Cicindela marginipennis - Dejean, 1831
Cobblestone Tiger Beetle
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Cicindela marginipennis Dejean, 1831 (TSN 697708)
French Common Names: cicindèle des galets
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.109719
Element Code: IICOL02060
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Beetles - Other Beetles
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Cicindela
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Freitag, R. P. 1999. Catalogue of the tiger beetles of Canada and the United States. National Research Council Research Press, Ottawa, Canada. 195 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B99FRE01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Cicindela marginipennis
Taxonomic Comments: Southern populations, now probably extant only in Alabama, may merit subspecies status.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 11Oct2011
Global Status Last Changed: 06May2005
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Cicindela marginipennis is narrowly restricted to riparian cobblestone habitat, and populations are currently known extant in nine rivers, although some rivers probably harbor more than one occurrence. The species has been eliminated from at least two river systems by dams and channelization. A few more populations probably exist, especially in New York or Maine. Not all habitats are currently threatened. There is some potential for a few new occurrences to be found. Level of threat varies and in many places is uncertain. This species is vulnerable to unnatural and possibly natural inundations that last more then a few days. This species has not been evaluated with Rank Calculator and the current rank is provisional.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2 (06May2005)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1 (04Jul2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S1), Indiana (S1), Kentucky (S1), Maine (S1), Massachusetts (S1), Mississippi (SX), New Hampshire (S1), New Jersey (S1), New York (S1), Ohio (S2), Pennsylvania (S1), South Carolina (SNR), Vermont (S1), West Virginia (S1)
Canada New Brunswick (S1)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (04Feb2011)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (28Nov2008)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for Designation: This distinctive species of tiger beetle has a fragmented distribution with a very small extent of occurrence and area of occupancy, and is currently only found in two small regions of the St. John River system. There is evidence for decline of habitat and population in one region and the pressures on the habitat from development and recreation appear to be continuing.

Status History: Designated Endangered in November 2008. Assessment based on a new status report.

IUCN Red List Category: NT - Near threatened

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Current populations are on the Winooski River in Vermont, the Connecticut River in New Hampshire and Vermont, Sciota River in Ohio, Delaware River in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Whitewater River in Indiana, and Coosa River in Alabama. According to Knisley and Schultz (1997) viable populations still exist in all of these areas, and this is not contradicted by Pearson et al. (2006). Historic collection sites were flooded by dams in Mississippi and West Virginia, and probably elsewhere. Recently this beetle has also been found in southwestern New York (Erie County) and Queens County, New Brunswick (Pearson et al., 2006), and this species was discovered in 2009 on a single river in western Maine (Jonathan Mays, MDIFW, pers. comm., 2009), which, along with the recent New Brunswick record, suggests it should be looked for elsewhere in Maine. The original range is uncertain and may not have been as contiguous across southern parts of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana as mapped by Pearson et al. (2006) which is used as the basis for the range extent estimate given here. Still even this possibly inflated main range is almost linear (as mapped, perhaps an average of 50 km wide across Pennsylvania and Ohio) and somewhat more than 1700 km long from Vermont to Indiana with outliers. If the outliers in Maine and New Brunswick are added in the distance exceeds 2000 km. All information points to the Alabama range as being completely separate from the rest of the range. Knisley and Schultz (1997) list the following states as the originally documented range: Vermont and New Hampshire (= upper Connecticut River); New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania [=upper Delaware River], West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Alabama and Mississippi. Maine and New Brunswick, Canada should now be added.

Area of Occupancy: 11-500 1-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: This is a strictly linearly distributed species, occupying only river islands and shore line. Occupied sections of river seem to be only a few miles in extent, or much less, and within these areas habitat is patchy. It seems unlikely the linear area of occupancy would exceed 100 miles (167 km).

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Based on Pearson et al. (2006) and the subsequent Maine record there may be only nine extant occurrences known, although it is possible two or three rivers have more than one occurrence. Generally clusters of islands are one occurrence, but clusters several km apart might be separate occurrences. See separation distance.

