Margaritifera monodonta - (Say, 1829)
Spectaclecase
Other English Common Names: Spectacle Case, Spectacle Case Pearly Mussel
Synonym(s): Cumberlandia monodonta (Say, 1829)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Cumberlandia monodonta (Say, 1829) (TSN 80376)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.106982
Element Code: IMBIV08010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Margaritiferidae Margaritifera
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B98TUR01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Cumberlandia monodonta
Taxonomic Comments: Williams et al. (2017) consider Cumberlandia a junior synonym of Margaritifera based on evidence from Bolotov et al. (2016) and Araujo et al. (2017).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 23Dec2011
Global Status Last Changed: 08Dec2006
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Area of occupancy of this species has been drastically reduced (near 50%) with continuing decline of populations. Range extent has also been reduced as the species is extirpated from several U.S. states (Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio) and many of the remaining populations have poor or no viability. The species has largely been reduced to a relatively few disjunct sites, some of which may not be capable of reproduction either through loss of fish hosts or adverse environmental conditions (e.g., hypolimnetic release from reservoirs). Only the Gasconade and Meramec Rivers of Missouri and perhaps also in the Upper Clinch River, Tennessee are fairly stable for now with the remaning populations in decline.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3 (08Dec2006)
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNR

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), Arkansas (S2), Illinois (S1), Indiana (SX), Iowa (S1), Kansas (SX), Kentucky (S1), Minnesota (S1), Missouri (S3), Nebraska (S1), Ohio (SX), Tennessee (S2S3), Virginia (S1), West Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (S1)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE: Listed endangered (13Mar2012)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R3 - North Central
IUCN Red List Category: EN - Endangered
American Fisheries Society Status: Threatened (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Historically, this species occurred throughout much of the Mississippi River system with the exception of the upper Missouri River system, uppermost Ohio River system, Cumberland and Tennessee River systems, and some tributaries in the lower Mississippi region of Arkansas. Historically, it is known from 45 streams in 15 states including: upper Mississippi River system (Mississippi River); lower Missouri River system (Missouri River?); Ohio River system (Ohio River); Cumberland River system (Cumberland River); Tennessee River system (Tennessee River); and lower Mississippi River system (Mulberry, Ouachita Rivers) (Butler, 2003; USFWS, 2003). Ahlstedt et al. (2004) recently reported sporadic occurrences (two recent) from the Duck River in a reach less than 30 miles long.

Area of Occupancy: 2,501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Extant populations of the spectaclecase are known from 20 streams in 10 states and 3 Service regions. These include the following stream systems (with tributaries): upper Mississippi River system (Mississippi River [St. Croix, (Rush Creek), Chippewa, Meramec (Bourbeuse, Big Rivers) Rivers]; lower Missouri River system (Gasconade [Big Piney River, Osage Fork] River); lower Ohio River system (lowermost Ohio River [Kanawha, Green Rivers]); Cumberland River system (Caney Fork); Tennessee River system (Tennessee River [Clinch, Nolichucky, Duck Rivers]); and lower Mississippi River system (Mulberry, Ouachita Rivers). The 20 extant spectaclecase populations occur in the following 10 states (with streams): Alabama (Tennessee River), Arkansas (Mulberry, Ouachita Rivers- both single sites only; Harris et al., 1997), Illinois (Mississippi, Ohio Rivers), Iowa (Mississippi River), Kentucky (Ohio, Green Rivers), Minnesota (Mississippi, St. Croix Rivers; Rush Creek), Missouri (Mississippi, Meramec, Bourbeuse, Big, Gasconade, Big Piney Rivers; Osage Fork), Tennessee (Tennessee, Clinch, Nolichucky, Duck Rivers; Caney Fork), Virginia (Clinch River), West Virginia (Kanawha River), and Wisconsin (Mississippi, St. Croix, Chippewa Rivers). The species is evidently absent from hundreds of river miles and from numerous reaches of habitat in which it occurred historically. Of the 20 extant populations, seven are represented by only a single specimen each and are likely not viable. Although many populations have been extirpated for decades, most surviving populations are facing significant threats. There are relatively strong populations in the Meramec and Gasconade Rivers in Missouri, in the St. Croix River in Minnesota/Wisconsin, and perhaps also in the Upper Clinch River in Tennessee (see Butler, 2003; USFWS, 2003). Ahlstedt et al. (2004) recently reported sporadic occurrences (two recent) from the lower Duck River in a reach less than 30 miles long with historical occurrences in the upper Duck as well. Alabama populations are now restricted to Guntersville Dam and Wilson Dam tailwaters only (Williams et al., 2008).

Population Size: Unknown
Population Size Comments: Population size ould be difficult to asses due to side range of species and no accurate assessment of population at any site. Several recent reports are based on finds of single mussels. TVA data definitely indicates rapidly declining populations in the upper Clinch River. In Arkansas where this species was once thought extirpated, it is only known from the Ouachita River (two sites represented by one single live specimen each) and a single site in the Mulberry River (also a single live specimen only) (Harris et al., 1997).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few to few (1-12)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Most or all of the 21 known populations of spectaclecase face serious threats to their continued existence. Only three or four populations could be characterized as large and viable and each of these faces serious threats (see USFWS, 2003). Oesch (1995) cites a fairly large population in the Meramec River and Gasconade River in Missouri. Also the Upper Clinch River in Tennessee may have reasonable viability (USFWS, 2003).

