Ellipsaria lineolata - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Butterfly Mussel
Synonym(s): Plagiola lineolata (Rafinesque, 1820)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Ellipsaria lineolata (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 80250)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.117740
Element Code: IMBIV13010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Ellipsaria
Genus Size: A - Monotypic genus
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: Ellipsaria lineolata
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 28Apr2009
Global Status Last Changed: 28Apr2009
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This species ranges in the Mississippi River drainage from western Pennsylvania (Ohio River drainage) west to Minnesota and eastern Kansas (Murray and Leonard, 1962), south to eastern Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and southwest Mississippi (Vidrine, 1993); in the Cumberland River downstream of Cumberland Falls and in the southeast in the Tennessee River proper all the way south to the Tombigbee and Alabama River systems. Most populations are stable with minor decline in Minnesota and expansion in the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (16Jul1998)

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 (S4), Arkansas (S3), Georgia (SNR), Illinois (S2), Indiana (S2), Iowa (S2), Kansas (S1), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S1), Minnesota (S2), Mississippi (S2), Missouri (S4), Ohio (S1), Oklahoma (S2), Pennsylvania (SH), Tennessee (S4), West Virginia (S2), Wisconsin (S2)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: NT - Near threatened
American Fisheries Society Status: Special Concern (01Jan1993)

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: This species ranges in the Mississippi River drainage from western Pennsylvania (Ohio River drainage) west to Minnesota and eastern Kansas (Murray and Leonard, 1962), south to eastern Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and southwest Mississippi (Vidrine, 1993); in the Cumberland River downstream of Cumberland Falls and in the southeast in the Tennessee River proper all the way south to the Tombigbee and Alabama River systems (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Williams et al., 2008).

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

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Although formerly thought to be extirpated in Pennsylvania (Bogan, 1993), this species likely still occurs in the western part of the state, possibly in the Upper Ohio, Middle Allegeny-Redbank, or Lower Monongahela drainages (Ortmann, 1919). In Ohio, it is limited to the lower Muskingum River (Watters, 1995) and Ohio River; locally common (Watters et al., 2009). In Minnesota, this species is uncommon to rare in the Mississippi River below St. Anthony Falls, and common in the lower St. Croix River (Sietman, 2003). In the Wabash River in Indiana, it is historic in the mainstem but is now restricted to tributaries (Fisher, 2006). In Illinois, it is distributed in the larger rivers in the state but has been extirpated from all but the extreme lower Illinois River, Mississippi River in the northern half of the state, and the Ohio River (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). In Wisconsin, Mathiak (1979) recorded it in only a few sites in the Mississippi River. The first live specimen in over 25 years was collected in the Iowa River, Iowa City, and translocated upstream (bridge construction) in 2007 (Havlik, 2008). In Mississippi, it occurs in the Big Black, Yazoo, Tennessee, and Tombigbee drainages (Jones et al., 2005). In Louisiana, Vidrine (1993) reports it from Bayou Bartholomew and the Ouachita River (historical). In Tennessee, it is widespread in the large and medium-sized rivers including the Tennessee, Cumberland, Elk and Stones (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It has been collected in Kentucky in the Middle Green and Barren Rivers (Cochran and Layzer, 1993), but is considered occasional to sporadic nearly statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). It occurs in Arkansas in the Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996), St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), Cache and White Rivers (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005; Gordon, 1982; Gordon et al., 1994). In Missouri, it is concentrated in a narrow band from east to west across Missouri in those rivers that flow north into the Missouri River, and in the Salt River basin (Oesch, 1995). Oklahoma distribution: Kiamichi, Verdigris, Neosho; Poteau Rivers (Branson, 1984). It was recently found in the Little and Kiamichi Rivers, Oklahoma (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999; Vaughn, 2000). In Kansas, it is found in the Neosho and Verdigris Rivers, with a scattered distribution but is extirpated in the Fall and Spring Rivers and is present in the Osage River basin of Missouri but not in the Kansas portion (Marais des Cygnes River basin) (Couch, 1997). Long term studies have been ongoing on the population in the Verdigris River in Kansas (Miller and Lynott, 2006). McGregor and Garner (2004) recently documented this species in the Bear Creek drainage in Alabama/Mississippi. This species was not collected from the Black Warrior River in Tuscaloosa and Greene/Hale Cos. but was found in the upper Tombigbee River in Sumter and Greene Cos., Alabama; in a recent survey (Williams et al., 1992). n the Tennessee River, it occurs across northern Alabama and in several tributaries (Paint Rock- Ahlstedt, 1996) with unconfirmed reports (Ortmann, 1925) from Limestone Creek; and is in the Mobile Basin in the Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Alabama, Cahaba, and Coosa Rivers and some tributaries (Williams et al., 2008). In the Coosa River basin in Georgia, it is known historically from the Coosa and Oostanaula River drainages but has not been collected live recently (Williams and Hughes, 1998). If present in Georgia, it would only exist in the extreme northwestern portion of the state.

