Petramops
genus of bat (fossil)
Petramops creaseri is a species of molossid bat discovered in Miocene fossil deposits at the Riversleigh sites.
Taxonomy
The species was described in 1990 by Suzanne J. Hand, a researcher at the Riversleigh World Heritage Area. The author separated the species as a new genus, Petramops within the Molossidae family of microchiropterans. The holotype, a partial dentary, was discovered at the Gotham City site at Riversleigh. The genus is masculine, and combines the Latin petrus for rock with mops, a common suffix of chiropteran genera. The specific epithet honours Phil Creaser, noted for his contributions in support of the research at Riverleigh.
Description
Petramops was a molossid bat not closely related to modern Australian species, and apparently part of a basal group involved in the earliest dispersal of the family. It was a long distance flyer, which may have facilitated its colonisation of the Australian region before other molossids, perhaps in the early Miocene. The species is described by characteristics of the dentition that most closely resemble the genus Rhizomops, found in the Americas.
The type material was a lower jaw with some intact teeth, with other teeth supplementing Hand's description and diagnosis.
“Petramops” enters the record as genus of bat (fossil). Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Petramops, genus and fossil can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Petramops” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Petramops, genus and fossil provides the most credible route into that argument.
The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q65042927. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1990.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Petramops”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Petramops primary sources, Petramops archive and Petramops research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Petramops”?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Petramops” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.