Clinostomus elongatus - (Kirtland, 1841)
Redside Dace
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland, 1840) (TSN 163373)
French Common Names: méné long
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101069
Element Code: AFCJB05010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Fishes - Bony Fishes - Minnows and Carps
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Actinopterygii Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Clinostomus
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B91ROB01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Clinostomus elongatus
Taxonomic Comments: This is one of two species of Clinostomus. Sometimes this species has been placed in genus Richardsonius. A definitive systematic study of the species has not been published (Lee et al. 1980).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 04Nov2011
Global Status Last Changed: 03Apr2007
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Widespread in eastern United States and adjacent Ontario; many occurrences, but rare or declining in many areas, due mainly to habitat degradation.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3N4 (03Apr2007)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2 (21Dec2017)

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 Indiana (S1), Iowa (SX), Kentucky (S4), Maryland (SX), Michigan (S2), Minnesota (S3), New York (S3), Ohio (S4), Pennsylvania (S4), West Virginia (S1S2), Wisconsin (S3S4)
Canada Ontario (S2)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (13Apr2017)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (01Nov2017)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for Designation: This small, colourful minnow is highly susceptible to changes in stream flow and declines in water quality, such as those that occur in urban and agricultural watersheds. The Canadian range of this species largely overlaps with the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), where urban land use is widespread and projected to increase in the future. The continued expansion of the GTA has led to ongoing habitat degradation, causing serious declines in range and number of individuals and populations.

Status History: Designated Special Concern in April 1987. Status re?examined and designated Endangered in April 2007 and November 2017.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
American Fisheries Society Status: Vulnerable (01Aug2008)

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: Range encompasses the Hudson and upper Susquehanna river drainages (New York and Pennsylvania) and the Great Lakes (except Lake Superior) and Mississippi River basins from New York and southern Ontario west to Minnesota and south to West Virginia and Kentucky (Page and Burr 2011). In the eastern part of the range, this fish is common (but declining in many areas); it is localized in the west (Page and Burr 2011). In Canada, the species occurs in only a few streams flowing into Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and Lake Huron in southern Ontario (Parker et al. 1988).

In New York, the species is known from the Allegheny, Genesee, and upper Susquehanna river systems, from tributaries of Lake Erie, and from scattered populations in the Mohawk River system and nearby tributaries of the Hudson River; a concentration exists in the Oswegatchie and Black river systems, but the species is not present in the St. Lawrence drainage; it is absent from Adirondack waters and the Delaware River system (Smith 1985; www.dnr.cornell.edu/SAREP/fish).

Area of Occupancy: Unknown 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 81 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by probably a little over 100 occurrences (subpopulations). Smith (1985) mapped around 200 collection sites (representing at least several dozen distinct occurrences) in New York. Cooper (1983) mapped several dozen collection sites in Pennsylvania but stated that this fish is found in "a few localities" in the Susquehanna drainage and is apparently absent from the Delaware and Potomac. Trautman (1981) mapped about two dozen collection sites in Ohio for the period 1955-1980.

Population Size: 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Population size is unknown but surely exceeds 100,000 mature individuals. This species is locally abundant in many areas, but rare overall. It is generally uncommon in southern Ontario, but still locally abundant at some specific localities; reproducing populations are present (Parker et al. 1988). Cooper (1983) noted this fish as not very abundant in Pennsylvania.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Overall Threat Impact: High - medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Habitat frequently coincides with intensive human use. Threats include loss of suitable habitat due to farming, coal mining, and residential development. This fish is sensitive to siltation, pollution, and turbidity. In Pennsylvania, Cooper (1983) reported the species as apparently declining "due to the loss of clean streams with pools and riffles." Declines during 1925-1950 in Ohio were attributed to water pollution from coal mining, agriculture, industry, and domestic effluents (Trautman 1981). In some areas, this species is harvested for use as fish bait. Although there are no immediate threats in Canada, long-term habitat deterioration could threaten the continued existence of this species in southern Ontario (Parker et al. 1988).

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Trend over the past 10 years or three generations is uncertain but probably slowly declining.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 50-70%
Long-term Trend Comments: Redside dace has disappeared from many areas in recent years (Lee et al. 1980). In some sections of the Canadian range, population levels have declined during the past few decades (Parker et al. 1988, Andersen 2002). Cooper (1983) stated that the species appeared to be declining in Pennsylvania. In Ohio, many populations declined or disappeared during the period 1925-1950; only one new county record was discovered during 1955-1980 (Trautman 1981).

