Chenopodium foggii - H.A. Wahl
Fogg's Goosefoot
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Chenopodium foggii H.A. Wahl (TSN 20605)
French Common Names: chénopode de Fogg
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.156358
Element Code: PDCHE090J0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Goosefoot Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Caryophyllales Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Chenopodium foggii
Taxonomic Comments: First described in 1954; subject to taxonomic confusion ever since. Lumped with the western native (eastern adventive) C. pratericola by some treatments (e.g. Gleason and Cronquist 1991). Others have considered it a depauperate form of C. standleyanum (per Flora of North America 2005). Moreover, some C. foggii records were previously identified as C. boscianum. According to Haines (2001), some treatments incorrectly state that the species has a tightly adherent pericarp, even though the type description described the pericarp as "freely separable from the seed;" this error may have caused past confusion. Furthermore, Flora of North America (2005) believes that clearlydistinct C. foggii material is restricted to eastern North America (QC and ON south to PA and VA); the species has also been reported from the upper Midwest (MN, IL, IA), but the Flora of North America authors believe those reports to represent C. standleyanum or C. pratericola instead. According to Flora of North America (2005), eastern C. foggii material , "while rare, does appear distinct because of its keeled perianth segments and sparse farinose hairs as well as its narrowly ovate to ovate leaves and smaller inflorescence." Kartesz (1999) and Haines (2001) also recognize it as a distinct species.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 15Sep2016
Global Status Last Changed: 24Jun2008
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: A poorly known and overlooked species due to confusion regarding its taxonomy and identification. Currently, this species is believed extant at just 15 scattered sites in southeastern Ontario, southern Quebec, southwestern Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, western Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. Also recorded in western Virginia and eastern New York, but no occurrences have been mapped in those states. One historical specimen is known from Connecticut and one from western North Carolina. This species has also been reported from the upper Midwest, but Flora of North America considers those reports to be erroneous. Further field and herbarium inventory will very likely reveal additional sites. Even at known sites, however, the species appears to be rare and local; extrapolation from available census data suggests that the total population at the 15 extant sites may not be more than 1200 individuals. Known threats include forest maturation and canopy closure, competition from invasive plant species, and trampling and erosion due to recreational activities.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2N3
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2N3 (20Nov2017)

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 Connecticut (SNR), Maine (S1), Massachusetts (S1), New Hampshire (S1), New York (SU), North Carolina (SH), Pennsylvania (S1), Vermont (S1), Virginia (SU)
Canada Ontario (S2?), Quebec (S2)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Candidate (Medium) (26Jan2015)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Some question as to the range of this species. Known from southwestern Maine through New Hampshire and Vermont to western Massachusetts, Wahl (1954) apparently determined C. foggii specimens from Rennsalaer and West Chester counties, NY, but the species is currently considered "reported but unconfirmed" by the New York Natural Heritage Program, so these records should be verified. Haines and Newcomer (2002) report the recent discovery of a specimen from Connecticut, collected in 1932 in New Haven County. Also known from Pennsylvania, where confirmed extant in at least Clinton County, with some hope of re-locating occurrences in Carbon, Luzerne, and Pike counties; the Monroe County occurrence has been extirpated, and the status of possible records from Bradford (Rhoads and Klein 1993) and Berks (Wahl 1954) counties is unknown. Also known from numerous sites in the southeastern portion of Ontario and from adjacent southern Quebec. In addition, Wahl (1954) noted somewhat disjunct specimens from the mountains of western Virginia (Rockingham and Giles counties) and western North Carolina (Haywood County); the North Carolina site is historical, but the status of the Virginia sites is unknown. The biggest question concerns C. foggii reports from the upper Midwest; the species has apparently been reported at various times from Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana (Kartesz 2008). However, Flora of North America (2005) states "we believe that the citations for the upper Midwest represent either C. standleyanum or C. pratericola. Material from New England of C. foggii, while rare, does appear distinct..."; Flora of North America thus does not include the upper Midwest in the distribution of C. foggii, a view that is adopted here.

Area of Occupancy: 6-25 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Using a 2 x 2 km grid, the 15 scattered extant occurrences occupy a maximum of 60 km2, possibly slightly less.

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Approximately 15 occurrences are believed extant (NatureServe Network Database as of September 2016). In addition, Wahl (1954) apparently knew of specimens from two counties in New York and two counties in Virginia; neither of these states currently tracks the species, and its current status at those locations is unknown. Assumed historical in Connecticut, where the only known specimen was collected in New Haven in 1932 (Haines and Newcomer 2002). Additional occurrences are expected to be found with renewed effort to locate this species; Haines and Newcomer (2002) note that "confusion with the adventive C. pratericola has likely contributed to its being overlooked in the northeast."

