HOME | DD

Description
Not so many people make reconstructions of fossil bats, and it is understandable. Only a very few fossil bats possess "special features" which could be reproduced in artistic reconstruction. We can only guess about the appearance of the others: the overwhelming majority is known from the teeth, fragments of the jaws and small and uninformative bone marrow. Those that have been preserved in a decent manner usually have a very ordinary appearance - in the sense, if they had appeared in our time, and we could not have distinguished them from their modern relatives. And if there was anything specific - some special skin folds, outgrowths on the lips or ears, skin glands, unusual color - all this, of course, completely corrupted millions, or even tens of millions of years ago, leaving us naked "soup sets". And even those someone already ate.
We can fantasize about the similarities and differences between fossils and modern bats (I mean the external appearance), we can assume some features, but we can’t verify these fantasies and assumptions. One thing is clear - about 30-33 million years ago, most bats looked quite modern. But environment was still not modern.

Fayum oasis, Egypt, the very beginning of the Oligocene, about 33 million years BP. For the first time rised on a wing, a juvenile sucker-footed bat Phasmatonycteris phiomensis got tired and landed on something sticking out of the water - the horn of an Arsinoitherium resting in the backwater. Young bats sometimes do this and sit while their mother cuts circles next to them in hope of cheering them up.
Only a few lower jaws with teeth were preserved from Phasmatonycteris, so it’s really difficult to say how much it looked like a modern sucker-footed bat, and even more so it is impossible to find out if it had foot suckers.

Description
Not so many people make reconstructions of fossil bats, and it is understandable. Only a very few fossil bats possess "special features" which could be reproduced in artistic reconstruction. We can only guess about the appearance of the others: the overwhelming majority is known from the teeth, fragments of the jaws and small and uninformative bone marrow. Those that have been preserved in a decent manner usually have a very ordinary appearance - in the sense, if they had appeared in our time, and we could not have distinguished them from their modern relatives. And if there was anything specific - some special skin folds, outgrowths on the lips or ears, skin glands, unusual color - all this, of course, completely corrupted millions, or even tens of millions of years ago, leaving us naked "soup sets". And even those someone already ate.
We can fantasize about the similarities and differences between fossils and modern bats (I mean the external appearance), we can assume some features, but we can’t verify these fantasies and assumptions. One thing is clear - about 30-33 million years ago, most bats looked quite modern. But environment was still not modern.

Fayum oasis, Egypt, the very beginning of the Oligocene, about 33 million years BP. For the first time rised on a wing, a juvenile sucker-footed bat Phasmatonycteris phiomensis got tired and landed on something sticking out of the water - the horn of an Arsinoitherium resting in the backwater. Young bats sometimes do this and sit while their mother cuts circles next to them in hope of cheering them up.
Only a few lower jaws with teeth were preserved from Phasmatonycteris, so it’s really difficult to say how much it looked like a modern sucker-footed bat, and even more so it is impossible to find out if it had foot suckers.