Animal Diversity Web

Ge­o­graphic Range

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats (Nyc­timene robin­soni) are found along the east coast of Queens­land, Aus­tralia rang­ing from north­ern New South Wales to the Cape York Penin­sula. Few ob­ser­va­tions have been made on the oc­cur­rence of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats south of the Queens­land bor­der but they are be­lieved to have a more scat­tered dis­tri­b­u­tion at the south­ern end of their range. Record­ings of the south­ern range of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats were taken south of Night­cap Na­tional Park at Snows Creek (a trib­u­tary of Coop­ers Creek found 26 km north north east of Lis­more, New South Wales) and around the for­est canopy at Boomerang Falls Flora Re­serve (about 5 km south south west of Snows Creek). Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats are gen­er­ally dis­persed along the coast through­out their range; the far­thest in­land record­ing is also the most southerly record­ing and comes from the Cul­maran Creek val­ley in Rich­mond Range State For­est ap­prox­i­mately 84 km east of the coast. A spec­i­men housed by the Aus­tralian Mu­seum is re­ported to come from as far south as Wee Jasper, New South Wales, how­ever this is be­lieved to be at­trib­uted to a la­bel­ing error and this spec­i­men has been de­ter­mined to be is­land tube-nosed fruit bat. (Hall and Pet­ti­grew, 1995; Milledge, 1987; Riek, et al., 2010; Schulz, 1997)

• Biogeographic Regions
• australian
  • native

Habi­tat

Al­though re­garded as a rain­for­est spe­cial­ist Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats are found through­out com­plex no­to­phyll vine forests, Arau­car­ian no­to­phyll vine forests, mixed tall open forests, scle­ro­phyll veg­e­ta­tion, and in urban areas. Ac­counts of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats sug­gest that they pre­fer to roost amongst fo­liage in the rain­for­est sub-canopy layer where they find ef­fec­tive cam­ou­flage within the dried leaves. How­ever they have also been noted in ex­posed trees on for­est mar­gins. In­di­vid­u­als may roost alone from ap­prox­i­mately 4 to 6 m above the ground to higher up and out of sight in the canopy. In­di­vid­u­als show day-roost site fi­delity over short pe­ri­ods, mainly dur­ing ripe fruit abun­dances, within an area; but may change roost sites as a preda­tor avoid­ance strat­egy. Day-roost sites cho­sen by Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats are vari­able and in­clude: pri­mary for­est sites, iso­lated trop­i­cal fig trees (Fis­cus ver­ie­gata), hind-dune man­groves, and sec­ond-growth forests near man­groves. (Richards, 1986; Schulz, 1997; Spencer and Flem­ing, 1989)

• Habitat Regions
• tropical
• terrestrial

• Terrestrial Biomes
• savanna or grassland
• forest
• rainforest

• Aquatic Biomes
• coastal

• Other Habitat Features
• urban
• suburban
• agricultural

Phys­i­cal De­scrip­tion

The skull of the genus of tube-nosed fruit bats can be de­scribed as short and heavy with an­te­ri­orly deep ros­trum. Their lacrimal widths are a greater than dis­tance from orbit to nares. They have nar­row brain­case, slight ba­s­i­cra­nial flex­ion, and have an ave­o­lar line which pro­jects back­wards and passes through the condyle. Tube-nosed fruit bats have a non-tubu­lar oc­ciput and an­te­ri­orly fused pre­max­il­lar­ies. They have no nar­row­ing of the bony palate or only slight nar­row­ing be­hind max­il­lary toothrows. Tube-nosed fruit bats have par­al­lel upper ca­nines and the dis­tance be­tween pos­te­rior mo­lars is equal to width of in­terptery­goid fossa. They have an­gu­lar process of mandible that is greatly re­duced and long tubu­lar nos­trils. Their den­tal for­mula is in­cisors 1/0, ca­nines, 1/1, pre­mo­lars 3/3, and mo­lars 1/2 equal­ing 24. P2/ and P/2 are well de­vel­oped and equal in height to the cin­gu­lum of the ca­nines. The rest of the cheek­teeth are mo­lar­i­form all of which have high well-de­vel­oped an­te­rior cusps ex­cept for M/2, which is low crowned and about half the size of the other mo­lar­i­form teeth. Tongues of tube-nosed fruit bats have four cir­cum­val­late papil­lae ((An­ersen, 1912; Miller 1907) in Heaney and Pe­ter­son 1984). (Heaney and Pe­ter­son, 1984)