Population Size Comments: Nine of the 15 believed extant populations have census data available. These data reveal that many populations are small; 5 of the 9 have counts of 10 or fewer plants. The largest known population appears to be in Quebec and is estimated to contain 250-500 plants (J. Labrecque pers. comm. 2008). Few Ontario populations have been counted, but in general the species "seems to be rare and local and known from scattered sites; perhaps most common in the Leeds County area of southeastern Ontario" (M. Oldham pers. comm. 2008). Counted populations total 322-675 plants; assuming similar numbers for the remaining populations yields a total population estimate of 572-1200 plants.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few (1-3)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Eight of the 15 believed extant occurrences have been assessed for viability; of these eight, only two are believed to have good viability and none are believed to have excellent viability. Many of the unassessed occurrences have field comments such as "uncommon" and "scarce."

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: This species appears to prefer at least partially open habitats. Forest maturation and canopy closure, resulting from a lack of natural or anthropogenic disturbance, is thus a threat at some sites (MA NHESP 2007, J. Garrett pers. comm. 2008). Competition or shading from invasive non-native plant species may also be an issue for some occurrences. Some populations are located near recreational trails, where additional threats may include trampling and erosion or damage from trail maintenance activities (MA NHESP 2007). Other plant species preferring similar calcareous rock habitats have been impacted by rock climbers; this species may be subject to similar impacts at rocky sites (USFS 2005). Nevertheless, this species' apparent ability to tolerate at least some forms of disturbance may allow it to cope with some of the human uses of its habitats (J. Labrecque pers. comm. 2008).

Short-term Trend Comments: Presumed to be stable in Quebec (J. Labrecque pers. comm. 2008). One of the Massachusetts populations is currently declining due to successional overgrowth, but planned management operations are expected to restore or possibly expand population size and extent at this location (J. Garrett pers. comm. 2008). Little trend information available from elsewhere in the range.

Long-term Trend:  
Long-term Trend Comments: Literature and local experts indicate it is rare or uncommon everywhere, but whether that is a natural condition or due to a population decline is unknown (USFS 2005). A significant proportion of known occurrences are ranked Historical, but it is possible that at least some of these are still extant and simply await re-survey. Just one site is believed extirpated, caused by forest succession and the elimination of openings favored by the species.

Environmental Specificity Comments: May be limited by availability of rocky calcareous substrates, at least in some parts of its range (USFS 2005).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Some question as to the range of this species. Known from southwestern Maine through New Hampshire and Vermont to western Massachusetts, Wahl (1954) apparently determined C. foggii specimens from Rennsalaer and West Chester counties, NY, but the species is currently considered "reported but unconfirmed" by the New York Natural Heritage Program, so these records should be verified. Haines and Newcomer (2002) report the recent discovery of a specimen from Connecticut, collected in 1932 in New Haven County. Also known from Pennsylvania, where confirmed extant in at least Clinton County, with some hope of re-locating occurrences in Carbon, Luzerne, and Pike counties; the Monroe County occurrence has been extirpated, and the status of possible records from Bradford (Rhoads and Klein 1993) and Berks (Wahl 1954) counties is unknown. Also known from numerous sites in the southeastern portion of Ontario and from adjacent southern Quebec. In addition, Wahl (1954) noted somewhat disjunct specimens from the mountains of western Virginia (Rockingham and Giles counties) and western North Carolina (Haywood County); the North Carolina site is historical, but the status of the Virginia sites is unknown. The biggest question concerns C. foggii reports from the upper Midwest; the species has apparently been reported at various times from Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana (Kartesz 2008). However, Flora of North America (2005) states "we believe that the citations for the upper Midwest represent either C. standleyanum or C. pratericola. Material from New England of C. foggii, while rare, does appear distinct..."; Flora of North America thus does not include the upper Midwest in the distribution of C. foggii, a view that is adopted here.

