Cambarus jezerinaci - Thoma, 2000
Spiny Scale Crayfish
Other English Common Names: Powell River Crayfish
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Cambarus jezerinaci Thoma, 2000 (TSN 650405)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.115905
Element Code: ICMAL07940
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Crustaceans - Crayfishes
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Crustacea Malacostraca Decapoda Cambaridae Cambarus
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Thoma, R.F. 2000. Cambarus (Jugicambarus) jezerinaci (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae), a new species of crayfish from the Powell River drainage of Tennessee and Virginia. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 113:731-738.
Concept Reference Code: A00THO01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Cambarus jezerinaci
Taxonomic Comments: Kentucky populations of Cambarus parvoculus may actually be Cambarus jezerinaci according to preliminary genetic data from Roger Thoma (Taylor and Schuster, 2004; C. Taylor, pers. comm., 2008). Recent genetic analysis has revealed that C. jezerinaci and C. parvoculus are separate species with Virginia populations of C. jezerinaci showing considerable genetic difference from Kentucky populations and rostral morphology also indicating the species are separate (Thoma and Fetzner, 2008). Other previously mentioned character states (Thoma, 2000) and potential new character states were investigated and were found to not be significantly different for the two nominal species. A third, genetically distinct species has been discovered, currently retained as C. jezerinaci, in an area between the ranges of C. jezerinaci and C. parvoculus in Tennessee between Pine and Cumberland Mountains (Thoma and Fetzner, 2008).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 31Aug2011
Global Status Last Changed: 08Jul2009
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: This species was recently described. Range extent will inevitably vary (anywhere from 1000 to 5000 sq. km) depending on taxonomic uncertainty in populations from Tennessee/Virginia as compared to populations in Kentucky, although it appears Kentucky populations are, in fact, this species after all. Even though it has a semi-restricted range, the species probably occurs in many high gradient head-water streams which are not immediately threatened with mining activities. Some populations in Virginia are declining due to forestry activities as well as declines near the Tennessee/Virginia line due to mining. Further taxonomic work is needed to differentiate a population in Virginia similar to Cambarus parvunculus but falling more within the current range of Cambarus jezerinaci.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3 (08Jul2009)

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 Kentucky (SU), Tennessee (SNA), Virginia (S2)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: DD - Data deficient
American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (01Aug2007)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species was originally thought to be confined to small tributaries of the Powell River in Lee County, Virginia and Clairborne County, Tennessee (Thoma, 2000). Thoma and Fetzner (2008) modified this range to include a much wider distribution to encompass the waters of the Cumberland River upstream of the confluence of Clear Fork, Williamsburg, Kentucky; the upper reaches of the Kentucky River adjacent to Pine Mountain; and the Powell River basin in Lee Co., Virginia and Claiborne Co., Tennessee including adjacent Cumberland Mountain. Kentucky populations, now differentiated from C. parvoculus, are found in the upper Cumberland River above Pine Mountain and Kentucky River headwaters (R. Thoma, pers. comm., 2009; Thoma and Fetzner, 2008).

Area of Occupancy:  
Area of Occupancy Comments: The Extent of Occurrence of this species has been estimated to exceed 5600 sq. km.

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Tennessee it occurs in the Ridge and Valley province in the Powell River, on a tributary of Mill Hollow, east of Bacchus, Claiborne Co. (Williams and Bivens, 2001). In Virginia it occurs in two counties (including Lee Co.) in the Powell River basin in streams abutting Cumberland and Stone Mountain only. A third Virginia population in the South Fork Powell River of Wise Co., Virginia, is morphologically similar somewhat to C. parvoculus but is far separated from nominal C. parvoculus populations but has not been analyzed genetically; therefore it is currently placed tentatively in C. jezerinaci (Thoma and Fetzner, 2008). Kentucky populations are found in the upper Cumberland River above Pine Mountain and Kentucky River headwaters (R. Thoma, pers. comm., 2009). To date, no Virginia populations have been found outside of Lee Co. despite the existence of suitable habitat east of the Powell River; so Virginia populations are at this time confined to to streams abutting Cumberland and Stone Mountains in Lee Co. (Thoma and Fetzner, 2008).