The den­ti­tion of the genus of tube-nosed fruit bats is unique be­cause they lack in­cisors on the lower jaw; the lower ca­nines func­tion in place of the miss­ing in­cisors. The mod­i­fied lower ca­nines nearly come into con­tact with each other and close against the 2 upper in­cisors when bit­ing. This odd den­ti­tion is at­trib­uted to a dis­tant an­ces­tor with re­duced bit­ing teeth, pos­si­bly due to a liq­uid based diet. In re­turn­ing to a diet of fruit a new bit­ing mech­a­nism evolved. (Hall, 1983)

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats have brown wings char­ac­ter­is­ti­cally speck­led with yel­low and lime-green spots. These spots pro­vide each in­di­vid­ual with their own “spot code” as no two bats have the same pat­tern. Their fur is grey to red-brown with a dark strip of fur cen­tered down the dor­sal side of their body. One of the most char­ac­ter­is­tic fea­tures of this fruit bat is their large bulging tubu­lar nos­trils (pro­trud­ing 5 to 6 mm from the face). This along with the char­ac­ter­is­tic yel­low to green spots on their wings, face, and ears, as well as their bulging eyes dis­tin­guishes them from all other Aus­tralian bats. (Hall and Pet­ti­grew, 1995; Hall, 1983; Nel­lett, 2007; Richards, 1986)

The wings of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats are short and broad com­pared to other mem­bers of the old world fruit bats fam­ily. Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats gave a well-de­vel­oped tail and a claw on the index fin­ger (An­ersen, 1912; Miller 1907 as cited in Heaney and Pe­ter­son 1984). (Hall and Pet­ti­grew, 1995; Heaney and Pe­ter­son, 1984)

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats have a mea­sured basal meta­bolic rate of 54.7 cubic cm oxy­gen per h, and daily body tem­pa­tures rang­ing from 35 de­grees C to 37 de­grees C. Het­erothermy is rarely seen in the old world fruit bats fam­ily, how­ever Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats have the abil­ity to rapidly drop their body te­per­a­ture, meto­bolic rate, and enter tor­por dur­ing day or night. Un­like other bat species which use shiv­er­ing or brown fat as their heat gen­er­at­ing mech­a­nisms, Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats pro­duce heat much more rapidly via tachy­car­dia which is under ner­vous and hor­monal con­trol. (Hall and Pet­ti­grew, 1995; Riek, et al., 2010)

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats have an av­er­age head and body length of 100 to 110 mm as well as an av­er­age tail length of 20 to 25 mm. Com­monly used as a proxy for body con­di­tion by bat re­searchers the av­er­age fore­arm length and mass are 60 to 70 mm and 30 to 50 g re­spec­tively. Al­though lit­tle ev­i­dence of the sex­ual di­mor­phism in Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats has been doc­u­mented, sex­ual di­mor­phism of the pelvic gir­dle has been sug­gested based on pal­pa­tions of adult bats. The pal­pa­tions of the pelvic gir­dle of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats in­di­cate that they may ex­hibit sim­i­lar sex­ual di­mor­phism to other species of Aus­tralian fly­ing foxes. Fe­males have open, V-shaped pelvic gir­dles and the males have closed, O-shaped pelvic gir­dles. Fe­males have also been noted as hav­ing a more lightly col­ored pelage than males while sub-adults have a more in­ter­me­di­ate col­oration. De­spite this the over­all color pat­terns and av­er­age mass for both sexes are the same. (Chap­man, et al., 1994; Hall, 1983; Heaney and Pe­ter­son, 1984; Riek, et al., 2010)

An analy­sis of the cel­lu­lar DNA con­tent of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats has re­vealed that they have fewer genes than any other mam­mal (small­est genome size). Their total genome size is ap­prox­i­mately half that of the human genome, which has im­pli­ca­tions about which parts of the genomes of hu­mans, or other mam­mals, are re­dun­dant. (Hall and Pet­ti­grew, 1995)