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The decline of the spectaclecase in the Mississippi River system and other mussel species in the eastern United States is primarily the result of habitat loss and degradation. These losses have been well documented since the mid-19th century (Higgins, 1858). Chief among the causes of decline are impoundments, channelization, chemical contaminants, mining, and sedimentation (Williams et al., 1993; Neves, 1993; Neves et al., 1997; Watters, 2000). Less serious are the following: (1) the spectaclecase is not a commercially valuable species, but may be increasingly sought by collectors as it becomes more rare; (2) disease or predation of which little is known but may have greater impact on this species because it is particularly long-lived (Butler, 2003); (3) invasive species (Asiatic clam, zebra mussel, black carp). The immediacy of threats varies among spectaclecase populations. Threats to some populations, such as those isolated and downstream of persistent coldwater releases, clearly have placed them in jeopardy of extirpation (i.e., threats are imminent and the likelihood of survival and recovery are marginal). Seven populations seem to be clearly unviable and another four may also be unviable due to isolation and a lack of recruitment (Butler, 2003). Threats and risk of extirpation are clearly imminent for these eleven populations. On the other hand, ten populations are reproducing or may be supported via immigration from large, viable populations. Three or four of these populations may be described as large and viable, although each of these also faces serious threats. Populations in the Gasconade and Meramec Rivers of Missouri and perhaps also in the Upper Clinch River, Tennessee are also large and viable. Although these are threatened in various ways, none of these threats currently seems to place them in imminent danger of extirpation. The Service should closely monitor and work to alleviate the immediacy of threats to these important spectaclecase populations (see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 50-70%
Short-term Trend Comments: Rapid decline has been documented throughout its former range, except in the Gasconade River, Missouri. It is widely distibuted but absent from many historical areas. Many streams have no reports for decades and several have only single occurrences (Butler, 2003). For example, in Illinois where it was formerly present in eight drainages, it is now restricted to the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers where it is sporadic and very rare (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). The species is evidently absent from hundreds of river miles and from numerous reaches of habitat in which it occurred historically. Of the 20 extant populations, seven are represented by only a single specimen each and are likely not viable. Although many populations have been extirpated for decades, most surviving populations are facing significant threats (see USFWS, 2003). In Ohio, it had been recorded only from the Ohio River near Cincinnati and near Portland with a weathered shell found in the Muskingum River at Devola, Washington Co., in 1998; but it is now extirpated from the state (Watters et al., 2009).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-70%
Long-term Trend Comments: See Butler (2003), USFWS (2003) for long-term trends. It was extirpated in the last century from extreme southeastern Nebraska and eastern Kansas both on the Missouri border (Butler, 2003). In Alabama it was known only from the Tennessee and Elk Rivers but is now restricted to Guntersville Dam and Wilson Dam tailwaters only (Williams et al., 2008).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Highly to moderately vulnerable.
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: The likelihood that some populations of the spectaclecase are below the effective population size necessary to adapt to environmental change and persist in the long-term seems high. Many small spectaclecase populations may be reproducing at levels too low to persist despite high adult survival. These populations may also be too isolated to be sustained by recruits from other populations. This species was widespread throughout much of the upper two-thirds of the Mississippi River system and in several tributary systems, and there were likely no or few natural barriers to prevent migration (via fish hosts) among suitable habitats. Construction of dams, primarily during the first half of the 20th century, destroyed spectaclecase populations and isolated others (USFWS, 2003).

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is confined to flowing water systems only (USFWS, 2003).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Condition of populations at known EOs should be assessed and monitored. Surveys for additional EOs should continue with particular interest in continued viability of EO. Sites in former range monitored for environmental recovery related to potential reintroduction.

Protection Needs: Protection of the populations in the Missouri Ozarks and the upper Clinch River should be a priority. The upper Clinch is particularly vulnerable due to the rapidly declining numbers. The potential for maintaining viable populations at other sites should be assessed and feasibility of recovery/protection evaluated. Management plans and cooperative agreements could then be developed for these areas. The upper Mississippi River may be a good region for initiation of such activities.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)) Historically, this species occurred throughout much of the Mississippi River system with the exception of the upper Missouri River system, uppermost Ohio River system, Cumberland and Tennessee River systems, and some tributaries in the lower Mississippi region of Arkansas. Historically, it is known from 45 streams in 15 states including: upper Mississippi River system (Mississippi River); lower Missouri River system (Missouri River?); Ohio River system (Ohio River); Cumberland River system (Cumberland River); Tennessee River system (Tennessee River); and lower Mississippi River system (Mulberry, Ouachita Rivers) (Butler, 2003; USFWS, 2003). Ahlstedt et al. (2004) recently reported sporadic occurrences (two recent) from the Duck River in a reach less than 30 miles long.

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, IA, IL, INextirpated, KSextirpated, KY, MN, MO, NE, OHextirpated, TN, VA, WI, WV

