Chrysemys dorsalis - Agassiz, 1857
Southern Painted Turtle
Synonym(s): Chrysemys picta dorsalis Agassiz, 1857
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Chrysemys picta dorsalis Agassiz, 1857 (TSN 208622)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102353
Element Code: ARAAD01012
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Turtles
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Chelonia Cryptodeira Emydidae Chrysemys
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 19. 41 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B90COL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Chrysemys picta dorsalis
Taxonomic Comments: Chrysemys dorsalis formerly was regarded as a subspecies of Chrysemys picta. Based on molecular data, Starkey et al. (2003) recognized C. dorsalis as a distinct species. This was adopted by Crother et al. (2008). Some herpetologists, citing apparent intergrades in western Kentucky, southern Illinois, and southeastern Missouri, still regard it as conspecific with C. picta.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 02May2005
Global Status Last Changed: 31Oct1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (26Feb2003)

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 (SNR), Arkansas (S3), Illinois (SNR), Kentucky (S2), Louisiana (S5), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (S4), Oklahoma (S2), Tennessee (S4), Texas (S1)

Other Statuses

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: Louisiana, eastern Texas, southeastern Oklahoma, Arkansas, southeastern Missouri, southern Illinois, western Kentucky, western Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama; precise range limits may be better defined after completion of ongoing studies (Starkey et al. 2003).

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Many occurrences.

Population Size: 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Many occurrences have good or excellent viability.

Overall Threat Impact: Low

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Likely stable but not really quantifiable.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Highly to moderately vulnerable.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Louisiana, eastern Texas, southeastern Oklahoma, Arkansas, southeastern Missouri, southern Illinois, western Kentucky, western Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama; precise range limits may be better defined after completion of ongoing studies (Starkey et al. 2003).

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, IL, KY, LA, MO, MS, OK, TN, TX

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe 2008


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
KY Carlisle (21039), Fulton (21075), Hickman (21105)
OK McCurtain (40089)*
TX Gregg (48183), Harrison (48203)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+, Bayou De Chien-Mayfield (08010201)+, Obion (08010202)+
11 Pecan-Waterhole (11140106)+*, Upper Little (11140107)+*
12 Middle Sabine (12010002)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Often more than one clutch/year in most of the range (often 4 in Louisiana). Clutch size averages 4 in Louisiana. Hatchlings usually winter in nest, emerge in spring. Females are sexually mature in 4 years in Louisiana. Males mature at younger ages.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool, SPRING/SPRING BROOK
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND, TEMPORARY POOL
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic, Burrowing in or using soil
Habitat Comments: Ponds, marshes, swamps, slowly flowing waters; areas with aquatic vegetation, relatively clear water, basking sites, and a soft bottom (Dundee and Rossman 1989).
Adult Food Habits: Carnivore, Herbivore, Invertivore, Scavenger
Immature Food Habits: Carnivore, Herbivore, Invertivore, Scavenger
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
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: 02May2005
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 26Feb2003
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

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

References
Help
  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Barbour, R. W. 1971. Amphibians and reptiles of Kentucky. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington. x + 334 pp.

  • Christens, E., and J. R. Bider. 1987. Nesting activity andhatching success of the painted turtle (CHRYSEMYS PICTA MARGINATA) in southwestern Quebec. Herpetologica 43:55-65

  • Christiansen, J. L., and E. O. Moll. 1973. Latitudinal reproductive variation in a single subspecies of painted turtle, CHRYSEMYS PICTA BELLII. Herpetologica 29:152-163.

  • Cliburn, J.W. 1976. A key to the amphibians and reptiles of Mississippi. Fourth edition. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi. 71 pp.

  • Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 19. 41 pp.

  • Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central North America. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 450 pp.

  • Congdon, J. D., and R. E. Gatten, Jr. 1989. Movements and energetics of nesting CHRYSEMYS PICTA. Herpetologica 45:94-100.

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 37:1-84.

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 37:1-84. Online with updates at: http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/comm_names/Index.php

  • DIXON, JAMES R. 1987. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OF TEXAS, WITH KEYS, TAXONOMIC SYNOPSES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, AND DISTRIBUTION MAPS. TEXAS A& M UNIV. PRESS, COLLEGE STATION. xii + 434 pp.

  • DeGraaf, R. M., and D. D. Rudis. 1983a. Amphibians and reptiles of New England. Habitats and natural history. Univ. Massachusetts Press. vii + 83 pp.

  • Dixon, J. R. 2000. Amphibians and reptiles of Texas. Second edition. Texas A & M University Press, College Station. 421 pp.

  • Dundee, H. A., and D. A. Rossman. 1989. The amphibians and reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

  • Dundee, H.E., and D.A. Rossman. 1989. The amphibians and reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. 300 pp.

  • ERNST, CARL H. 1971. CHRYSEMYS PICTA. CAT. AMER. AMPHIB. REPT.: 106.1-106.4.

  • Ernst, C. H. 1971. Chrysemys picta. Cat. Am. Amph. Rep. 106.1-106.4.