• Other Physical Features
• endothermic
• heterothermic
• bilateral symmetry

• Sexual Dimorphism
• sexes colored or patterned differently
• sexes shaped differently

• Range mass

  30 to 50 g

  1.06 to 1.76 oz

• Range length

  100 to 110 mm

  3.94 to 4.33 in

• Range wingspan

  60 to 70 mm

  2.36 to 2.76 in

• Average basal metabolic rate

  54.7 cm3.O2/g/hr

Re­pro­duc­tion

Lit­tle is known about the mat­ing sys­tems of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats. (O'Brien, 1993)

Lit­tle is known about the re­pro­duc­tive bi­ol­ogy of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats; how­ever most species be­long­ing to the old world fruit bats fam­ily have long pe­ri­ods of mat­ing, long preg­nan­cies, and long lac­ta­tion pe­ri­ods, with the re­pro­duc­tive cycle last­ing around 12 months in many species. Like the ma­jor­ity of old world fruit bats species Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats are sea­sonal breed­ers. (O'Brien, 1993)

Fe­male Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats give birth to one pup be­tween Oc­to­ber and De­cem­ber. Close rel­a­tives Philip­pine tube-nosed fruit bats are found in pri­mary forests near water bod­ies and among upper canopy fo­liage which is sim­i­lar to the habi­tat re­quire­ments to Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats. The sim­i­lar­i­ties be­tween these two species make Philip­pine tube-nosed fruit bats a de­cent proxy for the re­pro­duc­tion of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats. Hei­d­men (1987) found Philip­pine tube-nosed fruit bats also have a sin­gle young each year. Ges­ta­tion in Philip­pine tube-nosed fruit bats are around three and a half months long while lac­ta­tion lasts four months or longer. (Hall, 1983; Heaney and Pe­ter­son, 1984; Hei­de­man, 1987)

• Key Reproductive Features
• iteroparous
• seasonal breeding
• gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate)
• sexual
• viviparous

• Breeding interval

  Queensland tube-nosed fruit bats breed once a year.

• Breeding season

  Queensland tube-nosed fruit bats mate from July to September.

• Average number of offspring

  1

• Range gestation period

  3 to 3.5 months

• Range weaning age

  4 (low) months

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats have long pe­ri­ods of lac­ta­tion and the sin­gle pup is car­ried by the mother until it grows rather large. No in­for­ma­tion is cur­rently avail­able about parental care in this genus. (Hall, 1983)

• Parental Investment
• altricial
• female parental care

Lifes­pan/Longevity

Noth­ing is known about the longevity of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats. How­ever old world fruit bats live at least 30 years in wild and cap­tive set­tings. (Nowak, 1994)

Be­hav­ior

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats are be­lieved to roost ex­clu­sively soli­tar­ily. One study in cap­tiv­ity found they used ag­gres­sive be­hav­ior, such as vo­cal­ized threats and even phys­i­cal at­tacks, when held cap­tive with con­specifics, re­gard­less of sex. How­ever a dif­fer­ent study cap­tured an adult fe­male and sub-adult male in two dif­fer­ent nets and found these two bats to be more af­fil­ia­tive. They were ob­served in close con­tact, even em­brac­ing. Al­though Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats roost ex­clu­sively in a soli­tary fash­ion, they have been found to feed in a more gre­gar­i­ous man­ner with mul­ti­ple in­di­vid­u­als feed­ing in a sin­gle tree. These con­flict­ing ob­ser­va­tions on the so­cial be­hav­ior of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats may be due to the costs as­so­ci­ated with clus­ter roost­ing, which would dampen the ef­fi­cacy of their cam­ou­flage. Such costs would not be im­posed while for­ag­ing in the dark and the ripeness of fruit on in­di­vid­ual trees would also re­sult in clus­ters of bats feed­ing on the same tree. Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats have also been ob­served feed­ing si­mul­ta­ne­ously with spec­ta­cled fly­ing fox in the same tree. (Hall and Pet­ti­grew, 1995; Milledge, 1987; Richards, 1986; Spencer and Flem­ing, 1989)

The short broad wings of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats pro­vide them with a low as­pect ratio (wing length to width) which al­lows for great ma­neu­ver­abil­ity. This low as­pect ratio al­lows them to hover for sev­eral sec­onds and change the di­rec­tion they are fac­ing while hov­er­ing. This be­hav­ior is rare for bats and is usu­ally only seen in small light-weight glean­ers. (Hall and Pet­ti­grew, 1995)

