Arcidens confragosus - (Say, 1829)
Rock Pocketbook
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Arcidens confragosus (Say, 1829) (TSN 80239)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.113655
Element Code: IMBIV06010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Arcidens
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: Arcidens confragosus
Taxonomic Comments: Originally described in the genus Alasmidonta by Say in 1829 from the Fox River an arm of the Wabash in southern Illinois. Also placed in the genus Margaritana. Although no genetic studies have been done, the morphology of the shell suggests a relationship to Arkansia wheeleri. Other common names include: rockshell, grandmaw, bastard, black pocketbook, queen. Similar species include: threeridge, Amblema plicata and the washboard, Megalonaias nervosa.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 28Apr2009
Global Status Last Changed: 30Jan1998
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This wide-ranging species has become extirpated from at least one state and may be declining in others, however, there is little data to show that it has markedly declined (>10%) throughout its wide range as other populations (Tennessee, Minnesota) have even shown some recent expansion.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (16Jul1998)

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 (S3), Arkansas (S3), Illinois (S3), Indiana (S2), Iowa (S2), Kansas (S1), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S4), Minnesota (S1), Mississippi (S3), Missouri (S3), Ohio (SX), Oklahoma (S4?), South Dakota (S1), Tennessee (S4), Texas (S3), Wisconsin (S1S2)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (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: This species is distributed from Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota, south through Iowa, and Kansas to the Gulf states, east to Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana; and recently in Oklahoma (Martinez et al., 2004). It is apparently extirpated from Ohio. It occurs from the Interior Basin (Mississippi and Ohio River Drainages) south and west to the Colorado River, Texas (Simpson, 1900; Mirarchi et al., 2004).

Area of Occupancy: >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: At least 80 known occurrences are from Wisconsin, Missouri, Minnesota, Mississippi, Indiana, and Kansas and south to Texas and east to Tennessee. There exists a recent discovery in Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, in Minnesota (Kelner and Davis, 2002). In Illinois, it is generally distributed but uncommon in the large rivers in the southern part of the state (Cummings and Mayer, 1997) including the Sangamon and South Fork Sangamon (Schanzle and Cummings, 1991); also upper Illinois River (Sietman et al., 2001). In Wisconsin, it is known from the Wisconsin and Mississippi Rivers (Mathiak, 1979). In Mississippi, it occurs in the Big Black, Yazoo, Tennessee, Pearl, and Tombigbee drainages (Jones et al., 2005). McGregor and Garner (2004) recently documented this species in the Bear Creek drainage in Alabama/Mississippi. This species was recently collected from the Black Warrior River in Tuscaloosa and Greene/Hale Cos. but was not found, despite historical records, in the upper Tombigbee River in Sumter and Greene Cos., Alabama (Williams et al., 1992). In the Alabama and Mobile basin, it occurs in the Tennessee River in northwestern Alabama and a few tributaries and only on the Coastal Plain in the Mobile Basin (but disappeared from most of it) (Williams et al., 2008). In Louisiana, Vidrine (1993) mapped about two dozen historical sites throughout Louisiana while Brown and Banks (2001) the Amite and Pearl in eastern Louisiana. Branson (1983) cited Oklahoma distribution as unknown. In Texas, it is known from eastern Texas in the Guadalupe River system north and east with a southernmost report from a lake in Gonzales Co. (Howells et al., 1996). In Tennessee, it occurs in the impounded stretches of the Tennessee River, Hardin Co. to Stewart Co. and locally in the Cumberland River from Steward Co. upstream above Nashville to at least Smith Co. In west Tennessee it occurs in Reelfoot Lake, Obion and Lake Cos., and in the lower Hatchie River, Tipton Co. (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Kentucky, it is generally distributed to occasional in the Mississippi River to the upper Green River (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003; Gordon, 1991). It occurs in the Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), Cache, St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), lower Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996), and White Rivers, Arkansas (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005; Gordon, 1982; Gordon et al., 1994). In Missouri, it has been found in the Mississippi River below St. Louis, the Meramec River, the St. Francis River, and the Osage River in the 1970s (Oesch, 1995). Recently, a few live specimens were found in the Poteau River, LeFlore Co. and the Deep Fork River, Okmulgee Co., Oklahoma (Martinez et al., 2004). In Kansas, it is rare and presently restricted to the Marais des Cygnes River basin but is also known to have occurred in Kansas in the South Fork Big Nemaha River basin (Missouri River drainage) (Couch, 1997).