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Protection Needs: Maintaining or establishing vegetated riparian buffers and natural flow regimes are important for protecting the redside dace (Michigan Natrual Features Inventory).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Range encompasses the Hudson and upper Susquehanna river drainages (New York and Pennsylvania) and the Great Lakes (except Lake Superior) and Mississippi River basins from New York and southern Ontario west to Minnesota and south to West Virginia and Kentucky (Page and Burr 2011). In the eastern part of the range, this fish is common (but declining in many areas); it is localized in the west (Page and Burr 2011). In Canada, the species occurs in only a few streams flowing into Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and Lake Huron in southern Ontario (Parker et al. 1988).

In New York, the species is known from the Allegheny, Genesee, and upper Susquehanna river systems, from tributaries of Lake Erie, and from scattered populations in the Mohawk River system and nearby tributaries of the Hudson River; a concentration exists in the Oswegatchie and Black river systems, but the species is not present in the St. Lawrence drainage; it is absent from Adirondack waters and the Delaware River system (Smith 1985; www.dnr.cornell.edu/SAREP/fish).

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: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States IAextirpated, IN, KY, MDextirpated, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA, WI, WV
Canada ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IN Union (18161), Wabash (18169)
MD Garrett (24023)*
MI Gogebic (26053), Hillsdale (26059), Lenawee (26091)*, Oakland (26125), Washtenaw (26161), Wayne (26163)
MN Dakota (27037), Dodge (27039), Fillmore (27045), Goodhue (27049), Olmsted (27109)*, Rice (27131), Wabasha (27157), Winona (27169)*
WV Boone (54005), Hancock (54029), Marion (54049)*, Marshall (54051), Monongalia (54061)*, Preston (54077)*, Taylor (54091), Tucker (54093)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Mohawk (02020004), Schoharie (02020005), Upper Susquehanna (02050101), Chenango (02050102), Owego-Wappasening (02050103), Tioga (02050104), Chemung (02050105), Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock (02050106), Upper West Branch Susquehanna (02050201), Sinnemahoning (02050202)
04 Black-Presque Isle (04020101)+, Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101), Door-Kewaunee (04030102)*, Duck-Pensaukee (04030103), Wolf (04030202), Lake Winnebago (04030203), Lower Fox (04030204), Pike-Root (04040002)*, Milwaukee (04040003)*, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+*, Tiffin (04100006)+, Black-Rocky (04110001), Cuyahoga (04110002), Ashtabula-Chagrin (04110003), Grand (04110004), Chautauqua-Conneaut (04120101), Cattaraugus (04120102), Buffalo-Eighteenmile (04120103), Niagara (04120104), Upper Genesee (04130002), Lower Genesee (04130003), Salmon-Sandy (04140102)*, Seneca (04140201)*, Oneida (04140202), Black (04150101), Oswegatchie (04150302)
05 Upper Allegheny (05010001), Conewango (05010002), Middle Allegheny-Tionesta (05010003), French (05010004), Clarion (05010005), Middle Allegheny-Redbank (05010006), Lower Allegheny (05010009), West Fork (05020002), Upper Monongahela (05020003)+, Cheat (05020004)+, Lower Monongahela (05020005), Youghiogheny (05020006)+, Upper Ohio (05030101)+, Shenango (05030102), Beaver (05030104), Connoquenessing (05030105), Upper Ohio-Wheeling (05030106)+, Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201), Hocking (05030204)*, Tuscarawas (05040001)*, Mohican (05040002)*, Walhonding (05040003), Licking (05040006), Coal (05050009)+, Upper Scioto (05060001)*, Lower Scioto (05060002), Upper Great Miami (05080001), Whitewater (05080003)+, Licking (05100101), Upper Kentucky (05100204), Upper Wabash (05120101)+
07 Rush-Vermillion (07040001), Cannon (07040002)+, Zumbro (07040004)+, Black (07040007), Root (07040008)+, Flambeau (07050002)*, Jump (07050004)*, Lower Chippewa (07050005), Eau Claire (07050006), Coon-Yellow (07060001)*, Upper Wisconsin (07070001), Lake Dubay (07070002), Castle Rock (07070003), Lower Wisconsin (07070005), Kickapoo (07070006), Pecatonica (07090003), Sugar (07090004)
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Fish, Cyprinidae.
Reproduction Comments: Spawns in spring. Sexually mature at age 2 or 3.
Ecology Comments: Occurs in schools.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Pool, Riffle, SPRING/SPRING BROOK
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: Habitat includes small to medium, cool, clear, rubble and gravel-bottomed streams (Lee et al. 1980); rocky and sandy pools of headwaters, creeks, and small rivers, with the largest populations in clear, spring-fed streams (Page and Burr 2011); typically this dace occurs in pools with moderate current and overhanging vegetation. Spawning occurs in riffles or shallow flowing pools, in creek chub nests in some areas.
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats mainly insects, especially terrestrial ones, and also other invertebrates, generally bottom forms.
Length: 8 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Specific causes of the recent decline need to be determined.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Small Cyprinids