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CT, MA, ME, NC, NH, NY, PA, VA, VT
Canada ON, QC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
MA Berkshire (25003), Franklin (25011), Hampden (25013)*, Middlesex (25017)*
ME York (23031)
NC Haywood (37087)*
NH Carroll (33003), Cheshire (33005)*, Coos (33007)*, Grafton (33009)*
PA Carbon (42025)*, Clinton (42035), Luzerne (42079)*, Monroe (42089)*, Pike (42103)*
VT Orange (50017), Rutland (50021)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Saco (01060002)+, Merrimack (01070002)+, Nashua (01070004)+*, Waits (01080103)+*, Upper Connecticut-Mascoma (01080104)+, Black-Ottauquechee (01080106)+*, West (01080107)+*, Middle Connecticut (01080201)+, Westfield (01080206)+*, Housatonic (01100005)+
02 Middle Hudson (02020006)+*, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+*, Lehigh (02040106)+*, Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna (02050107)+*, Middle West Branch Susquehanna (02050203)+
04 Mettawee River (04150401)+*
06 Pigeon (06010106)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A short annual herb with alternate, narrowly egg-shaped leaves typically having one to a few irregular teeth at their base. Plants, especially the flowers, have a somewhat mealy appeared due to coverage by inflated, whitish hairs. Flowers are tiny, whitish, and occur in short clusters. Each fruit contains one black seed, covered by an easily separable outer layer.
General Description: An annual, sparingly branched herb 10-100 cm in height. Leaves are alternate and narrowly egg-shaped, 1-4 cm long and 5-18 mm wide, with the larger ones commonly wider than 10 mm. Leaves usually have one to a few variable teeth or lobes near the base. Flowers occur in short spikes; they are very small and have five keeled sepals. Both leaves and sepals are farinose (covered with whitish inflated hairs, resulting in a mealy texture). Fruits mature relatively uniformly on the plant. The fruit is small (1.0-1.3 mm long), thin-walled, one-seeded, and inflated, with a horizontal orientation. The sepals nearly or completely conceal the fruit. The pericarp (outer layer of the fruit) has minute spines and separates easily from the black seed. (Haines 2001, MNAP 2004, MA NHESP 2007)
Technical Description: From Flora of North America (2005): Stems erect, simple (or branched), 10-15(-100) cm, sparsely farinose. Leaves nonaromatic; petiole 0.4-0.7 cm; blade ovate-lanceolate, 3-veined, (1-)1.4-2.4(-4) x (0.05-)0.5-1.1(-2) cm, base cuneate, margins entire or with 1-2 teeth below middle (several teeth), apex acute to acuminate, farinose. Inflorescences glomerules in terminal and lateral spikes, 2.5-5(-7) cm; glomerules more or less spread out, maturing nearly the same time. Flowers: perianth segments 5, distinct nearly to base; lobes elliptic or narrowly ovate, 0.7-1 x 0.5-0.7 mm, apex acute, keeled, farinose, covering fruit at maturity; stamens 5; stigmas 2. Achenes or occasionally utricles ovoid; pericarp adherent, occasionally nonadherent, smooth. Seeds round, (1.1-)1.2(-1.4) mm in diameter, margins rounded; seed coat black, finely rugulate. 2n = 18.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Chenopodium foggii can be distinguished from the very similar C. pratericola by its narrow-ovate leaf blades 5-18 mm wide, the larger commonly wider than 10 mm (compared to principal leaves with linear to lanceolate or narrow-ovate blades that are usually (6.5-)7-9 mm wide). Leaves of C. foggii also usually possess some form of dentition or lobing, at least near the base, while dentition in C. pratericola leaves, if present at all, is usually restricted to a pair of small basal lobes. In addition, C. foggii leaves -tend to be thinner than those of C. pratericola. The native C. foggii also tends to occur in a different habitat type (rock outcrops, cliff bases, sparsely wooded slopes) than the adventive (western) C. pratericola (habitats with open, disturbed, often saline soil, such as coastal beaches and salted roadsides). Chenopodium foggii can be distinguished from the adventive (western) C. desiccatum by its leaves as well; C, dessicatum's linear to narrow-ovate leaf blades are much narrower (2-3 mm) than the narrow-ovate blades of C. foggii (5-18 mm wide, the larger commonly wider than 10 mm), and the leaves of C. dessicatum lack dentition. Chenopodium foggii can be distinguished from C. standleyanum by its keeled sepals (vs. unkeeled sepals) and farinose leaves and sepals (vs. nearly glabrous leaves and sepals). Also distinguished from C. standleyanum by its fruits maturing rather uniformly throughout the plant (vs. fruits in each cluster in markedly different stages of development). (Haines 2001, Haines and Newcomer 2002, Virginia Botanical Associates 2005)
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Bare rock/talus/scree, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Forest Edge, Forest/Woodland, Sand/dune, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Appears to prefer dry to mesic sandy and/or thin soils, often over circumneutral or calcareous bedrock. Occurs within open hardwood or mixed woodlands and forests (e.g. ironwood-oak-ash woodland, open red oak forest, pine-oak forest); can occur in naturally open sites, such as rocky slopes or clearings, or in occasionally disturbed areas such as forest edges, roadsides and timber harvest sites. Also occurs on open, rocky sites such as rock outcrops, rocky summits, balds, and cliff bases. Occasionally found on sand dunes with shrubs or light tree cover. Associated species include Achillea millefolium, Aquilegia canadensis, Carex backii, Carex cephaloidea, Carex cephalophora, Corydalis sempervirens, Dryopteris marginalis, Eragrostis capillaris, Hedeoma pulegioides, Hypericum perforatum, Juniperus virginiana, Poa compressa, Polygonum douglasii, Rhus typhina, Rubus occidentalis, Rumex acetosella, Saxifraga virginiensis, Schizachyrium scoparium, Stellaria graminea, Vitis riparia, and Woodsia obtusa. 100 - 1000 m.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Although the exact management needs of this species are not known, sites should be monitored for excessive shading caused by habitat succession and for encroachment by invasive plant species; canopy thinning or prescribed burning may be used to increase available light levels where needed (MA NHESP 2007). Stabilization and re-routing of trails may be helpful where recreational impacts (trampling or erosion) are a threat; signage to remind hikers to stay on trails could also be beneficial at such sites (USFS 2005, MA NHESP 2007).
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
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: 23Jan1998
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Morse, Larry E. (1998), rev. K. Gravuer (2008), rev. A. Tomaino (2016)