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Colbert (01033), Lauderdale (01077), Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Morgan (01103)
AR Ouachita (05103)
IA Des Moines (19057), Lee (19111), Muscatine (19139)
IL Adams (17001)*, Calhoun (17013)*, Hancock (17067), Henderson (17071), Madison (17119), Massac (17127)*, Mercer (17131)*, Pike (17149), Rock Island (17161)
IN Gibson (18051)*, Posey (18129)*
KY Boone (21015)*, Butler (21031), Campbell (21037)*, Clinton (21053)*, Cumberland (21057), Edmonson (21061), Hart (21099), Jefferson (21111)*, Kenton (21117)*, Livingston (21139), Marshall (21157), McCreary (21147), Monroe (21171)*, Pulaski (21199)*, Russell (21207)*, Warren (21227), Wayne (21231)*
MN Chisago (27025), Dakota (27037), Pine (27115), Washington (27163)
MO Cedar (29039), Cole (29051), Crawford (29055), Franklin (29071), Gasconade (29073), Jefferson (29099), Laclede (29105), Maries (29125), Marion (29127), Miller (29131), Osage (29151), Phelps (29161), Pulaski (29169), Ralls (29173), St. Clair (29185), St. Louis (29189), Texas (29215), Washington (29221)
TN Anderson (47001), Claiborne (47025), Cocke (47029), DeKalb (47041)*, Decatur (47039), Grainger (47057), Greene (47059), Hamblen (47063), Hancock (47067), Hardin (47071), Humphreys (47085), Jackson (47087)*, Jefferson (47089)*, Marion (47115)*, Perry (47135), Roane (47145)*, Smith (47159), Wayne (47181)
VA Russell (51167), Scott (51169), Tazewell (51185)
WI Buffalo (55011), Burnett (55013), Chippewa (55017), Crawford (55023), Grant (55043), Pierce (55093), Polk (55095), St. Croix (55109)
WV Kanawha (54039)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 Muskingum (05040004)*, Upper Kanawha (05050006)+, Lower Kanawha (05050008), Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)*, Middle Ohio-Laughery (05090203)+*, Licking (05100101)+*, Upper Green (05110001)+, Middle Wabash-Busseron (05120111)*, Lower Wabash (05120113)+, Upper Cumberland (05130101)*, Upper Cumberland-Lake Cumberland (05130103)+, South Fork Cumberland (05130104)+, Upper Cumberland-Cordell Hull (05130106)+*, Caney (05130108)+, Lower Cumberland-Old Hickory Lake (05130201)*, Lower Cumberland-Sycamore (05130202)*, Stones (05130203)*, Lower Cumberland (05130205)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+*, Blue-Sinking (05140104)*, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)*, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)*, Lower Ohio (05140206)+
06 Holston (06010104)+, Nolichucky (06010108)+, Watts Bar Lake (06010201)*, Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Lower Clinch (06010207)+, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)*, Sequatchie (06020004)+*, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+*, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+, Lower Tennessee-Beech (06040001)+, Upper Duck (06040002)*, Lower Duck (06040003)+, Buffalo (06040004)+*, Kentucky Lake (06040005)+, Lower Tennessee (06040006)+
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Kettle (07030003)*, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001), Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Upper Chippewa (07050001), Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)*, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, Lower Rock (07090005)*, Bear-Wyaconda (07110001), The Sny (07110004)+, Peruque-Piasa (07110009)+, Kankakee (07120001)*, Iroquois (07120002)*, Des Plaines (07120004), Meramec (07140102)+, Bourbeuse (07140103)+, Big (07140104)+, Big Muddy (07140106)*, Upper Kaskaskia (07140201)*, Middle Kaskaskia (07140202)*, Lower Kaskaskia (07140204)*
08 Upper Ouachita (08040102)+, Lower Ouachita-Smackover (08040201)
10 Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)*, Lower Marais Des Cygnes (10290102)*, Sac (10290106)+, Lower Osage (10290111)+, Upper Gasconade (10290201)+, Big Piney (10290202)+, Lower Gasconade (10290203)+
11 Frog-Mulberry (11110201)
+ 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: A freshwater mussel with an elongate, arcuate and compressed shell.
General Description: Shell elongated, arcuate, compressed, relatively thin; anterior and posterior ends rounded; ventral margin concave, particularly in older shells; beaks barely elevated, sculpted with heavy ridges parallel to growth lines; posterior ridge rounded; periostracum roughened by growth lines, greenish or brownish in younger shells to black; young shells may display complete hinge dentition of distinct pseudocardinals with two laterals in the left valve and one lateral in the right valve, laterals often not apparent in older shells and pseudocardinals may be somewhat obscurred; anterior and posterior adductor and retractor muscle scars confluent, well-marked; protractor scar crescent-shaped; pallial line impressed; nacre whitish, irridescent posteriorly, tends to be roughened, often blotched (see Oesch, 1995; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Baird, 2000; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Only two shells are similar to this species in its historical range, Elliptio dilatata (Rafinesque, 1820) and Ligumia recta (Lamarck, 1819). Both of the species always have well-developed hinge dentition, often have purple nacres (sometimes white, pinkish or orangish), have periostraca which may be rayed (distinctly or obscurly), and are pointed posteriorly (female L. recta are truncated posteriorly, but still have a point at the dorsal-posterior junction). Ligumia recta is never arcuate. Dry Cumberlandia shells tend to be brittle, crack, and posterior ends break-off. Butler (2003) and Oesch (1995) list key characters as large size, elongate shape, arcuate ventral margin, dark coloration, roughened surface, poorly developed teeth, and white nacre.
Reproduction Comments: Reproductive biology of Cumberlandia monodonta has recently been studied by Gordon and Smith (1990). The species appears to spawn twice a year during relatively short periods in the autumn and spring. Autumnal reproduction is restricted to portions of October and November, while vernal spawning occurs in April and May. The entire reproductive period (i.e., gametogensis to glochidial release) may last only a few weeks. This response may be triggered by a narrow range of water temperatures. Glochidia released in conglutinates and are very small (Butler, 2003). According to Baird (2000), males as young as 5 years produced gametes, and females as young as 6, however, inferences from growth rate suggest that major investment in reproduction may not occur until after about 10 years of age; and individuals lived up to 65 years.