Population Size: Unknown
Population Size Comments: Due to problems obtaining a unbiased and complete sample, abundance in mussels is always difficult to estimate, and no estimates of population size or abundance have been made for this species.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Smith (1971) ranked the causes of extirpation or declines in fish species as follows: siltation, drainage of bottomland lakes, swamps, and prairie marshes, desiccation during drought, species introductions, pollution, impoundments, and increased water temperatures. All of these factors render habitats unsuitable, cause extirpations, and lead to the isolation of populations thereby increasing their vulnerability to extirpation for many aquatic species (including mussels) throughout North America. Zebra mussels Dreissena polymorpha have destroyed mussel populations in the Great Lakes and significantly reduced mussels in many of the large rivers of the eastern North America and has the potential to severely threaten and other populations especially if it makes its way into smaller streams. Pollution through point (industrial and residential discharge) and non-point (siltation, herbicide and fertilizer run-off) sources is perhaps the greatest on-going threat to this species and most freshwater mussels. Lowered dissolved oxygen content and elevated ammonia levels (frequently associated with agricultural runoff and sewage discharge) have been shown to be lethal to some species of freshwater naiads (Horne and McIntosh, 1979). Residential, mineral and industrial development also pose a significant threat. Destruction of habitat through stream channelization and maintenance and the construction of dams although slowed in recent years is still a threat in some areas. Impoundments reduce currents that are necessary for the most basic physiological activities such as feeding, waste removal and reproduction. In addition, reduced water flow typically results in a reduction in water oxygen levels and a settling out of suspended solids (silt, etc.), both of which are detrimental. Dredging of streams has an immediate effect on existing populations by physically removing and destroying individuals. Dredging also affects the long-term recolonization abilities by destroying much of the potential habitat, making the substrates and flow rates uniform throughout the system. Rotenone, a toxin used to kill fish in bodies of water for increased sport fishery quality, has been shown to be lethal to mussels as well (Heard, 1970). Natural predators include raccoons, otter, mink, muskrats, turtles and some birds, which feed heavily upon freshwater mussels (Simpson, 1899; Boepple and Coker, 1912; Evermann and Clark, 1918; Coker, et al. 1921; Parmalee, 1967; Snyder and Snyder, 1969). Domestic animals such as hogs can root mussel beds to pieces (Meek and Clark, 1912). Fishes, particularly catfish, Ictalurus spp. and Amieurus spp. and freshwater drum, Aplodinotus grunniens also consume large numbers of unionids.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: This species is considered to be 'Currently Stable' by the freshwater mussel subcommittee of the endangered species committee of the American Fisheries Society (Williams, et al. 1993). In the Midwest, the rock pocketbook has been extirpated from Ohio (Watters, 1995), although records of its occurrence there in Cincinnati are now questioned by Watters et al. (2009), is threatened in Wisconsin, considered rare in Missouri, and is uncommon to rare in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Minnesota (Cummings and Mayer, 1992). However, although not frequently encountered in the field because its choice of habitat precludes collecting, there is little data to show that this species has markedly declined throughout its range. Lack of historic records for the lower St. Croix River in Minnesota coupled with recent discovery there may indicate range expansion in that area (Sietman, 2003). In Tennessee, it appears to be expanding its range due to tolerance to the many impounements present there (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998), however it has suffered serious declines in the Mobile Basin existing currently only on the Coastal Plain (Williams et al., 2008).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: It may be extirpated from the Big Sioux (Skadsen and Perkins, 2000) and James River, South Dakota (Perkins and Backlund, 2003).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is found in mud and sand bottom pools in medium to large rivers in standing or slow flowing water. It is a species typical of large lowland streams with little or no flow and a substrate of mud or mud and fine sand (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Additional collecting in the lower reaches of medium to large rivers in the middle and lower Misissippi drainages should reveal additional populations of this species. An inventory of existing museum records should be compiled to provide information on historical sites and potential new ones.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) This species is distributed from Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota, south through Iowa, and Kansas to the Gulf states, east to Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana; and recently in Oklahoma (Martinez et al., 2004). It is apparently extirpated from Ohio. It occurs from the Interior Basin (Mississippi and Ohio River Drainages) south and west to the Colorado River, Texas (Simpson, 1900; Mirarchi et al., 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: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, OHextirpated, OK, SD, TN, TX, WI