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including eggs and larvae) in appropriate habitat.
Separation Barriers: Dam lacking a suitable fishway; high waterfall; upland habitat. For some species (e.g., slender chub), an impoundment may constitute a barrier. For others (e.g., flame chub) a stream larger than 4th order may be a barrier.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Data on dispersal and other movements generally are not available. In some species, individuals may migrate variable distances between spawning areas and nonspawning habitats.

Separation distances (in aquatic kilometers) for cyprinids are arbitrary but reflect the presumption that movements and appropriate separation distances generally should increase with fish size. Hence small, medium, and large cyprinids, respectively, have increasingly large separation distances. Separation distance reflects the likely low probability that two occupied locations separated by less than several kilometers of aquatic habitat would represent truly independent populations over the long term.

Because of the difficulty in defining suitable versus unsuitable habitat, especially with respect to dispersal, and to simplify the delineation of occurrences, a single separation distance is used regardless of habitat quality.

Occupied locations that are separated by a gap of 10 km or more of any aquatic habitat that is not known to be occupied represent different occurrences. However, it is important to evaluate seasonal changes in habitat to ensure that an occupied habitat occurrence for a particular population does not artificially separate spawning areas and nonspawning areas as different occurrences simply because there have been no collections/observations in an intervening area that may exceed the separation distance.

Date: 21Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
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: 04Nov2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Willson, K., E. Roth, and G. Hammerson
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 04Nov2011
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
  • Andersen, J. J. 2002. Status of redside dace, Clinostomus elongatus, in the Lynde and Pringle creek watersheds of Lake Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 116:76-80.

  • Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1052 pp.

  • Becker, G. C. 1983. The fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 1052 pp.

  • Berendzen, P. B., J. F. Dugan, and J. J. Feltz. 2008. Establishing conservation units and population genetic parameters of fishes of greatest conservation need distributed in southeast Minnesota. Final report for the State Wildlife Grants Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 44 pp.

  • CAPERTON, W.G., III, J.E. HAMRICK, III, AND P.L. MILES. 1987. VERTEBRATE SPECIES OF CONCERN IN WEST VIRGINIA. WV DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

  • Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania. Penn State Univ. Press, University Park, PA.

  • GERBERICH, A.G. 1984. LETTER OF 15 FEBRUARY TO A.W. NORDEN.

  • George, C.J. 1980. The fishes of the Adirondack Park. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY 94 pp.

  • Harlan, J. R., E. B. Speaker, and J. Mayhew. 1987. Iowa fish and fishing. Iowa Conservation Commission, Des Moines, Iowa. 323 pp.

  • Hatch, J. T., G. L. Phillips, and K. P. Schmidt, editors. In preparation. The fishes of Minnesota.

  • Hatch, J. T., and K. P. Schmidt.  Redside Dace, Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland).  In:  Fishes of Minnesota.  J. T. Hatch, G. L. Phillips, and K. P. Schmidt, editors.  In preparation.

  • Haugstad, M.  1972.  Little LeSueur River stream survey.  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul.

  • Haugstad, M.  1981.  Little Cedar River stream survey.  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul.

  • Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407.

  • Koster, W. J. 1939. Some phases of the life history and relationships of the cyprinid Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland). Copeia 1939(4):201-208.

  • Koster, W.J. 1939. Some phases of the life history and relationships of the cyprinid Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland). Copeia (4):201-208.

  • Lyons, J., P. A. Cochran, and D. Fago. 2000. Wisconsin fishes 2000: status and distribution. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, Madison, Wisconsin. 87 pp.

  • MCKEE, P.M. AND B.J. PARKER. 1982. THE DISTRIBUTION, BIOLOGY, AND STATUS OF THE FISHES COMPOSTOMA ANOMALUM, CLINOSTOMUS ELONGATUS, NOTROPIS PHOTOGENIS (CYPRINIDAE), AND FUNDULUS NOTATUS (CYPRINODONTIDAE) IN CANADA. CAN. J. ZOOL. 60(6):1347-1358.

