My correspondent P keeps up with general science much better than me. At the end of September, she flagged up a Nature press release about the latest submission from the Bat1k Project. Bats are important and diverse: 20% of all mammalian species are members of Order Chiroptera. Only rodents are more 'speciose' (25% of the ~5,000 known species). There is a whiff of marmite about both taxa: most people are squikked out by bats or rats or both but enthusiasts are really enthusiastic. Take Gdau.II, for example: she's 10 and mad about Capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris the largest rodent known to science, but she survives by keeping 2 surrogate guinea-pigs Cavia porcellus in a pen in a corner of the living-room at home. Cavies (1kg) and capybaras (50kg) are in the same family, who knew?
Another example is Emma Teeling, a zoology Professor at UCD, who is making it her life's work to get more attention and more money for research into bats.
Teeling is the Last=Lead author on a recent chunky report in Nature "Reference genomes and fossils revise bat family phylogeny and biogeography". She has had to herd 130+ researchers from 100+ institutions in 60+ countries to generate new genome sequence data + share existing ditto + put it in a digital hopper with the [sparse, patchy] fossil record and a good dash of location location, ecology, and geographic distribution for each species. Shake that hopper! This September 2026 paper has assembled and cross-referenced more or less complete genome data for ~100 bat species. Which is some way short of Bat1k's goal of 1,000 species: which would be just about all the bats still flying, breathing and giving up their DNA for science. That's terabytes of data for which appropriate analytical and statistical software has to be written, borrowed, debugged, tweaked and applied. The computers laboured and brought forth . . . results: . "CASTER analyses of mHR neutral windows recovered (T2; bootstrap = 89.9%, q1 = 34), but neutral window analyses of both bat-reference MULTIZ alignments (mRM and mRR bootstrap = 100 and 99%; q1 = 35 and 34, respectively)(Fig. 3j) and analyses of neutral dark SNPs (mHR, mRM and mRR bootstrap = 96.4, 100 and 100%; q1 = 0.383, 0.428 and 0.393, respectively; Fig. 3k) optimally supported T1". Nope?! I don't know what that means either, and I spent 20 years hewing at the coal-face of genomic analysis.
Journalists across the globe - CBC - Guardian - Mefi! - have done their best to abstract A Story from the technical findings. Their almost universal Exec.Summ. has been "Latest! Bats originated in Europe 65 million years ago". As I hint above, the fossil record for bats is kinda crappy, so it's been hard to find hard <tok> <tok> evidence at all, let alone the earliest credible example: a case has been made previously for Africa, but also for N.America. I don't have the smarts or the tool-kit to critically evaluate the Eurobats origin hypothesis which the press has latched on to.
But I did notice that only one bat family (out of 21) achieved 100% coverage in this 10% preview to the Bat1k Project. Clip from Fig.1 NE quadrant.
That's because family Craseonycteridae contains a single genus and a single species Craseonycteris thonglongyai aka Kitti's hog-nosed bat aka bumble bee bat, BBB. This is the smallest bat (wt 2g len 30mm) known to science and one of the most recently discovered . . . in 1974 by Kitti Thonglongya, a zoologist in Thailand. He died suddenly shortly afterwards: hence the memorial eponym. It's hard to credit that a creature which would comfortably lie on a postage-stamp [the wing-span is bigger] can catch and digest enough food to survive the night given the high surface to volume ratio that comes from being small and which haemorrhages heat.
More on Emma Teeling [bloboprev, also as cailleach] who is a great Irish ambassador to Big Science. 25 years ago, in 2001she co-authored "Resolution of the early placental mammal radiation using Bayesian phylogenetics " - the definitive determination of the relationships among Mammalian Orders (aardvark, bats, carnivores, elephants and 2 dozen other fundamentally different ways of being a mammal). Lay summary by Elizabeth Pennisi. When I was in school, it looked like representatives of all the mammalian orders appeared >!shazzam!< in the fossil record fully differentiated and very widely distributed. In the same eye-blink dinosaurs were swept into the dustbin of history. In the fossil record (all we had back then) it was super abrupt. That 2001 Bayesian phylogenetics paper (and a couple of almost right earlier efforts) was based on the alignment of concatenated protein-coding gene sequences - lots of them; in lots of species. It gave the granularity to show that some Orders were closer to each other than others and shook down into four blocs of species [bloboprev] with shared ancestry and so peculiar commonalities. Sidelining the [patchy, crappy] fossils won evolution millions of extra years to generate the wonderful, peculiar, particular diversity we see in caves, jungles, plains and oceans today - from whales to Kitti's teeny bat.
Who said whales? In 1994, Dan Graur and Des Higgins showed that, from their DNA sequences, they are a subset of Artiodactyls (cows, camels and . . . hippos). After millennia stomping around in lagoons, slobs and mudflats, one mother protowhale decided she couldn't be arsed to get back to dry land to drop the sprog
20 years after sorting out the broad-brush phylogeny of mammals, Teeling was a founder enthusiast for the Zoonomia Project to fill in the details. A comparative genomics multitool for scientific discovery and conservation is another Big Data endeavour. looking at "the genomics of shared and specialized traits in eutherian mammals." What can carefully compared megabases, gigabases of ATCGs tell us about the core similarities [homeothermy, hair, four chambered heart, calcium, lactation, 2 sexes not three etc.] that we share with other mammals? AND expose the basis of shared oddities:
- Afrotheria - one of the four great mammalian Superorders are a) based in Africa b) tend to extravagant noses (aardvark, elephants, elephant shrews, dugongs, otter-shrews);
- Bats . . . fly, not all of them echolocate;
- Cows chew cud
- Dormice come out at night
- Equids run on a single toe-nail (well, four - one at each corner): cows run on two.
Those are kinda obvious and we probably don't need genomic analysis to crack the why? and how? But what about the immune system: is a species' complement of anti-microbial peptides due to evolutionary inertia, random accident or as a response to species-specific microbial assault. And how is it that bats tolerate so many pathological viruses about their person with not a bother on them? WTF that whales and dolphins don't need anti-microbial peptides?: there are plenty bacteria in the sea.
And placentas: they are the defining feature of [eutherian] mammals, you'd think they were all the same but they are structurally, functionally, wildly different across Orders. What is the genetic basis for these different solutions? It's not IL-17: these are functionally important for placental development but, all eutherian mammals have a full complement of genes for the IL-17 family of cytokines.
Someone (SFI Taighde Éireann? James 'FF' Lawless, the current Minsiter?) should give Emma Teeling a medal for Services in Infrastructural Support To Evolutionary Research SISTER! Because, as well as
- teaching [which was a full-time full-on job for me in The Institute);
- mentoring [bloboprev on what that involves]
- dealing with the fallout of institutional misogyny
- managing her own research group [which is managing a small business with a turn-over of €500,000 a year];
- making batty discoveries of her own out in the
fieldcave;
All The Blob can do is to induct her into the Women of Science hall of fame.







