We were feeling great!

Then, an astute reader pointed out a bit of data that didn’t make sense to them, and contacted us to ask for clarification. Specifically, the reader found that our reported “cost of transport” values, the energy cost per meter traveled, didn’t seem realistic to them. We checked the data and confirmed that they were correct! What we had reported as cost of transport were, in fact, an erroneously copied set of values that were the calculated oxyjoule equivalent metabolic rates when walking or running at a given speed.

So, we did what every research team should do, we set out to correct that mistake. The correction was published in August 2025 here. In some cases, when honest mistakes are made and erroneous data or findings are published, the resulting fix warrants a full retraction of the article (most obvious in cases where the key findings are undermined or invalidated following investigation). In other cases, such as in this one, we felt that the erroneous data were not central to the main findings of the research. Therefore, a correction seemed sufficient in this case.

It might be easy to assume that all I (or the rest of the team) feel after this process is embarassment, regret, and/or shame. And, I do regret having made the mistake…of course. But, in this day and age, I am choosing to be very proud of the fact that we acted as quickly as we could to correct that mistake and ensure the published data were as accurate as they could be. This ability for ourselves and our fields to find, understand, and correct our mistakes is what makes for “gold standard science”.

If anyone says they NEVER (or even infrequently) make mistakes, they are lying. Humans, even researchers and scientists, are fallable. We can at least choose to learn from these mistakes and, where possible, rectify them.

Congratulations to Welch lab PhD student Phillip Oelbaum on being named a 2024 Student Scholar by Bat Conservation International for his project, entitled “Foraging and roosting ecology of Phyllonycteris aphylla in Jamaica.”

More about Phil’s project (from the BCI page):

The Jamaican flower bat, Phyllonycteris aphylla, is listed as critically endangered and until now was only known from Stony Hill Cave. In March-April 2023, we surveyed seven caves throughout Jamaica, most known to have historically had colonies of P. aphylla, and at two of these sites (Green Grotto Caves and Rock Spring Caverns), we found both male and pregnant female individuals of this important species. Both new sites are substantially larger systems than Stony Hill, but with little of Green Grotto’s roosting space explored and no previous bat work being conducted at Rock Spring, relatively little is known about these communities as compared to other caves throughout Jamaica (e.g., Windsor, St. Clair Cave).

Based on observations of the Jamaican Caves Organisation, Rock Spring is believed to be one of the largest bat communities on the island, despite temperatures internally being between 23-24⁰C in all documented roosting chambers. We intend to begin a roost temperature monitoring program to better understand areas of importance within these caves to better protect them and also understand possible fluctuations in population between chambers and possible movement between caves. Furthermore, we intend to seek out new caves that P. aphylla may be present in. Collecting patagium and hair from P. aphylla and heterospecifics for stable isotope analysis will provide critical ecological data to alert us to areas of importance outside the caves and critical habitat for this species.

Following a successful first field-trip in early 2023 resulting in a publication on two new breeding populations of the endangered Jamaican flower bat (Phyllonycteris aphylla), Phil Oelbaum and Jerrica Jamison, joined collaborator Damian Whyte and the Jamaica Caves Organization for more censusing of Jamaican “rat bats”!