  • McKee, P. M., and B. J. Parker. 1982. The distribution, biology, and status of the fishes Campostoma anomalum, Clinostomus elongatus, Notropis photogenis (Cyprinidae), and Fundulus notatus (Cyprinodontidae) in Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:1347-1382.

  • McKee, P.M. and B.J. Parker. 1982. The distribution, biology, and status of the fishes Campostoma anomalum, Clinostomus elongatus, Notropis photogenis (Cyprinidae), and Fundulus notatus (Cyprinodontidae) in Canada. Can. J. Zool. 60: 1347-1358.

  • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Tomorrow's habitat for the wild and rare: An action plan for Minnesota wildlife, comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 297 pp. + appendices.

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

  • NatureServe.  2009.  NatureServe Explorer:  an online encyclopedia of life [web application].  Version 7.1.  NatureServe, Arlington Virginia.  <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer>.  Accessed 27 May 2009.  

  • NatureServe.  2013.  NatureServe Explorer:  an online encyclopedia of life [web application].  Version 7.1.  NatureServe, Arlington Virginia.  <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer>.  Accessed 31 May 2013.

  • Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

  • Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Seventh edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr.  2011.  Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico.  Second edition.  Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, Massachusetts.  688 pp.

  • Parker, B. J., P. McKee, and R. R. Campbell. 1988 Status of the redside dace, Clinostomus elongatus, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102:163-169.

  • Parker, B., P. McKee and R.R. Campbell. 1987. Status report on the redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus). Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

  • Parker, B.J., P. McKee, and R.R. Campbell. 1988. Status of the Redside Dace, Clinostomus elongatus, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(1): 163-169.

  • ROSS, M.R. AND T.M. CAVENDER. 1981. MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF FOUR EXPERIMENTAL INTERGENERIC CYPRINID HYRID CROSSES. COPEIA 1981(2):377-387.

  • Raesly, R. L. 1992. Status and distribution of rare fishes in the Youghiogheny River drainage in Western Maryland. Final Report. Submitted to Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program. Frostburg, MD. 

  • Redside Dace Recovery Team. 2001. Recovery Strategy for Redside Dace in Canada. Final-December 20, 2001. 24pp.

  • Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.

  • SAUL, B. 1984. LETTER DATED 16 FEBRUARY TO A. NORDEN CONCERNING IDENTITY OF CLINOSTOMUS ELONGATUS FROM CHESTER RIVER.

  • Schwartz, F. J. and J. Norvell. 1958. Food, growth, and sexual dimorphism of the redside dace, Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland), in Linesville Creek, Crawford County, Pennsylvania. Ohio Journal of Science 58(5):311-316.

  • Serrao, N. R.  2016.  Conservation genetics of Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus):  insights from evironmental DNA and phylogeography.  Thesis, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.  191 pp.

  • Simon, Thomas P. 2011. Fishes of Indiana. Indiana University Press. Bloomington, 345 pp.

  • Smith, C.L. 1985. The Inland Fishes of New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. 522pp.

  • Sutherland, D.A. 1997. COSSARO Candidate V,T,E Species Evaluation Form - May 1997 - Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus). Unpublished report prepared by Natural Heritage Information Centre for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 3 pp.

  • Sutherland, D.A. 2007. COSSARO Candidate Species at Risk Evaluation Form for Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus). Natural Heritage Information Centre. Prepared for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. April, 10 pp.

  • Werner, R.G. 1980. Freshwater fishes of New York State. N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. 186 pp.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1,052 pp.

  • Burr, B. M., and M. L. Warren, Jr. 1986a. Distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Scientific and Technical Series No. 4, Frankfort, Kentucky. 398 pp.

  • Cooper, E. L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania and the northeastern United States. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park. 243 pp.

  • Fago, D. 2000. Relative abundance and distribution of fishes in Wisconsin. Fish Distribution Database to year 2000. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

  • Harlan, J. R., E. B. Speaker, and J. Mayhew. 1987. Iowa fish and fishing. Iowa Conservation Commission, Des Moines, Iowa. 323 pp.

  • Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.

  • Master, L. L. 1996. Synoptic national assessment of comparative risks to biological diversity and landscape types: species distributions. Summary Progress Report submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 60 pp.

  • Smith, C. L. 1983. Fishes of New York (maps and printout of a draft section on scarce fishes of New York). Unpublished draft.

  • Smith, C. L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, New York, xi + 522 pp.

  • Stauffer, J. R., Jr., J. M. Boltz, and L. R. White. 1995. The fishes of West Virginia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 146:1-389.

  • Trautman, M. B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Second edition. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio. 782 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 2018.
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 © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, 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. 2018. 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.