Population Size: Unknown
Population Size Comments: Populations are possibly small, rarely exceeding 100 adults. However that assessment is based on numbers actually seen. there are no known reliable population estimates.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Loss of habitat because of dam construction is the greatest threat. The only known site in Mississippi has been destroyed by the Tenn-Tom Waterway, and historical locations in Pennsylvania and West Virginia have been flooded by dams. Dams have been proposed which would threaten groups of sites in Pennsylvania/New Jersey and Vermont/New Hampshire but are not now being actively considered. Water level manipulations may be impacting or threatening this species in Alabama (Natural Heritage Program may have some documentation). All terrain vehicles, where they have access to cobble areas during periods of low water, may have the potential to destroy larvae or larval habitat. This problem has been observed at one site in Vermont, and the extent to which it is a problem in other areas is unknown. The general inaccessibility of these populations makes the threat of over-collecting unlikely, although efforts should be made to encourage responsible collecting practices such as collecting late in the season after oviposition has occurred, or collecting only males.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%

Long-term Trend: Decline of >70%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Larvae live in burrows near surface of the ground and may be harmed by local ORV traffic. Also their restriction to islands in rivers makes all stages vulnerable to prolonged innundation (more than a few days) during water level manipulations and also leaves at least the immature stages vulnerable to natural flood events. Both factors are aggravated by currently reduced and fragmented occurrences and probable low numbers. The two or three year life cycle makes potential recovery time long for an insect. Lack of flood scouring etc. also leads to habitat loss as vegetation covers over cobblestone areas.

Environmental Specificity: Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Historic sites along Delaware & Susquehanna Rivers should be revisited. Additional survey work desirable in OH and IN.

Protection Needs: Protect habitat from flooding and disturbance.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)) Current populations are on the Winooski River in Vermont, the Connecticut River in New Hampshire and Vermont, Sciota River in Ohio, Delaware River in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Whitewater River in Indiana, and Coosa River in Alabama. According to Knisley and Schultz (1997) viable populations still exist in all of these areas, and this is not contradicted by Pearson et al. (2006). Historic collection sites were flooded by dams in Mississippi and West Virginia, and probably elsewhere. Recently this beetle has also been found in southwestern New York (Erie County) and Queens County, New Brunswick (Pearson et al., 2006), and this species was discovered in 2009 on a single river in western Maine (Jonathan Mays, MDIFW, pers. comm., 2009), which, along with the recent New Brunswick record, suggests it should be looked for elsewhere in Maine. The original range is uncertain and may not have been as contiguous across southern parts of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana as mapped by Pearson et al. (2006) which is used as the basis for the range extent estimate given here. Still even this possibly inflated main range is almost linear (as mapped, perhaps an average of 50 km wide across Pennsylvania and Ohio) and somewhat more than 1700 km long from Vermont to Indiana with outliers. If the outliers in Maine and New Brunswick are added in the distance exceeds 2000 km. All information points to the Alabama range as being completely separate from the rest of the range. Knisley and Schultz (1997) list the following states as the originally documented range: Vermont and New Hampshire (= upper Connecticut River); New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania [=upper Delaware River], West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Alabama and Mississippi. Maine and New Brunswick, Canada should now be added.

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.

Map unavailable!:
Distribution data for U.S. states and Canadian provinces is known to be incomplete or has not been reviewed for this taxon.
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, IN, KY, MA, ME, MSextirpated, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, SC, VT, WV
Canada NB

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Elmore (01051), Perry (01105)
IN Dearborn (18029), Franklin (18047), Wayne (18177)*
MA Franklin (25011)
MS Lowndes (28087)*
NH Cheshire (33005), Grafton (33009), Sullivan (33019)
NJ Hunterdon (34019)*, Mercer (34021)*, Sussex (34037), Warren (34041)
NY Allegany (36003), Cattaraugus (36009), Erie (36029), Livingston (36051), Sullivan (36105)*, Wyoming (36121)
OH Clinton (39027)*, Hamilton (39061), Meigs (39105), Ross (39141)
PA Berks (42011)*, Bucks (42017)*, Dauphin (42043)*, Lancaster (42071)*, Monroe (42089)*, Northampton (42095)*, Pike (42103)*
VT Chittenden (50007), Windham (50025), Windsor (50027)
WV Monongalia (54061)*, Pleasants (54073), Wood (54107)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Pemigewasset (01070001)+, White (01080105)+, Black-Ottauquechee (01080106)+, West (01080107)+, Middle Connecticut (01080201)+
02 Raritan (02030105)+*, Upper Delaware (02040101)+*, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+*, Schuylkill (02040203)+*, Lower Susquehanna-Swatara (02050305)+*, Lower Susquehanna (02050306)+*
03 Lower Coosa (03150107)+, Upper Alabama (03150201)+, Cahaba (03150202)+, Upper Tombigbee (03160101)+*, Luxapallila (03160105)+*, Middle Tombigbee-Lubbub (03160106)+*
04 Cattaraugus (04120102)+, Upper Genesee (04130002)+, Winooski River (04150403)+
05 Upper Monongahela (05020003)+*, Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)+, Upper Ohio-Shade (05030202)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Paint (05060003)+*, Lower Great Miami (05080002)+, Whitewater (05080003)+, Little Miami (05090202)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A somewhat large dark tiger beetle with whitish markings.
General Description: Dull olivaceous or bronze green above, coppery greenish below. The elytral (wing cover) markings consist of a continuous white marginal band, with small lobes on the inside edge. This marginal band reaches from the humerus to the apex of each elytron. The underside of the abdomen is brownish red, which, combined with the white margin makes this species distinctive and easily identified.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Solid white outline around edges of wing covers is immediately diagnostic even in the field. Other elytral markings absent or nearly so.
Reproduction Comments: Copulation has been observed from mid July to late August, with oviposition behavior observed as late as August 28 (Nothnagle, pers. obs.).