  • Ernst, C. H. 1988. CHRYSEMYS. Cat. Am. Amph. Rep. 438: 1-8.

  • Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington. x + 347 pp.

  • Frazer, N. B., J. W. Gibbons, and J. L. Greene. 1991. Growth, survivorship and longevity of painted turtles Chrysemys picta in a southwestern Michigan marsh. Am. Midl. Nat. 125:245-258.

  • GARRETT, JUDITH M. AND DAVID G. BARKER. 1987. A FIELD GUIDE TO REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF TEXAS. TEXAS MONTHLY PRESS, AUSTIN. xi + 225 pp.

  • Gibbons, J.W. 1968a. Population structure and survivorship in the painted turtle, Chrysemys picta. Copeia 1968(2): 260-268.

  • Iverson, J. B. 1991c. Patterns of survivorship in turtles (order Testudines). Canadian J. Zoology 69:385-391.

  • Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Privately printed. Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana.

  • Iverson, J. B., and G. R. Smith. 1993. Reproductive ecology of the painted turtle (CHRYSEMYS PICTA) in the Nebraska Sandhills and across its range. Copeia 1993:1-21.

  • Johnson, T. R. 2000. The amphibians and reptiles of Missouri. Second edition. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. 400 pp.

  • Krysko, K. L., J. P. Burgess, M. R. Rochford, C. R. Gillette, D. Cueva, K. M. Enge, L. A. Somma, J. L. Stabile, D. C. Smith, J. A. Wasilewski, and G. N. Kieckhefer III. 2011. Verified non-indigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida from 1863 through 2010: outlining the invasion process and identifying invasion pathways and stages. Zootaxa 3028: 1-64.

  • Lindeman, P. V. 1991. Survivorship of overwintering hatchling painted turtles, CHRYSEMYS PICTA, in northern Idaho. Can. Field-Nat. 105:263-266.

  • Lindeman, P. V. 1996. Comparative life history of painted turtles (CHRYSEMYS PICTA) in two habitats in the inland Pacific Northwest. Copeia 1996:114-130.

  • Mitchell, J. C. 1988. Population ecology and life histories of the freshwater turtles CHRYSEMYS PICTA and STERNOTHERUS ODORATUS in an urban lake. Herpetol. Monogr. 2:40-61.

  • Moll, E. O. 1973. Latitudinal and intersubspecific variation in reproduction of the painted turtle, CHRYSEMYS PICTA. Herpetologica 29:307-318.

  • Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pp.

  • Mount, R.H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn. 347 pp.

  • Packard, G. C., and M. J. Packard. 1995. A review of the adaptive strategy used by hatchling painted turtles to survive in the cold. Herpetological Review 26:8, 10-12.

  • Phillips, C. A., R. A. Brandon, and E. O. Moll. 1999. Field guide to amphibians and reptiles of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 8. xv + 282 pp.

  • STARKEY, DAVID E., H. BRADLEY SHAFFER, RUSSELL L. BURKE, MICHAEL R.J. FORSTNER, JOHN B. IVERSON, FREDRIC J. JANZEN, ANDERS G.J. RHODIN, AND GORDON R. ULTSCH. 2003. MOLECULAR SYSTEMATICS, PHYLOGEOGRAPHY, AND THE EFFECTS OF PLEISTOCENE GLACIATION IN THE PAINTED TURTLE (CHRYSEMYS PICTA) COMPLEX. EVOLUTION 57(1), 2003, PP. 119-128.

  • Starkey, D. E., H. B. Shaffer, R. L. Burke, M.R.J. Forstner, J. B. Iverson, F. J. Janzen, A.G.J. Rhodin, and G. R. Ultsch. 2003. Molecular systematics, phylogeography, and the effects of Pleistocene glaciation in the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) complex. Evolution 57:119-128.

  • Turtle Taxonomy Working Group [van Dijk, P.P., Iverson, J.B., Shaffer, H.B., Bour, R., and Rhodin, A.G.J.]. 2012. Turtles of the world, 2012 update: annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status. In: Rhodin, A.G.J., Pritchard, P.C.H., van Dijk, P.P., Saumure, R.A., Buhlmann, K.A., Iverson, J.B., and Mittermeier, R.A. (Eds.). Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs No. 5:000.243-000.328. Online. Available: www.iucn-tftsg.org/cbftt/.

  • Vogt, R. C. 1981c. Natural history of amphibians and reptiles of Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum. 205 pp.

  • WARD, JOSEPH P. 1984. RELATIONSHIPS OF CHRYSEMYD TURTLES OF NORTH AMERICA (TESTUDINES: EMYDIDAE). SPEC. PUBL. MUSEUM TEXAS TECH UNIV. (21): 1-50.

  • WARD, ROCKY, EARL G. ZIMMERMAN, AND TIM L. KING. 1994. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRELATES TO TERRESTRIAL REPTILIAN DISTRIBUTIONS IN TEXAS. TEXAS J. SCI. 46(1):21-26.

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.