Alasmidonta viridis - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Slippershell Mussel
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Alasmidonta calceolus Lea (TSN 79922) ;Alasmidonta minor (TSN 79927) ;Alasmidonta viridis (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 79916)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.112021
Element Code: IMBIV02110
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Alasmidonta
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B98TUR01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Alasmidonta viridis
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 26Jan2009
Global Status Last Changed: 28May1997
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This species is widespread in the eastern U.S. and distributed from Lake Huron, St. Clair and Erie, and upper Mississippi River system, south to Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee River systems. Although intolerant of impoundment, it is considered stable throughout most of its range.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (16Jul1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3 (01Aug2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S1), Arkansas (S1), Illinois (S2), Indiana (S3), Iowa (S1), Kansas (SX), Kentucky (S4S5), Michigan (S2S3), Missouri (S1), New York (S1S2), North Carolina (S1), Ohio (S5), Tennessee (S3S4), Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (S2)
Canada Ontario (S3)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
American Fisheries Society Status: Special Concern (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Widespread in eastern U.S. and distributed from Lake Huron, St. Clair and Erie, and upper Mississippi River system, south to Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee River systems (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Canada, this species is restricted to the Lake Erie drainage in Ontario (Metcalfe-Smith and Cadmore-Vokey, 2004).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Wisconsin, this species is known from eastern Wisconsin in the Mississippi and Lake Michigan drainages (Mathiak, 1979). It is widespread in the streams of the southern half of Missouri but has only been found in those streams flowing off the two plateaus (Oesch, 1995). In Kansas, it is extirpated and only known from relic or subfossil specimens primarily in Tequa Creek (Marais des Cygnes drainage) in Osage County and just over the border in Missouri in the Spring River basin (Couch, 1997). In Kentucky it is generally distributed to occasional in the lower Cumberland River and eastward (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003; Clark, 1988). In the Alabama and Mobile Basin, it is limited to the Tennessee River drainage and only recently from Fowler Creek, Madison Co., Alabama, and Paint Rock River tributaries (Ahlstedt, 1996; Williams et al., 2008). In Tennessee, it inhabits headwater creeks and small streams primarily east and, to a lesser extent, middle Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Only relic shells were found in the upper Clinch River in Virginia (Jones et al., 2001) exc. Copper Creek where extant (Hanlon et al., 2009); upper South Fork Holston (Stansbery and Clench, 1978). In North Carolina, it is known from the Little Tennessee, Mills, and French Broad Rivers (Bogan, 2002) in Henderson, Macon, and Swain Cos. (LeGrand et al., 2006). In Illinois, it is sporadically found in tributaries to the Fox, Kankakee, Mackinaw, Sangamon, and Vermillion Rivers (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991). It was recently documented in the Fox River basin in Illinois and Wisconsin where it appears to be widespread though only in small numbers (Schanzle et al., 2004). It was recently collected in the Middle Fork North Branch Vermillion River and Jordan Creek in Illinois (Szafoni et al., 2000) and Kyte River (Lower Rock basin) as relict (Tiemann et al., 2005). In Indiana, it is in the lower East Fork White (Harmon, 1992) and Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990). In Arkansas, this species is known from the Buffalo and White Rivers only where it is nearly extirpated (Harris et al., 1997). In Ohio, it is widespread (but sporadic) and often common in all sizes of streams (absent from unglaciated and NE Ohio) but often overlooked because of its small size and burrowing habit (Watters, 1995; Watters et al., 2009); including Ohio Brush Creek (Watters, 1992), Black River (Lyons et al., 1997), Swan Creek (Lower Maumee) (Grabarkiewicz, 2008). This species was recently collected from 5 of 38 sites (all as weathered or dead shells) surveyed in the Tonawanda Creek basin (Niagara River drainage) in western New York (Marangelo and Strayer, 2000). It occurs in the St. Clair/Detroit drainage and lower Michigan (Strayer, 1980) and southern upper peninsula (Goodrich and Van der Schalie, 1939) in Lake Michigan and St. Clair-Detroit (Badra and Goforth, 2003). Specimens from the Black River (St. Clair drainage), Michigan, were relocated to the Detroit River in 1992 (Trdan and Hoeh, 1993). In Canada, this species is restricted to the Lake Erie drainage in Ontario (Metcalfe-Smith and Cadmore-Vokey, 2004) including the Sydenham (Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2003).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Overall Threat Impact: Unknown