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Argus, G.W., K.M. Pryer, D.J. White and C.J. Keddy (eds.). 1982-1987. Atlas of the Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario.. Botany Division, National Museum of National Sciences, Ottawa.

  • Argus, G.W., K.M. Pryer, D.J. White et C.J. Keddy 1982-1987. Atlas des plantes vasculaires rares de l'Ontario. 4 parties. Musée national des sciences naturelles, Ottawa.

  • Bassett, I.J. and C.W. Crompton. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 55. Ambrosia trifida L.. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62: 1003-1010.

  • Clemants S. 1992. Chenopodiaceae and amaranthaceae of New York State. Bulletin 485, New York State Museum, Albany. 100pp.

  • Cody, W.J. 1982. A comparison of the northern limits of distribution of some vascular plant species found in Southern Ontario. Le Naturaliste canadien 109 : 63-90.

  • Cody, W.J. 1982. A comparison of the northern limits of distribution of some vascular plant species found in southern Ontario. Le Naturaliste Canadien 109: 63-90.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2003b. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 4, Magnoliophyta: Caryophyllidae, part 1. Oxford University Press, New York. 559 pp.

  • Haines, A. 2001. Identification and ecology of rare Chenopodium in Maine. Botanical Notes 5: 1-7. Online. Available: http://www.woodlotalt.com/publications/BotNotesv1n5.PDF

  • Haines, A. 2001c. Identification and ecology of rare Chenopodium in Maine. Botanical Notes 5: 1-7. Available at http://www.woodlotalt.com/publications/publications.htm.

  • Haines, A. and B.W. Newcomer. 2002. New records for Chenopodium foggii in New England. Rhodora 104(920):422-428.

  • Haines, A. and B.W. Newcomer. 2002. New records for Chenopodium foggii in New England. Rhodora 104(920):422-428.

  • Haines, A. and T.F. Vining. 1998. Flora of Maine, A Manual for Identification of Native and Naturalized Vascular Plants of Maine. V.F.Thomas Co., Bar Harbor, Maine.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

  • Kartesz, J.T.  2008. Synthesis of the North American Flora. 2nd Edition. CD-ROM computer application (review draft 2008). [in preparation]

  • Maine Department of Conservation, Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 2004, April last update. Rare Plant Fact Sheet: Chenopodium foggii. Online. Available: http://www.mainenaturalareas.org/docs/rare_plants/links/factsheets/Chenopodiumfoggii.pdf (Accessed 2008)

  • Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MA NHESP). 2007, June last update. Fact Sheet: Fogg's Goosefoot (Chenopodium foggii). Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA. Online. Available: http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/species_info/nhfacts/chenopodium_foggii.pdf (Accessed 2008).

  • Pryer, K.M. and G.W. Argus, eds. 1987. Atlas of the rare vascular plants of Ontario. Part 4. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, ON.

  • Rhoads, A.F. and T.A. Block. 2000. The Plants of Pennsylvania: An Illustrated Manual. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1061 pp.

  • Rhoads, A.F., and W.M. Klein, Jr. 1993. The vascular flora of Pennsylvania: Annotated checklist and atlas. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA. 636 pp.

  • U.S. Forest Service, Eastern Region (USFS). 2005. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan: Species Viability Evaluation. Laconia, NH. Online. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/projects/forest_plan_revision/SpeciesViablityEvaluation.php (Accessed 2008)

  • Virginia Botanical Associates. 2005. Digital atlas of the Virginia flora. Online. Available: http://www.biol.vt.edu/digital_atlas/

  • Wahl, H. A. 1954. A preliminary study of the genus Chenopodium in North America. Bartonia 27: 1-46.

  • Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Working draft of 11 January 2007. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. [http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm (accessed 2007)]

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.