The larval period consists of three instars or moults, which occur over a period of two years in Vermont. The three instars have burrow diameters of 1.5 mm, 2.5 mm and 3.5 mm, respectively. First instar larvae were seen in early September, with second instars first appearing in mid September. Second instar larvae are active again in the spring, and moult to the third instar in July. Third instars overwinter again, resume activity in early May, and emerge as adults in late June or early July, about 22 months after hatching from eggs. Larvae from two different annual cohorts are active at the same time. Flooding of the habitat, which occurs periodically when adults and larvae are active, does not appear to have any deleterious effects (Nothnagle, pers. obs.; Wilson, 1974).

Ecology Comments: Not known how populations survive floods.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Can disperse to some extent. Good flier.
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Bare rock/talus/scree, Sand/dune
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil
Habitat Comments: Habitat is almost always cobblestone islands in rivers, rarely cobblestone shore areas. Usually concentrated on the upstream side in sparsely vegetated or unvegetated patches. Larvae live in burrows in small patches of sand. Habitats are subject to natural flooding. Usually found with medium to large rivers, occasionally creeks. Associated plants are SALIX spp., APOCYNUM spp., and occasionally PRUNUS PUMILA. In New Hampshire and Vermont it is found on islands large enough to support full sized trees (Dunn, 1981).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Like other members of its family, this species is predaceous in both the larval and adult stage. Larvae are "sit and wait" predators which inhabit burrows from one to four mm in diameter, dug in sandy spots between the cobbles. Prey are small insects, one to five mm long, especially ants and small flies (Nothnagle, pers. obs.).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: Adults are active primarily on warm, sunny days. They are capable of rapid flight, but forage in a cursorial fashion, running along the ground in short, erratic movements. This beetle has a "summer active" life history, in which adults are active only during the summer months. In Vermont, adults are generally found from early July until early September, although year to year variation in emergence and disappearance occurs. Peak adult densities are seen from mid to late July, after which adults gradually decline.

Larvae plug their holes in mid to late September for hibernation. Since the life cycle requires two or three years, larvae are always present in burrows in the soil.

Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: The main needs are the preservation of habitat from flooding behind dams and an accurate determination of the present range. Management needs are probably minimal.
Restoration Potential: No information on recovery is available at this time. Sites from which this species has disappeared have either been destroyed by damming, or were marginal shore populations.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: The island cobblestone habitat is the single factor which is critical to conservation. C. MARGINIPENNIS has occasionally been reported from cobble areas on river shores, but there is some evidence that these may represent only temporary or transient populations. The habitat is exposed to the full force of flooding, and hence is quite dynamic. The extent to which local extinction occurs is unknown, but populations often occur in areas where there are groups of islands. This suggests that areas of several populations, forming a metapopulation, may be necessary for the long term persistence. Habitats which temporarily degrade either by being overgrown or because of over-deposition would then be able to be readily recolonized. River water quality does not appear to be important.
Management Requirements: Threats to larvae from off road vehicles may occasionally occur, but this would be very site specific.
Monitoring Requirements: MONITORING NEEDS: 1) Revisit Pennsylvania and Ohio collection sites to determine presence/absence. 2) Long term monitoring to determine population fluctuations.

Either the number of adults seen per unit on census time, or the number seen per ten meters of transect line is useful as a measure of density. All censuses should be conducted on warm, sunny days in July or early August.