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Only relic shells were found in the upper Clinch River in Virginia (Jones et al., 2001).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <50% to Relatively Stable
Long-term Trend Comments: It is extirpated from the Tennessee River proper (pre-impoundment) and upper Elk River in Tennessee (Williams et al., 2008). In Alabama it was limited to the Tennessee River drainage with a few museum records from the Tennessee River proper (pre-impoundment) and several tributaries plus the lower reaches of the Elk River but is only known recently from fowler Creek in Madison Co. and Paint Rock River tributaries (Williams et al., 2008).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is typically found in headwater streams but also may occur downstream. It is a small sized species that may burrow out of sight in sand or sandy mud so may be easily overlooked. It is not a species of impounements (Watters, 1995). Parmalee and Bogan (1998) claim the species exists in small creeks and shallow streams today but once inhabited the shoals and riffles of large rivers such as the French Broad and Holston before impounement. It may typically be found living in a substrate composed of sand and fine gravel, although in stretches where there is a continuious current it will thrive in a mud and sand bottom among roots of aquatic vegetation.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Widespread in eastern U.S. and distributed from Lake Huron, St. Clair and Erie, and upper Mississippi River system, south to Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee River systems (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Canada, this species is restricted to the Lake Erie drainage in Ontario (Metcalfe-Smith and Cadmore-Vokey, 2004).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, IA, IL, IN, KSextirpated, KY, MI, MO, NC, NY, OH, TN, VA, WI
Canada ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Jackson (01071), Madison (01089)
AR Independence (05063), Newton (05101), Pike (05109)
IA Benton (19011), Buchanan (19019), Delaware (19055), Dubuque (19061), Floyd (19067), Jackson (19097), Jones (19105), Linn (19113), Mitchell (19131)
IL Boone (17007), Champaign (17019), Coles (17029), Cook (17031), De Witt (17039), DeKalb (17037), Douglas (17041)*, DuPage (17043), Ford (17053), Grundy (17063), Iroquois (17075), Jo Daviess (17085), Kane (17089), Kankakee (17091), Kendall (17093), La Salle (17099), Livingston (17105), Mchenry (17111), Mclean (17113), Stephenson (17177), Vermilion (17183), Will (17197), Winnebago (17201)
IN Allen (18003), Boone (18011), Carroll (18015), Clinton (18023), Crawford (18025), De Kalb (18033), Delaware (18035), Fulton (18049), Hancock (18059), Harrison (18061), Henry (18065), Johnson (18081), Kosciusko (18085), Lagrange (18087), Marion (18097), Marshall (18099), Pulaski (18131), Randolph (18135), Rush (18139), Shelby (18145), Steuben (18151), Tippecanoe (18157), Washington (18175), White (18181)
MI Alcona (26001)*, Allegan (26005), Alpena (26007)*, Barry (26015), Bay (26017)*, Benzie (26019)*, Berrien (26021), Branch (26023)*, Calhoun (26025), Cass (26027), Chippewa (26033), Clare (26035)*, Clinton (26037), Crawford (26039)*, Delta (26041)*, Dickinson (26043), Eaton (26045), Emmet (26047), Genesee (26049), Gladwin (26051)*, Gratiot (26057), Hillsdale (26059), Huron (26063), Ingham (26065), Ionia (26067), Iosco (26069)*, Iron (26071)*, Isabella (26073), Jackson (26075), Kalamazoo (26077)*, Kent (26081), Lake (26085)*, Lapeer (26087), Lenawee (26091), Livingston (26093), Luce (26095)*, Mackinac (26097), Macomb (26099), Mecosta (26107)*, Menominee (26109), Midland (26111), Missaukee (26113), Monroe (26115), Montcalm (26117), Montmorency (26119)*, Muskegon (26121)*, Newaygo (26123)*, Oakland (26125), Oceana (26127)*, Ogemaw (26129), Osceola (26133), Oscoda (26135), Ottawa (26139)*, Presque Isle (26141)*, Roscommon (26143)*, Saginaw (26145)*, Sanilac (26151), Schoolcraft (26153)*, Shiawassee (26155), St. Clair (26147), St. Joseph (26149), Tuscola (26157), Van Buren (26159), Washtenaw (26161), Wayne (26163), Wexford (26165)*
MO Christian (29043), Jefferson (29099), Stone (29209), Washington (29221)
