomid bats. Photo credits: T. Fleming (A), W. J. Kress (B– E, G, H), C. Geiselman (F).
A B C

D E F
G H
F I G . 4. Bat-pollinated flowers, their corolla or perianth length (when known), and their pollinators. (A) Carnegiea gigantea (Caryophyllales: Cactaceae), corolla
112 mm, opportunistic and specialized phyllostomid bats; (B) Markhamia stipulata (Lamiales: Bignoniaceae), specialized pteropodid bats; (C) Burmeistera cer-
atocarpa (Asterales: Campanulaceae), corolla 13.2 mm, glossophagine bats; (D) Chelonanthus alatus (Gentianales: Gentianaceae), corolla 30–45 mm, glosso-
phagine bats; (E) Lecythis poiteaui (Ericales: Lecythidaceae), androecium 50 mm, glossophagine bats; (F) Hymenaea courbaril (Fabales: Fabaceae), flower
diameter 25 mm, opportunistic and specialized phyllostomid bats; (G) Ceiba pentandra (Malvales: Malvaceae), flower diameter 25–35 mm, opportunistic
and specialized phyllostomids and pteropodids; (H) Caryocar glabrum (Malpighiales: Caryocaraceae), flower diameter 40 mm, opportunistic and specialized
phyllostomid bats. Photo credits: T. Fleming (A, B), C. Geiselman (D), S. Mori (E –H), N. Muchhala (C).
Peikert-Holle (1985) profusely illustrate these kinds of flowers, australis, however, are known to consume and digest the con-
a few of which are shown in Figs 3 and 4. tents of pollen grains, and it is likely that other nectar bats also
Knowledge of the characteristics of bat flowers has increased have this ability (Howell, 1974; Law, 1992; Herrera and
substantially since the review by Faegri and van der Pijl (1979), Martı́nez del Rı́o, 1998). In general, chiropterophilous
and we now know that such traits as flower colour are far more flowers produce more nectar than those in any other syndrome,
variable among bat-pollinated flowers than previously thought although the amount varies greatly between species from as
(Figs 3 and 4). It remains true, however, that bat flowers little as 10 mL to as much as 15 mL per flower per night
occupy a distinct subset of multivariate floral morphological (van der Pijl, 1961; Cruden et al., 1983; Winter and von
space compared with flowers pollinated by other kinds of Helversen, 2001). Plants pollinated by hovering glossopha-
animals (Ollerton et al., 2009). Bats, like many other kinds of gines, however, can satisfy their pollinators with smaller
pollinators, can be opportunistic flower visitors and sometimes rewards due to their pollinators’ size and energetic efficiencies
visit flowers that do not conform to the classic ‘bat pollination in flower detection and acquisition (von Helversen, 1993). In
syndrome’ (e.g. bee flowers such as Thunbergia grandiflora, contrast to the large amount produced, most nectar from bat
hummingbird-pollinated flowers such as Calliandra laxa, and flowers is rather dilute with sugar concentrations ranging
hummingbird feeders; Lemke, 1985; T.H. Fleming, pers. from 5 to 29 % (von Helversen, 1993). Both nectar amount

obs.). Nonetheless, most kinds of flowers that they visit differ and its sugar concentration appear to play a role in attracting
strongly from flowers visited by other kinds of pollinators. or deterring bat visits to flowers (Gould, 1978; Sazima and
Hence, we agree with Fenster et al. (2004), among others, that Sazima, 1987). For example, Gottsberger and Silberbauer-
the concept of pollination syndromes has considerable heuristic Gottsberger (2006) suggested that Luehea grandiflora
value and that it should be retained in the pollination literature. (Malvaceae) is visited exclusively by glossophagines in the
Floral characteristics associated with bat pollination appear cerrado region of Brazil not because it physically excludes
to have evolved to attract relatively large, nocturnal, colour- opportunistic bats, but because its nectar supply may be insuf-
blind, volant pollinators. Advertising their presence with a ficient to attract larger bats. In addition to nectar amount and
musty, fetid odour is a common feature among bat flowers. concentration, energy savings associated with the ease in locat-
For instance, sulphur-containing compounds, which give ing and handling conspicious flowers also factor into determin-
some bat flowers their characteristic odour, are uncommon in ing the net reward of visitation (Heinrich, 1975; Winter and
most floral aromas, but have been isolated multiple times von Helversen, 2001).
from evolutionarily unrelated bat flowers in the Neotropics Olfactory and visual cues and rewards are responsible for
(Bestmann et al., 1997; von Helversen et al., 2000). The attracting bats to flowers, but it is the flower’s size, shape
colour of bat flowers ranges from white, brown and green to and durability, its placement on the plant, and time of anthesis
pink, fuchsia and yellow (Winter and von Helversen, 2001; that determine whether a bat has access to it and can affect pol-
von Helversen and Winter, 2003). Although white or light- lination. Compared with many insect- or bird-pollinated
coloured flowers appear to stand out against foliage or the flowers (but not hawkmoth flowers), bat-pollinated flowers
night sky (Hopkins, 1986), many bat flowers are quite dull are often relatively large and robust. The original bat pollina-
in colour, which may function more as a camouflage from tion syndrome was based on plants pollinated by large, non-
other visitors than as a visual cue to bats (Knudsen et al., hovering pteropodids and applies less widely to New World
2006). Some of this variation may reflect the pollination syn- plants pollinated by hovering phyllostomids (von Helversen,
drome from which bat-pollinated species evolved (e.g. red 1993; von Helversen and Winter, 2003). These plants tend to
from bird-pollinated and white or yellow from moth-pollinated produce smaller and more delicately built flowers than those
species; Tripp and Manos, 2008). Finally, some floral adver- visited by pteropodids or opportunistic nectar-feeding phyllos-
tisements are clearly directed at echolocating bats. The best tomids (Figs 2 – 4).
example is the virgin flower of Mucuna holtonii (Fabaceae), Bat flowers/inflorescences can be roughly divided into three
which offers an average of five times more nectar than one categories based on their shape: (1) ‘shaving-brush’ or
that has already been visited. These flowers indicate their ‘stamen ball’ with many projecting stamens (e.g. Bombax,
status by returning echoes over an increased angle of reflec- Capparis, Eugenia, Parkia); (2) ‘bell-shaped’ with the corolla
tance to echolocating bats (von Helversen and von forming a tube (e.g. Bauhinia, Musa, Vriesea); and (3) ‘cup-
Helversen, 1999). Bats seem to associate the echoes of shaped’ with an open corolla (e.g. Carnegiea, Caryocar,
virgin flowers with their larger rewards and, when given a Ceiba, Ipomoea, Ochroma) (Baker, 1973; Salas, 1973; von
choice, were found to visit them significantly more often Helversen, 1993; Figs 3 and 4). Similarly, flower shape shows
than opened flowers (von Helversen and Winter, 2003). different trends associated with bat visitors. Flowers visited by
While odour, colour and echoes signal the presence of a bat specialized nectar-feeding phyllostomids are more likely to be
flower, it is ultimately the nutritional reward, including tubular in shape and produced by epiphytes and shrubs while
nectar, pollen and edible plant tissues [e.g. in Freycinetia flowers visited by pteropodids tend to be produced by trees
insignis (Pandanaceae) and Calyptrogyne ghiesbreghtiana and of the ‘shaving brush’ type (Fleming and Muchhala, 2008).
(Arecaceae)], that entices bats to visit flowers (van der Pijl, Of the five flower characteristics limiting or allowing bat
1956; Gould, 1978; Cunningham, 1995a). In many cases, bat access to flowers, only two appear to be universal or nearly so
flowers are visited for their nectar and only indirectly for for all bat flowers. The first is flower/inflorescence placement
pollen, which is later groomed off the fur following multiple away from foliage, such as projecting above or below the
flower visits. Certain glossophagines (e.g. Anoura geoffroyi, canopy, emerging from branches or trunk, or borne on decid-
Leptonycteris curasoae) and the pteropodid Syconycteris uous trees after they have dropped their leaves (van der Pijl,
1941, 1956, 1961) (Figs 3 and 4). Both visually orientating and a variety of ways. Because they lack the ability to echolocate,
echolocating bats benefit from this arrangement as it allows most pteropodids roost either gregariously in the foliage of
them easily to find, approach and depart from flowers (von canopy trees or solitarily in understorey vegetation rather
Helversen, 1993). Nocturnal anthesis, the opening of flower than in dark caves. Two exceptions are the specialized nectar
buds in the late afternoon or at night, is the second characteristic. bat Eonycteris spelaea, which roosts in caves in colonies of
The flowers of many bat-pollinated plants open early in the a few dozen to thousands of individuals in Malaysia (Start
evening and are viable for only one night (Faegri and van der and Marshall, 1976), and Notopteris macdonaldi of New
Pijl, 1979). Exceptions include flowers of Passiflora mucronata, Caledonia, the Hebrides and Fiji, which forms small colonies
which do not open until after midnight, and those of in caves. Gregarious bats, including canopy-roosting species of
Burmeistera, which remain open for up to 3 d (Sazima and Pteropus and Eidolon which sometimes live in colonies of
Sazima, 1978; Muchhala, 2006b). Together, flower placement hundreds of thousands of bats, and cave-roosting species
away from foliage and nocturnal anthesis are the unifying fea- such as Eonycteris forage as much as 50 km away from their
tures of the bat pollination syndrome while all other character- day roosts and are potentially long-distance pollen carriers
istics discussed above, which provide cues and incentives to (Gould, 1978; Marshall, 1985). Solitary roosting pteropodids,
entice visitation, vary among bat-pollinated species. such as species of Syconycteris and Macroglossus in

Whether or not they are common among all bat flowers or Australasia, forage much closer (i.e. hundreds of metres to a
were selected for by bats, many floral characteristics seem to few kilometres) to their day roosts and hence are likely to be
make flowers easier for bats to find as they mirror the sensory shorter-distance pollen carriers (Law, 1993; Law and Lean,
abilities of their pollinators. Both pteropodid and phyllostomid 1999).
bats use a variety of sensory modes, including vision, olfaction Territorial feeding behaviour, which can strongly limit the
and echolocation ( phyllostomids only), to locate flowers. Both distance that pollen moves (e.g. in territorial hummingbirds;
groups of plant-visiting bats have keen senses of smell and Linhart, 1973; Linhart et al., 1987), is known to occur in
appear to use olfaction for long-distance detection of flowers both gregarious and solitary pteropodids. For example, adult
(Marshall, 1983; von Helversen, 1993). Phyllostomid and pter- males of Syconycteris australis defend feeding territories
opodid nectarivores, however, diverge in the chemical com- against juvenile males and females when feeding at Banksia
ponents to which they seem most attracted. In captive studies, flowers in south-eastern Australia (Law, 1996); this probably
glossophagines responded most strongly to aromas dominated results in sex- and age-biased pollen movement patterns in
by dimethyl sulphides while the pteropodid Cynopterus sphinx this species, but data to support this suggestion are not yet
appeared to be more attracted to aromas containing ethyl available. Males of Macroglossus minimus and Melonycteris
acetate (von Helversen et al., 2000; Elangovan et al., 2006). melanops are thought to defend resource plants against other
Members of these two families of bats rely on their vision to males (Winkelmann et al., 2003; Bonaccorso et al., 2005).
navigate, communicate with roostmates, detect predators and More dramatically, adults of various species of Pteropus in
locate food (Suthers, 1970). Pteropodids, which lack the Australia and elsewhere set up small feeding territories in
ability to echolocate (except crudely in Rousettus), depend the canopies of flowering (and fruiting) trees which they
entirely on vision to negotiate their environment and appear defend against socially subordinate, usually younger, individ-
to do so quite well even in inclement weather and on moonless uals. If allowed to visit flowers, subordinates are more likely
nights (Gould, 1978). Visually orientating bats seem capable to move pollen (and seeds) further away from parent plants
of discerning white flowers against the dark backdrop of than the territory-holders (Richards, 1995; McConkey and
foliage or the night sky (Winter and von Helversen, 2001). Drake, 2006).
Some species of glossophagines appear to recognize patterns, In contrast to pteropodids, most flower-visiting phyllosto-
and Glossophaga soricina has been shown to detect ultraviolet mids roost in relatively small colonies of a few dozen to hun-
radiation, which may enable it to locate ultraviolet-reflecting dreds of individuals in caves. An exception to this is the
flowers (Suthers, 1970; Winter and von Helversen, 2001; migratory bat Leptonycteris curasoae (¼ yerbabuenae),
Winter et al., 2003). In addition to sight, nectar-feeding phyl- which lives in large colonies of tens of thousands of individ-
lostomids use ‘whispering’ (low-intensity) echolocation that uals in arid and semi-arid parts of Mexico and south-western
allows them to navigate in cluttered environments where Arizona. The foraging radius of these colonies can be 30–
many of their food plants occur (Winter and von Helversen, 50 km, and these bats are excellent long-distance pollen
2001). Both flower-visiting pteropodids and phyllostomids movers (Horner et al., 1998; Fleming, 2004). Also in contrast
undoubtedly rely on their excellent spatial memories to relo- to pteropodids, territorial defence of flowers appears to be
cate plants they have visited previously, although this ability uncommon in phyllostomid bats. Instead, like hermit hum-
has only been examined experimentally in glossophagines mingbirds, many species are thought to be trap-liners that
(Winter and Stich, 2005). This ability probably allows them each night visit a series of widely spaced flowers, often in
to minimize search costs, especially when feeding on plants the canopy of wet tropical forests (Baker, 1973; Heithaus
with extended, or ‘steady-state’ (sensu Gentry, 1974), bloom- et al., 1974; Lemke, 1984; Tschapka, 2004). Together, their
ing periods (Tschapka and von Helversen, 2007). spatial memory and trapline foraging behaviour enable glosso-
phagines to exploit floral resources that have temporally
dynamic availability in spatially predictable feeding sites
Bat roosting and foraging
(Baker, 1973; Gould, 1978; Fleming, 1982; Lemke, 1984,
The roosting and foraging behavior of nectar-feeding bats 1985; von Helversen, 1993; Winter and von Helversen,
can affect their interactions with plants and flowers in 2001). This behaviour probably results in substantial pollen
movement among plants. For instance, Dick et al. (2008) families where bat-pollination occurs, it is relatively
reported that pollen moved about 18 km between individuals common. The mean number of bat-pollinated genera per
in the bat-pollinated Ceiba pentandra in Brazilian riverine family (median, 1 s.d.) are: basal angiosperms, 1.0 (1.0, 0);
forest habitat. Among arid-zone columnar cacti, between- monocots, 2.3 (1.0, 2.2); basal eudicots, 8.3 (3.5, 10.5);
population genetic structure, as indicated by Wright’s Fst rosids, 3.9 (1.0, 7.1); and asterids, 3.9 (3.0, 3.4) (Kruskal –
index, is lower in bat-pollinated taxa than in insect-pollinated Wallis ANOVA based on medians, W ¼ 8.99, d.f. ¼ 4, P ¼
taxa, which implies that bat-mediated gene flow is greater than 0.061). Families with the highest number of bat-pollinated
that mediated by insects (Hamrick et al., 2002). Similarly, low genera include Fabaceae (30 genera, rosids), Cactaceae (24,
levels of genetic subdivision occur in Phenakospermum basal eudicots), Malvaceae (25, rosids) and Bignoniaceae
guyannenase (Strelitziaceae), a widespread bat-pollinated (15, asterids). The number of bat-pollinated genera in two of
Amazonian megaherb (Roesel et al., 1996). the three largest groups of angiosperms is correlated with the
number of genera per family. Significant positive correlations
occur in rosids ( y ¼ – 038 þ 0.045x, P , 0.01) and monocots
PH YLO GEN ETI C A ND GEO GR APH ICA L ( y ¼ 1.45 þ 0.035x, P , 0.01), but not in asterids, even after
D I S T R I B U T I O N S OF B AT PO L L I N AT I O N the Asteraceae is removed from the analysis (because of its

