Hi, thanks for your input. Having looked into what you have written about the taxonomy, I will of course add it in however, the terms ”Microbat” and ”Megabat” are still commonly used even by scientists themselves. For the sake of my whole post and the 4 and a half hours of time put into it, I will keep those terms in.
Depends on the field. Most Evolutionary Biologists working with bats, scorn at the use of these words (jokingly of course). I can imagine though, that in a discipline that does not require such phylogenetic correctness, field ecology perhaps, then using these terms is fine. Just like the term Reptile or Fish. It really depends on what type of scientist you talk to, I guess is my point.
But to say that these groups are valid clades, "there are two main suborders of Chiroptera, Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera" is incorrect. These are no longer suborders of bats. You could say, something like, "scientists divide bats into the large bats, Megachiroptera, and small, echolocating bats, Microchiroptera." There are exceptions to both, as you indicate in your blog, but it would suffice in defining them. I only point it out as your article is excellent and a good source of knowledge. No harm being precise.
No harm taken I appreciate your input, I will as a say add it in when I have the opportunity :)