NC Henderson (37089), Macon (37113), Swain (37173), Transylvania (37175)
NY Erie (36029)
TN Blount (47009)
VA Russell (51167), Scott (51169)*, Smyth (51173)*, Tazewell (51185), Washington (51191)*
WI Brown (55009)*, Columbia (55021), Dodge (55027)*, Fond Du Lac (55039), Green Lake (55047), Jefferson (55055), Kenosha (55059)*, Lafayette (55065)*, Manitowoc (55071), Marinette (55075)*, Menominee (55078), Oconto (55083)*, Shawano (55115), Sheboygan (55117), Walworth (55127), Waukesha (55133), Waupaca (55135), Waushara (55137), Winnebago (55139)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Betsy-Chocolay (04020201)+*, Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101)+, Duck-Pensaukee (04030103)+*, Oconto (04030104)+*, Peshtigo (04030105)+*, Michigamme (04030107)+*, Menominee (04030108)+, Cedar-Ford (04030109)+, Tacoosh-Whitefish (04030111)+*, Upper Fox (04030201)+, Wolf (04030202)+, Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, Milwaukee (04040003)+, St. Joseph (04050001)+, Black-Macatawa (04050002)+*, Kalamazoo (04050003)+, Upper Grand (04050004)+, Maple (04050005)+, Lower Grand (04050006)+, Thornapple (04050007)+, Pere Marquette-White (04060101)+*, Muskegon (04060102)+, Betsie-Platte (04060104)+*, Boardman-Charlevoix (04060105)+, Manistique (04060106)+, Brevoort-Millecoquins (04060107)+*, St. Marys (04070001)+, Lone Lake-Ocqueoc (04070003)+*, Thunder Bay (04070006)+*, Au Sable (04070007)+, Au Gres-Rifle (04080101)+, Kawkawlin-Pine (04080102)+*, Pigeon-Wiscoggin (04080103)+, Birch-Willow (04080104)+*, Tittabawassee (04080201)+, Pine (04080202)+, Shiawassee (04080203)+, Flint (04080204)+, Cass (04080205)+, Lake Huron (04080300)+, St. Clair (04090001)+, Lake St. Clair (04090002)+, Clinton (04090003)+, Detroit (04090004)+*, Huron (04090005)+, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+*, Raisin (04100002)+, St. Joseph (04100003)+, Tiffin (04100006)+, Buffalo-Eighteenmile (04120103)+, Niagara (04120104)+
05 Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Vermilion (05120109)+, Sugar (05120110)+, Embarras (05120112)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Driftwood (05120204)+, Flatrock-Haw (05120205)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+
06 North Fork Holston (06010101)+*, South Fork Holston (06010102)+*, Upper French Broad (06010105)+, Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+
07 Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Maquoketa (07060006)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, Upper Cedar (07080201)+, Middle Cedar (07080205)+, Upper Rock (07090001)+*, Crawfish (07090002)+, Pecatonica (07090003)+, Kishwaukee (07090006)+, Kankakee (07120001)+, Iroquois (07120002)+, Des Plaines (07120004)+, Upper Illinois (07120005)+, Upper Fox (07120006)+, Lower Fox (07120007)+, Lower Illinois-Senachwine Lake (07130001)+, Vermilion (07130002)+, Mackinaw (07130004)+, Upper Sangamon (07130006)+, Salt (07130009)+, Big (07140104)+
08 Upper Ouachita (08040102)+
11 James (11010002)+, Middle White (11010004)+, Buffalo (11010005)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Host fish include Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum) and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) (Clark and Berg, 1959); as well as banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) (Zale and Neves, 1982).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, High gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is typically found in headwater streams but also may occur downstream. It is a small sized species that may burrow out of sight in sand or sandy mud so may be easily overlooked. It is not a species of impounements (Watters, 1995). Parmalee and Bogan (1998) claim the species exists in small creeks and shallow streams today but once inhabited the shoals and riffles of large rivers such as the French Broad and Holston before impounement. It may typically be found living in a substrate composed of sand and fine gravel, although in stretches where there is a continuious current it will thrive in a mud and sand bottom among roots of aquatic vegetation.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Freshwater Mussels