Ob­ser­va­tions made of south­ern pop­u­la­tions of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats doc­u­mented be­hav­iors not re­ported in north­ern pop­u­la­tions (which have been more thor­oughly in­ves­ti­gated). These be­hav­iors in­clude the re­quire­ment to drink after pro­longed hot and dry weather, as well as a lack of ac­tiv­ity dur­ing the cooler months of the year. Also, it in­cludes the move­ment of in­di­vid­u­als into ad­ja­cent open forests and moist tall open forests for oc­ca­sional for­ag­ing and drink­ing. (Schulz, 1997)

• Key Behaviors
• arboreal
• flies
• nocturnal
• motile
• daily torpor
• solitary

• Average territory size

  200 m^2

Home Range

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats roost soli­tar­ily in the sub-canopy of trees dur­ing the day and feed on nearby fruit­ing trees within 200 m of their day roost at night. Al­though gen­er­ally found for­ag­ing within 200 m of their day roost sites they have been cap­tured from 63 m to 1012 m from their roost­ing sites using mist nets. Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats have been found to change their roost­ing and feed­ing lo­ca­tions in an op­por­tunis­tic man­ner as they will move into new areas when food avail­abil­ity changes. Al­though they do change their roost­ing or feed­ing sites, they will also re­main within a small area for pro­longed pe­ri­ods of time dur­ing local food abun­dances. (Spencer and Flem­ing, 1989)

Com­mu­ni­ca­tion and Per­cep­tion

The tubu­lar shaped nos­trils were once be­lieved to func­tion as snorkels to aid Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats in feed­ing on messy fruit meals. How­ever ob­ser­va­tions made of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats while feed­ing have re­vealed that they are not messy eaters, in­di­cat­ing that the tubu­lar nos­trils must serve some other pur­pose. Fur­ther in­ves­ti­ga­tion into the tubu­lar nos­trils has re­vealed that the nos­trils can open and close and move in­de­pen­dently of each other. This open­ing and clos­ing of the nos­trils oc­curs in re­sponse to au­di­tory, vi­sual, and ol­fac­tory cues and al­lows Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats to scan their sur­rounds via ol­fac­tion. Like stereo vi­sion from two eyes or stereo hear­ing from two ears the in­de­pen­dent func­tion­ing of the two nos­trils al­lows for stereo ol­fac­tion, pro­vid­ing in­de­pen­dent mea­sures of aroma con­cen­tra­tions. The use of mod­i­fied stereo ol­fac­tion sys­tem al­lows them to lo­cate and fol­low odor plumes in a three di­men­sional realm. This stereo ol­fac­tion sys­tem aides in find­ing pre­ferred fig fruits through­out the Aus­tralian rain­forests. (Hall and Pet­ti­grew, 1995; Hall, 1983; Richards, 1986; Schwab and Pet­ti­grew, 2005)

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats com­mu­ni­cate via char­ac­ter­is­tic whistling calls which also serve as a re­li­able in­di­ca­tion of their pres­ence within an area. (Hall, 1983)

• Communication Channels
• visual
• acoustic
• chemical

• Perception Channels
• visual
• tactile
• acoustic
• chemical

Food Habits

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats are spe­cial­ist fru­gi­vores feed­ing mainly on 3 species of fig (Ficus co­piosa; Ficus no­dosa; Ficus var­ie­gata). They are also known to feed on lil­lyp­illy (Syzigium corni­flo­rum), the ex­otics guava and sour­sop (Psid­ium gua­java; An­nona muri­cata) around or­chards and ona pi­o­neer species (Fis­cus race­mos) around aban­doned pas­tures. The ma­jor­ity of in­di­vid­u­als found feed­ing on sour­sop are fe­male which has been at­trib­uted to the dif­fer­ent nu­tri­tional re­quire­ments of preg­nant and lac­tat­ing fe­males, par­tic­u­larly as sour­sop has a much higher fat and pro­tein con­tent than the na­tive figs. For­ag­ing be­hav­ior is re­stricted to the un­der­story where cau­li­flor­ous (trunk-fruit­ing) trees are vis­ited. Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats gen­er­ally for­age on trees within close prox­im­ity to their day roosts. Fruit may be car­ried away to be eaten or con­sumed on site at the tree where the fruit was grow­ing. In­di­vid­u­als can carry fruit weigh­ing over half of their own body weight. In one in­stance a 54 g bat was recorded car­ry­ing a 30 g fig. Mul­ti­ple in­di­vid­u­als will feed si­mul­ta­ne­ously on the same tree and have even been noted feed­ing along with spec­ta­cled fly­ing foxes. (Hall and Pet­ti­grew, 1995; Richards, 1986; Spencer and Flem­ing, 1989)

