SPIXIANA 27 2 185-190 München, Ol. Juli 2004 ISSN 0341-8391 Actual records of bat ectoparasites in Bavaria (Germany) Doris Rupp, Andreas Zahn & Peter Ludwig ) Rupp, D. & A. Zahn & P. Ludwig (2004): Actual records of bat ectoparasites in Bavaria (Germany). -Spixiana 27/2: 185-190 Records of ectoparasites of 19 bat species coilected in Bavaria are presented. Altogether 33 species of eight parasitic families of tleas (Ischnopsyllidae), batflies (Nycteribiidae), bugs (Cimicidae), mites (Spinturnicidae, Macronyssidae, Trom-biculidae, Sarcoptidae) and ticks (Argasidae, Ixodidae) were found. Eight species were recorded first time in Bavaria. All coilected parasites are deposited in the collection of the Zoologische Staatsammlung München (ZSM). Doris Rupp, Gailkircher Str. 7, D-81247 München, Germany Andreas Zahn, Zoologisches Institut der LMU, Luisenstr. 14, D-80333 München, Germany Peter Ludwig, Peter Rosegger Str. 2, D-84478 Waldkraiburg, Germany Introduction There are only few reports about bat parasites in Germany and the Bavarian ectoparasite fauna is poorly investigated yet. From 1998 tili 2001 we stud-ied the parasite load of bats in Bavaria. The aim was to give an actual overview on the ectoparasite fauna of bats in Bavaria. Most bat parasites show a high degree of host specificity, while some appear to parasitize multi-ple hosts (Kulzer 1998, Micherdzinski 1980, Ra-dovsky 1967, Schmidt 1987, Stanyukovich 1997). Bat-associated parasites are well adapted and they prefer different places on their hosfs body: fleas, bat-flies, bugs, mites and ticks can be found in the für. Various mite species are situated on ears, eyes or on the wings (Walter 1996). With decreasing bat populations in Central Europe, bat parasites are also endangered and some species are regarded as to be threatened by extinction in Germany. Sampling techniques Bats were caught either at their roosts by hand or using a net. Other were mistnetted at cave entranc-es, at creeks or ponds. Dead, injured or exhausted bats living in the care of humans were also exam-ined. Altogether 342 dead and 1017 living bats were investigated. The investigated bats belonged to the following species (number of individuals in brack-ets: Barbastelhis barbastelliis (7) -Eptesicus nilsomi (10) -E. serotimis (6) -Myotis bechsteinii (6) -M. brandtii (20) -M. daubentonii (282) -M. emarginatus (12) -M. myotis (367) -M. niystaciinis (79) -M. nattereri (42) -Pipistrelhis pipistrcUiis (127) -P. mihusii (6) -Nyctahis leisleri (3) -N. noctula (312) -Plccotus aiiri-tiis (45) -P. austriacus (17) -Rhiiwlophus hipposidews (1) -R. ferrumequinum (1) -Vespertilio murinus (16). To get Information about the extent of the para-site load we compared the incidence rates and the maximum number of parasites per bat in samples of eight bat species (n = 882) caught at roosts and in foraging areas (Tab. 1). We counted the number of mites visible on both sides of the wings (without the interfemoral membrane) and also located on the ears. In addition, we spent about 20 seconds for searching each bat for batflies, fleas, bugs and ticks while blowing the für. Differences between the par-asite load of the sample sites are gi\'en in Zahn & Rupp 2004. Voucher specimens of each type of par-asite were preserved in 70 % ETOH and identified in the laboratory either by light microscopy or scan-ning electron microscopy (SEM: Philips XL 20, for detailed method see Rupp & Ludwig 2000). The Identification is based on the following keys: Hop-kins & Rothschild 1956 (Ischnopsyllidae), Theodor 1954 and Theodor & Rothschild 1967 (Nvcteribi-185
BioStor
