Fossil Bats 1 1 1 



The proximal humerus referred to E. glaucinus can be readily dis- 

 tinguished from all other Florida bats by its very large size, teardrop- 

 shaped humeral head oriented at a 45° angle to the shaft, short 

 expanded pectoral ridge, and proximal extension of the greater tuberos- 

 ity. The three radii are identified as E. glaucinus by the large, deep 

 flexor fossa on the anterior surface just distal to the proximal articula- 

 tion, the acutely triangular proximal end, and the strongly concave 

 articular surface with a deep central groove for reception of the medial 

 portion of the capitulum on the distal end of the humerus. The proximal 

 and distal femur can be separated from all Florida vespertilionids by the 

 small femoral head relative to the greater and lesser trochanters, rela- 

 tively broader distal end, and more widely separated articular condyles. 

 Among Florida bats, only Tadarida brasiliensis has femora with a sim- 

 ilar morphology, but their small size eliminates them immediately. 



Discussion.— Even though Eumops glaucinus is the second most 

 abundant bat at Vero based on the total number of elements present 

 (nine), a minimum of only two individuals is represented. The presence 

 of Eumops glaucinus at Vero is of particular interest since this site is 

 over 100 km north of the northernmost locality from which recent indi- 

 viduals of this species have been collected. A single fossil mandible of E. 

 glaucinus is known from the Melbourne Site, located approximately 50 

 km north of Vero (Allen 1932; Ray et al. 1963). Until recently, living 

 specimens of E. glaucinus floridanus had been collected only from man- 

 made structures in the Miami area of Dade County in extreme 

 southeastern Florida. Belwood (1981) discovered a small colony of E. glau- 

 cinus roosting in a hollow long-leaf pine, Pinus palustris, near Punta 

 Gorda in Charlotte County on the southwest coast of Florida. Hollow 

 trees appear to be the preferred natural roosting site of this species 

 (Belwood 1981). The discovery of E. glaucinus in Charlotte County 

 extends the modern range of the species in Florida 200 km westward 

 and 100 km northward of Miami. With the addition of the three fossil 

 records from Florida discussed above, the species is now known from 

 three different localities in south Florida and two localities from the 

 central portion of the state (Fig. 1). 



Martin (1977) suggested that the presence of Eumops glaucinus in 

 central Florida during the late Pleistocene represented a northward shift 

 in winter isotherms indicative of tropical or subtropical conditions. 

 Belwood 's recent discovery of E. glaucinus in a part of Florida and in 

 an ecological situation from which the species was previously unknown 

 suggests that our knowledge of this bat is far from adequate. If Eumops 

 did extend its range northward in response to warmer climates, why is it 

 known in central Florida only from a late Wisconsinan site (Melbourne) 

 in which climatic conditions were presumably drier and cooler than at 