In laboratory experiments Knudsen and Hove (1997) tested five fish species and the larval tiger salamander for glochidial host suitability and glochidial metamorphosis was not observed for any of the species tested. The species were Notropis volucellus, Rhinichthys cataractae, Phoxinus eos, Fundulus diaphanus, Etheostoma exile, and Ambystoma tigrinum (Kundson and Hove, 1997; Butler, 2003). Barnhart and Baird (2000) laboratory tested 26 potential host species and all were negative including: Hypentilium nigricans (northern hogsucker), Moxostoma duquesnei (black redhorse), Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass), Micropterus dolomieu (smallmouth bass), Lepomis megalotis (longear sunfish), Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill), Cottus carolinae (mottled sculpin), Cottus bairdi (banded sculpin), Notropis chrysocephalus (striped shiner), Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow), Cyprinella venustus (blacktailed shiner), Campostoma oligolepis (largescale stoneroller), Nocomis biguttatus (hornyhead chub), Luxilus zonatus (bleeding shiner), Notropis nubilus (Ozark shiner), Neogobius melanostomus (round goby), Pylodictus olivaris (flathead catfish), Ictalurus punctatus (channel catfish), Noturus exilis (slender madtom), Etheostoma spectabile (orangethroat darter), Percina caprodes (logperch), Etheostoma tetrazonum (Missouri saddled darter), Etheostoma blennioides (greenside darter), Etheostoma caeruleum (rainbow darter), Aplodinotus grunniens (freshwater drum). Hove and Hornbach (2009) tested the following potential hosts with negative results: pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), shortnose gar (Lepisosteus platostomus), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii), silver lamprey (Ichthyomyzon unicuspis), green frog tadpole (Rana clamitans), mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus), physa snail (Physa sp.), viviparus snail (Viviparus sp.), rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus), native crayfish (Orconectes sp.), umpback mayfly (Baetisca sp.), hex mayfly (Hexagenaia sp.), stonefly (Pteronarcys sp.), bluet damselfly (Enallagma sp.), dancer damselfly (Argia sp.), stygian shadowdragon (Neurocordulia yamaskanensis), and swift river cruiser (Macromia illinoiensis).

Ecology Comments: This species often has been found in small, apparently even-aged clumps of individuals, indicating that they excysted from the glochidial host simultaneously. No ecological studies have been conducted on this species. Available data is derived from haphazard observations made during species surveys.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Adults of this species are essentially sessile. About the only voluntary movement the make is to burrow deeper into the substrate. Except for occasional passive downstream movement when adults are disrupted from the substrate during floods, dispersal occurs while the glochidia are encysted on their host (probably a fish).
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, High gradient, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: The spectaclecase occurs in large rivers and is a habitat-specialist, relative to other mussel species. Baird (2000) noted its occurrence on outside river bends below bluff lines. It seems to most often inhabit riverine microhabitats that are sheltered from the main force of current. Utterback's (1915) record of this species in the Northwest Missouri Lakes is puzzling, but may refer to seasonally flooded oxbow lakes along the Missouri River. It occurs in substrates from mud and sand to gravel, cobble, and boulders in relatively shallow riffles and shoals with slow to swift current (Buchanan, 1980; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Baird, 2000). According to Stansbery (1967), spectaclecase is usually found in firm mud between large rocks in quiet water very near the interface with swift currents. Specimens have also been reported in tree stumps, root masses, and in beds of rooted vegetation (Stansbery, 1967; Oesch, 1995). Similar to other margaritiferids, spectaclecase tend to be aggregated (Gordon and Layzer, 1989), particularly under slab boulders or bedrock shelves (Call, 1900; Hinkley, 1906; Buchanan, 1980; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Baird, 2000), where they are protected from the current. Unlike most species that move about to some degree, the spectaclecase may seldom, if ever, move except to burrow deeper; they may die from stranding during droughts (Oesch, 1995).
Adult Food Habits: Detritivore
Immature Food Habits: Parasitic
Food Comments: Larvae (glochidia) of freshwater mussels generally are parasitic on fish and there may be a specificity among some species. No host has yet been identified for glochidia of Cumberlandia monodonta. No specific trophic studies have been conducted for this species. General literature claims that mussels are filter feeders that remove phytoplankton from the water column. These assumptions appear to have been based on casual observations of mussels in relation to their position in the substrate or on rectal contents. Baker (1928) speculated that detritus was the primary energy source. This has been substantiated by James (1987) and correlates well with the kinds of utilized microhabitats observed in the field. This suggests that mussels may occupy other feeding guilds than just filterfeeding such as observed in the Sphaeriidae (see Lopez and Holopaien, 1987; Gordon and Layzer, 1989).
Phenology Comments: Little is known concerning the phenology of mussels other than the period when eggs/glochidia are held in the branchial marsupia. Being poikilothermic, it would be assumed that activity levels would be quite reduced during cold temperature months. Ages of Cumberlandia monodonta estimated from hinge growth lines ranged up to 56 years, but some individuals recovered during demographic sampling were much larger than the oldest animals that were aged by examination of the hinge ligament, and may have been older (Baird, 2000).
Length: 20 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Recovery objectives: 1) Maintain high quality habitat, consisting of flowing water sites in medium-to-large rivers with good water quality (new national wildlife refuge on Clinch River planned; modified reservoir releases from some dams to improve water quality by Tennessee Valley Authority may allow for potential reintroduction). 2) Monitor and regulate land use upstream to minimize erosion of silt to rivers. 3) Maintain ongoing conservation outreach program focused on the St. Croix River and its mussel fauna (including The St. Croix River Research Rendezvous group).
Restoration Potential: Many areas of historical element occurrences cannot be restored because of river modification. Other former habitats can probably be recovered if water quality is sufficiently upgraded and mussels are reintroduced, provided the fish host is also present. Some small scale transplants in the Mississippi River, away from construction sites, appear to have been successful (Oblad, 1980).
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Maintenance of water flow is critical, as is maintenance of good water quality. Concerted efforts must be made to monitor potential pollutants in the watershed, including sediment and agricultural runoff as well as point sources.
Management Requirements: Requirements include flowing water in riffle areas of rivers with suitable water quality and the appropriate fish host.