• Primary Diet
• herbivore
  • frugivore

• Plant Foods
• fruit
• nectar
• pollen
• flowers

Pre­da­tion

By wrap­ping their wings around their body, the col­ored spots of their wings, face, and ears make Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats cryp­tic when roost­ing dur­ing the day amongst dense sun-mot­tled fo­liage. The color pat­tern of them is well adapted for cam­ou­flage within the canopy as their dark dor­sal stripe also re­sem­bles the cen­ter rib and stem of a dead leaf. Their soli­tary roost­ing be­hav­ior may allow for en­hanced ef­fi­cacy of their cryp­tic col­oration, as larger groups would make this color pat­tern ap­pear more con­spic­u­ous. Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats also limit their ac­tiv­ity dur­ing full moon phases; this may be at­trib­ut­able to preda­tor avoid­ance for vi­sual noc­tur­nal preda­tors such as owls. (Hall, 1983; Richards, 1986; Riek, et al., 2010)

• Anti-predator Adaptations
• cryptic

• Known Predators

  • powerful owls (Ninox strenua)

Ecosys­tem Roles

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats are im­por­tant seed dis­persers and pol­li­na­tors for the Aus­tralian ecosys­tem. They are the only small, un­der­story, seed-dis­pers­ing bat in Aus­tralian trop­i­cal forests. When com­pared to the trop­i­cal forests of south­east Asia and cen­tral Amer­ica, which have many species of small, un­der­story, fruit-eat­ing bats that share the task of dis­pers­ing seeds, the im­por­tance of the role played by Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats in Aus­tralian rain­forests is quite ap­par­ent. (Hall and Pet­ti­grew, 1995; Nel­lett, 2007)

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats have been found with par­a­sitic mites (Meris­taspis spp.), which are com­mon wing mites of old World fruit bats. (Dom­row, 1967)

• Ecosystem Impact
• disperses seeds
• pollinates

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Pos­i­tive

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats aid in for­est suc­ces­sion as well as dis­per­sal and prop­a­ga­tion of figs, pro­vid­ing en­hanced eco­nomic value to old world trop­i­cal forests. (Mus­carella and Flem­ing, 2007)

• Positive Impacts
• food
• produces fertilizer
• pollinates crops

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Neg­a­tive

In­creas­ing num­bers of ex­otic fruit or­chards in re­gions where Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats are pre­sent have re­sulted in an in­crease of re­ports of these bats dam­ag­ing or­chard fruits such as star­fruit (Aver­rhoa muri­cata; Aver­rhoa caram­bola). (Spencer and Flem­ing, 1989)

• Negative Impacts
• crop pest

Con­ser­va­tion Sta­tus

Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats have been noted as being vul­ner­a­ble (NSW TSC act) due to human de­vel­op­ment. Much of this con­cern is re­lated to en­tan­gle­ment in barbed wire fences. In­creases in the num­ber of or­chards in Aus­tralia has led to in­creased con­flict with the farm­ing com­mu­nity. Farm­ers have been known to hang nets around or­chards to keep the bats away from fruit crops. Bats that be­come en­tan­gled in the nets are left to starve. There­fore un­der­stand­ing the bi­ol­ogy of Queens­land tube-nosed fruit bats is par­tic­u­larly im­por­tant for man­age­ment strate­gies around fruit or­chards in order to min­i­mize the dam­age to the fruit as well as the bats. (Booth, 2007; Spencer and Flem­ing, 1989)

• IUCN Red List

  Least Concern

Con­trib­u­tors

Steve Smith (au­thor), Uni­ver­sity of Man­i­toba, Jane Wa­ter­man (ed­i­tor), Uni­ver­sity of Man­i­toba, Laura Podzikowski (ed­i­tor), Spe­cial Pro­jects.