Management Research Needs: Life history, mortality patterns, and natural population sizes, fluctuations and seasonal patterns of abundance need to be determined.
Biological Research Needs: Rear and describe the larvae.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Cicindelidae: Riparian Taxa

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An area of sand or other appropriate substrate, for high quality occurrences generally a cluster of several such areas, along a river or stream or occasionally ditch or some sort of embankment where a colony occurs with potential for persistence or regular recurrence. Minimally a collection or photograph of an adult associated with a habitat patch. Single isolated colonies should not be ranked higher than C and high quality occurrences will be clusters of several such colonies along a river or stream.
Mapping Guidance: Before trying to map an occurrence for any species consult the habitat comments field and relevant literature such as Freitag (1999), Knisley and Schultz (1997), Larochelle and Lariviere, 2001, and Leonard and Bell (1999) and if necessary the original references in them to determine the precise species-specific habitat parameters such as soil type, vegetation cover etc.
Separation Barriers: Possibly dams, rip-raps, groins etc. but for now it is suggested the disturbances they create be treated as unsuitable habitat unless direct observations show them to be barriers. Some adults should be able to move over or around them, especially during low water periods when unvegetated areas are exposed.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: It is obvious that long term viable occurrences of these taxa are generally metapopulations, although possible that some large single site occurrences are viable for the long term if the habitat is fairly stable. This would be virtually forced by the dynamic nature of the habitat. Local extirpations and colonizations are presumed to have been normal and persistence may be unlikely (or more often failed to occur) once population dynamics are disrupted. While it seems obvious that dispersal of adults several kilometers along a riparian corridor would have originally be common, there are no direct data on how far adults travel--in part because populations that have been well studied (e.g. along the Connecticut River) are already severely disrupted. However it is known that C. D. DORSALIS adults have a very open population structure and move more than 20 kilometers around the Chesapeake Bay and apparently at least two other shore species and two non-shore species, C. TOGATA and C. HEAMORRHAGICA,, are apparently much more dispersive (Pearson et al., 1997). It is assumed that riparian species must be comparably dispersive--and actually C. TOGATA is probably somewhat riparian.
As with most tiger beetles it makes no sense to treat every little colony as a separate occurrence, especially considering the dynamic nature of riparian habitats including the potential for floods to greatly alter and create habitat.. These should be clustered into more defensible metapopulations. Some local extirpation and colonization is probably normal. In most cases the suitable habitat distance should be applied along stream or river banks. However, impoundments behind substantial dams (not the typical little 18th century New England mill pond), extensive rip-raps, groins etc. are suggested as unsuitable habitat even for dispersal. Knisley and Schultz (1997) suggest they could even be barriers. The suitable habitat distance is arbitrary but is less than half the distance known to be traveled by adult C. DORSALIS which seems to be among the more sedentary of the littoral species (the most similar group with data) and seems reasonable for tiger beetles in general since they clearly colonize over at least a few kilometers rather easily.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Inferred extent is extremely problematic, and while this seems unrealistic there is usually no choice but to confine it to the immediate location pending further exploration. It does seem reasonable that if the observer notes very similar habitat within half a kilometer up or down stream that it be included. Occurrences of most or all taxa originally often, if not always, extended for many kilometers and adults are good fliers. Now however, much potential suitable habitat is really unsuitable due to factors such as flood control practices, ORV use, heavy trampling by people or livestock. There are also natural unknowns and mappers/observers may not really understand the exact habitat needs. So if the inferred extent would matter, the only reasonable course of action is to do field work to establish boundaries--ideally based on larvae as well as adults.
Date: 06Dec2001
Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.
Notes: C. PURITANA is included with some reservation. These Specs should be workable (but the distances may be somewhat exceeded for practical reasons) on the Connecticut River, but probably not on its other occurrence on Chesapeake Bay.
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: 11Oct2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F., Nothnagle, P., M. DesMeules.
Management Information Edition Date: 31Jan1989
Management Information Edition Author: Nothnagle, Philip
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 03Apr1991
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): SCHWEITZER, D. F.

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

References
Help
  • Acciavatti, R. E, Allen, T. J., and Stuart, C. 1992. The West Virginia Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Cicindela 24(3-4): 45-78.

  • Acciavetti, Robert E., Thomas J. Allen and Claire Stuart, 1992. The West Virginia tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Cicindela 24(3-4): 45-78.

  • Blanchard, Orland J. Jr. 1989. Letter of July 6th to the Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2 pp.