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens, including live specimens or recently dead shells (i.e., soft tissue still attached and/or nacre still glossy and iridescent without signs of external weathering or staining), at a given location with potentially recurring existence. Weathered shells constitute a historic occurrence. Evidence is derived from reliable published observation or collection data; unpublished, though documented (i.e. government or agency reports, web sites, etc.) observation or collection data; or museum specimen information.
Mapping Guidance: Based on the separation distances outlined herein, for freshwater mussels in STANDING WATER (or backwater areas of flowing water such as oxbows and sloughs), all standing water bodies with either (1) greater than 2 km linear distance of unsuitable habitat between (i.e. lotic connections), or (2) more than 10 km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat (including lentic shoreline, linear distance across water bodies, and lentic water bodies with proper lotic connections), are considered separate element occurrences. Only the largest standing water bodies (with 20 km linear shoreline or greater) may have greater than one element occurrence within each. Multiple collection or observation locations in one lake, for example, would only constitute multiple occurrences in the largest lakes, and only then if there was some likelihood that unsurveyed areas between collections did not contain the element.

For freshwater mussels in FLOWING WATER conditions, occurrences are separated by a distance of more than 2 stream km of unsuitable habitat, or a distance of more than 10 stream km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat. Standing water between occurrences is considered suitable habitat when calculating separation distance for flowing water mussel species unless dispersal barriers (see Separation Barriers) are in place.

Several mussel species in North America occur in both standing and flowing water (see Specs Notes). Calculation of separation distance and determination of separation barriers for these taxa should take into account the environment in which the element was collected. Juvenile mussels do not follow this pattern and juveniles are typically missed by most standard sampling methods (Hastie and Cosgrove, 2002; Neves and Widlak, 1987), therefore juvenile movement is not considered when calculating separation distance.

Separation Barriers: Separation barriers within standing water bodies are based solely on separation distance (see Separation Distance-suitable, below). Separation barriers between standing water bodies and within flowing water systems include lack of lotic connections, natural barriers such as upland habitat, absence of appropriate species specific fish hosts, water depth greater than 10 meters (Cvancara, 1972; Moyle and Bacon, 1969) or anthropogenic barriers to water flow such as dams or other impoundments and high waterfalls.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: None
Separation Justification: Adult freshwater mussels are largely sedentary spending their entire lives very near to the place where they first successfully settled (Coker et al., 1921; Watters, 1992). Strayer (1999) demonstrated in field trials that mussels in streams occur chiefly in flow refuges, or relatively stable areas that displayed little movement of particles during flood events. Flow refuges conceivably allow relatively immobile mussels to remain in the same general location throughout their entire lives. Movement occurs with the impetus of some stimulus (nearby water disturbance, physical removal from the water such as during collection, exposure conditions during low water, seasonal temperature change or associated diurnal cycles) and during spawning. Movement is confined to either vertical movement burrowing deeper into sediments though rarely completely beneath the surface, or horizontal movement in a distinct path often away from the area of stimulus. Vertical movement is generally seasonal with rapid descent into the sediment in autumn and gradual reappearance at the surface during spring (Amyot and Downing, 1991; 1997). Horizontal movement is generally on the order of a few meters at most and is associated with day length and during times of spawning (Amyot and Downing, 1997). Such locomotion plays little, if any, part in the distribution of freshwater mussels as these limited movements are not dispersal mechanisms. Dispersal patterns are largely speculative but have been attributed to stream size and surface geology (Strayer, 1983; Strayer and Ralley, 1993; van der Schalie, 1938), utilization of flow refuges during flood stages (Strayer, 1999), and patterns of host fish distribution during spawning periods (Haag and Warren, 1998; Watters, 1992). Lee and DeAngelis (1997) modeled the dispersal of freshwater into unoccupied habitats as a traveling wave front with a velocity ranging from 0.87 to 2.47 km/year (depending on mussel life span) with increase in glochidial attachment rate to fish having no effect on wave velocity.

Nearly all mussels require a host or hosts during the parasitic larval portion of their life cycle. Hosts are usually fish, but a few exceptional species utilize amphibians as hosts (Van Snik Gray et al., 2002; Howard, 1915) or may metamorphose without a host (Allen, 1924; Barfield et al., 1998; Lefevre and Curtis, 1911; 1912). Haag and Warren (1998) found that densities of host generalist mussels (using a variety of hosts from many different families) and displaying host specialists (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but mussel females have behavioral modifications to attract hosts to the gravid female) were independent of the densities of their hosts. Densities of non-displaying host specialist mussels (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but without host-attracting behavior) were correlated positively with densities of their hosts. Upstream dispersal of host fish for non-displaying host specialist mussels could, theoretically, transport mussel larvae (glochidia) over long distances through unsuitable habitat, but it is unlikely that this occurs very often. D. Strayer (personal communication) suggested a distance of at least 10 km, but a greater distance between occurrences may be necessary to constitute genetic separation of populations. As such, separation distance is based on a set, though arbitrary, distance between two known points of occurrence.