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Colbert (01033), Greene (01063), Lauderdale (01077), Pickens (01107)
IA Allamakee (19005), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Des Moines (19057), Dubuque (19061), Jackson (19097), Lee (19111), Muscatine (19139), Scott (19163)
IN Knox (18083), Lawrence (18093), Martin (18101), Posey (18129), Vanderburgh (18163)
KS Franklin (20059), Miami (20121)
MN Blue Earth (27013), Brown (27015), Carver (27019), Chippewa (27023), Dakota (27037), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Le Sueur (27079), Nicollet (27103), Ramsey (27123), Renville (27129), Scott (27139), Sibley (27143), Wabasha (27157)*, Washington (27163), Winona (27169), Yellow Medicine (27173)
MO Butler (29023), Cedar (29039), Clark (29045), Cole (29051), Dunklin (29069), Franklin (29071), Hickory (29085), Jefferson (29099), Lewis (29111), Lincoln (29113), Marion (29127), Miller (29131), Mississippi (29133), New Madrid (29143), Osage (29151), Pemiscot (29155), Pike (29163), Ralls (29173), Ripley (29181), St. Charles (29183), St. Louis (29189), Stoddard (29207), Wayne (29223)
MS Adams (28001), Bolivar (28011), Claiborne (28021), Clay (28025), Coahoma (28027), DeSoto (28033), Hinds (28049), Holmes (28051), Humphreys (28053), Issaquena (28055), Itawamba (28057), Leflore (28083), Lowndes (28087), Monroe (28095), Noxubee (28103), Panola (28107), Pearl River (28109), Quitman (28119), Rankin (28121), Sharkey (28125), Sunflower (28133), Tallahatchie (28135), Tishomingo (28141), Tunica (28143), Warren (28149), Washington (28151), Wilkinson (28157), Yazoo (28163)
SD Hutchinson (46067), Yankton (46135)
WI Buffalo (55011)*, Columbia (55021), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Grant (55043), Iowa (55049), Pierce (55093)*, Polk (55095), Richland (55103), Sauk (55111), St. Croix (55109), Vernon (55123)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Upper Tombigbee (03160101)+, Buttahatchee (03160103)+, Tibbee (03160104)+, Middle Tombigbee-Lubbub (03160106)+*, Sipsey (03160107)+, Noxubee (03160108)+, Middle Pearl-Strong (03180002)+, Lower Pearl. Mississippi (03180004)+
05 Lower Wabash (05120113)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+
06 Pickwick Lake (06030005)+, Bear (06030006)+
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Hawk-Yellow Medicine (07020004)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Blue Earth (07020009)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, Bear-Wyaconda (07110001)+, The Sny (07110004)+, Peruque-Piasa (07110009)+, Meramec (07140102)+, Bourbeuse (07140103)+, Big (07140104)+
08 New Madrid-St. Johns (08020201)+, Lower St. Francis (08020203)+, Little River Ditches (08020204)+, Little Tallahatchie (08030201)+, Tallahatchie (08030202)+, Coldwater (08030204)+, Upper Yazoo (08030206)+, Big Sunflower (08030207)+, Deer-Steele (08030209)+, Lower Mississippi-Natchez (08060100)+, Lower Big Black (08060202)+
10 Lower James (10160011)+, Upper Marais Des Cygnes (10290101)+, Lower Marais Des Cygnes (10290102)+, Sac (10290106)+, Pomme De Terre (10290107)+, Lower Osage (10290111)+
11 Upper Black (11010007)+, Current (11010008)+
+ 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
Basic Description: A freshwater mussel with a large large, relatively thin, heavily sculptured, with poorly developed lateral teeth.
General Description: SHELL: Shell thin to moderately thick, elliptical, and inflated. Anterior end rounded, posterior end squared or bluntly pointed. Ventral margin straight or slightly rounded. Umbos full and elevated above the hinge line. Beak sculpture of large pronounced knobs or double-looped ridges that continue to the edge of the shell in two rows, developing into folds on the surface. Periostracum dark green, brown, or black. Adult size to 7 inches. Pseudocardinal teeth compressed, elongate; two in the left valve, one in the right. Poorly developed lateral teeth, often present only as a finely serrated thickening of the hinge line. Beak cavity moderately deep. Nacre white, iridescent on the posterior third.