  • Bousquet, Y. 2012. Catalogue of Geadephaga (Coleoptera, Adephaga) of America, north of Mexico. ZooKeys 245:1-1722.

  • Bousquet, Y., P. Bouchard, A.E. Davies, and D.S. Sikes. 2013. Checklist of beetles (Coleoptera) of Canada and Alaska, second edition. Pensoft Series Faunistica No 109.

  • Boyd, H. P. 1978. The tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) of New Jersey with special reference to their ecological relationships. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 104:191-242.

  • Brzoska, Dr. David W. 1998. Locality Information for G1-G3 Tiger Beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) - Collected by D.W. Brzoska. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. 3 pp. plus memorandum from Lara Minium.

  • Center for Biological Diversity. 2010. Petition to list 404 aquatic, riparian and wetland species from the southeastern United States as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Petition submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

  • Dunn, G. 1981. The tiger beetles of New Hampshire. Cicindela 13(1/2):1-28.

  • Dunn, G.A. 1978. Tiger Beetles of New Hampshire (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae). Unpublished M.S. Thesis, University of New Hampshire.

  • Dunn, Gary 1982. Notes on Cicindela marginipennis. Newsletter of the Michigan Entomological Society. Vol. 27, Nos 3 and 4. 1 p.

  • Freitag, R. P. 1999. Catalogue of the tiger beetles of Canada and the United States. National Research Council Research Press, Ottawa, Canada. 195 pages.

  • Freitag, R. P. 1999. Catalogue of the tiger beetles of Canada and the United States. National Research Council Research Press, Ottawa, Canada. 195 pp.

  • Graves, Robert C. and David L. Peason. 1973. The tiger beetles of Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi (Coleoptera:Cicindelidae). Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 99: pp. 157.

  • Knisley, C.B. and T.D. Schultz. 1997. The Biology of Tiger Beetles and a Guide to the Species of the South Atlantic States. Virginia Museum of Natural History Special Publication Number 5. Virginia Museum of Natural History: Martinsville, Virginia. 210 pp.

  • Kritsky, Gene. 2007. Tiger Beetle survey of the Whitewater watershed with special emphasis on Cicindela marginipennis. 14pp.

  • Leng, C. W. and W. Beutenmuller. 1894. Preliminary handbook of the Coleoptera of northeastern America. Cicindelidae. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 2:87-96.

  • Leng, C.W. 1902b. Revision of the Cicindelidae of boreal America. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 28:93-186.

  • Leonard, M. D. ed. 1928. A list of the insects of New York, with a list of the spiders and certain other allied groups. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Mem. 101. Ithaca, New York. 1121 pp.

  • Natural Resources Commission. 2014. Roster of Indiana Animals, Insects, and Plants That Are Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Rare. Information Bulletin #2 (Sixth Amendment. 20pp.

  • New York Natural Heritage Program. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 625 Broadway, 5th floor. Albany, NY 12233-4757. (518) 402-8935.

  • Pearson, D. L., C. B. Knisley and C. J. Kazilek. 2006. A field guide to the tiger beetles of the United States and Canada: identification, natural history, and distribution of the Cicindelidae. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. 227 pp.

  • Pearson, D.L. 2004. A list of suggested common English names for species of tiger beetles occurring in Canada and the U.S. Cicindela 36(1-2):31-40.

  • Pearson, D.L. 2004. A list of suggested common English names for species of tiger beetles occurring in Canada and the U.S. Cicindela 36(1-2):31-40.

  • Pearson, D.L., T. G. Barraclough, and A.P. Vogler. 1997. Distributional range maps for North American species of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Cicindela, 29(3-4): 33-84. Available online: http://www.bio.ic.ac.uk/research/tigerb/rangepaper.htm.

  • Perkins, P. D. 1983. North American insect status review. Contract 14-16-0009-79-052. Final report to Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. 354 pp.

  • Sabine, D.L. 2004. First record of Cicindela marginipennis Dejean from Canada. Cicindela 36(304):53-56.

  • Schuster, G.A., R.S. Butler, and D.H Stansbery. 1989. A survey of the unionids (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Buck Creek, Pulaski County, Kentucky. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science, 50: 79-85.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011m. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; partial 90-day finding on a petition to list 404 species in the southeastern United States as endangered or threatened. Federal Register 76(187):59836-59862.

  • Wilson, D.A. 1974a. Survival of Cicindelid larvae after flooding. Cicindela 6(4): 79-82.

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.