exceptionally large number of genera) ( y ¼ 3.52 þ 0.003x,
Phylogenetic distributions
P . 0.50). Regression coefficients (slopes) were similar in
In their review of vertebrate pollination, Fleming and rosids and monocots (about 0.040), and their reciprocal
Muchhala (2008, based on data in Dobat and Peikert-Holle, values indicate that about one in every 25 genera in those
1985) reported that bat pollination occurs in 58 families of groups contains a bat-pollinated species.
plants in about 24 orders; 43 families contain flowers visited The proportion of total genera in a family that contains one
by phyllostomids and 28 by pteropodids. Thirteen of the 58 or more bat-pollinated species varied substantially among the
plant families (28 %) are visited by both families of bats. A 67 families (Table 1). On average, 15 % (range 0.2– 100 %)
more complete update of this earlier report (Geiselman of genera in these families contained bat-pollinated species,
et al., 2004, and onwards) indicates that phyllostomids visit and the average varied significantly among the five major
360 species of plants in 159 genera from 44 families; our lit- groups (Kruskal – Wallis ANOVA based on medians, W ¼
erature review indicates that pteropodids visit 168 species of 20.28, d.f. ¼ 4, P , 0.001): basal angiosperms, 1.4 %
plants in 100 genera from 41 families. In total, bat-pollinated (median 1.4 %, 1 s.d. 0.8 %); monocots, 44.1 % (25.0 %,
plants are found in 67 families in 28 orders of angiosperms 40.6 %); basal eudicots, 9.4 % (5.9 %, 8.2 %); rosids, 9.1 %
(Table 1). Of these families, 26 are exclusively visited by phyl- (4.7 %, 11.0 %) and asterids, 6.4 % (4.6 %, 7.7 %). Ten of
lostomids and 23 are exclusively visited by pteropodids; 18 the 67 plant families had at least 25 % of their genera with
families are visited by both families of bats. Lists of known one or more bat-pollinated species. These families were
bat-pollinated species, by family, in the New and Old World concentrated in the monocots, in which seven of 13 families
are provided in Appendices 2 and 3. In compiling these lists (54 %) contained relatively high proportions of bat-pollinated
we have attempted to include only those taxa known or genera. All of these families are small and contain a total of
strongly suspected to be pollinated by bats. As is the case in seven or fewer genera (Table 1).
much of the pollination literature, however, actual proof of To take into account any phylogenetic bias in these ana-
effective pollination by bats is available for only a subset of lyses, we mapped the occurrence of bat pollination by order
these taxa. and family within each of the five major groups using
To examine the evolution of bat pollination from a plant Mesquite (version 2.0; Maddison and Maddison, 2007). The
phylogenetic perspective, we mapped 66 of the 67 plant number of independent origins of bat pollination in each
families in Table 1 on a phylogeny organized according to group at the ordinal and family levels was analysed with the
now widely accepted angiosperm relationships (Soltis et al., character analysis by parsimony module. By ‘independent
2005: appendix; T. H. Fleming and W. F. Kress, unpubl. origin’ we mean that the sister-taxon of a bat-pollinated
res.). Only Capparaceae is missing from this phylogeny. For family contained no bat-pollinated species. The converse of
ease of analysis we divided the angiosperm plant families ‘independent origin’ (i.e. non-independent origin) reflects phy-
into five major groups, namely basal angiosperms, monocots, logenetic clustering, or the tendency of related groups to
basal eudicots, rosids and asterids (Soltis et al., 2005). As contain bat-pollinated taxa. At the ordinal level, bat pollination
van der Pijl (1961) and others have noted, bat pollination is has originated independently in about half of the orders in
most common in advanced lineages of angiosperms, i.e. in which it occurs (14 of 28 orders; Table 2, Fig. 5). At the
advanced monocots and in the rosids (Fig. 5). Our analysis family level, bat pollination has originated independently in
shows that the distribution of bat-pollinated species at the about 77 % of the families in which it occurs (i.e. 51 of 66
family level (hereafter referred to simply as ‘bat families’) is families; Table 2).
distinctly uneven among the five groups and varies from The distribution of bat-pollinated taxa visited by phyllosto-
6 – 7 % of all families in basal angiosperms and basal eudicots mids and pteropodids differs at both the ordinal and the
to 17 –22 % in monocots, rosids and asterids. The average family level. Of the 28 orders containing bat families, only
number of genera of bat-pollinated plants per family also eight (29 %) contain taxa pollinated by both groups of
varies in these groups (although the differences are not quite bats (Table 1, Fig. 5). These orders include Arecales and
statistically significant), but in a different pattern. Few families Zingiberales (monocots); Santalales (basal eudicots);
in the basal eudicots contain bat-pollinated taxa, but in those Fabales, Malvales and Myrtales (rosids); and Ericales and
1026
TA B L E 1. Summary of families of angiosperms known to produce flowers visited by New World (NW) and Old World (OW) bats
Total Total NW NW OW OW Total bat Proportion total

Lineage Order Family Distribution genera species genera spp genera spp. genera genera
Basal Laurales Lauraceae Pantropical 50 2500 0 0 1 1 1 0.020

angiosperms
Magnoliales Annonaceae Pantropical 129 2220 0 0 1 1 1 0.008
Monocots Arecales Arecaceae Pantropical 189 2361 3 3 4 4 7 0.037
Asparagales Agavaceae Pantropical 23 637 3 17 0 0 3 0.130
Amaryllidaceae Pantropical 11 146 2 2 0 0 2 0.182
Asphodelaceae Paleotropical 15 785 0 0 1 1 1 0.067
Asteliaceae Southern 4 36 0 0 1 1 1 0.250
Hemisphere
Xanthorrhoeaceae Austral 1 30 0 0 1 1 1 1.000
Pandanales Pandanaceae Paleotropical 4 885 0 0 2 4 2 0.500
Velloziaceae Pantropical 9 240 1 1 0 0 1 0.111
Poales Bromeliaceae Neotropical 57 1400 6 21 0 0 6 0.105
Fleming et al. — Evolution of bat pollination

Zingiberales Cannaceae Neotropical 1 19 1 1 0 0 1 1.000
Heliconiaceae Neotropical þ Pacific 1 150 0 0 1 3 1 1.000
Musaceae Paleotropical 2 35 0 0 2 8 2 1.000
Strelitziaceae Pantropical 3 7 1 1 0 0 1 0.333
Basal eudicot Caryophyllales Cactaceae Neotropical 111 1500 26 43 0 0 26 0.234
Nyctaginaceae Pantropical 30 395 2 2 0 0 2 0.067
Proteales Proteaceae Pantropical 80 1600 1 1 3 7 4 0.050
Santalales Loranthaceae Pantropical 68 950 1 1 2 2 3 0.044
Rosid Brassicales Capparaceae Pantropical 16 480 3 8 0 0 3 0.188
Salvadoraceae Paleotropical 3 11 0 0 1 1 1 0.333
Celastrales Celastraceae Cosmopolitan 89 1300 0 0 1 1 1 0.011
Cucurbitales Cucurbitaceae Pantropical 118 845 4 5 0 0 4 0.034
Fabales Fabaceae Cosmopolitan 730 19400 22 59 11 26 29 0.040
Geraniales Geraniaceae Cosmopolitan 7 805 1 1 0 0 1 0.143
Malpighiales Caryocaraceae Neotropical 2 21 1 5 0 0 1 0.500
Chrysobalanaceae Pantropical 17 460 2 3 1 3 3 0.176
Clusiaceae Cosmopolitan 27 1050 0 0 1 1 1 0.037
Euphorbiaceae Cosmopolitan 218 5735 3 3 2 2 5 0.023
Passifloraceae Pantropical 16 705 1 5 0 0 1 0.063
Rhizophoraceae Pantropical 16 149 0 0 1 1 1 0.063
Salicaceae Cosmopolitan 55 1010 1 1 1 1 2 0.036
Malvales Malvaceae Cosmopolitan 243 4225 18 41 7 16 24 0.099
Myrtales Combretaceae Pantropical 14 500 1 1 1 1 2 0.143
Lythraceae Cosmopolitan 31 620 1 7 2 4 3 0.097
Melastomataceae Pantropical 182 4570 2 2 0 0 2 0.011
Myrtaceae Pantropical 131 4620 0 0 8 27 8 0.061
Onagraceae Cosmopolitan 22 656 1 1 0 0 1 0.045
Vochysiaceae Neotropical, African 7 190 1 1 0 0 1 0.143
Oxalidales Elaeocarpaceae Pantropical 12 605 0 0 1 3 1 0.083
Rosales Moraceae Pantropical 38 1100 0 0 1 1 1 0.026
Rhamnaceae Cosmopolitan 52 925 0 0 1 1 1 0.019
Rosaceae Cosmopolitan 90 2520 0 0 1 1 1 0.011
Sapindales Anacardiaceae Pantropical 70 600 0 0 1 1 1 0.014
Meliaceae Pantropical 52 621 0 0 2 2 2 0.038
Sapindaceae Pantropical 135 1580 1 1 2 2 3 0.022
Asterid Apiales Araliaceae Pantropical 43 1450 0 0 1 1 1 0.023
Asterales Asteraceae Cosmopolitan 1620 23600 3 3 0 0 3 0.002
Campanulaceae Cosmopolitan 84 2380 3 20 1 1 4 0.048
Ericales Ericaceae Cosmopolitan 126 3995 1 1 0 0 1 0.008

Gentianales (asterids). Similarly, as indicated above, only 18
from Geiselman et al. (2004 and onwards); the basic list of families and number of Old World bat-pollinated genera and species comes from numerous literature sources available upon request from the
For each family the data include: (1) distribution by major plant lineage and order; (2) geographical distribution; (3) total number of genera and species; (4) number of genera and species pollinated
of 67 families (27 %) with bat-pollinated taxa have representa-
contain bat-pollinated genera and species. Sources of data: major angiosperm lineages from Soltis et al. (2005); the basic list of families and number of New World bat-pollinated genera and species
by NW or OW bats; and (5) total number of bat-pollinated genera and proportion of total genera per family that are bat-pollinated. Also indicated in bold type are families that occur on islands that
tives in both hemispheres. We estimate that bat pollination has
0.240
0.429
0.056
0.132
0.007
0.046
0.077
0.009
0.022
0.146
0.041
0.008
0.015
0.059
0.053
0.078
0.007
evolved independently in about 85 % of these families
authors; total number of genera and species per family from APG II (2002 and onwards); island bat families from Silva Taboada (1979), Mickleburgh et al. (1992), Gannon et al. (2005) and
(Table 3) and is clustered in three families of the Myrtales
(Combretaceae, Lythraceae and Onagraceae), although phyl-
lostomid bats are generally minor pollinators in these families
(Table 1). Overall, pteropodid and phyllostomid bats basically
interact with different orders and families of plants. Rather
16
6
3
1
7
3
4
1
6
5
6
2
1
2
3
8
1
than being constrained at deep phylogenetic levels such as
orders, these interactions have evolved independently many
times in different Old and New World plant lineages.
Within each hemisphere bat-pollinated genera can be further
subdivided into those visited by specialized or opportunistic
13
10
5
0
0
3
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
168
nectar-feeding bats. A majority of the 159 genera with bat-

pollinated species in the New World have been reported to be
visited only by specialized nectar-feeding bats. Species in
5
0
0
7
3
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
100
10
only 20 genera (13 %) have been reported to be visited by oppor-

tunistic nectar-feeding phyllostomids. These genera are found
in eight families in seven orders and occur in monocots
(Arecales, Zingiberales), basal eudicots (Caryophyllales) and
17
14
20
13
3
4
0
0
8
0
3
7
2
1
2
4
2
360
asterids (Lamiales); over half of these genera are rosids

(Fabales, Malpighiales, Malvales). Opportunistic nectarivores,
which land on flowers, are thought to be the main pollinators
of species in only four (2.5 %) of these genera (Calyptrogyne
1
3
1
0
0
4
0
3
4
6
6
2
1
2
1
7
1
159
ghiesbreghtiana, Ochroma pyramidale, Parkia spp. and

Phenakospermum guyannense). In contrast, in the Old World
only species in eight genera (8 %) from six families
1100
4555
1655
3500
3200
7173
1700
1175
1625
2460
2740
TOTAL
310
130
385
420
11150
800
(Heliconiaceae, Musaceae, Lythraceae, Myrtaceae, Moraceae

and Bignoniaceae) have been reported to be visited solely by
specialized nectarivorous bats. These are found among mono-
cots (Zingiberales), rosids (Myrtales, Rosales) and asterids
(Lamiales). The remaining 92 genera are visited either by
34
25
18
53
87
13
65
57
229
7
415
660
110
147
236
102
148
both specialized and opportunistic nectar bats or only by oppor-

tunistic nectarivores. Thus, New World bat plants have evolved
primarily with specialized nectar feeders whereas Old World
bat plants have evolved mostly with opportunistic nectarivores.
It is important to note that analyses conducted at the ordinal
NW þ Eurasia
Cosmopolitan
Cosmopolitan
Cosmopolitan
Cosmopolitan
Cosmopolitan
Cosmopolitan
Cosmopolitan
and family levels are very ‘coarse’ and should not be inter-
Neotropical
Pantropical
Pantropical
Pantropical
Pantropical
Pantropical
Pantropical
Pantropical
Pantropical
preted to imply that bat pollination is ancestral in any order

or family of angiosperms. As discussed below, the most
insightful level of independence in the evolution of bat polli-
nation is at the generic or species level. Bat pollination has
seldom evolved at the tribal, subfamily or family level.
Scrophulariaceae
Marcgraviaceae
Convolvulaceae
Lecythidaceae
Polemoniaceae
Phylogenetic clustering (non-independence) at the ordinal

Gesneriaceae
Bignoniaceae
Boraginaceae
Gentianaceae
Apocynaceae
Verbenaceae
Acanthaceae
Loganiaceae
Sapotaceae
and family levels simply indicates that bat pollination shows

Solanaceae
Rubiaceae
Lamiaceae
a tendency to occur in related higher-level taxa. The fact that

bat pollination has rarely evolved at higher taxonomic levels
(see below) emphasizes the relative recency of this mode of
pollination.
Gentianales
Marten-Rodriguez et al. (2009).

Solanales
Lamiales
Biogeographical, elevational and habitat distributions

Fifty-three of the 67 bat-pollinated families (79 %) are
either pantropical or cosmopolitan in distribution (Table 1).
Seven of the remaining 14 families are endemic to the
Neotropics and three are endemic to the Paleotropics. Of the
26 ‘exclusive’ phyllostomid families, 19 (73 %) have pantropi-
cal or cosmopolitan distributions, and the other seven are New
World endemics. Similarly, 17 of 23 ‘exclusive’ pteropodid
Amborellaceae
Nymphaeaceae
Austrobaileyales Basal
Ceratophyllaceae Angiosperms
Chloranthaceae
Piperales
Canellales
Magnoliales
Laurales
Acorales
Alismatales
Petrosaviaceae
Dioscoreales Monocots
Pandanales
Liliales
Asparagales
Zingiberales
Commelinales
Arecales
Dasypogonaceae
Poales
Ranunculales