ANIMAL: "Supra-anal long, well separated from the anal by a mantle-connection, which is shorter than the anal. Inner edge of anal crenulated, inner edge of branchial with papillae. Diaphragm complete and normal. Inner lamina of inner gills free at anterior end. Posterior margins of palpi connected for not quite one-half of their length. Gills anodontine in structure. Only the outer gills are marsupial and their septa are much crowded, forming very narrow water-tubes, while in the inner gill the septa are much more distant. The septa of the outer gills are typically anodontine, and an indication of secondary water-tubes is present in the sterile female. Besides at the edge of the marsupial gill, there is a thick mass of tissue, which indicates, that in the gravid female the edge is capable of distending." (Ortmann, 1912:284-285).

Reproduction Comments: This species is bradytictic, probably September to June (Utterback, 1915-16; Baker, 1928). Glochidia were described by Clarke (1981) from a gravid female collected in the Mississippi River, 1 mile south of Burlington, Iowa, on 15 September 1964. Glochidial hosts include rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) (Surber, 1913; Wilson, 1916); and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) (Howells, 1994; 1997).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is found in mud and sand bottom pools in medium to large rivers in standing or slow flowing water. It is a species typical of large lowland streams with little or no flow and a substrate of mud or mud and fine sand (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: In order to effectively manage mussel species it is necessary to work out certain life history characteristics first. Because of their unusual life-cycle and dependence on fish for completion of that cycle, it is imperative that the host species for the rock pocketbook be ascertained. Hosts thus far identified include: rock bass, Ambloplites rupestrisA; white crappie, Pomoxis annularis; American eel, Anguilla rostrata; freshwater drum, Aplodinotus grunniens; gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum; and channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus (Surber, 1913; Wilson, 1916; Howells, 1994). Very little life history information has been published for the rock pocketbook and additional work needs to be done to identify age and size at sexual maturity, recruitment success, age class structure, and other important parameters.

Research is needed to assess the success of watershed protection on mussel populations. Abundance and distribution of selected species needs to be monitored in order to ascertain how species abundance changes over time. From that we can assess what land-use changes, conservation practices, and physical/chemical parameters are correlated with, and possibly responsible for, the biological changes.

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: 28Apr2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2009); Whittaker, J.C.; Cummings, K.S. (1998)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 08Jun2007
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
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. and J.J. Jenkinson. 1991. Distribution and abundance of Potamilus capax and other freshwater mussels in the St. Francis River system, Arkansas and Missouri, U.S.A. Walkerana, 5(14): 225-261.

  • Baker, F.C. 1928b. The freshwater Mollusca of Wisconsin: Part II. Pelecypoda. Bulletin of the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, University of Wisconsin, 70(2): 1-495.

  • Branson, B.A. 1983. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part II: the Unioninae, Pleurobemini, and Anodontini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 63: 49-59

  • Bright, R. C., C. Gatenby, D. Olson, and E. Plummer. 1990. A survey of the mussels of the Minnesota River, 1989. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 106 pp.