Population Size: Unknown
Population Size Comments: There is little population data available for this species, although there are some noted declines in Virginia populations (R. Thoma, pers. comm., 2009).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Overall Threat Impact: Unknown
Overall Threat Impact Comments: There are some declines in Virginia populations due to forestry activities as well as declines near the Tennessee/Virginia line due to mining (R. Thoma, pers. comm., 2009). It is likely to be undergoing localized declines due to climate change, water pollution and alterations to the hydrological regime. Even though it has a semi-restricted range, the species probably occurs in many high gradient head-water streams which are not immediately threatened with mining activities.

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: There are some declines in Virginia populations due to forestry activities as well as declines near the Tennessee/Virginia line due to mining (R. Thoma, pers. comm., 2009). Overall, it appears populations are relatively stable for this recently described species (Taylor et al., 2007).

Long-term Trend: Unknown
Long-term Trend Comments: This species was recently described.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)) This species was originally thought to be confined to small tributaries of the Powell River in Lee County, Virginia and Clairborne County, Tennessee (Thoma, 2000). Thoma and Fetzner (2008) modified this range to include a much wider distribution to encompass the waters of the Cumberland River upstream of the confluence of Clear Fork, Williamsburg, Kentucky; the upper reaches of the Kentucky River adjacent to Pine Mountain; and the Powell River basin in Lee Co., Virginia and Claiborne Co., Tennessee including adjacent Cumberland Mountain. Kentucky populations, now differentiated from C. parvoculus, are found in the upper Cumberland River above Pine Mountain and Kentucky River headwaters (R. Thoma, pers. comm., 2009; Thoma and Fetzner, 2008).

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 KY, TN, VA

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
VA Buchanan (51027), Dickenson (51051), Lee (51105), Wise (51195)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 Upper Levisa (05070202)+
06 Powell (06010206)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
General Description: From Thoma (2000): Body pigmented. Eyes small. Carapace subcylindrical, slightly dorsoventrally flattened. Rostrum with straight, slightly convergent margins, thickened, without marginal spines or tubercles, abruptly curved cephalically, terminating in upturned corneous acumen. Areola 2.7-5.5 times longer than wide, comprising 33-37% of total length of carapace, bearing 1 to 5 punctuations across narrowest part. Cervical spine and tubercles absent. Cervical groove continuous or interrupted. Suborbital angle acute, with blunt spine. Postorbital ridge without cephalic spine or tubercle. Branchiostegal spine reduced to small knob. Antennal scale approximately 2.3 times as long as broad, usually broadest at base; distomesial margin strongly converging on lateral margin to form spine on distal end. Basipodite and ischium of antenna lacking spine. Chela lacking tubercles on dorsal and ventral surfaces, length 75% of total carapace length in Form I males, 74% in females, 1 row of 5-8 cristiform tubercles along mesial margin of palm and dorsopalmar furrow running from median dactyl articulation to mesial side of propodus articulation with carpus. Lateral margin of propodus smooth, not impressed at dorsal or ventral surface; longitudinal ridges on finger of dorsal propodus moderately developed, weakly developed on dactyl; dactyl 1.2-1.6 times longer than mesial margin of palm; palm width 40-52% of chela length; palm length 70-93% of chela width; row of 4 enlarged tubercles on opposable margin of propodus finger, second tubercle from base largest; opposable margin of dactyl with row of 3 enlarged tubercles, middle tubercle smallest; lacking subpalmar tubercles; lacking cluster of elongated setae at base of propodus finger. Dorsomesial margin of carpus of chela with 1 distal spine and 1 proximal blunt tubercle; ventral surface with 1 conical tubercle, occasionally none. Ventrolateral ridge of merus usually with 2 or 3 spines. Copulatory hook only on ischium of third pereiopod of male. Boss on ischium of fourth pereiopod well developed. Forst pleopods of Form I male continuous at base, with 2 short terminal elements bent at angle greater than 90 Deg. to main shaft; corneous central projection truncated distally, bearing conspicuous subapical notch; mesial process inflated, tapering distally; Form II male pleopods non-corneous, terminal elements more bulbous than Form I male and bent at angle greater than 90 Deg. to main shaft. Females with annulus ventralis deeply embedded in sternum, asymmetrical and having a rounded diamond shaped outline, slightly movable, without cephalolateral prominence.
Diagnostic Characteristics: From Thoma (2000): The species exhibits color morphs of red and blue. Red morph individuals grade from a dark brown abdomen to a lighter brown cephalothorax suffused with orange anterior to the cervical groove. Chelae primarily orange mottled with brown, having brown bands on the distal dorsal carpus and merus areas and around the dactyl/propodus joint. Knobs, tubercles, and chela tips orange, the enlarged tubercle of opposable margin of propodus yellow, distal spines of fingers chestnut brown. Merus and distal prodomeres of walking legs brown with slight blue tint dorsally and ventrally, orange bands at articulations, podomeres proximal to merus brown dorsally and cream-orange ventrally. Ventral surface of cephalothorax and abdomen white; ventral surface of chela, carpus, and distal merus of first walking legs orange and ventral telson and uropods brown. Eggs of ovigerous females purple. Blue morph individuals concolorous gray-blue dorsally, grading cream to white ventrally; chela tips cream-orange.