Point sources should be closely monitored, and in some instances upgrading of effluent standards may be required. Land use practices in the watershed should be monitored in an effort to reduce siltation resulting from agriculture and construction activities. River modifications such as dredging and impoundment should be prevented.

Monitoring Requirements: Although widely distributed, the Spectacle case is very rare, and should be monitored, particularly in those areas where it is still relatively abundant. Refer to the General Freshwater Mussel ESA.
Management Research Needs: 1) The glochidial host needs to be determined. Life history needs to be clarified. This would require collection of gravid female mussels, which would then be taken into the laboratory to recover glochidia. Potential fish host species would also be collected and placed in aquaria containing glochidia. Successful encystment by glochidia on a fish would indicate that it was an appropriate host. 2) Specific ecological requirements of the mussel (minimum water flow required, substrate preferences, influences of water temperature and food quality on growth rates, etc.), and the effects of particular pollutants need to be determined.
Biological Research Needs: Preferred habitat and environmental ranges, sensitivity to various pollutants and siltation, and glochidial hosts should be determined. Investigate genetics of individual populations. Investigate propogation techniques.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Freshwater Mussels

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens, including live specimens or recently dead shells (i.e., soft tissue still attached and/or nacre still glossy and iridescent without signs of external weathering or staining), at a given location with potentially recurring existence. Weathered shells constitute a historic occurrence. Evidence is derived from reliable published observation or collection data; unpublished, though documented (i.e. government or agency reports, web sites, etc.) observation or collection data; or museum specimen information.
Mapping Guidance: Based on the separation distances outlined herein, for freshwater mussels in STANDING WATER (or backwater areas of flowing water such as oxbows and sloughs), all standing water bodies with either (1) greater than 2 km linear distance of unsuitable habitat between (i.e. lotic connections), or (2) more than 10 km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat (including lentic shoreline, linear distance across water bodies, and lentic water bodies with proper lotic connections), are considered separate element occurrences. Only the largest standing water bodies (with 20 km linear shoreline or greater) may have greater than one element occurrence within each. Multiple collection or observation locations in one lake, for example, would only constitute multiple occurrences in the largest lakes, and only then if there was some likelihood that unsurveyed areas between collections did not contain the element.

For freshwater mussels in FLOWING WATER conditions, occurrences are separated by a distance of more than 2 stream km of unsuitable habitat, or a distance of more than 10 stream km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat. Standing water between occurrences is considered suitable habitat when calculating separation distance for flowing water mussel species unless dispersal barriers (see Separation Barriers) are in place.

Several mussel species in North America occur in both standing and flowing water (see Specs Notes). Calculation of separation distance and determination of separation barriers for these taxa should take into account the environment in which the element was collected. Juvenile mussels do not follow this pattern and juveniles are typically missed by most standard sampling methods (Hastie and Cosgrove, 2002; Neves and Widlak, 1987), therefore juvenile movement is not considered when calculating separation distance.

Separation Barriers: Separation barriers within standing water bodies are based solely on separation distance (see Separation Distance-suitable, below). Separation barriers between standing water bodies and within flowing water systems include lack of lotic connections, natural barriers such as upland habitat, absence of appropriate species specific fish hosts, water depth greater than 10 meters (Cvancara, 1972; Moyle and Bacon, 1969) or anthropogenic barriers to water flow such as dams or other impoundments and high waterfalls.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: None
Separation Justification: Adult freshwater mussels are largely sedentary spending their entire lives very near to the place where they first successfully settled (Coker et al., 1921; Watters, 1992). Strayer (1999) demonstrated in field trials that mussels in streams occur chiefly in flow refuges, or relatively stable areas that displayed little movement of particles during flood events. Flow refuges conceivably allow relatively immobile mussels to remain in the same general location throughout their entire lives. Movement occurs with the impetus of some stimulus (nearby water disturbance, physical removal from the water such as during collection, exposure conditions during low water, seasonal temperature change or associated diurnal cycles) and during spawning. Movement is confined to either vertical movement burrowing deeper into sediments though rarely completely beneath the surface, or horizontal movement in a distinct path often away from the area of stimulus. Vertical movement is generally seasonal with rapid descent into the sediment in autumn and gradual reappearance at the surface during spring (Amyot and Downing, 1991; 1997). Horizontal movement is generally on the order of a few meters at most and is associated with day length and during times of spawning (Amyot and Downing, 1997). Such locomotion plays little, if any, part in the distribution of freshwater mussels as these limited movements are not dispersal mechanisms. Dispersal patterns are largely speculative but have been attributed to stream size and surface geology (Strayer, 1983; Strayer and Ralley, 1993; van der Schalie, 1938), utilization of flow refuges during flood stages (Strayer, 1999), and patterns of host fish distribution during spawning periods (Haag and Warren, 1998; Watters, 1992). Lee and DeAngelis (1997) modeled the dispersal of freshwater into unoccupied habitats as a traveling wave front with a velocity ranging from 0.87 to 2.47 km/year (depending on mussel life span) with increase in glochidial attachment rate to fish having no effect on wave velocity.

