Search Field Guide
Advanced Search
Montana Animal Field Guide

Montana Field Guides

Long-legged Myotis - Myotis volans

Google for more images Google for web pages

Global Rank: G5
State Rank: S4

Agency Status
USFWS:
USFS:
BLM: SENSITIVE
FWP Conservation Tier: 2


 

External Links





 
General Description
Similar in appearance to the Little Brown Myotis, but is slightly larger, fur extends from the ventral surface to the elbow on the wing undersurface, and the calcar is keeled. Wingspan is 10-12 inches (25-30 centimeters) and weight ranges from 0.2-0.3 ounces (6-9 grams) (Adams 2003).

Species Range
Montana Range

Click the legend blocks above to view individual ranges.

Western Hemisphere Range

 


Summary of Observations Submitted for Montana
Number of Observations: 225

(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version) Map Help and Descriptions
Relative Density

Recency

 

(Records associated with a range of dates are excluded from time charts)



Habitat
Occurs mostly in forested mountain regions and river bottoms, also at high elevations. Summer day roosts include trees, rock crevices, fissures in stream banks, abandoned buildings. Hibernacula include caves and mines.

Ecological Systems Associated with this Species
  • Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations
    How Associations Were Made
    We associated the use and habitat quality (high, medium, or low) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by:
    1. Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Foresman 2001, Adams 2003, and Werner et al. 2004);
    2. Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species’ range and habitat requirements;
    3. Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point database associated with each ecological system;
    4. Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of “observations versus availability of habitat”.
    Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use.  In general, species were associated as using an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system.  However, species were not associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system, even if point observations were associated with that system.  High, medium, and low habitat quality was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species in the literature.  The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignments of habitat quality.  If you have any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, please contact Bryce Maxell at bmaxell@mt.gov or (406) 444-3655.

    Suggested Uses and Limitations
    Species associations with ecological systems should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning.  These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species (this information can be requested at: http://mtnhp.org/requests/default.asp) or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a local site level by trained biologists.  Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales.  Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade.  Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections).  Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular ecological system within its known geographic range, portions of that ecological system may occur outside of the species’ known geographic range.

    Literature Cited
    • Adams, R.A.  2003.  Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation.  Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.  289 p.
    • Dobkin, D. S.  1992.  Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34.  Missoula, MT.
    • Foresman, K.R.  2001.  The wild mammals of Montana.  Special Publication No. 12.  Lawrence, KS: The American Society of Mammalogists.  278 p.
    • Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998.  Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates.  Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.  1302 p.
    • Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young.  1999.  Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32.  72 p.
    • Maxell, B.A.  2000.  Management of Montana’s amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species.  Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1.  Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana.  161 p.
    • Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath.  2004.  Amphibians and reptiles of Montana.  Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.

Food Habits
Primarily eat moths, but a variety of soft-bodied insects including flies, mosquitoes, mayflies, aphids, true bugs, and small beetles are taken as prey. Stomach content analysis of 8 specimens from Carter County yielded the following: Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Hymeoptera, Diptera, Scarabaeidae, and Tricoptera (Jones et al. 1973).

Ecology
Emerge early, during twilight, and active all night foraging around tree canopy and over water. Flight is direct with prey pursued over long distances. Sexes segregated in summer. Relatively abundant in Montana’s larger hibernacula. May live 21 years.

Reproductive Characteristics
Females have one young, usually born in late June or July.

References
  • Additional ReferencesLegend:   View WorldCat Record   View Online Publication
    Do you know of a citation we're missing?
    • Adams, R. A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West: natural history, ecology and conservation. University Press of Colorado: Boulder, CO. 289 p.
    • Butts, T. W. 1993. Azure Cave bat surveys, Little Rocky Mountains, Montana, September 1992 and March 1993. Unpublished report for Zortman Mining, Inc. 13 pp.
    • Flath, Dennis L., 1979, Nongame species of special interest or concern: Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes. January 1979.
    • Foresman, K. R. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. American Society of Mammologists, Special Publication Number 12. Lawrence, KS. 278 p.
    • Hendricks, P. 2000. Preliminary bat inventory of caves and abandoned mines on BLM lands, Judith Mountains, Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 21 p.
    • Hendricks, Paul., 1998, Bats surveys of Azure Cave and the Little Rocky Mountains: 1997-1998. November 1998.
    • Hoffmann, R. S., D. L. Pattie and J. F. Bell. 1969. The distribution of some mammals in Montana. II. Bats. Journal of Mammalogy 50(4): 737-741.
    • http://mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/research_proj/bat/progress_dec2002.pdf
    • Jones, J.K., Jr., R.R. Lampe, C.A. Spenrath, and T.H. Kunz. 1973. Notes on the distribution and natural history of bats in southeastern Montana. Occasional papers (Texas Tech University Museum) 15:1-11.
    • Ormsbee, P. C., and W. C. McComb. 1998. Selection of day roosts be female Long-legged Myotis in the central Oregon Cascade Range. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:596- 603
    • Reid, F. 2006. Peterson Field Guide to Mammals of North America, 4th Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston and New York, 608 pp.
    • Schowalter, D. B. 1980. Swarming, reproduction, and early hibernation of MYOTIS LUCIFUGUS and M. VOLANS in Alberta, Canada. Journal of Mammalogy 61(2):350-354.
    • Warner, R.M. and N.J. Czaplewski. 1984. MYOTIS VOLANS. Mamm. Species 224:1-4.
  • Web Search Engines for Articles on "Long-legged Myotis"
Login Logout
Citation for data on this website:
Long-legged Myotis — Myotis volans.  Montana Field Guide.  Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.  Retrieved on October 31, 2014, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AMACC01110
 
There are currently 10 active users in the Montana Field Guide.