It is most similar morphologically to Cambarus parvoculus, buttends to be smaller (male I carapace length 21.5 mm vs. 28.5 mm; male II carapace length 21.6 mm vs. 25.3 mm; female carapace length 23.4 mm vs. 26.6 mm). It can be distinguished from other subgenera in Cambarus by the presence of a cristiform row of tubercles on the mesial palm of the chela. It differs from all other species in subgenus Jugicambarus in its unique tuberculation of the opposable margins of the chela fingers. No other species has an enlarged second tubercle on the opposable propodus and enlarged first and third tubercles on the opposable dactyl. The absence of setae on the chela distinguishes it from many members of Jugicambarus and the thickened rostral margins abruptly angled at the cephalic terminus (90 Deg.) to form an acumen, a generally smaller body size, reduced dorsal and ventral ridging of the chelate fingers, reduced lateral impression of the chela, immovable fingers having only four enlarged tubercles, a propodus equal in length to the palm length, and an oval-shaped chela outline also aid in separating the species (Thoma, 2000). Further examination of morphological characters used to differentiate C. jezerinaci from C. parvoculus indicates variation in the two species is wider than previously thought and that the rostral margin character state is the most reliable character for separating the two (Thoma and Fetzner, 2008). C. jezerinaci has rostral margins that appear thickened or inflated throughout their length that terminate abruptly at the distal end and form an acute angle of 90 Deg. while C. parvoculus has rostral margins that are thickest at their base, thinned and not appearing thickened or inflated at the distal end and forming a gradual angle of approximately 45 Deg. at the distal-most portion.

Length below is maximum carapace length.

Reproduction Comments: Collections have been made in March, April, and August; with Form I males observed in April and ovigerous females in April and March (Thoma, 2000). Other attributed of life history remain unknown.
Ecology Comments: The related Cambarus parvoculus has been collected with Cambarus buntingi, Cambarus distans, and Orconectes cristavarius (Taylor and Schuster, 2004).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: No species specific information is available, but emigration from an established population generally only occurs as the holding capacity of the habitat is exceeded. Juvenile and immature individuals are forced to migrate in order to locate and colonize a suitable habitat. The other main cause of emigration is response to adverse environmental conditions (Hogger, 1988). Female Orconectes virilis were found to migrate to deeper water during summer either due to increased aggression by males or to environmental triggers causing the females to migrate to darker, cooler waters to facilitate gonadal maturation (Momot and Gowing, 1972).
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, High gradient, SPRING/SPRING BROOK
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic, Burrowing in or using soil
Habitat Comments: This species apparently prefers first- and second-order, spring-fed streams of higher altitude and high gradient (secondary burrower) (Thoma 2000). It is a secondary burrower.
Adult Food Habits: Carnivore, Detritivore, Herbivore, Scavenger
Food Comments: Specific information on diet is lacking for this species. General food and feeding information below was derived largely from Goddard (1988). Generally, crayfish occupy low trophic levels, feeding primarily on aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation, benthic invertebrates and associated detritus. Submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation and terrestrial vegetation (leaf litter) may comprise a major element in natural diets of adult crayfish; but prey organisms such as mollusks, aquatic insect larvae, worms, small crustaceans, amphibian tadpoles, and cannibalism on other crayfish also comprise diet of many species. In natural crayfish populations, detritus (i.e., bacteria, fungi, algae, and protozoans) has also been shown to account for a significant proportion of crayfish diets.
Phenology Comments: Even the most basic aspects of life history and phenology information for this species are lacking. It is estimated that most Kentucky crayfish species live from two to three years (Taylor and Schuster, 2004).
Length: 3 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Crayfishes