Nearly all mussels require a host or hosts during the parasitic larval portion of their life cycle. Hosts are usually fish, but a few exceptional species utilize amphibians as hosts (Van Snik Gray et al., 2002; Howard, 1915) or may metamorphose without a host (Allen, 1924; Barfield et al., 1998; Lefevre and Curtis, 1911; 1912). Haag and Warren (1998) found that densities of host generalist mussels (using a variety of hosts from many different families) and displaying host specialists (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but mussel females have behavioral modifications to attract hosts to the gravid female) were independent of the densities of their hosts. Densities of non-displaying host specialist mussels (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but without host-attracting behavior) were correlated positively with densities of their hosts. Upstream dispersal of host fish for non-displaying host specialist mussels could, theoretically, transport mussel larvae (glochidia) over long distances through unsuitable habitat, but it is unlikely that this occurs very often. D. Strayer (personal communication) suggested a distance of at least 10 km, but a greater distance between occurrences may be necessary to constitute genetic separation of populations. As such, separation distance is based on a set, though arbitrary, distance between two known points of occurrence.

Date: 18Oct2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: Contact Jay Cordeiro (jay_cordeiro@natureserve.org) for a complete list of freshwater mussel taxa sorted by flow regime.
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: 23Dec2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2011); Gordon, M.E. (1992); Whittaker, J.C. (1994).
Management Information Edition Date: 08Mar2005
Management Information Edition Author: Cordeiro, J. (2005); Lauritsen, Diane (1986)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 23Dec2011
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J.

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

References
Help
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1984. Twentieth century changes in the freshwater mussel fauna of the Clinch River (Tennessee and Virginia). M.S. Thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 102 pp.

  • Araujo, R., C. Toledo, D. Van Damme, M. Ghamizi, and A. Machordom. 2009. Margaritifera marocana (Pallary, 1918): A valid species inhabiting Moroccan rivers. Journal of Molluscan Studies 75:95-101.

  • Araujo, R., S. Schneider, K. J. Roe, D. Erpenbeck, and A. Machrodom. 2017. The origin and phylogeny of Margaritiferidae (Bivalvia, Unionoida): A synthesis of molecular and fossil data. Zoologica Stripta 46:289?307. doi: 10.1111/zsc.12217

  • Baird, M.S. 2000. Life history of the spectaclecase, Cumberlandia monodonta Say, 1829 (Bivalvia, Unionoidea, Margaritiferidae). Unpublished master's thesis, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri. 108 pp.

  • Baker, F.C. 1928b. The freshwater Mollusca of Wisconsin: Part II. Pelecypoda. Bulletin of the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, University of Wisconsin, 70(2): 1-495.

  • Barnhart, M.C. and M.S. Baird. 2000. Fish hosts and culture of mussel species of special concern. Annual Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, Missouri, and Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 39 pp.

  • Bogan, A.E. and P.W. Parmalee. 1983. Tennessee's rare wildlife. Vol. 2: The mollusks. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and the Tennessee Conservation Department: Nashville, Tennessee. 123 pp.

  • Bolotov, I. N., I. V. Vikhrev, Y. V. Bespalaya, M. Y. Gofarov, A. V. Kondakov, E. S. Konopleva, N. N. Bolotov, and A. A. Lyubas. 2016. Multi-locus fossil-calibrated phylogeny, biogeography and a subgeneric revision of the Margaritiferidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 103:104?121.

  • Buchanan, A.C. 1980. Mussels (naiades) of the Meramec River Basin. Missouri Department of Conservation, Aquatic Series, 17: 1-68.

  • Butler, R. S. 2002. Status assessment report for the spectaclecase, Cumberlandia monodonta, occurring in the Mississippi River system (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 3, 4, 5, and 6). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, N.C. 69 pp.

  • Call, R.E. 1900. A descriptive illustrated catalogue of the mollusca of Indiana. Annual Report of the Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources, 24: 335-535.

  • Cummings, K. S., and C. A. Mayer. 1992. Field guide to freshwater mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual No. 5. 194 pp.

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145 in: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Cummings, Kevin S. et al. 1992. Survey of the Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) of the Wabash River Drainage. Final Report. INHS Center for Biodiversity Tech. Rep. 1992 (1):210 pp.

  • Davis, G.M. and S.L.H. Fuller. 1981. Genetic relationships among recent Unionacea (Bivalvia) of North America. Malacologia, 20(2): 217-253.

  • Dennis, S.D. 1984. Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Tennessee River system, with special reference to possible limiting effects of siltation. Ph.D. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 247 pp.

  • Doolittle, T. C. J. 1987. The qualitative analysis, relative abundance, and distribution of freshwater unionid mussels in the St. Croix and Namekagon rivers. Draft final report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 21 pp.

  • Doolittle, T. C. J. 1988. Distribution and relative abundance of freshwater mussels in the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resouces. Unpaged.

  • Doolittle, Thomas C. J. 1987. The Qualitative Analysis, Relative Abundance, and Distribution of Freshwater Unionid Mussels in the St. Croix and Namekagon Rivers. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program. Results in published report.

  • Elderkin, C.L. 2009. Intragenomic variation in the rDNA internal transcribed spacer (ITSI) in the freshwater mussel Cumberlandia monodonta (Say, 1828). Journal of Molluscan Studies 75:419-421.

  • Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology, 17: 29-42.