Sabiaceae
Proteales
Buxaceae Basal
Trochodendraceae Eudicots
Gunnerales
Santalales
Dilleniaceae
Caryophyllales
Berberidopsidales
Saxifragales
Cornales
Gentianales
Lamiales
Solanales
Garryales Asterids
Aquifoliales
Dipsacales
Asterales
Apiales
Ericales
Sapindales
Malvales
Brassicales
Crossosomatales
Myrtales
Geraniales
Celastrales
Malpighiales Rosids
No bat pollination Oxalidales
NW bat pollination only Zygophyllales
OW bat pollination only Fagales
Both NW & OW bat pollination Cucurbitales
NW bat pollination, single species Rosales
OW bat pollination, single species Fabales
F I G . 5. Cladogram showing the evolutionary relationships of orders of angiosperms and the distribution of families containing bat-pollinated taxa among them.
Five types of bat pollination are highlighted: pollination only by New World phyllostomids, pollination only by Old World pteropodids, pollination by both bat
families, and single species pollinated either by New World or Old World bats. Cladogram based on Soltis et al. (2005).
TA B L E 2. Overall distribution of bat pollination among five major lineages of angiosperms by order and family
Orders Families
No. with bat-pollinated No. of independent origins No. with bat-pollinated No. of independent origins
Lineage Total families (%) Total genera (%)
Basal 9 2 1 (50) 28 2 2 (100)

angiosperms
Monocots 12 5 2 (40) 76 13 9 (69)
Basal eudicots 10 3 3 (100) 63 4 4 (100)
Rosids 14 12 5 (42) 122 26 22 (85)
Asterids 10 6 3 (50) 104 21 14 (67)
Totals 55 28 14 (50) 393 66 51 (77)
Also indicated are the estimated number of independent origins of bat pollination within these lineages by order and family. The phylogenetic hypothesis
upon which this summary is based comes from T. H. Fleming and W. J. Kress (unpubl. res.). The number of families recognized in this hypothesis and in
Table 1 differ slightly because it does not include Capparaceae.
TA B L E 3. Distribution of bat pollination among orders and Pteropodids are widely distributed on islands throughout the
families of angiosperms by bat family with an estimate of the Old World tropics as far east as the Cook Islands in the
number of independent origins within plant families Pacific where they often act as ‘keystone’ pollinators and
seed dispersers (Cox et al., 1991; Rainey et al., 1995;
Pteropodids Phyllostomids Banack, 1998). As expected given their wider distribution
No. of No. of families No. of No. of families
among islands, island-dwelling pteropodids interact as pollina-
Lineage orders (% independent) orders (% independent) tors with a greater number of plant families than phyllosto-
mids. Pteropodids on islands visit flowers in 21 of 41 (53 %)
Basal 2 2 (100) 0 0 Old World bat-pollinated families whereas phyllostomids on
angiosperms islands visit flowers in only eight of 44 (18 %) New World bat-
Monocots 3 8 (63) 4 7 (100) pollinated families (Table 1). Plant families pollinated by
Basal 2 2 (100) 2 3 (100)
eudicots island pteropodids are concentrated in the rosids; those polli-
Rosids 7 19 (90) 8 16 (81) nated by phyllostomids are evenly distributed among mono-
Asterids 3 10 (80) 5 16 (81) cots, rosids and asterids. About 90 % of these families have
Totals 17 41 (83) 19 42 (86) pantropical or cosmopolitan distributions. Families with

restricted geographical distributions include Cactaceae in the
This analysis is based on phylogenetic data in T. H. Fleming and New World and Musaceae and Pandanaceae in the Old
W. J. Kress (unpubl. res.), which includes 66 of 67 families in Table 1.
World. Most of the flowers visited by bats of both families
on islands are produced by trees or tree-like herbs or succu-
families (74 %) have pantropical or cosmopolitan distributions, lents (e.g. Heliconia and Musa in south-east Asian islands,
and the other six are Old World endemics. Thus, 36 of the 53 Cactaceae in the West Indies). Exceptions include bat-
broadly distributed plant families that contain bat-pollinated pollinated species of Gesneria in the West Indies and three
plants (68 %) are pollinated by bats in only one hemisphere species of Marcgravia lianas on Dominica (Zusi and
whereas only about one-third of them have bat-pollinated Hamas, 2001; Marten-Rodriguez and Fenster, 2008; Marten-
species in both hemispheres. This again emphasizes the phylo- Rodriguez et al., 2009). The predominance of bat-pollinated
genetically independent nature of the evolution of bat trees on islands is similar to the mainland situation in the
pollination. Old World but contrasts with that in the Neotropical mainland
In general, bat pollination is primarily a lowland phenom- where glossophagine bats pollinate many flowers produced by
enon. Very few nectar bats and their food plants occur at vines and epiphytes as well as trees (Fleming and Muchhala,
elevations above 2000 m. The distribution of bat-pollinated 2008).
species of the Bromeliaceae, an endemic New World plant
family, clearly illustrates this trend. Most bat-pollinated epi-
phytic bromeliads occur in wet lowland forests in Bolivia T H E PH Y LOG E N E T I C CO N S E Q U E N C E S OF BAT
and elsewhere in the Neotropics whereas those pollinated by PO L L I N AT IO N
hummingbirds occur at mid- to high elevations; insect- The evolution of bat pollination has made a modest contri-
pollinated species occur most frequently in warm, dry bution to the overall species and generic diversity of angios-
regions (Kessler and Krömer, 2000; Tschapka and von perms. What contribution has bat pollination made at higher
Helversen, 2007). Whereas most pteropodid nectar bats and taxonomic levels? How many tribes, subfamilies and families
their flowers occur in moist or wet forest habitats, glossopha- are exclusively bat-pollinated, or nearly so? Table 4 summar-
gine nectar bats and their flowers occur in arid as well as in izes the higher order plant taxa that are associated primarily
moist and wet habitats. Up to six species of glossophagines, with bats for pollination. This information is presented at two
for example, can be found in the tropical dry forests of south- taxonomic levels, at the family level and within families (i.e.
central Mexico (Santos and Arita, 2002), and the morphologi- subfamilies or tribes). Among families that are strongly
cally most specialized glossophagines in terms of rostral associated with bat pollination, we include two families
length and tooth reduction occur in cactus-dominated habitats that have recently been reclassified into larger related
in the Neotropics (Fleming, 1995; Fleming et al., 2005). families by Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG) II:
Neotropical semi-arid and arid lands are especially rich in Bombacaceae sensu stricto (s.s.; now part of Malvaceae)
bat-pollinated species of Agavaceae, Cactaceae, Fabaceae and Sonneratiaceae s.s. (now part of Lythraceae). We do
and Malvaceae (Bombacoideae). No such association this because current literature still uses these family
between nectar bats and arid habitats occurs in the Old names, and not all recent treatments of angiosperm phylo-
World, although opportunistic Australasian pteropodid flower geny (e.g. Heywood et al., 2007) have accepted these
visitors (e.g. Pteropus spp.) are more common in dry reclassifications.
eucalypt forests than in wet forests (Richards, 1995; Palmer Only two small families with a total of four genera
et al., 2000). (Caryocaraceae in the Neotropics and the formerly segregated
Pteropodid and phyllostomid bats differ fundamentally Sonneratiaceae s.s. in the Paleotropics) appear to be either
regarding their occurrence on islands. About 62 % of pteropo- exclusively or primarily bat-pollinated; two others (the for-
did species are island-dwellers whereas only about 12 % of merly segregated Bombacaceae s.s. and the Musaceae)
phyllostomid species, including five species of nectar bats in contain genera or species that are primarily bat-pollinated.
the West Indian endemic subfamily Phyllonycterinae, are All four of these families contain species exclusively polli-
restricted to islands (Fleming, 1993; Fleming et al., 2005). nated by specialized bats in addition to others visited by
TA B L E 4. Higher order plant taxa that are associated primarily with bats for pollination
(A) Families strongly associated with pollinating bats
Family No. of genera/species in family or subfamily Estimated age of family
Bombacaceae* 16/120 69– 65 Ma

Caryocaraceae 2/25 111– 100 Ma
Musaceae* 2/35 Stem ¼ 87 Ma; crown ¼ 61 Ma
Sonneratiaceae 2/8 57 Ma
(B) Families with subfamilies or tribes strongly associated with pollinating bats
Family and subfamily or tribe No. of genera/species in family Estimated age of family
Agavaceae: Agavoideae 23/637 – family Crown ¼ 13 Ma

Bignoniaceae: 2 of 7 tribes 110/800 – family 49.5 Ma

Cactaceae: Cactoideae, 2þ tribes 92/1250 – subfamily Crown ¼ 30 Ma
Campanulaceae: Lobelioideae* 29/1200 – subfamily 43–23 Ma
Fabaceae: Mimosoideae, 2 tribes* 82/3275 – subfamily Crown ¼ 59–39 Ma
Myrtaceae: Leptospermoideae* 131/4620 – family Stem ¼ 93 Ma
Pandanaceae: Freycinetiodeae 4/885 – family Crown ¼ 51 Ma
Proteaceae: Grevilleoideae* 45/855 – subfamily Stem ¼ 118 Ma; crown ¼ 82 Ma
Family characteristics include geographical distribution and number of genera/species. Plant data in columns 1 and 2 come from Mabberly (1997) or APG
II. Data on estimated ages of families come from APG II, Barker et al. (2007) and Ricklefs (2006).
* Bird pollination also occurs in these taxa
both specialized and opportunistic nectar-feeders. Another E VO L U T IO NA RY PAT HWAY S TO B AT

eight families contain either subfamilies or tribes whose POL L I N AT I O N
species rely heavily on bats for pollination. Of these families,
Bat pollination is clearly a derived condition in most angios-
bat pollination is especially common in Agavaceae and
perm lineages. What has been the most common evolutionary
Cactaceae in the New World and Pandanaceae in the Old
route to bat pollination: from insect-, bird- or non-volant
World. Among the pantropical families, bat pollination is
mammal-pollinated taxa? Based on the preponderance of
more common in the New World than in the Old World in
insect pollination in angiosperms, it is reasonable to hypoth-
terms of number of bat-pollinated genera in Bombacaceae
esize that bat pollination evolved most often from insect polli-
s.s., Campanulaceae and Fabaceae whereas it is more
nation. If this is true, did bat-pollinated taxa evolve most
common in the Old World than in the New World in
frequently from diurnally or nocturnally pollinated taxa (e.g.
Bignoniaceae and Myrtaceae (Table 1). Of the 12 families
from bee or moth flowers, respectively)? Alternatively, the
listed in Table 4, six are either exclusively bat-pollinated or
most common evolutionary route may have been from
biased toward bat pollination in certain subfamilies or tribes
diurnal bird-pollinated species (e.g. from hummingbird
in both hemispheres. Within certain families, therefore, ptero-
flowers in the New World or from sunbird or honeyeater
podid and phyllostomid bats appear to have had similar effects
flowers in the Old World). Finally, as suggested by Sussman
on angiosperm diversification. At lower phylogenetic levels
and Raven (1978), bat-pollinated flowers may have evolved
(e.g. genera and species), however, phyllostomid-pollinated
from flowers pollinated by non-volant mammals such as pri-
genera and species outnumber pteropodid-pollinated taxa by
mates, at least in the Old World.
factors of 1.6 and 2.1, respectively (Table 1).
Answering these questions requires that we have well-
The currently estimated ages of plant families or subfamilies
resolved, species-level phylogenies onto which pollination
that are strongly associated with bat pollination generally
systems have been mapped. For particular plant groups in
pre-date the evolution of nectar-feeding bats (Table 4).
certain regions, this information is available for bird-pollinated
Nectar-feeding bats probably evolved in the late Oligocene
plants. For example, within Neotropical Costus (Costaceae),
and Miocene (28 – 12 Mya), well after most of the families
hummingbird pollination has evolved independently from
in Table 4 had originated and diversified. Only the New
euglossine bee pollination at least 12 times, and it has
World Agavaceae appears to be approximately coeval with
evolved several times from insect pollination in Iochroma
the radiation of glossophagines. Particularly striking are
(Solanaceae) (Kay et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2006).
differences in the ages of the four families that are most
Although not based on well-supported phylogenies, Grant
strongly associated with bat pollination today (Bombacaceae
(1994) hypothesized that hummingbird pollination evolved
s.s., Caryocaraceae, Musaceae and Sonneratiaceae s.s.;
independently numerous times from bee- or moth-pollination
Table 4A). Each of these families appears to have evolved in
in 11 plant families in western North America. Compared
the Late Cretaceous or early Cenozoic, well before the evol-
with those for birds, the evolutionary transitions to bat pollina-
ution of specialized nectar-feeding bats. This temporal mis-
tion are less well known. The best documented cases are sum-
match suggests that stem members of these families were not
marized in Table 5, but not all of these represent unequivocal
likely to be bat-pollinated.
TA B L E 5. Examples of the evolution of bat pollination from other pollination modes
Family and genus Pollination history Source
(A) Old World examples

*Bombacaeae, Adansonia Hawkmoth pollination is ancestral; bat pollination has evolved twice (once in Africa and Baum et al. (1998)
once in Madagascar)
*Bombacaceae, the Cullenia/ Vertebrate pollination is probably basal in this clade, derived from insect (beetle) Nyffler and Baum (2001)
Boschia/Durio clade pollination. Bats are major pollinators in Cullenia and Durio; bees are major pollinators
in Boschia
*Fabaceae, Parkia Pollination by nocturnal bees is ancestral; bat pollination evolved in the New World and Luckow and Hopkins (1995)
now occurs in most species
(B) New World examples
*Acanthaceae, Ruellia Multiple evolutions of bat pollination from bee (most common), hummingbird, or moth Tripp and Manos (2008)
(least common) pollination
Agavaceae, Agave Moth pollination is likely to be ancestral in the family; bat pollination is derived in Good-Avila et al. (2006)
subgenus Agave

Bromeliaceae, several genera Bat-pollinated species probably evolved from either insect or hummingbird pollination Endress (1994), Benzing
(2000)
Cactaceae, tribe Pachycereeae Bat pollination probably is ancestral among these columnar cacti, but it is ultimately Anderson (2001), Wallace
derived from insect (bee) pollination (2002)
*Campanulaceae, Centropogon A clade of bat-pollinated Burmeistera and Centropogon evolved from Knox et al. (2008)
and Burmeistera hummingbird-pollinated Centropogon
*Gesneriaceae, Sinningia Bat pollination evolved independently twice from hummingbird pollination Perret et al. (2007)
*Gesneriaceae, Gesnerieae Bat pollination evolved independently from hummingbird pollination at least five times Marten-Rodriguez et al.
(2009)
*Lecythidaceae, Lecythis Three bat-pollinated species evolved from euglossine bee pollination Mori and Boeke (1987), Mori
et al. (2007)
Passifloraceae, Passiflora Bat-pollinated P. trisecta is nested within a lowland clade of bee-pollinated species, not Hansen et al. (2006)
within an Andean hummingbird-pollinated clade
*Polemoniaceae, Cobaea Three bat-pollinated species have evolved independently twice from hummingbird Prather (1999)
pollination
Strelitziaceae, Phenakospermum Evolved from arboreal mammal pollination in Africa Kress et al. (1994)
Asterisks (*) indicate those examples in which evidence for evolutionary transitions appears to be strong; other examples are currently equivocal pending
species-level phylogenies.
results because of the absence of species-level phylogenies. Lagomarsino, C. D. Specht and W. J. Kress, unpubl. res.).
All three potential ancestral pollination modes (insects, birds Similarly, a hummingbird-pollinated species of Burmeistera
and non-volant mammals) are included in these examples, is derived from a bat-pollinated ancestor (Knox et al., 2008).
and generalizations about evolutionary trends are not yet poss- Evidence that bat pollination can give rise to more generalized
ible. We suspect that bat pollination has evolved most com- pollination systems involving birds and insects as well as bats
monly from insect pollination in the Old World [e.g. in the comes from studies of saguaro cacti (Carnegiea gigantea) in
Fabaceae (Mimosoideae) and Myrtaceae]. Flowers pollinated the Sonoran Desert and Aphelandra acanthus in the Andes
by hawkmoths and beetles also appear to be ancestral to bat of Ecuador (Fleming et al., 2001; Muchhala et al., 2009). In
flowers in certain Old World taxa. Although we judge that both of these examples, reduced abundance of bats compared
five of the 11 New World examples in Table 5 are equivocal with other potential pollinators is thought to have selected
(i.e. the immediate ancestor of bat-pollinated taxa is not for a change in floral characteristics (e.g. diurnal flower pres-
clear), there is strong evidence of the evolution of bat entation) that favoured non-chiropteran pollinators.
flowers from bee, moth and hummingbird flowers in the
other six families. It is likely that bat-pollinated taxa have
evolved frequently from hummingbird-pollinated taxa in G E NER AL D ISC USS IO N AN D CO NCL USI ON S
certain New World families of epiphytes (e.g. Bromeliaceae, Bat pollination is relatively uncommon in angiosperms com-
Gesneriaceae), but strong evidence for this awaits phyloge- pared with bird or insect pollination, and overall, it probably
netic studies, as is the case in the Agavaceae and Cactaceae, represents a novel (sensu ‘new’) type of pollination mode for
in which hummingbird pollination is not likely to be ancestral these plants. Bat-pollinated taxa occur in at least 67 families
to bat pollination. and about 250 genera of angiosperms, mostly in advanced
Although bat pollination is usually considered to be a non- evolutionary lineages, particularly in the Zingiberales in
reversible evolutionary specialization (Tripp and Manos, monocots and in the rosids among eudicots. The near
2008), this is not always true. In one case in the primarily absence of bat pollination in the basal angiosperms (only
neotropical genus Heliconia, closely related paleotropical two species) is striking. This pollination mode involves rela-
species are pollinated by either small pteropodid bats or tively large (compared with most insect pollinators), energeti-
by honeyeaters, but not both (Kress, 1985; Pedersen and cally expensive animals that require substantial energetic
Kress, 1999). Recent DNA-based phylogenetic work suggests rewards per flower or inflorescence for attraction. The daily
that honeyeater-pollinated species are derived from the energy budgets of three species of glossophagine bats, for
bat-pollinated species (Kress and Specht, 2005; L. P. example, are 40– 50 kJ whereas those of insects are orders
of magnitude smaller (Horner et al., 1998; Winter and von problems associated with heterospecific pollen by placing
Helverson, 2001). Bat pollination occurs at night, and the pollen on different parts of the heads of Anoura bats
characteristics of bat-pollinated flowers usually differ substan- (Muchhala and Potts, 2007; Muchhala, 2008).
tially from those of diurnally pollinated flowers in terms of In addition to carrying large amounts of pollen of multiple
timing of floral anthesis, flower colour and size, and nectar genotypes, bats often move pollen substantial distances
odour and volume. The structure of bat-pollinated flowers, between plants, which increases the size of genetic neighbour-
including methods of flower presentation, often differs sub- hoods and reduces levels of genetic subdivision between plant
stantially from those of their non-bat-pollinated ancestors or populations. Data summarized in Ward et al. (2005), for
sister-species (Faegri and van der Pijl, 1979; Dobat and example, indicate that phyllostomid bats carry pollen substan-
Peikert-Holle, 1985; Endress, 1994). Differences in the floral tially longer distances (up to 18 km) within populations of tro-
morphology and biology of species of Musa that are pollinated pical trees than hummingbirds (but not necessarily longer
either by bats or by birds are especially striking. Musa acumi- distances than some insects). Bats are particularly effective
nata, which is pollinated by the specialized pteropodid pollinators for plants that occur at low densities [e.g. in
Macroglossus sobrinus, has pendant infloresences with dark canopy trees in the Bombacaceae s.s., arid-zone columnar
purple bracts and nocturnal flowers that produce a jelly-like cacti (except in the Tehuacan Valley of Mexico where adult