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 without signs of external weathering or staining), at a given location with potentially recurring existence. 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.
Separation Barriers: Separation barriers are based on hydrological discontinuity. Additional physical barriers, particularly for secondary and tertiary burrowers, include presence of upland habitat between water connections of a distance greater than 30 m. Migration of primary burrowers is generally not hindered by presence of upland habitat unless conditions are very xeric (dry and desert-like) (Smith, 2001).
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 2 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: Freshwater cave (troglobitic) species may occur from near entrances to very deep in cave systems. For cave species, each cave where an observation or collection was recorded (see Minimum EO Criteria, above) constitutes an element occurrence regardless of separation distance unless caves are part of a single hydrological system (see below). Occurrences are additionally separated by underground physical barriers to movement. Multiple caves within a single hydrological cave system are considered to be a single element occurrence when they are less than one km apart. Multiple caves within a single hydrological cave system are considered separate element occurrences when hydrological connections have not been determined or when separated by a distance of at least one km.
Separation Justification: Habitat for these creatures is primarily separated according to each species' burrowing ability. All crayfish are able to burrow to some extent and this ability will help determine the range of habitats in which a species can be found. Burrowing in the Astacidae is limited to streambed and bank excavation (Hobbs, 1988). The Cambaridae, as a whole are much more adept at burrowing than the Astacidae. As a result, they possess a greater habitat range than the Astacidae including dry water bodies (Hogger, 1988).

The burrowers can be classified into three categories: primary burrowers, secondary burrowers, and tertiary burrowers. Primary burrowers tend to remain in their burrows continuously and live in areas without permanent water except during breeding when they must migrate to a nearby water source (Hogger, 1988). The prairies of eastern and central Mississippi and western Alabama are an example of primary burrower habitat (Hogger, 1988). Secondary burrowers remain in burrows during dry periods but emerge when habitats are inundated seasonally. Such habitat includes lentic systems flooded periodically but dry in summer (Huner and Romaire, 1979) and permanent and temporary ponds and swamps in the southern United States. Tertiary burrowers do not burrow except during infrequent drought conditions and/or during breeding season. Both flowing and standing water can be tertiary burrower habitat.

Because primary burrowers, and to a lesser extent secondary burrowers, can occupy xeric habitats, separation barriers for such species do not include presence of upland habitat except in extremely dry conditions. Survival during dry periods, particularly for secondary burrowers, is dependent upon construction of a burrow regardless of season. Several different types have been described (Smith, 2001) depending on species, soil, and depth of water table.

Published information about movement in relation to migration distance is lacking but Cooper (1998, personal communication) and Fitzpatrick (1998, personal communication) both recommend a separation distance of one km between element occurrences. Dispersal patterns are best known for invasive species which likely have the greatest dispersal capability, therefore, separation distances have been determined for all crayfish based on these studies. Guan and Wiles (1997) provided evidence from the River Great Ouse in the United Kingdom that the range of movement for the majority of the invasive Pacifastacus leniusculus was within 190 m. Bubb et al. (2004) also studied P. leniusculus in England using radio-tagging and found median maximal upstream and downstream movement distances were 13.5 m (range 0-283 m) and 15 m (range 0-417 m), respectively. Barbaresi et al. (2004) found that ranging speed in the invasive crayfish Procambarus clarkii (Girard) to be slow (0.3 to 76.5 m/day) with the widest ranging individual traveling 304 m. Lewis and Horton (1996) found that 21% of tagged Pacifastacus leniusculus in an Oregon harvest pond moved >1000 m in one year while the majority moved <500 m. As such minimum separation distance (unsuitable and suitable) has been set at the NatureServe standard minimum of two km.

Exposed pools and streams in caves represent "karst windows" into more extensive underground streams. No information on the distance cave crayfish can disperse in underground streams is yet available.