Date: 18Oct2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: Contact Jay Cordeiro (jay_cordeiro@natureserve.org) for a complete list of freshwater mussel taxa sorted by flow regime.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 26Jan2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 24May2007
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Baker, F.C. 1928. Freshwater mollusca of Wisconsin. Part II. Pelecypoda. Bull. Wisc. Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv. 70:1-495.

  • Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.

  • Clark, C.F. 1988. Some fresh-water mussels from the Red River drainage, Kentucky. Malacology Data Net, 2(3/4): 100-104.

  • Clarke, A.H. and C.O. Berg. 1959. The freshwater mussels of central New York. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir 367.

  • Clarke, A.H. and C.O. Berg. 1959. The freshwater mussels of central New York. Cornell University Agriculture Experiment Station (N.Y. State College of Agriculture) Memoir 367:1-79.

  • Couch, K.J. 1997. An Illustrated Guide to the Unionid Mussels of Kansas. Karen J. Couch. [Printed in Olathe, Kansas]. 124 pp.

  • Cummings, K.S. and J.M. Berlocher. 1990. The naiades or freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Tippecanoe River, Indiana. Malacological Review 23:83-98.

  • Cummings, Kevin S. et al. 1992. Survey of the Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) of the Wabash River Drainage. Final Report. INHS Center for Biodiversity Tech. Rep. 1992 (1):210 pp.

  • Ecological Specialists, Inc. 1996. Unionid Mussel Survey of the Blue River, Indiana. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. 23 pp.

  • Goodrich, C. and H. van der Schalie. 1939. Aquatic mollusks of the upper peninsula of Michigan. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 43: 1-45.

  • Harmon, J.L. 1992. Naiades (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Sugar Creek, east fork White River drainage, in central Indiana. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):31-42.

  • Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997. Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 51: 66-89.

  • Herkert, Jim. 1998. Proposed additions, deletions, and changes to the Illinois List of Threatened and Endangered Animals. 101st ESPB Meeting, August 21, 1998. 16pp.

  • Howard, A.D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.

  • Johnson, R.I. 1980. Zoogeography of North American Unionacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia) north of the maximum Pleistocene glaciation. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 149(2): 77-189.

  • LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.

  • Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propogation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 30:102-201.

  • Letson, E. J. 1905. Checklist of the Mollusca of New York. Bulletin. No. 88. New York State Museum, Albany, NY.

  • Lyons, M.S., R.A. Krebs, J.P. Holt, L.J. Rundo, and W. Zawiski. 2007. Assessing causes of change in the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Black River, Ohio. American Midland Naturalist, 158: 1-15.

  • Marangelo, P.J. and D.L. Strayer. 2000. The freshwater mussels of the Tonawanda Creek basin in western New York. Walkerana, 11(25): 97-106.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004b. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii + 255 pp.

  • Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.

  • Oesch, R.D. 1984. Missouri Naiades: A guide to the mussels of Missouri. Missouri Dept. Cons., Jefferson City, MO. 269pp.

  • Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition. Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.

  • Parmalee, P.W. 1967. The fresh-water mussels of Illinois. Ill. State Mus., Popular Sci. Series Vol. VIII. 108pp.

  • Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennesee. 328 pp.

  • Schanzle, R.W. and K.S. Cummings. 1991. A survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Sangamon River basin, Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes, 137: 1-25.

  • Schanzle, R.W., G.W. Kruse, J.A. Kath, R.A. Klocek, and K.S. Cummings. 2004. The freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Fox River basin, Illinois and Wisconsin. Illinois Natural History Biological Notes, 141: 1-35.

  • Stansbery, D. H. and W. J. Clench. 1977 [1978]. The Pleuroceridae and Unionidae of the Upper South Fork Holston River in Virginia. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union 1977:75-79.

  • Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 13:253-264.

  • Strayer, D.L. 1999a. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.

  • Strayer, D.L. and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(3):247-258.

  • Strayer, David L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels (Bivalva: Unionoidea) of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26. The New York State Education Department.