nectar containing 22– 25 % sugar. In contrast, the diurnal cactus densities can exceed 1000 per ha; Valiente-Baunet
flowers of M. salaccensis, which are pollinated by sunbirds, et al., 1996) and agaves, and epiphytes in general (e.g.
occur on erect infloresences with pink – purple bracts and Tschapka, 2004)]. Ashton (1998) noted that in Bornean
produce relatively dilute nectar of 18– 21 % sugar (Itino forests, consistently rare species of canopy trees with large
et al., 1991). fruit such as certain legumes, Neesia, Coelostegia and Durio
What are the evolutionary advantages of bat pollination that are pollinated by large, low-fecundity and long-lived animals
have led to the independent evolution of this pollination mode such as pteropodid bats and Xylocopa bees. In the genus
in numerous plant lineages? In what ways does bat pollination Durio, species in subgenus Boscia are abundant small subca-
differ fundamentally from that of insect or bird pollination? nopy or canopy trees that are pollinated by meliponine bees
We propose that bats differ from insects and birds in at least whereas species in the subgenus Durio are low-density
two ways that affect their effectiveness as pollinators: (1) canopy trees whose flowers are bat-pollinated. Theoretically,
they often carry large amounts of pollen on their bodies and chronically low-density, animal-pollinated plants are expected
deposit a large number of pollen grains on stigmas per to provide larger energy rewards per flower to attract pollina-
flower visit and (2) they routinely carry pollen substantial dis- tors than high-density plants (Heinrich and Raven, 1972).
tances among flowers. Muchhala (2006b) compared pollen This could pre-adapt some low-density plants for pollination
deposition on flowers of nine species of Burmeistera by glos- by bats and other long-distance pollinators.
sophagine bats and hummingbirds and found that bats depos- If bats are such good pollinators, why are bat-pollinated
ited about 22 times more pollen on stigmas, on average, flowers not more common among angiosperms? The answer
than hummingbirds. Likewise, Molina-Freaner et al. (2003) to this question probably involves the costs and benefits of
reported that the glossophagine bat Leptonycteris curasoae bat pollination to plants relative to those associated with
deposited a few thousand to over 20000 pollen grains per other modes of pollination in addition to phylogenetic con-
night on stigmas of the columnar cactus Pachycereus pringlei. straints such as flower size. Costs involved in bat pollination
Deposition of large numbers of pollen grains per stigma can be in terms of resources invested in flowers, inflorescences,
advantageous to plants for at least two reasons: (1) it ensures nectar and pollen are likely to be substantial. In his survey
that enough pollen is available per flower to fertilize all of nectar production in a Costa Rican dry tropical forest, for
ovules and (2) it fosters strong pollen – pollen competition example, Opler (1983) showed that floral biomass and nectar
for access to ovules. volume of bat-pollinated flowers differed from those of
In addition to depositing large amounts of pollen on plant flowers pollinated by hummingbirds, bees and butterflies (but
stigmas, bats also deposit conspecific pollen grains of several not hawkmoths) by several orders of magnitude. Similarly,
different genotypes (i.e. different potential fathers) on stigmas. Fleming (2002) reported that among cactus flowers, bat-
In bat-pollinated Pachira quinata, for instance, the number of pollinated species generally produced 8 – 20 times more cal-
pollen fathers in fruits from trees in continuous forest in Costa ories of nectar per flower than those pollinated by hawkmoths
Rica was 2 – 3 compared with 1 – 2 pollen fathers per fruit in and hummingbirds. These data suggest that bat flowers are
trees in forest fragments; levels of biparental inbreeding (i.e. energetically expensive, which probably represents a signifi-
mating between close relatives) were higher in the forest frag- cant constraint to their evolution when energy for flower pro-
ment trees than in the continuous forest (Fuchs et al., 2003). duction is limited.
Multiple sires per fruit have also been reported in other neotro- A second constraint to the evolution of bat flowers is the
pical bat-pollinated trees, including Caryocar brasiliense, general phylogenetic conservatism of flower evolution in
Ceiba pentandra and Hymenaea courbaril (Collevatti et al., angiosperms. Insect pollination is ancestral in many families
2001; Dunphy et al., 2004; Lobo et al., 2005). Bats also com- of angiosperms, and pollination by birds or bats is derived.
monly carry more than one species of pollen on their bodies Unless environmental conditions such as low temperatures in
while foraging (e.g. Heithaus et al., 1975; von Helversen and mountains reduce the abundance or reliability of insects
Winter, 2003; Muchhala, 2006b; Muchhala et al., 2009) but (Cruden 1972), selection favouring a shift from insect to ver-
whether this interferes significantly with pollination is not cur- tebrate pollination is not likely to occur. Examples of these
rently known. Sympatric species of Burmeistera avoid potential kinds of shifts include the preponderance of hummingbird
pollination in Bromeliaceae and many other families in pollination is concentrated in the tropical genera with large,
montane regions in South and Central America and the numer- accessible flowers that produce copious amounts of nectar and
ous shifts from insect to hummingbird pollination in many pollen (i.e. Musa, Ensete, Phenakospermum, Heliconia), all
lineages of plants in the montane west of North America adaptations for visitation by large pollinators. Bat pollination
(Grant, 1994; Kessler and Krömer, 2000; Luteyn, 2002). is rare or absent in the ‘ginger families’ with more restrictive
Furthermore, given that bat-pollinated flowers tend to be floral morphology, reduced stamen numbers and smaller nec-
larger and energetically more expensive than bird flowers, taries (i.e. Zingiberaceae, Costaceae, Marantaceae, and
which reflects the generally larger size of nectar-feeding bats Cannaceae; Kress and Specht, 2005). This same pattern – the
compared with nectar-feeding birds worldwide (Fleming and evolution of bat pollination in large-flowered plant lineages –
Muchhala, 2008), selection is more likely to favour the evol- may also be found in the tropical Bombacaceae s.s.,
ution of bird flowers than bat flowers in most situations favour- Bromeliaceae, Gesneriaceae, Malvaceae and possibly
ing a shift from insect to vertebrate pollination. In support of Bignoniaceae (Table 5).
this, many more angiosperm families contain bird-pollinated Bat pollination occurs in about twice as many genera and
genera and species than bat-pollinated taxa (Fleming and species in the New World than in the Old World, despite the
Muchhala, 2008). In the end, although floral and pollinator fact that pteropodid bats, including specialized nectar-feeders,

conservatism probably prevails in angiosperms, the evolution are likely to be significantly older evolutionarily than special-
of pollination systems can also be opportunistic so that many ized nectar-feeding phyllostomids. One reason for this is that
plant families have evolved derived modes of pollination the neotropical angiosperm flora is much richer in species,
involving vertebrates. Although birds appear to be the ver- genera and families than are the floras of Africa, Asia and
tebrates of choice as pollinators for many plant families, prob- Australasia (Whitmore, 1998; Morley, 2000). But this expla-
ably because of their abundance, diversity and generally small nation only begs the question, why is the neotropical flora
size, bats clearly offer some advantages as pollinators. As a richer than those in other tropical areas? Gentry’s (1982)
result, bat pollination has evolved numerous times across widely cited explanation for this emphasized the importance
angiosperm phylogeny. of Andean orogeny as a generator of exceptional plant
Besides its evolutionary implications, long-distance pollina- species diversity, particularly among understorey shrubs,
tion by bats also has important conservation implications. epiphytes and palmettos of Gondwanan ancestry. Andean-
Human disturbance in the tropics and elsewhere often frag- associated families such as Bromeliaceae, Campanulaceae,
ments plant populations and increases the distance between Cactaceae, Gesneriaceae, Marcgraviaceae and Solanaceae are
conspecifics. Without long-distance pollinators, plants with relatively rich in bat-pollinated genera and/or species. Only bat-
self-compatible or mixed mating systems are likely to experi- pollinated canopy trees in the Bombaceae s.s. and Fabaceae are
ence higher rates of self-fertilization within habitat fragments not strongly associated with the Andes. Interestingly, whereas
than plants in continuous forests. Isolated self-incompatible hummingbirds have radiated extensively in the Andes
plants (the most common mating system in tropical plants; (Bleiweiss, 1998a, b; McGuire et al., 2007), the same is not
Bawa, 1992) will fare even worse because they require true for glossophagine bats in which species of only 1 – 2
pollen from another plant to set any fruit and seeds at all. genera (e.g. Anoura and Platalina) occur at mid- to high
Studies of canopy trees in continuous and fragmented forests elevations (Koopman, 1981). All hummingbirds have the
in Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico and Puerto Rico provide capacity to undergo torpor while glossophagine bats do not
support for these generalizations (Gribel et al., 1999; (McNab, 2002; but see Kelm and von Helversen, 2007). The
Collevatti et al., 2001; Fuchs et al., 2003; Quesada et al., ability to undergo torpor and to reduce energy demands signifi-
2003; Dunphy et al., 2004). Thus, bat pollination, along with cantly while still maintaining high body temperatures when
pollination by other kinds of long-distance pollinators, can active has enabled hummingbirds to radiate extensively under
serve to ‘rescue’ plants from some of the adverse effects of conditions of low ambient temperatures and flowers that offer
habitat fragmentation. low energetic rewards in the Andes (Altshuler et al., 2004).
About 85 % of the cases of bat pollination appear to have The inability to undergo torpor has probably constrained the
evolved independently at the level of angiosperm family. A par- radiation of glossophagine bats in montane environments.
ticularly striking example of this pattern is the occurrence of bat- Another reason for the higher diversity of bat-pollinated
pollinated flowers in only one hemisphere or the other in many plants in the Neotropics than in the Paleotropics probably
pantropically distributed plant families. An exception to this reflects the small size and hovering ability of glossophagines.
pattern occurs in the monocot order Zingiberales in which bat Large, non-hovering pteropodids and their New World
pollination is widespread among related families. The counterparts, non-glossophagine phyllostomid bats, often
common occurrence of bat pollination in the monocots, and visit large, sturdily built flowers many of which are exserted
especially the Zingiberales, may be due to the concentration of well away from foliage on erect stalks or long pendants
many of these taxa in the tropics, particularly the large succulent (Figs 2 – 4). In contrast, small hovering glossophagines often
and/or arborescent species in which bat pollination almost exclu- visit small, delicate flowers that may or may not be exserted
sively occurs. Of the seven families of monocots in which more well away from foliage. The ability to hover has allowed
than a single species is bat-pollinated (Table 1), all are exclu- these bats to interact with small flowers produced by a wider
sively tropical in distribution. In addition, many of these same range of growth habits, including epiphytes and shrubs that
taxa have large flowers (Strelitziaceae) and/or large floral dis- produce small flowers as well as large-flowered canopy trees,
plays (Agavaceae, Arecaceae, Pandanaceae) in closely related than pteropodids (Fleming and Muchhala, 2008). We assume
taxa that are bird- or insect-pollinated. In the Zingiberales, bat that it is cheaper for plants to produce small flowers than
large flowers. If this is true, then it should be easier for selec- COD A: W HER E DO WE GO FRO M HER E ?
tion to modify insect-pollinated flowers to attract small hover-
Our knowledge about the occurrence of bat pollination in tro-
ing glossophagines than to attract larger non-hovering
pical and subtropical plants has increased substantially in the
phyllostomids or pteropodids. The presence of small hovering
past few decades but there is still much more to be learned
bats (and birds) in the New World has thus expanded the range
on both sides of this fascinating mutualism. On the bat side,
of possible pollinator niches for neotropical plants. The
we need more studies on the foraging behaviour (foraging
absence of such vertebrate pollinators in the Old World has
routes and food choices) of flower-visiting bats. Do these
probably constrained the range of vertebrate pollination
bats forage in an energetically efficient manner, as predicted
niches in angiosperms there.
by optimal foraging theory? Do they routinely rely on spatial
Finally, we note that while the overall species richness of bat-
memory to locate flowering plants? To what extent do foraging
pollinated plants is relatively modest, the ecological and econ-
decisions made by bats conflict with the reproductive interests
omic importance of these plants is considerable. From an eco-
of plants? As one example, the foraging behaviour of the arid-
logical perspective, bat-pollinated plants are conspicuous
zone phyllostomid Leptonycteris curasoae appears to be ener-
members of various New World habitats, including deserts and
getically suboptimal because it involves long commute flights
other arid to semi-arid habitats (e.g. columnar cacti and panicu-

from day roosts (up to 30þ km) and large, overlapping fora-
late agaves) and dry and wet tropical forests (e.g. canopy trees
ging areas (up to 2.5þ km2) containing much more energy
of the Bombacaceae s.s.). Similarly, members of the
and pollen from cactus flowers than is needed to support one
Bombacaceae s.s. are conspicuous members of certain African
or more individuals (Horner et al., 1998). Why is this? From
and Madagascan habitats, and species of Sonneratia are impor-
the perspective of cactus flowers pollinated by this bat, this be-
tant members of south-east Asian mangrove communities.
haviour is beneficial because it provides great mobility for
From an economic perspective, many of these same taxa or
pollen and genes within and between populations (Hamrick
their cultivated relatives have considerable monetary value. For
et al., 2002). These strong-flying bats are therefore excellent
example, fruits of bat-pollinated columnar cacti are widely har-
out-crossers (Molina-Freaner et al., 2003). But we do not yet
vested in many parts of the Americas (Yetman 2007), and
know whether all or most nectar-feeding bats are excellent out-
tequila, which is derived from Agave tequilana, is a major cul-
crossers because the genetic consequences of bat pollination
tural icon and agricultural industry in Mexico. Ceiba pentandra
have rarely been documented, especially in the Old World
is an important source of fibre worldwide, and species of neotro-
tropics. Available data on the foraging behaviour of
pical Ochroma are renowned for their lightweight wood. In
specialized pteropodid bats (e.g. Syconycteris australis,
south-east Asia, economically important fruits come from bat-
Macroglossus minimus, Eonycteris spelaea and Melonycteris
pollinated Durio zibethinus and two species of Parkia, and bat-
melanops ) suggest that, except for E. spelaea, these bats are
pollinated species of Eucalyptus are important timber trees in
short-distance commuters that feed in small home ranges of
Australia (Fujita and Tuttle, 1991). Although domestic bananas
less than 10 ha (Winkelman et al., 2000, 2003; Bonaccorso
(Musa species) produce fruit parthenocarpically, their wild rela-
et al., 2005). They are not likely to provide nearly as much
tives are bat-pollinated (and dispersed).
long-distance mobility for pollen and genes as does
In conclusion, bat pollination has evolved independently in
L. curasoae or their opportunistic pteropodid relatives, but
many advanced orders and families of angiosperms. It is particu-
genetic studies to document this are lacking.
larly common in lowland habitats throughout the tropics but is
On the plant side, we need more information about ecologi-
also common in arid tropical and subtropical habitats in the
cal conditions that favour evolutionary switches from insect- or
New World, particularly in the Agavaceae and Cactaceae. As
bird-pollination to bat-pollination. Analysis of the geographi-
noted above, a number of ecologically or commercially impor-
cal distributions of different pollination syndromes in
tant tropical trees, especially those in the Bombacaceae s.s., as
Bromeliaceae (Kessler and Krömer, 2000) begins to provide
well as many large herbaceous or arborescent plants in the
this kind of information, but similar studies of other plant
monocot order Zingiberales are bat-pollinated. In the New
groups are needed. In addition, more detailed information is
World tropics, many epiphytes in the Bromeliaceae, Cactaceae
needed about why bats are favoured as pollinators in some
and Gesneriaceae rely on bats for pollination. The evolution of
habitats and not others. What is it about the population and be-
bat-pollinated lineages probably began in the Miocene, well
havioural ecology of nectar-feeding bats that makes them
after the first appearance of families that currently contain
‘attractive’ pollinators for particular plants in particular habi-
many such lineages. Bat pollination is thus derived in most
tats? Pollinator ‘reliability’ is often mentioned as a necessary
plant groups, and its evolution has entailed significant changes
condition for the evolution of specialized pollination systems
in the timing of anthesis, morphology, biochemistry and physi-
(e.g. Valiente-Banuet et al., 1996; Waser et al., 1996), but
ology of flowers. We propose that bat pollination has been par-
how do we operationally define the ‘reliability’of nectar
ticularly likely to evolve in plants that occur in chronically low
bats? Finally, we need more studies of pairs of plant species
densities and that from a conservation viewpoint it is a particu-
where one is bat-pollinated and the other is not to understand
larly valuable adaptation in landscapes in which plant popu-
patterns, and ultimately the mechanisms, of character change.
lations have recently become fragmented owing to habitat
What is involved in the switch from diurnal to nocturnal flower
destruction. The loss of nectar-feeding bats in tropical and sub-
anthesis? In the evolution of large corollas and nectaries? In
tropical habitats would probably have profound ecological and
the production of strong floral scents featuring sulphur com-
evolutionary effects on their food plants and on the plant com-
pounds (in the New World)? Etc. It should be clear from
munities in which they occur.
this review that we know a lot about the natural history and
phylogenetic and biogeographical distributions of nectar- Bawa KS. 1990. Plant –pollinator interactions in tropical rain forests. Annual
feeding bats and their food plants. We now need to dig Review of Ecology and Systematics 21: 399– 422.
Bawa KS. 1992. Mating systems, genetic differentiation and speciation in tro-
deeper into this mutualism to understand how and why it has pical rain-forest plants. Biotropica 24: 250 –255.
evolved. Benzing DH. 2000. Bromeliaceae, profile of an adaptive radiation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bestmann HJ, Winkler L, von Helversen O. 1997. Headspace analysis of
AC KN OW L E DG MEN T S volatile flower scent constituents of bat-pollinated plants.
Phytochemistry 29: 1359– 1387.
We thank Don Levin for suggesting to us that we should write Bhat HR. 1994. Observations on the food and feeding behavior of Cynopterus
this review, portions of which were taken from a forthcoming sphinx Vahl (Chiroptera, Pteropodidae) at Pune, India. Mammalia 58:
book (The Ornaments of Life, University of Chicago Press) 363–370.
Bleiweiss R. 1998a. Origin of hummingbird faunas. Biological Journal of the
written by T.H.F. and W.J.K. We thank our editors at the Linnean Society 65: 77– 97.
University of Chicago Press (Christie Henry and John Bleiweiss R. 1998b. Tempo and mode of hummingbird evolution. Biological
Thompson) for permission to use material from our book in Journal of the Linnean Society 65: 63– 76.
this review. Nate Muchhala and two anonymous reviewers pro- Bonaccorso F, Winkelmann JR, Byrnes DGP. 2005. Home range, territori-
vided many useful suggestions for improving this paper. Bat ality, and flight time budgets in the black-bellied fruit bat, Melonycteris