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: This species is extirpated from the Minnesota River in Minnesota (Sietman, 2003). Significant decline to near extirpation has also occurred in the Clinch and Duck Rivers in Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). On the other hand, it appears to have been successful in adapting to impoundment conditions in the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers where it is locally common and where it may be found at depths of up to 20 feet. It has extended its range upstream in both the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers in recent historic times (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: In Ohio, it is extirpated from the Scioto River (formerly occurred as far upstream as Columbus) and Tuscarawas River (formerly at New Philadelphia) (Watters et al., 2009).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species reaches its greatest abundance in large rivers in stretches with pronounced current and a substrate of coarse sand and gravel. It appears to have been successful in adapting to impoundment conditions in the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers where it is locally common and can be found at depths of up to 20 feet (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) This species ranges in the Mississippi River drainage from western Pennsylvania (Ohio River drainage) west to Minnesota and eastern Kansas (Murray and Leonard, 1962), south to eastern Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and southwest Mississippi (Vidrine, 1993); in the Cumberland River downstream of Cumberland Falls and in the southeast in the Tennessee River proper all the way south to the Tombigbee and Alabama River systems (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Williams et al., 2008).

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, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, OH, OK, PA, TN, WI, WV

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Bibb (01007), Colbert (01033), Greene (01063), Jackson (01071), Jefferson (01073)*, Lauderdale (01077), Lawrence (01079)*, Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Marshall (01095), Morgan (01103), Perry (01105), Pickens (01107)
IA Allamakee (19005), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Des Moines (19057), Dubuque (19061), Jackson (19097), Johnson (19103), Lee (19111), Louisa (19115), Muscatine (19139), Scott (19163)
IL Adams (17001), Calhoun (17013), Carroll (17015), Hancock (17067), Henderson (17071), Jersey (17083), Jo Daviess (17085), Madison (17119), Massac (17127), Mercer (17131), Pike (17149), Pulaski (17153), Rock Island (17161), Whiteside (17195)
KS Allen (20001), Cherokee (20021), Coffey (20031), Labette (20099), Linn (20107), Montgomery (20125), Neosho (20133), Wilson (20205), Woodson (20207)
KY Edmonson (21061)
LA Morehouse (22067)
MN Carver (27019), Chisago (27025), Dakota (27037), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Ramsey (27123), Scott (27139), Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163), Winona (27169)
MS Clay (28025), Hinds (28049), Issaquena (28055), Itawamba (28057), Lowndes (28087), Monroe (28095), Noxubee (28103), Sharkey (28125), Sunflower (28133), Tishomingo (28141), Warren (28149)
OH Brown (39015), Clermont (39025), Hamilton (39061), Meigs (39105), Morgan (39115), Pickaway (39129), Scioto (39145), Washington (39167)
OK McCurtain (40089), Nowata (40105), Ottawa (40115), Pushmataha (40127)
PA Allegheny (42003)*, Armstrong (42005)*, Beaver (42007)*, Washington (42125)*, Westmoreland (42129)*
WI Buffalo (55011), Columbia (55021), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Dunn (55033), Eau Claire (55035), Grant (55043), Iowa (55049), La Crosse (55063), Pepin (55091)*, Pierce (55093), Polk (55095), Richland (55103), Sauk (55111), St. Croix (55109), Trempealeau (55121)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Cahaba (03150202)+, Upper Tombigbee (03160101)+, Middle Tombigbee-Lubbub (03160106)+, Sipsey (03160107)+, Noxubee (03160108)+, Locust (03160111)+*
05 Middle Allegheny-Redbank (05010006)+*, Lower Monongahela (05020005)+*, Upper Ohio (05030101)+*, Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)+, Upper Ohio-Shade (05030202)+, Muskingum (05040004)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Middle Ohio-Laughery (05090203)+, Upper Green (05110001)+, Lower Ohio (05140206)+
06 Guntersville Lake (06030001)+, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+, Bear (06030006)+
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+*, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Black (07040007)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Eau Claire (07050006)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Lower Rock (07090005)+, Bear-Wyaconda (07110001)+, The Sny (07110004)+, Peruque-Piasa (07110009)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Greenville (08030100)+, Big Sunflower (08030207)+, Bayou Bartholomew (08040205)+, Lower Big Black (08060202)+
10 Lower Marais Des Cygnes (10290102)+
11 Upper Verdigris (11070101)+, Middle Verdigris (11070103)+, Upper Neosho (11070204)+, Middle Neosho (11070205)+, Lake O' the Cherokees (11070206)+, Spring (11070207)+, Kiamichi (11140105)+, Upper Little (11140107)+
+ 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
Reproduction Comments: Glochidial hosts include freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) (Surber, 1913; Howard, 1915; Wilson, 1916; Howard and Anson, 1922; Coker et al., 1921). Rudh et al. (2007) confirmed freshwater drum as the glochidial host and noted juveniles were shed 25 days after infestation and observed a palpitating matle display on gravid females. Sietman et al. (2009) confirmed freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) as a host species.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, High gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Deep water, Shallow water
Habitat Comments: This species reaches its greatest abundance in large rivers in stretches with pronounced current and a substrate of coarse sand and gravel. It appears to have been successful in adapting to impoundment conditions in the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers where it is locally common and can be found at depths of up to 20 feet (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
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: 28Apr2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 08Jun2007
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
  • Baker, F. C. 1928.  The fresh water mollusca of Wisconsin:  part II: Pelecypoda.  Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin No. 70, Part II.  University of Wisconsin, Madison.  495 pp.