  • COKER, R.E. AND J.B. SOUTHALL. 1915. MUSSEL RESOURCES IN TRIBUTARIES OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER. BUREAU OF FISHERIES DOCUMENT NO. 812. WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

  • Christian, A.D. 1995. Analysis of the commercial mussel beds in the Cache and White Rivers in Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 210 pp.

  • Clarke, A.H. 1981b. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 326:1-101.

  • Coker, R.E., A.F. Shira, H.W. Clark, and A.D. Howard. 1921. Natural history and propagation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 839] 37(1919-20):77-181 + 17 pls.

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5, Illinois. 194 pp.

  • Dawley, C. 1947. Distribution of aquatic mollusks in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 38:671-697.

  • Fuller, S. L. 1978. Fresh-water mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Upper Mississippi River: observations of selected sites within the 9-foot channel navigation project on behalf of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Report submitted to the USACE, No. 78-33. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Division of Limnology and Ecology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 401 pp.

  • Gordon, M.E., S.W. Chordas, G.L. Harp. and A.V. Brown. 1994. Aquatic Mollusca of the White River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas, U.S.A. Walkerana, 7(17/18): 1-9

  • Heard, W.H. 1970. Eastern freshwater mollusks. 1. The south Atlantic and Gulf drainages. In: A.H. Clarke (ed.) Rare and endangered molluscs of North America. Malacologia 10:1-56.

  • Horne, F.R. and S. McIntosh. 1979. Factors influencing distribution of mussels in the Blanco River of central Texas. The Nautilus 94(4):119-133.

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

  • Howells, R. G. 1994. Host fish determination. Info-Mussel Newsletter 2(2):3-4.

  • Howells, R.G. 1997b. New fish hosts for nine freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Texas. The Texas Journal of Science 49(3): 255-258.

  • Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.

  • Kelner, D. and M. Davis. 2002. Final report: Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Corridor, 2000-01. Contract report to the National Park Service, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area and The Great Lakes Network Inventory and Monitoring Program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Ecological Services, St. Paul, Minnmesota, July 2002. 43 pp. + app.

  • Kelner, D., M. Davis. 2002. Final report: mussel (Bivalvia:Unionidae) survey of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Corridor, 2000-01. Final report submitted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 44 pp. + appendices.

  • Kesler, D. H., D. Manning, N. Van Tol, L. Smith, and B. Sepanski. 2001. Freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the Wolf River in western Tennessee and Mississippi. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 76(1):38-46.

  • 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.

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

  • McGregor, S.W. and J.T. Garner. 2004. Changes in the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna of the Bear Creek system of northwest Alabama and northeast Mississippi. American Malacological Bulletin, 18(1/2): 61-70.

  • Meek, S. E., and H.W. Clark. 1912. The mussels of the Big Buffalo Fork of White River, Arkansas. Report and Special Papers of the U.S. Fish Commission [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 759] 1911:1-20.

  • 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.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1912. Notes upon the families and genera of the najades. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 8(2):222-365.

  • PERKINS, KEITH III AND DOUGLAS C. BACKLUND. 2000. FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF THE MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER BELOW GAVINS POINT DAM, SOUTH DAKOTA AND NEBRASKA. SD GFP REPORT 2000-1.

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

  • Parmalee, P.W. 1967. The freshwater mussels of Illinois. Illinois State Museum, Popular Science Series 8:1-108.

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

  • Perkins III, K. and D.C. Backlund. 2003. A survey for winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) and scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) in the James River, South Dakota. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota, Report GFP 2003-17. 21 pp.

  • Posey, W.R., III, J.L. Harris, and G.L. Harp. 1996b. An evaluation of the mussel community in the Lower Ouachita River. Report to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas. 28 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.

  • Sietman, B. E. 2003. Field guide to the freshwater mussels of Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 144 pp.

  • Simpson, C.T. 1899. The pearly fresh-water mussels of the United States; their habits, enemies, and diseases, with suggestions for their protection. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 413] 18(1898):279-288.

  • Simpson, C.T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiades, or pearly freshwater mussels. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 22(1205): 501-1044.