melanops (Pteropodidae). Journal of Mammalogy 86: 931– 936.
Conservation International kindly provided the photographs Calley M, Braithwaite RW, Ladd PG. 1993. Reproductive biology of
for Figs 1 and 2, and Ida Lopez applied her excellent skills Ravenala madagascariensis Gmel. as an alien species. Biotropica 25:
to composing them. T.H.F. thanks the US National Science 61–72.
Foundation, National Geographic Society and the Ted Turner Campbell P, Schneider CJ, Zubaid A, Adnan AM, Kunz TH. 2007.
Foundation for supporting his research on bat pollination. Morphological and ecological correlates of coexistence in Malaysian
fruit bats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae). Journal of Mammalogy 88:
C.K.G. is grateful to the Beneficia Foundation and Bat 105–118.
Conservation International for financial support and to Scott Collevatti RG, Grattapaglia D, Hay JD. 2001. High resolution microsatellite
Mori for sharing his knowledge of and enthusiasm for based analysis of the mating system allows the detection of significant
Neotropical plants. W.J.K. thanks the US National Science biparental inbreeding in Caryocar brasiliense, an endangered tropical
tree species. Heredity 86: 60–67.
Foundation, National Geographic Society and the Corlett R. 2004. Flower visitors and pollination in the Oriental (Indomalayan)
Smithsonian Institution for funding support. region. Biological Reviews 79: 497– 532.
We dedicate this review to the memory of Otto von Cox P, Elmqvist T, Pierson E, Rainey W. 1991. Flying foxes as strong inter-
Helversen for his substantial contributions to our knowledge actors in South Pacific island ecosystems: a conservation hypothesis.
of bat pollination. Conservation Biology 5: 448–454.
Cruden RW. 1972. Pollinators in high-elevation ecosystems: relative effec-
tiveness of birds and bees. Science 176: 1439–1440.
Cruden RW, Hermann SM, Peterson S. 1983. Patterns of nectar production
L I T E R AT U R E C I T E D and plant-pollinator coevolution. In: Bentley B, Elias T. eds. The biology
Altshuler DL, Stiles FG, Dudley R. 2004. Of hummingbirds and helicopters: of nectaries. New York: Columbia University Press, 82–125.
hovering costs, competitive ability, and foraging strategies. American Cunningham SA. 1995a. Ecological constraints on fruit initiation by
Naturalist 163: 16– 25. Calyptrogyne ghiesbreghtiana (Arecaceae): floral herbivory, pollen avail-
Andersen K. 1912. Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the collection of the British ability and visitation by pollinating bats. American Journal of Botany 82:
Museum, 2nd edition. London: Trustees of the British Museum (Natural 1527– 1536.
History). Cunningham SA. 1995b. The reproductive ecology of Calyptrogyne ghies-
Anderson EF. 2001. The cactus family. Portland, OR: Timber Press. breghtiana, a rain forest understory palm. PhD Dissertation, The
Andersson L. 1998. Musaceae. In: Kubitzki K. ed. The families and genera of University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
vascular plants. IV. Flowering Plants-Monocotyledons. Berlin: Davalos LM. 2004. Phylogeny and biogeography of Caribbean mammals.
Springer-Verlag, 296– 300. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 81: 373–394.
Ashton PS. 1998. Niche specificity among tropical trees: a question of scales. Devy MS, Davidar P. 2003. Pollination systems of trees in Kakaachi, a mid-
In: Newbery DM, Prins HHT, Brown ND. eds. Dynamics of tropical com- elevation wet evergreen forest in Westen Ghats, India. American Journal
munities. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Ltd, 491–514. of Botany 90: 650– 657.
Ayensu ES. 1974. Plant and bat interactions in West Africa. Annals of the Dick CW, Hardy OJ, Jones FA, Petit RJ. 2008. Spatial scales of pollen and
Missouri Botanical Garden 61: 702– 727. seed-mediated gene flow in tropical rain forest trees. Tropical Plant
Baker HG. 1973. Evolutionary relationships between flowering plants and Biology 1: 20– 33.
animals in American and African tropical forests. In: Meggers BJ, Dobat K, Peikert-Holle T. 1985. Bluten und fledermause. Frankfurt am Main:
Ayensu ES, Duckworth WD. eds. Tropical forest ecosystems in Africa Verlag Waldemar Kramer.
and South America: a comparative review. Washington, DC: Dunphy BK, Hamrick JL, Schwager J. 2004. A comparison of direct and
Smithsonian Institution Press, 145–159. indirect measures of gene flow in the bat-pollinated tree Hymenaea cour-
Baker HG, Harris BJ. 1957. The pollination of Parkia by bats and its attend- baril in the dry forest life zone of southwestern Puerto Rico.
ant evolutionary problems. Evolution 11: 449–460. International. Journal of Plant Sciences 165: 427– 436.
Baker HG, Baker I, Hodges SA. 1998. Sugar composition of nectars and Eguiarte L, Martinez del Rio C, Arita H. 1987. El nectar y el polen como
fruits consumed by birds and bats in the tropics and subtropics. recursos: el papel ecologico de los visitantes a las flores de
Biotropica 30: 559– 586. Pseudobombax ellipticum (H.B.K.) Dugand. Biotropica 19: 74– 82.
Banack SA. 1998. Diet selection and resource use by flying foxes (Genus Elangovan V, Marimuthu G, Kunz TH. 2000. Nectar-feeding behavior in
Pteropus). Ecology 79: 1949–1967. the short-nosed fruit bat Cynopterus sphinx (Pteropodidae). Acta
Barker NP, Weston PH, Rutschmann F, Sauquet H. 2007. Molecular dating Chiropterologica 2: 1– 5.
of the ‘Gondwanan’ plant family Proteaceae is only partially congruent Elangovan V, Priya EYS, Marimuthu G. 2006. Olfactory discrinimation
with the timing of the break-up of Gondwana. Journal of Biogeography ability in the short-nosed fruit bat Cynopterus sphinx. Acta
34: 2012–2027. Chiropterologica 8: 247–253.
Baum DA, Small RL, Wendel JF. 1998. Biogeography and floral evolution of Elmqvist T, Cox PA, Rainey WE, Pierson ED. 1992. Restricted pollination
baobabs (Adansonia, Bombacaceae) as inferred from multiple data sets. on oceanic islands: pollination of Ceiba pentandra by flying foxes in
Systematic Biology 47: 181– 207. Samoa. Biotropica 24: 15–23.
Endress PK. 1994. Diversity and evolutionary biology of tropical flowers. Gottsberger G, Silberbauer-Gottsberger I. 2006. Life in the cerrado, a
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. South American tropical seasonal ecosystem. Ulm, Germany: Reta
Faegri K, van der Pijl L. 1979. The principles of pollination ecology, 2nd Verlag.
edn. Toronto: Pergamon Press. Gould E. 1978. Foraging behavior of Malaysian nectar-feeding bats.
Fenster CB, Armbruster WS, Wilson P, Dudash MR, Thomson JD. 2004. Biotropica 10: 184– 193.
Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annual Review of Grant V. 1994. Historical development of ornithophily in the western North
Ecology and Systematics 35: 375– 403. American flora. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
Ferrarezzi H, Gimenez EdA. 1996. Systematic patterns and the evolution of the United States of America 91: 10407–10411.
feeding habits in Chiroptera (Archonta: Mammalia). Journal of Gribel R, Gibbs PE, Queiróz AL. 1999. Flowering phenology and pollination
Comparative Biology 1: 75–94. biology of Ceiba pentandra (Bombacaceae) in Central Amazonia.
Feuillet C, MacDougal JM. 2007. Passifloraceae. In: Kubitzki K. ed. The Journal of Tropical Ecology 15: 247–263.
families and genera of vascular plants. IX. Flowering Plants. Eudicots. Grünmeier R. 1990. Pollination by bats and non-flying mammals of the
Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 270– 281. African tree Parkia bicolor (Mimosaceae). Memoirs of the New York
Fleming TH. 1982. The foraging strategies of plant-visiting bats. In: Kunz TH. Botanical Gardens 55: 83– 104.
ed. Ecology of bats. New York: Plenum Press, 287–325. Hamrick JL, Nason JD, Fleming TH, Nassar J. 2002. Genetic diversity in
Fleming TH. 1993. Plant-visiting bats. American Scientist 81: 460– 467. columnar cacti. In: Fleming TH, Valiente-Banuet A. eds. Columnar cacti
Fleming TH. 1995. Pollination and frugivory in phyllostomid bats of arid and their mutualists: evolution, ecology, and conservation. Tucson, AZ:
regions. Marmosiana 1: 87– 93. University of Arizona Press, 122– 133.

Fleming TH. 2002. The pollination biology of Sonoran Desert columnar cacti. Hansen AK, Gilbert LE, Simpson BB, Downie SR, Cervi AC, Jansen RK.
In: Fleming TH, Valiente-Banuet A. eds. Columnar cacti and their mutu- 2006. Phylogenetic relationships and chromosome number evolution in
alists: evolution, ecology, and conservation. Tucson: University of Passiflora. Systematic Botany 31: 138–150.
Arizona Press, 207– 224. Heaney LR, Heideman PD, Rickart EA, Utzurrum RCB, Klompen JSH.
Fleming TH. 2004. Nectar corridors: migration and the annual cycle of lesser 1989. Elevational zonation of mammals in the central Philippines.
long-nosed bats. In: Nabhan GP. ed. Conserving migratory pollinators Journal of Tropical Ecology 5: 259 –280.
and nectar corridors in western North America. Tucson: University of Heinrich B. 1975. Energetics of pollination. Annual Review of Ecology and
Arizona Press, 23–42. Systematics 6: 139– 170.
Fleming TH. 2005. The relationships between species richness of vertebrate Heinrich B, Raven PH. 1972. Energetics and pollination ecology. Science
mutualists and their food plants in tropical and subtropical communities 176: 597–602.
differs among hemispheres. Oikos 111: 556– 562. Heithaus ER, Opler PA, Baker HG. 1974. Bat activity and pollination of
Fleming TH, Muchhala N. 2008. Nectar-feeding bird and bat niches in two Bauhinia pauletia: plant pollinator coevolution. Ecology 55: 412–419.
worlds: pantropical comparisons of vertebrate pollination systems. Heithaus ER, Fleming TH, Opler PA. 1975. Foraging patterns and resource
Journal of Biogeography 35: 764–780. utilization in seven species of bats in a seasonal tropical forest. Ecology
Fleming TH, Sahley CT, Holland JN, Nason JD, Hamrick JL. 2001. 56: 841 –854.
Sonoran Desert columnar cacti and the evolution of generalized pollina- von Helversen O. 1993. Adaptations of flowers to the pollination by glosso-
tion systems. Ecological Monographs 71: 511– 530. phagine bats. In: Barthlott W, Naumann CM, Schmidt-Loske K,
Fleming TH, Muchhala N, Ornelas JF. 2005. New World nectar-feeding ver- Schuchmann KL. eds. Animal–plant interactions in tropical environ-
tebrates: community patterns and processes. In: Sánchez-Cordero V, ments. Bonn: Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander
Medellı́n RA. eds. Contribuciones mastozoológicas en homenaje a Koenig, 41–59.
Bernardo Villa. Mexico City: Instituto de Biologı́a a Instituto de von Helversen D, von Helversen O. 1999. Acoustic guide in a bat-pollinated
Ecologı́a, UNAM, 161 –184. flower. Nature 398: 759–760.
Freeman PW. 1995. Nectarivorous feeding mechanisms in bats. Biological von Helversen O, Winter Y. 2003. Glossophagine bats and their flowers:
Journal of the Linnean Society 56: 439– 463. costs and benefits for plants and pollinators. In: Kunz TH, Fenton MB.
Friis I. 1993. Urticaceae. In: Kubitzki K. ed. The families and genera of vas- eds. Bat ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 346– 397.
cular plants. II. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, von Helversen O, Winkler L, Bestmann HJ. 2000. Sulphur-containing ‘per-
612–629. fumes’ attract flower-visiting bats. Journal of Comparative Physiology A
Fuchs EJ, Lobo JA, Quesada M. 2003. Effects of forest fragmentation and 186: 143–153.
flowering phenology on the reproductive success and mating patterns of Henderson A. 2002. Evolution and ecology of palms. Bronx: New York
the tropical dry forest tree Pachira quinata. Conservation Biology 17: Botanical Garden Press.
149–157. Herrera LG, Martı́nez del Rı́o C. 1998. Pollen digestion by New World bats:
Fujita MS, Tuttle MD. 1991. Flying foxes (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae): threa- effects of processing time and feeding habits. Ecology 79: 2828–2838.
tened animals of key ecological and economic importance. Conservation Heywood VH, Brummitt RK, Culham A, Seberg O. 2007. Flowering plant
Biology 5: 455– 463. families of the world. Ontario: Firefly Books.
Gannon MR, Kurta A, Rodriguez-Duran A, Willig MR. 2005. Bats of Hodgkison R, Balding ST, Zubaid A, Kunz TH. 2004. Temporal variation in
Puerto Rico. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press. the number of fruit bats (Megachiroptera: Pteropodidae) in relation to the
Gaskin JF. 2003. Tamaricaceae. In: Kubitzki K, Bayer C. eds. The families availability of food in a lowland Malyasian rain forest. Biotropica 36:
and genera of vascular plants. V. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons. 522– 533.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 363– 368. Hopkins HCF. 1986. Parkia (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). Flora Neotropica
Geiselman CK, Mori SA, Blanchard F. 2004. Database of neotropical bat/ Monogaphs 43: 1 –124.
plant interactions. http://www.nybg.org/botany/tlobova/mori/batsplants/ Horner MA, Fleming TH, Sahley CT. 1998. Foraging behaviour and ener-
database/dbase_frameset.htm getics of a nectar-feeding bat, Leptonycteris curasoae (Chiroptera:
Gentry AH. 1974. Coevolutionary patterns in Central American Phyllostomidae). Journal of Zoology London 244: 575–586.
Bignoniaceae. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 61: 728– 759. Howe HF, Westley LC. 1988. Ecological relationships of plants and animals.
Gentry AH. 1982. Neotropical floristic diversity: phytogeographical connec- New York: Oxford University Press.
tions between Central and South America, Pleistocene climatic fluctu- Howell DJ. 1974. Bats and pollen: physiological aspects of the syndrome of
ations, or an accident of the Andean orogeny? Annals of the Missouri chiropterophily. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology B 48:
Botanical Garden 69: 557–593. 263– 276.
Giannini NP, Simmons NB. 2005. Conflict and congruence in a combined Itino T, Kato M, Hotta M. 1991. Pollination ecology of the wild bananas,
DNA–morphology analysis of megachiropteran bat relationships Musa acuminata subsp. halabanensis and M. salaccensis: chiropterophily
(Mammalia: Chiroptera: Pteropodidae). Cladistics 21: 411–437. and ornithophily. Biotropica 23: 151–158.
Good-Avila SV, V.Souza V, Gaut BS, Eguiarte LE. 2006. Timing and rate of Johnson LAS, Wilson KL. 1993. Casuarinaceae. In: Kubitzki K. ed. The
speciation in Agave (Agavaceae). Proceedings of the National Academy families and genera of vascular plants. II. Flowering plants.
of Sciences of the United States of America 103: 9124–9129. Dicotyledons. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 237–242.
Jones KE, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Gittleman JL. 2005. Bats, clocks, and Luteyn JL. 2002. Diversity, adaptation, and endemism in neotropical
rocks: diversification patterns in Chiroptera. Evolution 59: 2243– 2255. Ericaceae: biogeographical patterns in the Vaccinieae. Botanical Review
Kay KM, Reeves PA, Olmstead RG, Schemske DW. 2005. Rapid speciation 68: 55–87.
and the evolution of hummingbird pollination in Neotropical Costus sub- Maddison W, Maddison D. 2007. Mesquite: a modular system for evolution-
genus Costus (Costaceae): evidence from nrDNA ITS and ETS ary analysis, version 2.5. http://mesquiteproject.org/mesquite2.5/
sequences. American Journal of Botany 92: 1899–1910. mesquite/mesquite.html.
Kelm DH, von Helversen O. 2007. How to budget metabolic energy: torpor Marshall AG. 1983. Bats, flowers and fruit: evolutionary relatonships in the
in a small Neotropical mammal. Journal of Comparative Physiology Old World. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 20: 115 –135.
B-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 177: 667–677. Marshall AG. 1985. Old World phytophagous bats (Megachiroptera) and their
Kessler M, Krömer T. 2000. Patterns and ecological correlates of pollination food plants: a survey. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 83:
modes among bromeliad communities of Andean Forests in Bolivia. 351–369.
Plant Biology 2: 659– 669. Marten-Rodriguez S, Fenster CB. 2008. Pollination ecology and breeding
Kirsch JW, LaPointe FJ. 1997. You aren’t (always) what you eat: evolution systems of five Gesneria species from Puerto Rico. Annals of Botany
of nectar-feeding among Old World fruitbats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae). 102: 23– 30.
In: Givinish TJ, Sytsma KJ. eds. Molecular evolution and adaptive radi- Marten-Rodriguez S, Almarales-Castro A, Fenster CB. 2009. Evaluation of
ation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 313–330. pollination syndromes in Antillean Gesneriaceae: evidence for bat, hum-
Knapp S, Persson V, Blackmore S. 1997. A phylogenetic conspectus of the mingbird and generalized flowers. Journal of Ecology 97: 348– 359.
tribe Juanulloeae (Solanaceae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden McConkey KR, Drake DR. 2006. Flying foxes cease to function as seed dis-