  • Szafoni, R.E., K.S. Cummings, and C.A. Mayer. 2000. Freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) of the Middle Branch, North Fork Vermillion River, Illinois, Indiana. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Sceince, 93(3): 229-237.

  • Trdan, R.J. and W.R. Hoeh. 1993. Relocation of two state-listed freshwater mussel species (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana and Epioblasma triquetra) in Michigan. Pages 100-105 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch. (eds.). Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 12-14 October 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 189 pp.

  • Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.

  • Van der Schalie, H. 1938a. The naiad fauna of the Huron River in southeastern Michigan. Miscellaneous Publication of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 40:7-78.

  • Watters, G. Thomas. 1994. An Annotated Bibliography of the Reproduction and Propogation of the Unionoidea (Primarily of North America). Ohio Biological Survey, College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University. In cooperation with Ohio Division of Wildlife. 158 pp.

  • Watters, G. Thomas. 1996. 1996 Survey of the Mussels of the Fish Creek Drainage. Final Report to the Indiana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.

  • Watters, G.T. 1992a. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19:481-490.

  • Watters, G.T. 1992b. Distribution of the Unionidae in south central Ohio. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):56-90.

  • Wendeln, K.L., J.R. Runkle, and G.T. Watters. 2009. The freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of Twin Creek, Southwest Ohio. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 24(3):451-460. DOI: 10.1080/02705060.2009.9664318

  • Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, and J. T Garner. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Alabama & the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, & Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 908 pages.

  • Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993b. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9): 6-22.

  • Zale, A.V. and R.J. Nevesb. 1982b. Identification of a fish host for Alasmidonta minor (Mollusca: Unionidae). American Midland Naturalist 107(2): 386-388.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1995-1996. Status survey for federally listed endangered freshwater mussel species in the Paint Rock River system, northeastern Alabama, U.S.A. Walkerana 8(19):63-80.

  • Badra, P.J. and R.R. Goforth. 2003. Freshwater mussel surveys of Great Lakes tributary rivers in Michigan. Report Number MNFI 2003-15 to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Coastal Zone Management Unit, Lansing, Michigan. 40 pp.

  • Cicerello, R.R. and G.A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series 7:1-62.

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145 in: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Grabarkiewicz, J.D. 2008. Three years of unionid surveys in Swan Creek, Lower Maumee River watershed, Lucas Co., OH. Final Report to the Ohio Division of Wildlife, Toledo Naturalists' Association, and Metroparks of the Toledo Area, Toledo, Ohio. 18 pp. + app.

  • Hanlon, S.D., M.A. Petty, and R.J. Neves. 2009. Status of native freshwater mussels in Copper Creek, Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist 8(1):1-18.

  • Jones, J.W., R.J. Neves, M.A. Patterson, C.R. Good, and A. DiVittorio. 2001. A status survey of freshwater mussel populations in the upper Clinch River, Tazewell County, Virginia. Banisteria, 17: 20-30.

  • Mathiak, H.A. 1979. A river survey of the unionid mussels of Wisconsin, 1973-1977. Sand Shell Press: Horicon, Wisconsin. 75 pp.

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J.L. and B. Cudmore-Vokey. 2004. National general status assessment of freshwater mussels (Unionacea). National Water Research Institute / NWRI Contribution No. 04-027. Environment Canada, March 2004. Paginated separately.

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., J. Di Maio, S.K. Staton, and S.R. De Solla. 2003. Status of the freshwater mussel communities of the Sydenham River, Ontario, Canada. American Midland Naturalist 150:37-50.

  • Oesch, R.D. 1984a. Missouri Naiades: a Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Jefferson City, Missouri: Conservation Commision of the State of Missouri. 270 pp.

  • Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.

  • Strayer, D. 1980. The freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Clinton River, Michigan, with comments on man's impact on the fauna, 1870-1978. The Nautilus 94(4):142-149.

  • Strayer, D.L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26. The University of the State of New York. 113 pp. + figures.

  • Tiemann, J.S., R.E. Szafoni, and K. Roman. 2005. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of Kyte River, Ogle County, Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 98(3-4):159-169.

  • Watters, G.T. 1995a. A field guide to the freshwater mussels of Ohio. revised 3rd edition. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, Ohio. 122 pp.

  • Watters, G.T., M.A. Hoggarth, and D.H. Stansbery. 2009b. The Freshwater Mussels of Ohio. Ohio State University Press: Columbus, Ohio. 421 pp.

  • Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama & the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi & Tennessee. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 908 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.