  • Skadsen, D.R. and K. Perkins III. 2000. Unionid mussels of the Big Sioux River and tributaries: Moody, Minnehaha, Lincoln, and Union Counties, South Dakota. GFP Report 2000-9 to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 52 pp.

  • Smith, P.W. 1971. Illinois streams: A classification based on their fishes and an analysis of factors responsible for disappearance of native species. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 76:1-14.

  • Snyder, N. and H. Snyder. 1969. A comparative study of mollusk predation by Limpkins, Everglade Kites, and Boat-tailed Grackles. Eighth Annual Report of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology 8:177-223.

  • 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.

  • Surber, T. 1913. Notes on the natural hosts of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, 32: 101-116.

  • 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.

  • Utterback, W.I. 1915. The naiades of Missouri. I-IV. American Midland Naturalist, 4(2): 41-53, (3): 97-152, (4): 181-204, (5): 244-273.

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

  • 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, R. S. Butler, K. S. Cummings, J. T. Garner, J. L. Harris, N. A. Johnson, and G. T. Watters. 2017. A revised list of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20:33-58.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Williams, J.D., S.L.H. Fuller, and R. Gracea. 1992a. Effects of impoundment on freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 13:1-10.

  • Wilson, C. B. 1916. Copepod parasites of fresh-water fishes and their economic relations to mussel glochidia. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 824], 34: 333-374 + 15 plates.

  • van der Schalie, H., and A. van der Schalie. 1950. The mussels of the Mississippi River. American Midland Naturalist 44:448-464.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Backlund, D.C. 2000. Summary of current known distribution and status of freshwater mussels (Unionoida) in South Dakota. Central Plains Archaeology, 8(1): 69-77.

  • Brown, K.M. and P.D. Banks. 2001. The conservation of unionid mussels in Louisiana rivers: diversity, assemblage composition and substrate use. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 11(3): 189-198.

  • Christian, A.D., J.L. Harris, W.R. Posey, J.F. Hockmuth, and G.L. Harp. 2005. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) assemblages of the lower Cache River, Arkansas. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(3): 487-512.

  • 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.

  • 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 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.

  • Gordon, M.E. 1982. Mollusca of the White River, Arkansas and Missouri. The Southwestern Naturalist, 27(3): 347-352.

  • Gordon, M.E. 1991. Aquatic mollusca of the Rough River in the vicinity of the Fort Hartford Mine site, Ohio County, Kentucky. Unpublished final report for Environmental and Safety Designs, Memphis, Tennessee, 6 July 1991. 10 pp.

  • Hoke, E. 2005a. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidea) of northern Nebraska: the Missouri, Niobrara, and White River basins. American Malacological Bulletin, 20: 27-35.

  • Howells, R.G., R.W. Neck, and H.D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Press: Austin, Texas. 218 pp.

  • Martinez, A.D., D.E. Spooner, T.G. Adornato, S.Y. Dudding, and C.C. Vaughn. 2004. Occurrence of the rock pocketbook mussel, Arcidens confragosus (Bivalvia: Unionidae), in the Poteau and Deep Fork Rivers of Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academyu of Science, 84: 79-80.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., et al. 2004a. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.

  • 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.

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

  • Sietman, B.E. 2003. Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: St. Paul, Minnesota. 144 pp.

  • Sietman, B.E., S.D. Whitney, D.E. Kelner, K.D. Blodgett, and H.L. Dunn. 2001. Post-extirpation recovery of the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna in the Upper Illinois River. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 16(2): 273-281.

  • Vaughn, C.C. and D.E. Spooner. 2004. Status of the mussel fauna of the Poteau River and implications for commercial harvest. American Midland Naturalist, 152: 336-346.

  • Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Gail Q. Vidrine Collectibles: Eunice, Louisiana. xii + 225 pp. + 20 plates.

  • 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.

  • Wolf, C. and B. Stark. 2008. Survey of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) in the Marais des Cygnes River, Fall River, and Grouse Creek. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 111(1/2):1-20.

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 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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.