84: 67– 89. persers long before they become rare. Ecology 87: 271– 276.
Knox EB, Muasya AM, Muchhala N. 2008. The predominantly South McGuire JA, Witt CC, Altshuler DL, Remsen JVJr. 2007. Phylogenetic
American clade of Lobeliaceae. Systematic Botany 33: 462– 468. systematics and biogeography of hummingbirds: Bayesian and
Knudsen JT, Eriksson R, Gershenzon J, Ståhl B. 2006. Diversity and distri- maximum likelihood analyses of partitioned data and selection of an
bution of floral scent. Botanical Reviews 72: 1– 120. appropriate partitioning strategy. Systematic Biology 56: 837–856.
Koopman KF. 1981. The distribution patterns of New World nectar-feeding McNab BK. 2002. The physiological ecology of vertebrates. Ithaca, NY:
bats. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 68: 352–369. Cornell University Press.
Kress WJ. 1985. Bat pollination of an Old World Heliconia. Biotropica 17: Mickleburgh SP, Hutson AM, Racey PA. 1992. Old World fruit bats. An
302– 308. action plan for their conservation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Kress WJ, Specht CD. 2005. Between Cancer and Capricorn: phylogeny, Molina-Freaner F, Cervantes-Salas M, Morales-Romero D, Buchmann
evolution, and ecology of tropical Zingiberales. In: Friis I, Balslev H. SL, Fleming TH. 2003. Does the pollinator abundance hypothesis
eds. Proceedings of a symposium on plant diversity and complexity pat- explain geographic variation in the breeding system of Pachycereus prin-
terns – local, regional and global dimensions. Copenhagen: , 459– 478. glei? International Journal of Plant Sciences 164: 383–393.
Kress WJ, Schatz GE, Adrianifahanana M, Morland HS. 1994. Pollination Mori S, Boeke JD. 1987. Chapter XII. Pollination. Memoirs of the New York
of Ravenala madagascariensis (Strelitziaceae) by lemurs in Madagascar:
Botanical Garden 44: 137– 155.
evidence of an archaic coevolutionary system? American Journal of
Mori S, Tsou C-H, Wu C-C, Cronholm B, Anderberg AA. 2007. Evolution
Botany 81: 542–551.
of Lecythidaceae with an emphasis on the circumscription of neotropical
Lack A. 1978. The ecology of the flowers of the savanna tree Maranthes poly-
genera: information from combined ndhF and trnL-F sequence data.
andra and their visitors, with particular reference to bats. Journal of
American Journal of Botany 94: 289– 301.
Ecology 66: 287–295.
Morley RJ. 2000. Origin and evolution of tropical forests. New York: Wiley.
Law BS. 1992. The maintenance nitrogen requirements of the Queensland
Muchhala N. 2006a. Nectar bat stows huge tongue in its rib cage. Nature 444:
blossom bat (Syconycteris australis) on a sugar/pollen diet: is nitrogen
701–702.
a limiting resource? Physiological Zoology 65: 634– 648.
Law BS. 1993. Roosting and foraging ecology of the Queensland blossom bat Muchhala N. 2006b. The pollination of Burmeistera (Campanulaceae):
(Syconycteris australis) in north-eastern New South Wales – flexibility in specialization and syndromes. American Journal of Botanny 93:
response to seasonal variation. Wildlife Research 20: 419–431. 1081– 1089.
Law BS. 1996. Residency and site fidelity of marked populations of the Muchhala N. 2008. Functional significance of interspecific variation in
common blossom bat Syconycteris australis in relation to the availability Burmeistera flower morphology: evidence from nectar bat captures in
of Banksia inflorescences in New South Wales, Australia. Oikos 77: Ecuador. Biotropica 40: 332 –337.
447– 458. Muchhala N, Potts MD. 2007. Character displacement among bat-pollinated
Law BS, Lean M. 1999. Common blossom bats (Syconycteris australis) as flowers of the genus Burmeistera: analysis of mechanism, process and
pollinators in fragmented Australian tropical rainforest. Biological pattern. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 274:
Conservation 91: 201–212. 2731– 2737.
Lemke TO. 1984. Foraging ecology of the long-nosed bat, Glossophaga sor- Muchhala N, Caiza A, Vizuete JC, Thomson JD. 2009. A generalized pol-
icina, with respect to resource availability. Ecology 65: 538–548. lination system in the tropics: bats, birds and Aphelandra acanthus.
Lemke TO. 1985. Pollen carrying by the nectar-feeding bat Glossophaga sor- Annals of Botany 103: 1481– 1487.
icina in a suburban environment. Biotropica 17: 107–111. Nowak RM. 1994. Walker’s bats of the world. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Linhart YB. 1973. Ecological and behavioral determinants of pollen dispersal University Press.
in hummingbird-pollinated Heliconia. American Naturalist 107: Nyffeler R, Baum DA. 2001. Systematics and character evolution in Durio s. lat.
511– 523. (Malvaceae/Helicteroideae/Durioneae or Bombacaceae-Durioneae).
Linhart YB, Busby WH, Beach JH, Feinsinger P. 1987. Forager behavior, Organisms, Diversity and Evolution 1: 165–178.
pollen dispersal, and inbreeding in two species of hummingbird- Nyhagen DF, Thurnbull SD, Olesens JM, Jones CG. 2005. An investigation
pollinated plants. Evolution 41: 679– 682. into the role of the Mauritian flying fox, Pteropus niger, in forest regen-
Liu A-Z, Li D-Z, Wang H, Kress WJ. 2002. Ornithophilous and chiroptero- eration. Biological Conservation 122: 491–497.
philous pollination in Musa itinerans (Musaceae), a pioneer species in Ollerton J, Alarcon R, Waser NM, et al. 2009. A global test of the pollina-
tropical rain forests of Yunnan, southwestern China. Biotropica 34: tion syndrome hypothesis. Annals of Botany 103: 1471–1480.
254– 260. Opler PA. 1983. Nectar production in a tropical ecosystem. In: Bentley B,
Lobo JA, Quesada M, Stoner KE. 2005. Effects of pollination by bats on the Elias T. eds. The biology of nectaries. New York: Columbia University
mating system of Ceiba pentandra (Bombacaceae) populations in two tro- Press, 30–79.
pical life zones in Costa Rica. American Journal of Botany 92: 370– 376. Palmer C, Price O, Bach C. 2000. Foraging ecology of the black flying fox
Lord JM. 1991. Pollination and seed dispersal in Freycinetia baueriana, a (Pteropus alecto) in the seasonal tropics of the Northern Territory,
dioecious liane that has lost its bat pollinator. New Zealand. Journal of Australia. Wildlife Research 27: 169–178.
Botany 29: 83– 86. Pedersen LB, Kress WJ. 1999. Honeyeater (Meliphagidae) pollination and
Luckow M, Hopkins HCF. 1995. A cladistic analysis of Parkia (Leguminosae: the floral biology of Polynesian Heliconia (Heliconiaceae). Plant
Mimosoideae). American Journal of Botany 82: 1300–1320. Systematics and Evolution 216: 1 –21.
Pennington TD. 2004. Sapotaceae. In: Kubitzki K. ed. The families and Simmons NB, Seymour KL, Habersetzer J, Gunnell GF. 2008. Primitive
genera of vascular plants. VI. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons. Berlin: Early Eocene bat from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echoloca-
Springer-Verlag, 390–421. tion. Nature 451: 818– 822.
Perret M, Chautems A, Spichiger R, Barraclough TG, Savolainen V. 2007. Smith SD, Baum DA. 2006. Phylogenetics of the florally diverse Andean
The geographical pattern of speciation and floral diversification in the clade Iochrominae (Solanaceae). American Journal of Botany 93:
neotropics: the tribe Sinningieae (Gesneriaceae) as a case study. 1140–1153.
Evolution 61: 1641–1660. Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Endress PK, Chase MW. 2005. Phylogeny and evol-
Pettersson S, Ervik F, Knudsen JT. 2004. Floral scent of bat-pollinated ution of angiosperms. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
species: West Africa vs. the New World. Biological Journal of the Srithongchuay T, Bumrungsri S, Sripao-Raya E. 2008. The pollination
Linnean Society 82: 161– 168. ecology of the late-successional tree, Oroxylum indicum (Bignoniaceae)
van der Pijl L. 1941. Flagelliflory and cauliflory as adaptations to bats in in Thailand. Journal of Tropical Ecology 24: 477 –484.
Mucuna and other plants. Annals of the Botanical Garden of Start AN, Marshall AG. 1976. Nectarivorous bats as pollinators of trees in west
Buitenzorg 51: 83–93. Malaysia. In: Burley J, Styles BT. eds. Tropical trees. variation, breeding,
van der Pijl L. 1956. Remarks on pollination by bats in the genera and conservation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 131–149.
Freycinetia, Duabanga, and Haplophragma, and on chiropterology in Stevens PF. 2001. Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 7, May 2006
general. Acta Botanische Neerlandica 5: 135–144. http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/
van der Pijl L. 1961. Ecological aspects of flower evolution. II. Zoophilous Stevens PF. 2007. Clusiaceae-Guttiferae. In: Kubitzki. ed. The families and
flower classes. Evolution 15: 44–59. genera of vascular plants. IX. Flowering Plants. Eudicots. Berlin:

Prance GT, Mori SA. 2004. Lecythidaceae. In: Kubitzki K. ed. The families Springer-Verlag, 48– 66.
and genera of vascular plants. VI. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons. Stroo A. 2000. Pollen morphological evolution in bat pollinated plants. Plant
Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 221– 232. Systematics and Evolution 222: 225–242.
Prance GT, White F. 1988. The genera of Chrysobalanaceae: a study in prac- Struwe L, Kadereit JW, Klackenburg J, et al. 2002. Systematics, character
tical and theoretical taxonomy and its relevance to evolutionary biology. evolution, and biogeography of Gentianaceae, including a new tribe and sub-
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 320: 1 –184. tribal classification. In: Struwe L, Albert VA. eds. Gentianaceae. Systematics
Prather LA. 1999. The relative lability of floral vs. non-floral characters and a and natural history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21–309.
morphological phylogenetic analysis of Cobaea (Polemoniaceae). Sussman RW, Raven PH. 1978. Pollination by lemurs and marsupials: an
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 131: 433– 450. archaic coevolutionary system. Science 200: 731–736.
Quesada M, Stoner KE, Rosas-Guerrero V, Palacios-Guevara C, Lobo JA. Suthers RA. 1970. Vision, olfaction, taste. In: Wimsatt WA. ed. Biology of
2003. Effects of habitat disruption on the activity of nectarivorous bats bats, vol. II. New York: Academic Press, 265– 309.
(Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) in a dry tropical forest: implications for Teeling EC, Springer MS, Madsen O, Bates P, O’Brien SJ, Murphy WJ.
the reproductive success of the neotropical tree Ceiba grandiflora. 2005. A molecular phylogeny for bats illuminates biogeography and the
Oecologia 135: 400–406. fossil record. Science 307: 580–584.
Rainey WE, Pierson ED, Elmqvist T, Cox PA. 1995. The role of flying foxes Todzia CA. 1993. Ulmaceae. In: Kubitzki K. ed. The families and genera of
vascular plants. II. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons. Berlin:
(Pteropodidae) in oceanic island ecosystems of the Pacific. In: Racey PA,
Springer-Verlag, 603– 611.
Swift S. eds. Ecology, evolution and behaviour of bats. Oxford:
Tripp EA, Manos PS. 2008. Is floral specialization an evolutionary dead-end?
Clarendon Press, 47– 62.
Pollination system transitions in Ruellia (Acanthaceae). Evolution 62:
Ratcliffe F. 1932. Notes on the fruit bats (Pteropus spp.) of Australia. Journal
1712–1736.
of Animal Ecology 1: 32–57.
Tschapka M. 2004. Energy density patterns of nectar resources permit coex-
Renner SS. 1989. A survey of reproductive biology in Neotropical
istence within a guild of Neotropical flower-visiting bats. Journal of
Melastomataceae and Memecylaceae. Annals of the Missouri Botanical
Zoology 263: 7 –21.
Garden 76: 496– 518.
Tschapka M, von Helversen O. 2007. Phenology, nectar production and vis-
Renner SS, Ricklefs RE. 1995. Dioecy and its correlates in the flowering itation behaviour of bats on the flowers of the bromeliad Werauhia gladio-
plants. American Journal of Bot any 82: 596– 606. liflora in a Costa Rican lowland rain forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology
Richards GC. 1995. A review of ecological interactions of fruit bats in 23: 385 –395.
Australian ecosystems. In: Racey PA, Swift S. eds. Ecology, evolution Valiente-Banuet A, Arizmendi MC, Martinez-Rojas A,
and behaviour of bats. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 79–96. Dominguez-Canesco L. 1996. Geographical and ecological correlates
Ricklefs RE. 2006. Evolutionary diversification and the origin of the between columnar cacti and nectar-feeding bats in Mexico. Journal of
diversity-environment relationship. Ecology 87: S3– S13. Tropical Ecology 12: 103–119.
Roesel CS, Kress WJ, Bowditch BM. 1996. Low levels of genetic variation Wallace RS. 2002. The phylogeny and systematics of columnar cacti: an over-
in Phenakospermum guyannense (Strelitziaceae), a widespread bat-polli- view. In: Fleming TH, Valiente-Banuet A. eds. Columnar cacti and their
nated Amazonian herb. Plant Systematics and Evolution 199: 1– 15. mutualists: evolution, ecology, and conservation. Tucson, AZ: University
Salas D. 1973. Una Bromeliacea costarricense polinizada por murcielagos. of Arizona Press, 42–65.
Brenesia 2: 5– 10. Ward M, Dick CW, Gribel R, Lowe AJ. 2005. To self, or not to self . . . A
Santos M, Arita HT. 2002. Priority areas for the conservation of New World review of outcrossing and pollen-mediated gene flow in neotropical
nectar-feeding bats. In: Fleming TH, Valiente-Banuet A. eds. Columnar trees. Heredity 95: 246– 254.
cacti and their mutualists: evolution, ecology, and conservation. Waser NM, Chittka L, Price MV, Williams NM, Ollerton J. 1996.
Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 342 –363. Generalization in pollination systems, and why it matters. Ecology 77:
Sazima M, Sazima I. 1978. Bat pollination of the passion flower, Passiflora 1043–1060.
mucronata, in southeastern Brazil. Biotropica 10: 100– 109. Whitmore TC. 1998. An introduction to tropical rain forests, 2nd edn.
Sazima M, Sazima I. 1987. Additional observations on Passiflora mucronata, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
the bat-pollinated passionflower. Ciência e Cultura 39: 310 –312. Winkelmann JR, Bonaccorso FJ, Strickler TL. 2000. Home range of the
Sekercioglu CH. 2006. Increasing awareness of avian ecological function. southern blossom bat, Syconycteris australis, in Papua New Guinea.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 464 –471. Journal of Mammalogy 81: 408–414.
Silva Taboada G. 1979. Los murcielagos de Cuba. Havana: Editora de la Winkelmann JR., Bonaccorso FJ, Goedeke EE, Ballock LJ. 2003. Home
Academia de Ciencias de Cuba. range and territoriality in the least blossom bat, Macroglossus minimus,
Simmons NB. 2005. Order Chiroptera. In: Wilson DE, Reeder DM. eds. in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Mammalogy 84: 561– 570.
Mammal species of the world. A taxonomic and geographic reference, Winter Y, von Helversen O. 2001. Bats as pollinators: foraging energetics and
3rd edn. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 312– 529. floral adaptations. In: Chittka L, Thomson JD. eds. Cognitive ecology of pol-
Simmons NB, Wetterer AL. 2002. Phylogeny and convergence in cactophilic lination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 148 –170.
bats. In: Fleming TH, Valiente-Banuet A. eds. Columnar cacti and their Winter Y, Stich KP. 2005. Foraging in a complex naturalistic environment:
mutualists: evolution, ecology, and conservation. Tucson, AZ: University capacity of spatial working memory in flower bats. Journal of
of Arizona Press, 87– 121. Experimental Biology 208: 539–548.
Winter Y, Lopez J, von Helversen O. 2003. Ultraviolet vision in a bat. Family Pteropodidae: Eonycteris (3), Macroglossus (2),
Nature 425: 612– 614. Megaloglossus (1), Melonycteris (3), Notopteris (2) and
Yetman D. 2007. The great cacti. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Zusi RL, Hamas MJ. 2001. Bats and birds as potential pollinators of three Syconycteris (3); Balionycteris, Cynopterus, Eidolon,
species of Marcgravia lianas on Dominica. Caribbean Journal of Epomophorus, Epomops, Lissonycteris, Micropteropus,
Science 37: 274–278. Myonycteris, Nanonycteris, Pteropus and Rousettus,
Family Phyllostomidae: Anoura (5), Brachyphylla (2),
Choeroniscus (3), Choeronycteris (1), Erophylla (2),
APPENDIX 1
Glossophaga (5), Hylonycteris (1), Leptonycteris (3),
Lichonycteris (1), Lionycteris (1), Lonchophylla (7),
Monophyllus (2), Musonycteris (1), Phyllonycteris (3),
Number of nectar-feeding bats in two families. Indicated first
Platalina (1) and Scleronycteris (1); Ametrida, Artibeus,
are morphologically specialized genera (number of species in
Carollia, Chiroderma, Glyphonycteris, Micronycteris,
parentheses) in bold type followed by genera of opportunistic
Phyllostomus, Platyrrhinus, Rhinophylla, Sturnira,
flower visitors from which pollen has been collected.
Trinycteris, Uroderma and Vampyressa.
Taxonomy follows Simmons (2005).

APP E ND IX 2
New World bat-pollinated species listed by plant family
(1) This list excludes species reported to be visited by bats in the New World that are introduced from the Old World (Bombax,
Durio, Kigelia, Mahduca, Musa, Thespesia, Thunbergia, Zingiber); visited by bats for fruit, not nectar/pollen (Anacardium,
Brosimum, Carica, Chrysophyllum, Eugenia, Manilkara, Muntingia, Solanum, Symphonia, Syzygium); known to be pollinated
by wind (Acalypha, Alnus, Celtis, Pinus, Quercus) or small insects (Aristolochia, Berberis, Bursera, Theobroma); or where bat-
pollination seems very doubtful (Clusia, Vanilla).
(2) Inclusion in this table does not indicate that bats pollinate all listed species throughout their ranges.
(3) Plant families follow the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group system. Species names correspond to those accepted in the
Missouri Botanical Garden’s VAST (VAScular Tropicos – http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html) nomenclatural data-
base or found in the International Plant Name Index (IPNI; http://www.ipni.org). The references to all other name changes are
provided in the footnotes. Genus sp. is only included when no other species represents the genus.
(4) Information gathered from the Database of Neotropical Bat/Plant Interactions (Geiselman et al., 2004 onwards).
ACANTHACEAE AMARYLLIDACEAE BORAGINACEAE

Harpochilus neesianus Eustephia sp. Cordia alliodora
Louteridium chartaceum Hippeastrum calyptratum 2 Cordia gerascanthus
Louteridium donnell-smithii ARECACEAE BROMELIACEAE 8
Ruellia eurycodon Calyptrogyne ghiesbreghtiana Encholirium glaziovii
Ruellia exostemma Coccothrinax sp. Guzmania calothyrsa
Ruellia malaca Roystonea regia Guzmania danielii
Trichanthera gigantea ASTERACEAE Guzmania killipiana
AGAVACEAE Cirsium subcoriaceum Guzmania morreniana
Agave angustifolia Gongylolepis jauaensis Guzmania retusa
Agave cocui Wunderlichia cruelsiana Guzmania sphaeroidea
Agave colimana BIGNONIACEAE Pitcairnia brongniartiana
Agave deserti Adenocalymna dichilum Pitcairnia trianae
Agave desmettiana Amphitecna isthmica 3 Puya ferruginea
Agave grisea Amphitecna kennedyae 4 Vriesea bituminosa
Agave havardiana Amphitecna latifolia 5 Vriesea gigantea
Agave macroacantha Amphitecna spathicalyx 6 Vriesea longicaulis
Agave neomexicana Crescentia alata 7 Vriesea longiscapa
Agave palmeri Crescentia amazonica Vriesea morrenii
Agave parryi Crescentia cujete Vriesea platynema 8
Agave salmiana 1 Cydista diversifolia Vriesea sazimae 2
Agave schottii Parmentiera cereifera Werauhia gladioliflora 9
Agave shawii Parmentiera edulis Werauhia kupperiana 10
Agave tequilana Parmentiera macrophylla Werauhia ororiensis 11
Hesperaloe sp. Tabebuia obtusifolia Werauhia rugosa 12
Manfreda brachystachys Tabebuia platyantha
CACTACEAE Siphocampylus corynoides Caesalpinia vesicaria

Browningia riosaniensis 13 Siphocampylus foetidus Calliandra calothyrsus 34
Carnegiea gigantea Siphocampylus giganteus Calliandra formosa
Cephalocereus columna-trajani 14 Siphocampylus sulfureus Calliandra grandiflora 35
Cereus hexagonus Siphocampylus tunicatus Calliandra tweediei 36
Dendrocereus nudiflorus 15 CANNACEAE Conzattia sp.
Echinocactus sp. Canna liliiflora 26 Dichrostachys cinerea
Harrisia sp. CAPPARACEAE Elizabetha leiogyne
Hylocereus undatus Capparis flexuosa Elizabetha paraensis
Lemaireocereus sp. Capparis hastata Elizabetha speciosa
Leptocereus arboreus Capparis scabrida Eperua falcata
Leptocereus santamarinae Cleome anomala Eperua leucantha
Leptocereus wrightii Cleome arborea Eperua stipulata 37
Machaerocereus sp. Cleome moritziana Erythrina fusca 38
Marginatocereus marginatus Cleome viridiflora Hymenaea courbaril

Monvillea smithiana 16 Crateva tapia 27 Hymenaea stigonocarpa
Myrtillocactus sp. CARYOCARACEAE Inga bahiensis
Neobuxbaumia euphorbioides 17 Caryocar brasiliense Inga cayennensis
Neobuxbaumia macrocephala Caryocar coriaceum Inga marginata
Neobuxbaumia tetetzo Caryocar costaricense Inga sessilis
Opuntia sp. Caryocar nuciferum Inga spectabilis
Pachycereus pecten-aboriginum Caryocar villosum Inga vera
Pachycereus pringlei CHRYSOBALANACEAE Jacqueshuberia purpurea
Pachycereus weberi Couepia dolichopoda Jacqueshuberia quinquangulata
Pilosocereus catingicola Couepia longipendula Lonchocarpus sp.
Pilosocereus chrysacanthus 18 Hirtella sp. Lysiloma latisiliquum
Pilosocereus lanuginosus 19 COMBRETACEAE Mimosa lewisii
Pilosocereus leucocephalus 20 Combretum sp. Mucuna holtonii 39
Pilosocereus moritzianus 21 CONVOLVULACEAE Mucuna mutisiana
Pilosocereus tillianus 2 Ipomoea ampullacea Mucuna pruriens
Platyopuntia sp. Ipomoea neei 28 Mucuna rostrata
Pterocereus gaumeri 22 Ipomoea wolcottiana 29 Mucuna sloanei
Samaipaticereus corroanus CUCURBITACEAE Mucuna urens 40
Selenicereus sp. Calycophysum pedunculatum Ormosia sp.
Stenocereus griseus 23 Calycophysum spectabile 30 Parkia cachimboensis
Stenocereus queretaroensis Cayaponia sp. Parkia decussata
Stenocereus stellatus Cucurbita argyrosperma Parkia discolor 41
Stenocereus thurberi 24 Lagenaria siceraria Parkia gigantocarpa
Subpilocereus horrispinus ERICACEAE Parkia igneiflora
Subpilocereus ottonis Arbutus sp. Parkia nitida 42
Subpilocereus repandus 25 EUPHORBIACEAE Parkia panurensis 43
Weberbauerocereus weberbaueri Croton sp. Parkia pendula
Weberocereus trichophorus Hura crepitans Parkia platycephala
Weberocereus tunilla Mabea occidentalis Peltophorum adnatum
CAMPANULACEAE FABACEAE GENTIANACEAE
Burmeistera borjensis Acacia farnesiana Chelonanthus alatus 44
Burmeistera ceratocarpa Albizzia occidentalis Gentiana sp.
Burmeistera cyclostigmata Alexa grandiflora Macrocarpaea duquei
Burmeistera cylindrocarpa Bauhinia angulicaulis Macrocarpaea glabra
Burmeistera fusco-apicata Bauhinia glabra Macrocarpaea macrophylla 45
Burmeistera lutosa Bauhinia multinervia 31 Macrocarpaea polyantha
Burmeistera multiflora Bauhinia pauletia Macrocarpaea quelchii 46
Burmeistera smaragdi Bauhinia rufa 32 Symbolanthus latifolius
Burmeistera sodiroana Bauhinia siqueiraei GERANIACEAE
Burmeistera succulenta Bauhinia ungulata 33 Geranium sp.
Burmeistera tenuiflora Browneopsis cauliflora GESNERIACEAE
Burmeistera truncata Browneopsis disepala Drymonia sp.
Centropogon mandonis Browneopsis macrofoliolata Gesneria alpina
Centropogon nigricans Browneopsis ucayalina Gesneria calycina
Centropogon smithii Caesalpinia bahamensis Gesneria calycosa
Gesneria clandestina Chiranthodendron pentadactylon Mirabilis longiflora

Gesneria exserta Eriotheca pentaphylla ONAGRACEAE
Gesneria fruticosa Helicteres baruensis Oenothera sp.
Gesneria gloxinioides Helicteres rekoi PASSIFLORACEAE
Gesneria onychocalyx Hibiscus clypeatus Passiflora galbana
Gesneria pedunculosa Hibiscus elatus Passiflora mucronata
Gesneria pumila Luehea alternifolia 56 Passiflora penduliflora
Gesneria shaferi Luehea candida Passiflora recurva
Gesneria viridiflora Luehea grandiflora Passiflora ovalis 63
Kohleria tigridia 47 Luehea paniculata POLEMONIACEAE
Paliavana prasinata Matisia bracteolosa Cobaea aschersoniana
Paliavana sericiflora Matisia cordata Cobaea gracilis 64
Paliavana werdermannii Ochroma pyramidale 57 Cobaea scandens
Rhytidophyllum grande Pachira aquatica Cobaea trianae
Rhytidophyllum tomentosum Pachira quinata 58 PROTEACEAE