Date: 18Oct2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: Primary burrowers include the following taxa: Cambarus (Cambarus) carolinus, C. (C.) diogenes diogenes, C. (Depressicambarus) catagius, C. (D.) cymatilis, C. (D.) deweesae, C. (D.) harti, C. (D.) reflexus, C. (D.) pyronotus, C. (D.) striatus, C. (D.) strigosus, C. (D.) truncatus, C. (Glareocola), C. (Jugicambarus) batchi, C. (J.) carolinus, C. (J.) causeyi, C. (J.) dubius, C. (J.) gentryi, C. (J.) monongalensis, C. (J.) nodosus, C. (Lacunicambarus), C. (Tubericambarus), Distocambarus, Fallicambarus, Procambarus (Acucauda), P. (Distocambarus), P. (Girardiella) barbiger, P. (G.) cometes, P. (G.) connus, P. (G.) curdi, P. (G.) gracilis, P. (G.) hagenianus hagenianus, P. (G.) hagenianus vesticeps, P. (G.) liberorum, P. (G.) pogum, P. (Hagenides) [except P. pygmaeus]
Secondary burrowers include the following taxa: Cambarus (Cambarus) ortmanni, C. (Depressicambarus) latimanus, C. (D.) reduncus, Hobbseus, Procambarus (Cambarus) clarkii, P. (Girardiella) kensleyi, P. (G.) reimeri, P. (G.) simulans, P. (G.) steigmani, P. (G.) tulanei, P. (Hagenides) pygmaeus, P. (Leconticambarus) [excepting P. alleni and P. milleri], P. (Ortmannicus) [excepting the cave dwelling species], P. (Tenuicambarus)
Tertiary burrowers include the following taxa: Barbicambarus, Bouchardina, Cambarus (Cambarus) angularis, C. (C.) bartonii carinirostris, C. (C.) bartonii cavatus, C. (C.) howardi, C. (C.) sciotensis, C. (Depressicambarus) englishi, C. (D.) graysoni, C. (D.) halli, C. (D.) obstipus, C. (D.) sphenoides, C. (Erebicambarus) ornatus, C. (E.) rusticiformis, C. (Exilicambarus) cracens, C. (Hiaticambarus), C. (Jugicambarus) asperimanus, C. (J.) bouchardi, C. (J.) crinipes, C. (J.) distans, C. (J.) friaufi, C. (J.) obeyensis, C. (J.) parvoculus, C. (J.) unestami, C. (Puncticambarus) [excepting the cave dwelling species], C. (Veticambarus), Cambarellus, Faxonella, Orconectes [excepting the cave dwelling species], Pacifastacus, Procambarus (Capillicambarus), P. (Girardiella) ceruleus, P.

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: 31Aug2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 31Aug2011
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
  • Crandall, K. A., and S. De Grave. 2017. An updated classification of the freshwater crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidea) of the world, with a complete species list. Journal of Crustacean Biology (2017):1-39.

  • Guiasu, R.C. 2009. Conservation, status, and diversity of the crayfishes of the genus Cambarus Erichson, 1846 (Decapoda, Cambaridae). Crustaceana 82(6):721-742.

  • Hogger, J.B. 1988. Ecology, population biology and behaviour. Chapter 5, pages 114-144 In D.M. Holdich and R.S. Lowery (eds.) Freshwater Crayfish. Biology, Management and Exploitation. Croom Helm: London, and Timber Press: Portland, Oregon. 498 pp.

  • McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien, A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard, E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R. Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M. Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte, F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.

  • Momot, W.T. and G.H. Gowing. 1972. Differential seasonal migration of the crayfish Orconectes virilis (Hagen) in marl lakes. Ecology 53:479-483.

  • Taylor, C.A. and G.A. Schuster. 2004. The Crayfishes of Kentucky. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication, 28: viii + 210 pp.

  • Taylor, C.A., G.A. Schuster, J.E. Cooper, R.J. DiStefano, A.G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H.H. Hobbs III, H.W. Robison, C.E. Skelton, and R.F. Thoma. 2007. A reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):371-389.

  • Thoma, R.F. 2000. Cambarus (Jugicambarus) jezerinaci (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae), a new species of crayfish from the Powell River drainage of Tennessee and Virginia. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 113:731-738.

  • Thoma, R.F. and J.W. Fetzner, Jr. 2008. Taxonomic status of Cambarus (Jugicambarus) jezerinaci, spiny scale crayfish (Powell River crayfish). Report submitted to Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia. Unpaginated.

  • Williams, C.E. and R.D. Bivens. 2001. Annotated list of the crayfishes of Tennessee. Open file report (April 2001) of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Talbott, Tennessee. Available: http://www.homestead.com/twra4streams/files/Crayfish.PDF

  • Williams, C.E., R.D. Bivens, and B.D. Carter. 2001a. Key to the crayfishes of Tennessee, abstracted from H.H. Hobbs Jr. 1972, H.H. Hobbs, jr. 1981, and Bouchard 1978 and an annotated list of the crayfishes of Tennessee. Report to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Talbott, Tennessee. April 2001 (updated August 2007). 76 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 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.