  • Bright, R. C., C. Gatenby, D. Olson, and E. Plummer. 1990. A survey of the mussels of the Minnesota River, 1989. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 106 pp.

  • COPE, C.H. 1979. SURVEY OF THE UNIONIDAE CONSIDERED FOR CONSERVATION STATUS IN KANSAS. KS FISH AND GAME COMMISSION, NON-GAME REPT.

  • COPE, CHARLES H. 1983. KANSAS FRESHWATER MUSSEL INVESTIGATION. PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT. FISHERIES INVESTIGATION AND DEVELOPMENT SECTION, KANSAS FISH AND GAME COMMISSION.

  • Christian, A.D., J.L. Harris, W.R. Posey, J.F. Hockmuth, and G.L. Harp. 2005. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) assemblages of the lower Cache River, Arkansas. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(3): 487-512.

  • Cochran, T.G. II and J.B. Layzer. 1993. Effects of commercial harvest on unionid habitat use in the Green and Barren Rivers, Kentucky. Pages 61-65 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (eds.) Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels: Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 12-14 October, 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 189 pp.

  • Coker, R. E. 1919. Fresh-water mussels and mussel industries of the United States. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries 36:13-89.

  • Coker, R.E., A.F. Shira, H.W. Clark, and A.D. Howard. 1921. Natural history and propagation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries 37:78-181.

  • Couch, K.J. 1997. An Illustrated Guide to the Unionid Mussels of Kansas. Karen J. Couch. [Printed in Olathe, Kansas]. 124 pp.

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field guide to freshwater mussels of the Midwest. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. Manual 5. 194pp.

  • Davis, M. and R. Hart. 1995. Mussel habitat in the Richmond Island/Lock and Dam 6 tailwater area of Pool 7, Mississippi River, and its importance for recovery of the federally endangered mussel, Lampsilis higginsi. Final report submitted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 34 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.

  • Fuller, S. L. 1978. Fresh-water mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Upper Mississippi River: observations of selected sites within the 9-foot channel navigation project on behalf of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Report submitted to the USACE, No. 78-33. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Division of Limnology and Ecology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 401 pp.

  • Fuller, S. L. 1985. Freshwater mussels of the Upper Mississippi River. I. Brynildson, editor. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. 63 pp.

  • Herkert, Jim. 1998. Proposed additions, deletions, and changes to the Illinois List of Threatened and Endangered Animals. 101st ESPB Meeting, August 21, 1998. 16pp.

  • Hornbach, D. J., P. Baker, and T. Deneka. 1995. Abundance and distribution of the endangered mussel Lampsilis higginsi in the lower St. Croix River, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Final report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 68 pp.

  • Howard, A.D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The 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.

  • Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.

  • 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.

  • Mathiak, H.A. 1979. A river survey of the unionid mussels of Wisconsin, 1973-1977. Sand Shell Press: Horicon, Wisconsin. 75 pp.

  • McGregor, S.W. and J.T. Garner. 2004. Changes in the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna of the Bear Creek system of northwest Alabama and northeast Mississippi. American Malacological Bulletin, 18(1/2): 61-70.

  • Miller, E.J. and S.T. Lynott. 2006. Increase of unionid mussel populations in the Verdigris River, Kansas, from 1991 to 2003. Southeastern Naturalist, 5(3): 383-392.

  • 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.

  • Murray, H.D. and A.B. Leonard. 1962. Handbook of Unionid Mussels in Kansas. Museum of Natural History, Uni- versity of Kansas, Miscellaneous Publication, 28: 1-184.

  • Obermeyer, B.K, D.R. Edds, and C.W. Prophet. 1995. Distribution and abundance of federal "candidate" mussels (Unionidae) in southeast Kansas. Report submitted to Kansas Dept. Wildlife and Parks. 88 pp.