Ref­er­ences

Booth, C. 2007. Barbed Wire Ac­tion Plan. Queens­land Con­ser­va­tion, Bris­bane, 2: 1-17.

Chap­man, A., L. Hall, M. Ben­nett. 1994. Sex­ual Di­mor­phism in the Pelvic Gir­dle of Aus­tralian Fly­ing Foxes. Aus­tralian Jour­nal of Zo­ol­ogy, 42: 261-265.

Dom­row, R. 1967. Mite par­a­sites of small mam­mals from scrub ty­phus foci in Aus­tralia. Aus­tralian Jour­nal of Zo­ol­ogy, 15: 759-798.

Hall, L. 1983. Queens­land Tube-nosed Bat Nyc­timene robin­soni.. Pp. 286-287 in Com­plete book of Aus­tralian mam­mals.. North Ryde, NSW: Corn­stalk Pub..

Hall, L., J. Pet­ti­grew. 1995. The bat with the stereo nose. Aus­tralian Nat­ural His­tory, 24: 26-28.

Heaney, L., R. Pe­ter­son. 1984. A new species of tube-nosed fruit bat (Nyc­timene) from Ne­gros Is­land, Philip­pines (Mam­malia: Pteropo­di­dae). Oc­ca­sional pa­pers of the Mu­seum of Zo­ol­ogy, Uni­ver­sity of Michi­gan, 708: 1-16.

Hei­de­man, P. 1987. The re­pro­duc­tive ecol­ogy of a com­mu­nity of Philip­pine fruit bats (Pteropo­di­dae, Megachi­roptera). Doc­toral dis­ser­ta­tion, Uni­ver­sity of Michi­gan, 1: 205.

Milledge, D. 1987. Notes on the oc­cur­rence of the Queens­land Tube-nosed Bat Nyc­timene robin­soni in north-east­ern New South Wales.. Macro­derma, 3: 28-30.

Mus­carella, R., T. Flem­ing. 2007. The role of fru­giv­o­rous bats in trop­i­cal for­est suc­ces­sion.. Bi­o­log­i­cal Re­views, 82: 573-590.

Nel­lett, K. 2007. An­a­lyz­ing Site Loy­alty in Nyc­timene robin­soni at the End of the Dry Sea­son. ISP Col­lec­tion, 144: 1-31.

Nowak, R. 1994. Walker's Bats of the World. Bal­ti­more, MD: The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Press.

O'Brien, G. 1993. Sea­sonal re­pro­duc­tion in fly­ing foxes, re­viewed in the con­text of other trop­i­cal mam­mals.. Re­pro­duc­tion, fer­til­ity and de­vel­op­ment, 5: 499-521.

Richards, G. 1986. Notes on the nat­ural his­tory of the Queens­land tube-nosed bat, Nyc­timene robin­soni.. Macro­derma, 2: 64-67.

Riek, A., G. Ko­rt­ner, F. Geiser. 2010. Ther­mo­bi­ol­ogy, en­er­get­ics and ac­tiv­ity pat­terns of the East­ern tube-nosed bat (Nyc­timene robin­soni) in the Aus­tralian trop­ics: ef­fect of tem­per­a­ture and lunar cycle.. Jour­nal of Ex­per­i­men­tal Bi­ol­ogy, 213: 25-57.

Schulz, M. 1997. Notes on the east­ern tube-nosed bat, Nyc­timene robin­soni, from the Rich­mond Range, north­east­ern New South Wales.. Aus­tralian Mam­mal­ogy, 20: 127-130.

Schwab, I., J. Pet­ti­grew. 2005. A choroidal sleight of hand.. British Jour­nal of Oph­thal­mol­ogy, 89: 1398.

Spencer, H., T. Flem­ing. 1989. Roost­ing and For­ag­ing Be­hav­ior of the Queens­land Tube-Nosed Bat, Nyc­timene-Robin­soni (Pteropo­di­dae)-Pre­lim­i­nary Ra­dio-Track­ing Ob­ser­va­tions.. Wildlife Re­search, 16: 413-420.