Sinningia brasiliensis 48 Pseudobombax ellipticum Roupala sp.
LAMIACEAE Pseudobombax grandiflorum RUBIACEAE
Catopheria chiapensis Pseudobombax longiflorum Condaminea corymbosa
Salvia sp. Pseudobombax septenatum Hillia illustris
LECYTHIDACEAE Quararibea asterolepis Palicourea sp.
Lecythis barnebyi Quararibea gomeziana SALICACEAE
Lecythis brancoensis Quararibea ochrocalyx Salix sp.
Lecythis poiteaui Quararibea parvifolia SAPINDACEAE
LORANTHACEAE Quararibea pendula Cupania sp.
Psittacanthus acinarius Wercklea insignis SCROPHULARIACEAE
LYTHRACEAE Wercklea lutea 59 Eremogeton grandiflorus
Lafoensia acuminata 49 MARCGRAVIACEAE SOLANACEAE
Lafoensia densiflora Marcgravia brownei Datura inoxia
Lafoensia glyptocarpa Marcgravia comosa Dyssochroma viridiflora
Lafoensia pacari Marcgravia coriacea 60 Juanulloa verrucosa 65
Lafoensia punicifolia Marcgravia dressleri Merinthopodium dressleri 66
Lafoensia replicata 50 Marcgravia evenia 2 Merinthopodium neuranthum 67
Lafoensia vandelliana Marcgravia helverseniana Merinthopodium pendulum 68
MALVACEAE Marcgravia longifolia Merinthopodium vogelii 69
Abutilon bedfordianum Marcgravia mexicana Nicotiana otophora
Abutilon niveum Marcgravia myriostigma Nicotiana tomentosa
Abutilon pedrae-brancae Marcgravia nepenthoides Solandra guerrerensis
Abutilon peltatum Marcgravia nervosa Solandra maxima
Abutilon regnellii Marcgravia pittieri Trianaea nobilis
Abutilon rufinerve Marcgravia polyantha Trianaea speciosa 70
Anoda sp. Marcgravia serrae STRELITZIACEAE
Anotea flavida 51 Marcgravia trinitatis 61 Phenakospermum guyannense
Bakeridesia sp.52 Marcgraviastrum macrocarpum VELLOZIACEAE
Berrya cubensis 53 Norantea sp. Barbacenia rubro-virens
Bombacopsis squamigera MELASTOMATACEAE VERBENACEAE
Ceiba aesculifolia 54 Meriania pichinchensis Citharexylum sp.
Ceiba pentandra Purpurella grossa 62 Lantana sp.
Ceiba speciosa 55 NYCTAGINACEAE VOCHYSIACEAE
Ceiba trichistandra Bougainvillea spectabilis Vochysia sp.
1
Cited as Manfreda saliama by Eguiarte et al. (1987), but must refer to Agave saliama. 2Not recognized by Tropicos but is by Index Kewensis. 3Dendrosicus
isthmicus ¼ basionym. 4Dendrosicus kennedyi ¼ basionym. 5Synonym of Dendrosicus latifolius and Enallagma latifolia. 6Dendrosicus spathicalyx ¼ basionym.
7
Synonym of Parmentiera alata. 8Cited as Vriesea moehringiana by Dobat and Peikert-Holle (1985), but must refer to V. platynema. 9Synonym of Vriesea gla-
dioliflora. 10Vriesea kupperiana ¼ basionym. 11Synonym of Thecophyllum irazuense and Vriesea irazuense. 12Synonym of Vriesea rugosa. 13Rauhocereus
riosaniensis ¼ basionym. 14Synonym of Cephalocereus hoppenstedtii. 15Cited as Acanthocereus nudiflorus by Simmons and Wetterer (2002), but must refer
to Dendrocereus nudiflorus. 16Cephalocereus smithiana ¼ basionym. 17Synonym of Cephalocereus euphorbioides. 18Synonym of Cephalocereus chrysacanthus.
19
Synonym of Pilocereus lanuginosus. 20Synonym of Cephalocereus leucocephalus, C. palmeri and C. sartorianus. 21Synonym of Cephalocereus moritzianus.
22
Synonym of Pachycereus gaumeri. 23Synonym of Cereus griseus, Lemaireocereus griseus and Ritterocereus griseus. 24Synonym of Lemaireocereus thurberi.
25
Synonym of Cereus atroviridis, C. grenadensis, C. repandus and Samaipaticereus peruvianus. 26Synonym of Canna brittonii. 27Synonym of Crateva bentha-
mii. 28Synonym of Ipomoea peduncularis. 29Synonym of Ipomoea arborescens. 30Synonym of Edmondia spectabilis (Asteraceae). 31Synonym of Bauhinia mega-
landra. 32Synonym of Bauhinia holophylla. 33Synonym of Bauhinia macrostachya. 34Synonym of Calliandra confusa. 35Synonym of Calliandra anomala.
36
Synonym of Calliandra guildingii. 37Synonym of Eperua schomburgkiana. 38Synonym of Erythrina glauca. 39Synonym of Mucuna andreana. 40Synonym of
Mucuna altissima. 41Synonym of Parkia auriculata. 42Synonym of Parkia alliodora, P. inundabilis and P. oppositifolia. 43Synonym of Parkia pectinata.
44
Synonym of Irlbachia alata, Lisianthius alatus, L. cheloniodes and L. viridiflorus. Struwe et al. (2002) determined that the accepted name is Chelonanthus
alatus. 45Synonym of Lisianthius macrophyllus and Macrocarpaea valerioi. 46Lisianthius quelchii ¼ basionym. 47Synonym of Capanea grandiflora,
C. oerstedii and C. picturata. 48Synonym of Lietzia brasiliensis. 49Synonym of Lafoensia speciosa. 50Could be a subspecies of Lafoensia vandelliana.
51
Synonym of Malvaviscus acerifolius. 52Cited as Bakeridesia paulistana by Dobat and Peikert-Holle (1985), but this name is not recognized by Tropicos or
IPNI. 53Synonym of Carpodiptera cubensis. 54Synonym of Ceiba acuminata and C. grandiflora. 55Synonym of Chorisia speciosa. 56Synonym of Luehea spe-
ciosa. 57Synonym of Ochroma lagopus. 58Synonym of Bombacopsis fendleri and B. quinata. 59Synonym of Hibiscus luteus. 60Synonym of Marcgravia cuyu-
niensis. 61Synonym of Marcgravia rectiflora. 62Purpurella included in Tibouchina by Renner (1989). 63Synonym of Tetrastylis ovalis (Feuillet and
MacDougal, 2007). 64Synonym of Cobaea panamensis. 65Synonym of Markea verrucosa (Knapp et al., 1997). 66Merinthopodium is a synonym of Markea
(Knapp et al., 1997). 67Synonym of Markea campanulata, M. internexa and M. neurantha (Knapp et al., 1997). 68Synonym of Markea pendula (Knapp
et al., 1997). 69Synonym of Markea vogelii (Knapp et al., 1997). 70Synonym of Trianaea spectabilis (Knapp et al., 1997).
APPENDIX 3

Old World Bat-pollinated species listed by plant family
(1) This list excludes species visited by bats for fruit, not nectar/pollen (Calophyllum, Carica, Cerbera, Chlorophora, Mammea,
Mangifera, Morus, Palaquium hispidum, Syzygium inophylloides, Terminalia); those known to be pollinated by small insects
(Arenga, Celtis, Cocos, Diospyrus, Elaeagnus, Rhaphiolepis, Tamarix, Trema) or wind (Casuarina, Dendrocnidne, Pipturus,
Tamarix); those introduced in areas where bats have been recorded visiting them (Agave, Callistemon citrinus, Ceiba, Crescentia,
Hevea, Ochroma, Pachira, Parmentiera, Ravenala madagascariensis, Samanea saman); or those whose flowers are destroyed
instead of pollinating by bats (Eria obusta, Eucalyptus spp.). (See footnote †, below table.)
(2) Inclusion in this appendix does not indicate that bats pollinate all listed species throughout their ranges.
(3) Plant families follow the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group system. Species names correspond to those accepted in the
Missouri Botanical Garden’s VAST (VAScular Tropicos) nomenclatural database or the International Plant Name Index.
Genus sp. is only included when no other species represents the genus.
ACANTHACEAE CAMPANULACEAE Mucuna gigantea I, T, AA

Avicennia sp.T Lobelia sp.T Mucuna junghuhniana I, AA
ANACARDIACEAE CELASTRACEAE Mucuna macropoda N
Rhus taitensis T, E Cassine sp.T Mucuna monosperma I, AA
ANNONACEAE CHRYSOBALANACEAE Mucuna pruriens Z, AA
Cananga odorata D, E Maranthes aubrevillei T, U Mucuna reticulata I, AA
APOCYNACEAE Maranthes corymbosa W Parkia bicolor I, L, N, T
Alstonia actinophylla T Maranthes polyandra 6, I, P, T Parkia biglandulosa F
Cerbera oppositifolia*I, S CLUSIACEAE Parkia biglobosa C, D, F, N
Neisosperma sp.D Pentadesma butyrace T, U Parkia clappertoniana A, B, C, I, T
ARALIACEAE COMBRETACEAE Parkia filicoidea I, N
Polyscias samoensis E Lumnitzera littorea T Parkia javanica I, M, Y
ARECACEAE CONVOLVULACEAE Parkia singularis I, Y
Areca sp.*I, S Erycibe micrantha 7, I, AA Parkia speciosa C, K, M, N, Y, AA
Livistona chinensis T Ipomoea albivenia*I, S, AA Parkia timoriana 10, I, N, T, AA
Carpentaria acuminata T ELAEOCARPACEAE Erythrophleum sp.T
Gulubia sp.T Elaeocarpus rarotongensis I, T Sesbania formosa D
ASPHODELACEAE Elaeocarpus tonganus E HELICONIACEAE
Aloe dolomitica I, S, T Elaeocarpus ulianus E Heliconia indica Z
ASTELIACEAE EUPHORBIACEAE Heliconia papuana Z
Collospermum samoense T Glochidion ramiflorum E, I, T Heliconia solomonensis O, T
BIGNONIACEAE Macaranga tanarius T LAURACEAE
Fernandoa sp.I FABACEAE Neolitsea sp.T
Haplophragma adenophyllum I, AA Bauhinia hookeri 8, I, S LECYTHIDACEAE
Heterophragma roxburghii 1, I, T Castanospermum australe*I, S, T, X
Abdulmajidia sp.V
Kigelia africana 2, A, C, I, Z, AA Cynometra sp.T Barringtonia asiatica 11, E, I, T, Z
Markhamia stipulata 3, D, Z, AA Daniellia oliveri I, S, U, Z Careya arborea*G, S
Nyctocalos sp.*G, I, S Erythrina fusca T Foetidia mauritiana*I
Oroxylum indicum G, I, K, S, T, Y, Z, AA Erythrina variegata 9*E, I, S Planchonia careya T
Pajanelia longifolia 4, I, Y, Z Inocarpus sp.*T
Spathodea campanulata A, E, I, T Intsia bijuga T
Stereospermum xylocarpum 5, I, T Mucuna flagellipes I, T
LOGANIACEAE Musa paradisiaca I, AA Grevillea pteridifolia T

Fagraea sp.12, S, T Musa textilis I, T, AA Grevillea robusta I, T
LORANTHACEAE MYRTACEAE Protea elliottii I, P, T
Amyema sp.T Angophora costata*I, T RHAMNACEAE
Loranthus sp.*I, S, T, X Angophora subvelutina*I, X Alphitonia sp.E
LYTHRACEAE Angophora woodsiana 20*I, X RHIZOPHORACEAE
Duabanga grandiflora 13, I, T, Y, Z Callistemon pachyphyllus*I, T Rhizophora sp.*I, S, T
Duabanga moluccana I, X, AA Callistemon salgnus*I, S ROSACEAE
Sonneratia alba 14, I, T, Y, Z, AA Leptospermum sp.* I, S, T Eriobotrya sp.T
Sonneratia apetala 15, I, Y, Z Lophostemon confertus T RUBIACEAE
MALVACEAE Lophostemon grandiflorus T Aidia sp.T
Adansonia digitata A, C, I, P, T, Z, AA Lophostemon lactifluus T Guettarda speciosa E, T
Adansonia gibbosa 16, I, AA Melaleuca argentea*T Neonauclea forsteri E, T
Adansonia grandidieri D, Z Melaleuca cajuputi*T SALICACEAE
Adansonia madagascariensis AA Melaleuca dealbata*T Populus sp.T
Bombax buonopozense T Melaleuca leucadendra 21*I, T SALVADORACEAE
Bombax ceiba 17, I, T, Z, AA Melaleuca nervosa*T Salvadora persica T
Bombax valetonii I, Y, AA Melaleuca quinquenervia*I, T SAPINDACEAE

Ceiba pentandra A, B, C, E, I, J, Y, Z, AA Metrosideros vera*I Diploglottis cunninghamii T
Cullenia excelsa I Metrosideros villosa*T Tristiropsis sp.T
Dombeya sp.AA Syncarpia glomulifera 22*I, T, X SAPOTACEAE
Durio carinatus I Syncarpia hillii*I, T Madhuca beccarii 27, G
Durio graveolens I, Y, Z Syzygium cormiflorum*I Madhuca indica 28, F, G, I, T, AA
Durio kutejensis I, Z, AA Syzygium cumini 23, T, AA Madhuca macrophylla AA
Durio malaccensis D Syzygium dealatum*E Manilkara hexandra 29, I, S, T
Durio zibethinus I, K, Y, Z, AA Syzygium jambos*I, T Palaquium gutta 30, I, AA
Kostermansia sp.S Syzygium malaccense 24, E, T, AA Palaquium obovatum M
MELIACEAE Syzygium richii*E, T Palaquium quercifolium*I, S, AA
Azadirachta indica 18*A, I, T Syzygium samarangense 25, I, T, AA Palaquium stehlinii E
Dysoxylum gaudichaudianum T Syzygium tierneyanum*I Payena macrophylla I
MORACEAE PANDANACEAE Planchonella samoensis E
Artocarpus sp.*I, T, Y Freycinetia insignis I, AA Planchonella torricellensis*I, S, T
MUSACEAE Freycinetia reineckei E Tieghemella heckelii 31, H, AA
Ensete glaucum I Pandanus fragrans T Vitellaria sp.T
Ensete ventricosum I Pandanus tectorius E, T SOLANACEAE
Musa acuminata 19, I, K, BB PROTEACEAE Physalis sp.T
Musa balbisiana I Banksia integrifolia I, Q, T, X XANTHORRHOEACEAE
Musa coccinea AA Banksia robur T Xanthorrhoea sp.T
Musa itinerans R Banksia serrata 26, T, X
*Indicates where authors have doubted if bat visitation affects pollination.

1
Synonym of Heterophragma quadriloculare. 2Synonym of Kigelia aethiopica and K. pinnata. 3Synonym of Dolichandrone cauda-felina and D. stipulata.
4
Synonym of Pajanelia multijuga. 5Stereospermum is a synonym of Radermachera. 6Synonym of Parinari polyandra. 7Synonym of Erycibe ramiflora.
8
Synonym of Lysiphyllum hookeri. 9Synonym of Erythrina lithosperma. 10Synonym of Parkia roxburghii. 11Synonym of Barringtonia racemosa. 12Cited as
Fagraea bateriana but no species name in Tropicos and IPNI. 13Synonym of Duabanga sonneratioides. 14Synonym of Sonneratia acida and S. caseolaris.
15
Synonym of Sonneratia ovata. 16Synonym of Adansonia gregorii. 17Synonym of Bombax malabaricum; Bombax is a synonym of Gossampinus.
18
Synonym of Melia azadirachta. 19Includes subspecies Musa banksii and M. truncata; synonym of Musa halabanensis and M. malaccensis. 20Basionym of
Angophora floribunda and A. lanceolata. 21Synonym of Melaluca viridiflora. 22Synonym of Syncarpia laurifolia. 23Synonym of Eugenia cumini. 24Synonym
of Eugenia malaccensis. 25Synonym of Eugenia javanica. 26Synonym of Banksia aemula. 27Synonym of Ganua beccarii. 28Synonym of Bassia latifolia and
Illipe. 29Synonym of Mimusops hexandra. 30Synonym of Dichopsis gutta. 31Synonym of Dumoria heckelii.
References: AAyensu (1974);
B
Baker (1973); CBaker & Harris (1957); DBaker et al. (1998); EBanack (1998 and references therein); FBhat (1994); GCorlett (2004); HCunningham (1995b);
I
Dobat & Peikert-Holle (1985 and references therein); JElmqvist et al. (1992); KGould (1978); LGrünmeier (1990); MHodgkison et al. (2004b); NHopkins (1983,
1984, 1993) BBItino et al. (1991); OKress (1985); PLack (1978); QLaw (1992); RLiu et al. (2002); SMarshall (1983, 1985); TMickelburgh et al. (1992 and refer-
ences therein); UPettersson et al. (2004); VPrance & Mori (2004); WPrance & White (1988); XRatcliffe (1932); YStart & Marshall (1976); ZStroo (2000); AAvan
der Pijl (1941; 1956, 1961)
†
References used to determine legitimate pollinators of excluded species: Andersson (1998); Calley et al. (1993); Friis (1993); Gaskin (2003); Henderson
(2002); Johnson & Wilson (1993); Nyhagen et al. (2005); Pennington (2004); Stevens (2007); Todzia (1993).

Fleming Et Al 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fleming Et Al 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annals of Botany 104: 1017– 1043, 2009

doi:10.1093/aob/mcp197, available online at www.aob.oxfordjournals.org

The evolution of bat pollination: a phylogenetic perspective

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

IN T RO DU C T IO N and the ability to carry large pollen loads considerable dis-

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Total Total NW NW OW OW Total bat Proportion total

Basal Laurales Lauraceae Pantropical 50 2500 0 0 1 1 1 0.020

Fleming et al. — Evolution of bat pollination

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Gentianales (asterids). Similarly, as indicated above, only 18

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

only 20 genera (13 %) have been reported to be visited by oppor-

asterids (Lamiales); over half of these genera are rosids

ghiesbreghtiana, Ochroma pyramidale, Parkia spp. and

(Heliconiaceae, Musaceae, Lythraceae, Myrtaceae, Moraceae

both specialized and opportunistic nectar bats or only by oppor-

preted to imply that bat pollination is ancestral in any order

Phylogenetic clustering (non-independence) at the ordinal

and family levels simply indicates that bat pollination shows

a tendency to occur in related higher-level taxa. The fact that

Marten-Rodriguez et al. (2009).

Biogeographical, elevational and habitat distributions

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Basal 9 2 1 (50) 28 2 2 (100)

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

(A) Families strongly associated with pollinating bats

Family No. of genera/species in family or subfamily Estimated age of family

Bombacaceae* 16/120 69– 65 Ma

Agavaceae: Agavoideae 23/637 – family Crown ¼ 13 Ma

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

both specialized and opportunistic nectar-feeders. Another E VO L U T IO NA RY PAT HWAY S TO B AT

TA B L E 5. Examples of the evolution of bat pollination from other pollination modes

Family and genus Pollination history Source

(A) Old World examples

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

ACANTHACEAE AMARYLLIDACEAE BORAGINACEAE

CACTACEAE Siphocampylus corynoides Caesalpinia vesicaria

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Gesneria clandestina Chiranthodendron pentadactylon Mirabilis longiflora

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

ACANTHACEAE CAMPANULACEAE Mucuna gigantea I, T, AA

LOGANIACEAE Musa paradisiaca I, AA Grevillea pteridifolia T

Downloaded from http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Veracruzana on December 7, 2012

*Indicates where authors have doubted if bat visitation affects pollination.

You might also like