  • Fuller, S. 1980. Historical and current distributions of fresh-water mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Upper Mississippi River. Pages 72-119 in Journal of Upper Mississippi River Bivalve Mollusc. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Fuller, S.L.H. 1974. Chapter 8: Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Pages 215-273 in: C.W. Hart, Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller (eds.) Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press: New York. 389 pp.

  • Gordon, M. E., and D. G. Smith. 1990. Autumnal reproduction in Cumberlandia monodonta (Unionoidea: Margaritiferidae). Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 109(4):407-411.

  • Gordon, M.E. and J.B. Layzer. 1989. Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of the Cumberland River review of life histories and ecological relationships. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 89(15): 1-99.

  • Gordon, M.E., and D.G. Smith. 1990. Autumnal reproduction in Cumberlandia monodonta (Unionoidea: Margaritiferidae). Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 109: 407-411.

  • Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997. Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 51: 66-89.

  • Havlik, M. E. 1993. Unionids and margaritiferids (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in the Saint Croix River bordering Minnesota at Afton and Wild River State Parks, 8-17 June 1992. Final report submitted to the Nongame Wildlife Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 41 pp.

  • Havlik, M.E. 1981. The historic and present distribution of the endangered mollusk Lampsilis higginsi (Lea 1857). Bulletin of the American Malacological Union for 1980: 19-22.

  • Havlik, M.E. 1993. Unionids and margaritiferids (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in the Saint Croix River bordering Minnesota at Afton and Wild River State Parks, 8-17 June 1992. Final report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Nongame Wildlife Program, St. Paul, Minnesota, contract number 29000-9938. 41 pp.

  • Heath, D. J., and P. W. Rasmussen. 1990. Results of base-line sampling of freshwater mussel communities for long-term monitoring and the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Report submitted to the Wisconsin and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 45 pp.

  • Higgins, F. 1858. A catalogue of the shell-bearing species, inhabiting the vicinity of Columbus, Ohio, with some remarks thereon. 12th Annual Report, Ohio State Board of Agriculture for 1857: 548-555.

  • Hinkley, A.A. 1906. Some shells from Mississippi and Alabama. The Nautilus, 20(3): 34; 20(4): 40-44; 20(5): 52-55.

  • Hornbach, D.J. 1994. The factors influencing the distribution of mussels in the Lower St. Croix River. Reported submitted to Conservation Biology Research Grant Program, Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, February 20, 1994. 23 pp.

  • Hove, M.C and D.J. Hornbach. 2009. Spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) host studies produce more negative results. Ellipsaria 11(1):22.

  • Howard, A. D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29(1):4-11.

  • Howard, A. D. 1925. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. Nautilus 29:4-11.

  • Howard, A. D., and B. J. Anson. 1922. Phases in the parasitism of the Unionidae. Journal of Parasitology 9(2):68-82 + 2 plates.

  • Howard, A.D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.

  • Huff, S.W., D. Campbell, D.L. Gustafson, C. Lydeard, C.R. Altaba, and G. Giribet. 2004. Investigations into the phylogenetic relationships of freshwater pearl mussels (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae) based on molecular data: implications for their taxonomy and biogeography. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 70: 379-388.

  • Imlay, M.J. 1973. Effects of potassium on survival and distribution of freshwater mussels. Malacologia 12(1):97-113.

  • James, M.R. 1987. Ecology of the freshwater mussel Hyridella menziesi in a small oliogotrophic lake. Archives of Hydrobiology 108:337-348.

  • Knudsen, K.A. and M.C. Hove. 1997. Spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) conglutinates unique, host(s) elusive. Triannual Unionid Report 11: 6-7.

  • LaRocque, A. 1966-70. Pleistocene Mollusca of Ohio. Bureau of the Geological Survey of Ohio, 62(1-4): 113-356.

  • Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propogation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 30:102-201.

  • Lopez, G.R. and I.J. Holopainen. 1987. Interstitial suspension-feeding by Pisidium spp. (Pisidiiae: Bivalvia): a new guild in lentic benthos? American Malacological Bulletin, 5: 21-29.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004b. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii + 255 pp.

  • Missouri Department of Conservation. 1984. Rare and endangered species of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri. 171 pp.

  • Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.

  • Nelson, D.A. and T.M. Freitag. 1980. Ecology, identification and recent discoveries of Higgin's eye (Lampsilis higginsi), spectacle case (Cumberlandia monodonta), and fat pocketbook (Potamilis capax) mussels in the upper Mississippi River. Pages 120-148 in J. Rasmussen (ed.), Proceedings of the UMRCC Symposium on the Upper Mississippi River Bivalve Molluscs. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Neves, R.J. 1993. A state-of-the unionid address. Pages 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels. Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, October 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. Pages 43-85 in G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern Perspective. Special Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

  • Oblad, B. R. 1980. An experiment in relocating endangered and rare naiad molluscs from a proposed bridge construction site at Sylvan Slough, Mississippi River Near Moline, IL. Pp. 211-222 in J. Rasmussen, ed., Proceedings of the UMRCC Symposium on the Upper Mississippi River Bivalve Molluscs. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Oesch, R.D. 1984. Missouri Naiades: A guide to the mussels of Missouri. Missouri Dept. Cons., Jefferson City, MO. 269pp.

  • Oesch, R.D. 1984a. Missouri Naiades: a Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Jefferson City, Missouri: Conservation Commision of the State of Missouri. 270 pp.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1918a. The nayades (freshwater mussels) of the Upper Tennessee Drainage. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 57: 577-580.

  • Parmalee, P. W., and A. E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.

  • Parmalee, P.W. 1967. The fresh-water mussels of Illinois. Ill. State Mus., Popular Sci. Series Vol. VIII. 108pp.