  • Oesch, R. D. 1984. Missouri naiades: a guide to the mussels of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. Jefferson City, Missouri. 270 pp.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1919. Monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III. Systematic account of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1):1-385.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1925. The naiad fauna of the Tennessee River system below Walden Gorge. The American Midland Naturalist, 9(7): 321-371.

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

  • Posey, W.R., III, J.L. Harris, and G.L. Harp. 1996b. An evaluation of the mussel community in the Lower Ouachita River. Report to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas. 28 pp.

  • Rudh, N., M. Hove, a. Crownhart, B. Sietman, P. Frank, M. Davis, D. Hornbach, and A. Kapuscinski. 2007. Freshwater drum confirmed as suitable host for butterfly (Ellipsaria lineolata) glochidia: high host specificity evident. Ellipsaria, 9(1): 16-17.

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

  • Sietman, B.E., K. Bloodsworth, B. Bosman, A. Lager, M. Lyons, M.C. Hove, and S.I. Boyer. 2009. Freshwater drum confirmed as a suitable host for Leptodea, Potamilus, and Truncilla species. Ellipsaria 11(3):18-19.

  • Spoo, A. 2008. The Pearly Mussels of Pennsylvania. Coachwhip Publications: Landisville, Pennsylvania. 210 pp.

  • 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.

  • Surber, T. 1913. Notes on the natural hosts of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, 32: 101-116.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Vaughn, C.C. 2000. Changes in the mussel fauna of the middle Red River drainage: 1910 - present. Pages 225-232 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.

  • Vaughn, C.C. and D.E. Spooner. 2004. Status of the mussel fauna of the Poteau River and implications for commercial harvest. American Midland Naturalist, 152: 336-346.

  • Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Gail Q. Vidrine Collectibles: Eunice, Louisiana. xii + 225 pp. + 20 plates.

  • Watters, G. Thomas. 1994. An Annotated Bibliography of the Reproduction and Propogation of the Unionoidea (Primarily of North America). Ohio Biological Survey, College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University. In cooperation with Ohio Division of Wildlife. 158 pp.

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

  • Watters, G.T. 1995a. A field guide to the freshwater mussels of Ohio. revised 3rd edition. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, Ohio. 122 pp.

  • 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., 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., 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.

  • Williams, J.D., S.L.H. Fuller, and R. Gracea. 1992a. Effects of impoundment on freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 13:1-10.

  • Wilson, C. B. 1916. Copepod parasites of fresh-water fishes and their economic relations to mussel glochidia. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 824], 34: 333-374 + 15 plates.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1995-1996. Status survey for federally listed endangered freshwater mussel species in the Paint Rock River system, northeastern Alabama, U.S.A. Walkerana 8(19):63-80.

  • Ahlstedt, S.A. and J.J. Jenkinson. 1991. Distribution and abundance of Potamilus capax and other freshwater mussels in the St. Francis River system, Arkansas and Missouri, U.S.A. Walkerana, 5(14): 225-261.

  • Bogan, A.E. 1993a. Workshop on freshwater bivalves of Pennsylvania. Workshop hosted by Aquatic Systems Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, held at Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6-7 May 1993. 80 pp.

  • Branson, B.A. 1984. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma- Part 3: Lampsilini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 64: 20-36.

  • Christian, A.D. 1995. Analysis of the commercial mussel beds in the Cache and White Rivers in Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 210 pp.

  • Cicerello, R.R. and G.A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series 7:1-62.

  • 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.

  • Fisher, B.E. 2006. Current status of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River drainage of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 115(2): 103-109.

  • Galbraith, H.S., D.E. Spooner, and C.C. Vaughn. 2008. Status of rare and endangered freshwater mussels in southeastern Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist, 53(1): 45-50.

  • Gordon, M.E. 1982. Mollusca of the White River, Arkansas and Missouri. The Southwestern Naturalist, 27(3): 347-352.

  • Gordon, M.E., S.W. Chordas, G.L. Harp. and A.V. Brown. 1994. Aquatic Mollusca of the White River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas, U.S.A. Walkerana, 7(17/18): 1-9

  • Havlik, M.E. 2008. A mussel translocation at the McCollister Boulevard Bridge, Iowa River, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, 9-14 September 2007. Ellipsaria, 10(2): 6-7.

  • Miller, E.J. 1993. Evaluation of Verdigris River, Kansas, Freshwater Mussel Refuge. Pages 56-60 in K. S. Cummings, A. C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (eds.) Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels: Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 12-14 October, 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 189 pp.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., et al. 2004a. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Sietman, B.E. 2003. Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: St. Paul, Minnesota. 144 pp.

  • Vaughn, C.C., and C.M. Taylor. 1999. Impoundments and the decline of freshwater mussels: a case study of an extinction gradient. Conservation Biology 13(4):912-920.

  • 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. and M.H. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels of selected reaches of the main channel rivers in the Coosa drainage of Georgia. U.S. Geological report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Alabama. 21 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 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.