126 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 
Series 4, Volume 65, Supplement I 
under the U.S. Endangered Species Act). U.S. Forest Service (2005a,b): Sensitive Species. Inter¬ 
national Union for the Conservation of Nature (2017): Least Concern. NatureServe (2017): Round¬ 
ed Global Status G4, Apparently Secure. 
State Designations: Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (2015a,b): 
Priority 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need, Highest Conservation Concern. Arkansas Game 
and Fish Commission (Fowler, 2015): Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Connecticut Depart¬ 
ment of Energy and Environmental Protection (2015): State Endangered. Delaware Division of 
Fish and Wildlife (2006, 2015): Species of Greatest Conservation Need Tier I. District of Colum¬ 
bia (2006, 2015): Species of Greatest Conservation Need Tier 1. Georgia Department of Natural 
Resources (2015): High Priority Species. Illinois Department of Natural Resources (2015): Threat¬ 
ened. Indiana Department of Natural Resources (2015): Special Concern. Kentucky Department of 
Fish and Wildlife Resources (2013): Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Maine Department of 
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (2016): State Endangered. Missouri Department of Conservation 
(2016): Species of Conservation Concern, Imperiled. Maryland Department of Natural Resources 
(2005, 2010, 2016): State Endangered, Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Massachusetts 
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (2015): State Endangered. New Hampshire Fish and Game 
Department (2015): State Endangered. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 
(2008): Species of Conservation Concern. New York Department of Environmental Conservation 
(2015a,b): Species of Special Concern, Species of Greatest Conservation Need. North Carolina 
Wildlife Resources Commission (2014): Special Concern Species. Ohio Department of Natural 
Resources Division of Wildlife (2015): Species of Concern. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 
Conservation (2005,2016): Species of Greatest Conservation Need Tier II, III. Pennsylvania Game 
Commission (2015): State Threatened. Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife (2015): Species 
of Greatest Conservation Need. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (2005, 2015): 
State Threatened, Species of Greatest Conservation Need Highest Priority. Tennessee Wildlife 
Resources Agency (2005, 2015): Tier I Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Vermont Fish and 
Wildlife Department (2015): State Threatened. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 
(2005, 2015b): Species of Greatest Conservation Need, Tier I. West Virginia Division of Natural 
Resources (2015): Priority 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need. 
Description. — The eastern small-footed myotis (Fig. 27) is the smallest myotis found with¬ 
in its distribution, with forearm lengths averaging 32.2 ± 0.78 (SD) millimeters, proportionally 
small hind feet eight millimeters or less in length, and a body mass of about three to seven grams; 
its pelage is varying shades of glossy brown, with a blackish face mask, ears, and wing-membranes 
(Van Zyll de Jong, 1984; Best and Jennings, 1997; Bogan, 1999; Johnson et al., 2011; Fig. 27). 
Distribution and Systematics. — The eastern small-footed myotis occurs in the U.S. from 
southern Maine southward through western Virginia, western North and South Carolina and north¬ 
ern Georgia, Mississippi, and Arkansas to eastern Oklahoma. The northern limits are southern Que¬ 
bec and Ontario in Canada eastward through the New England states, New York, Pennsylvania, and 
most of Ohio, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and southern Missouri (Fig. 28; Best and Jen¬ 
nings, 1997; Arroyo-Cabrales and Alvarez-Castaneda, 2008). 
Literature on this species prior to the late 1960s can be confusing because of changing nomen¬ 
clature and improved understanding of the species taxonomic status. Miller and Allen (1928) 
placed the species in the genus Myotis as a subspecies of Myotis subulatus, correcting Audubon and 
Bachman’s (1842) original placement of it in the Old World genus Vespertilio as the species 
V. leibii. The species was known as M. subulatus up to the mid-1960s, but this name is no longer 
valid. Glass and Baker (1965) petitioned the International Commission on Zoological Nomencla¬ 
ture to formally suppress the name “ subulatus ” and provided further details on the more compli- 