  • Parmalee, P.W. 1967. The freshwater mussels of Illinois. Illinois State Museum, Popular Science Series 8:1-108.

  • Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.

  • Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennesee. 328 pp.

  • Sietman, B. E. 2003. Field guide to the freshwater mussels of Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 144 pp.

  • Simpson, C.T. 1914. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Naiades or Pearly Fresh-water Mussels. Bryant Walker: Detroit, Michigan. 1540 pp.

  • Smith, D.G. 1986. The stomach anatomy of some eastern North American Margaritiferidae (Unionoida: Unionacea). American Malacological Bulletin, 4(1): 13-19.

  • Smith, D.G. 2001. Systematic and distribution of the recent Margaritiferidae. Pages 33-49 in G. Bauer and K. Wachter (eds.) Ecology and Evolution of the Freshwater Mussels Unionoida. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany.

  • Smith, D.G. and W.P. Wall. 1984. The Margaritiferidae reinstated: a reply to Davis and Fuller (1981), "genetic relationships among recent Unionacea of North America." Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 4: 321-330.

  • Stansbery, D. H., K. G. Borror, and K. E. Newman. 1982. Biological abstracts of selected species of unionid mollusks recorded from Ohio. Prepared for the Ohio Heritage Program, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio.

  • Stansbery, D.H. 1967. Observations on the habitat distribution of the naiad Cumberlandia monodonta (Say, 1829). American Malacogical Union Annual Report 1965(32): 16-17.

  • Starrett, W.C. 1971. A survey of the mussels (Unionacea) of the Illinois River: a polluted stream. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 30(5):265-403.

  • Stern, E.M. 1982. Higgins' eye mussel recovery plan: problems and approaches. Pages 108-113 in: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, CE. "Report of Freshwater Molluscs Workshop", Vicksburg, Mississippi.

  • Stern, E.M. 1983. Depth distribution and density of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) collected with SCUBA from the Lower Wisconsin and St. Croix Rivers. The Nautilus, 97: 36-42.

  • Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 13:253-264.

  • Strayer, D.L. 1999a. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.

  • Strayer, D.L. and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(3):247-258.

  • Thiel, P. 1981. A survey of unionid mussels in the upper Mississippi River (pools 3-11). Technical Bulletin 124. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. 24 pp.

  • Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Ahlstedt, S.). 1984. Recovery plan for the Cumberland monkeyface pearly mussel; Quadrula intermedia (Conrad, 1836). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. 35 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985e. Recovery plan for the pink mucket pearly mussel; Lampsilis orbiculata (Hildreth, 1828). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. 47 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate and listing priority assignment form: Cumberlandia monodonta. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Field Office. 23 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status for the sheepnose and spectaclecase mussels; proposed rule. Federal Register 76(12):3392-3420.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the sheepnose and spectaclecase mussels; proposed rule. Federal Register 77(49):14914-14949.

  • Utterback, W.I. 1915. The naiades of Missouri. I-IV. American Midland Naturalist, 4(2): 41-53, (3): 97-152, (4): 181-204, (5): 244-273.

  • Van der Schalie, H. 1938a. The naiad fauna of the Huron River in southeastern Michigan. Miscellaneous Publication of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 40:7-78.

  • Watters, G.T. 1992a. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19:481-490.

  • Watters, G.T. 2000. Freshwater mussels and water quality: a review of the effects of hydrologic and instream habitat alterations. Pages 261-274 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.

  • Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, and J. T Garner. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Alabama & the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, & Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 908 pages.

  • Williams, J. D., A. E.Bogan, R. S. Butler, K. S.Cummings, J. T. Garner, J. L. Harris, N. A. Johnson, and G. T. Watters. 2017. A revised list of the freshwater mussels (mollusca: bivalvia: unionida) of the United States and Canada. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20:33-58.

  • Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993b. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9): 6-22.

  • Ziuganov, V., A. Zotin, L. Nezlin, and V. Tretiakov. 1994. The Freshwater Pearl Mussels and Their Relationships with Salmonid Fish. VNIRO Publishing House: Moscow, Russia. 104 pp.

  • van der Schalie, H. 1939. Additional notes on the naiades (fresh-water mussels) of the Lower Tennessee River. The American Midland Naturalist 22(2):452-457.

  • van der Schalie, H. 1966. Hermaphroditism among North American freshwater mussels. Malacologia 5:77-78.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Ahlstedt, S.A., J.R. Powell, R.S. Butler, M.T. Fagg, D.W. Hubbs, S.F. Novak, S.R. Palmer, and P.D. Johnson. 2004. Historical and current examination of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in the Duck River basin of Tennessee. Final report submitted to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, contract FA-02-14725-00, Tennessee. 212 pp.

  • Biological Resources Division, USGS. 1997. Database of museum records of aquatic species. Compiled by J. Williams (USGS-BRD, Gainesville, FL).

  • Butler, R.S. 2003c. Status assessment for the spectaclecase, Cumberlandia monodonta, occurring in the Mississippi River and Great Lakes systems. Unpublished report prepared by the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team Mollusk Subgroup, Asheville, North Carolina, March 2003. 69 pp.

  • Master, L. L. and A. L. Stock. 1998. Synoptic national assessment of comparative risks to biological diversity and landscape types: species distributions. Summary Report submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 36 pp.

  • Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition. Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.

  • Watters, G.T., M.A. Hoggarth, and D.H. Stansbery. 2009b. The Freshwater Mussels of Ohio. Ohio State University Press: Columbus, Ohio. 421 pp.

  • Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama & the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi & Tennessee. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 908 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.