Elliptio dilatata - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Spike
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Elliptio dilatata (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 79953)
French Common Names: elliptio pointu
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.116035
Element Code: IMBIV14100
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Elliptio
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ 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: Elliptio dilatata
Taxonomic Comments: The classification of the Atlantic Slope species of Elliptio is currently in a state of confusion. Johnson (1970) lumped many named taxa under a single name. Current research is finding many of these synonomized taxa to be valid species. This research is in progress and will result in the recognition of numerous additional taxa in this genus. In an unpublished study of molecular systematics, Campbell and Harris (2006) found high genetic distance from other Elliptio species.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10May2016
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species is widespread in the eastern U.S., occurring throughout much of the Mississippi River system, and portions of the Great Lakes drainage and can often be abundant at given sites.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (16Jul1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (10May2016)

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 (S5), Florida (SNR), Georgia (SH), Illinois (S2), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S2), Kansas (S2S3), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S2S3), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (S2), Mississippi (S1), Missouri (S4), Nebraska (SNR), New York (S3S4), North Carolina (S2), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S1), Pennsylvania (S4), South Dakota (S1), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S1), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S3), Wisconsin (S4)
Canada Ontario (S5), Quebec (S2S3)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (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 is widespread in the eastern U.S., occurring throughout much of the Mississippi River system, and portions of the Great Lakes drainage (Mirarchi et al., 2004). Distribution includes the entire Mississippi River drainage from the St. Lawrence River and its tributaries south to northern Louisiana and west to the tributaries of the Red River, Oklahoma (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Canada, it is common in the Great Lakes and their tributaries from Lake Michigan to Lake Erie, uncommon in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River (Clarke, 1981).

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

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Minnesota, it is in the Minnesota, St. Croix, and Mississippi River drainages, and some southern streams (Sietman, 2003). In Kentucky, it is generally distributed statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003; Clark, 1988; Gordon, 1991). In Tennessee, it is in most small streams and large rivers throughout E and middle Tennessee, from the upper Clinch and Powell Rivers in the E to the Stones, Elk, and Duck Rivers in the center (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It occurred in the Tennessee River across northern Alabama historically including some large tributaries but is extant only in Guntersville and Wilson Dam tailwaters (possibly Paint Rock River- Ahlstedt, 1996) (Williams et al., 2008). In Mississippi, it is in the Mississippi River N and Yazoo drainages (Jones et al., 2005). In Texas, it is questionably (some confusion with Quincuncina mitchelli) from the San Marcos River (Howells et al., 1996). Oklahoma distribution: Kiamichi, Neosho, and the Poteau Rivers (Branson, 1983), however likely extirpated from the Poteau (White, 1977). It was recently found in the Little River, Oklahoma (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999); Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), historically in Kiamichi (Vaughn, 2000). In Kansas, it is extant in the Spring River (Branson, 1966- also MO) and Marais des Cygnes and Neosho River basins with archaeological specimens from as far NW as the Republican River in Geary Co. (Kansas drainage) (Couch, 1997). In Wisconsin, it is fairly widespread and abundant, especially the N and E (Mathiak, 1979). In Illinois, it is generally distributed in five drainages (Fox River, Kankakee-Iroquois River, Vermillion and Maxon River, Sangamon, Kaskaskia River, Little Wabash and Bonpas Creek) where it is uncommon to rare (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991; Sietman et al., 2001); recently the Fox River basin in Illinois and Wisconsin where it was uncommon (a few occurrences in Illinois and one in Wisconsin) (Schanzle et al., 2004). Indiana distribution: Blue (Sietman et al., 1995), Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990), East Fork White (Harmon, 1992), Muscatatuck (Harmon, 1989), St. Joseph and Maumee (Pryor, 2005). In Ohio, it is very widespread and common throughout most of the state (Watters, 1992; 1995; Lyons et al., 2007; Grabarciewicz, 2008; Watters et al., 2009). It is widely distributed and common in the Middle and Upper New River drainages in Virginia (Pinder et al., 2002); and New (Jirka and Neves, 1990) and Kanawha (Morris and Taylor, 1992) Rivers in West Virginia; also Copper Creek (Fraley and Ahlstedt, 2000; Hanlon et al., 2009); upper S Fork Holston (Stansbery and Clench, 1978), and upper Clinch River (historical) (Jones et al., 2005), Virginia. In North Carolina, it is known from the Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, French Broad, and New River Basins (Bogan, 2002) in Allegheny, Ashe, Cherokee, Macon, Swain, and Watauga Cos. (LeGrand et al., 2006). In Louisiana, Vidrine (1993) reports it from NE drainages. It was recently collected from 12 of 38 sites surveyed in the Tonawanda Creek basin (Niagara River drainage) in western New York (Marangelo and Strayer, 2000). It occurs in the Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996), Cache and White Rivers, Arkansas (Christian, 1995; Gordon, 1982; Gordon et al., 1994). It is also known from the Clinton River drainage in Michigan (Trdan and Hoeh, 1993; Strayer, 1980) and lower Michigan to upper peninsula (Goodrich and Van der Schalie, 1939) in Lakes Michigan, Huron, St. Clair basins (Badra and Goforth, 2003). In Canada, it is known from Ontario (incl. Sydenham- Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2003) with several secure populations and Quebec which has fewer populations that are in decline (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004). Recently only dead shells were found in surveys of the Marais des Cygnes, Elk, and Fall Rivers in Kansas (Combes and Edds, 2005). Specimens from the Black River (St. Clair drainage), Michigan, were relocated to the Detroit River in 1992 (Trdan and Hoeh, 1993).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Smith and Crabtree (2010) found this species at 9 of 32 sites (7 with recruitment) along the entire length of Pennsylvania's French Creek; one of the more abundant species with 11.4% relative abundance.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown
Viability/Integrity Comments: The best Ohio occurrences are in the Big Darby Creek system (Watters et al., 2009).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: In Illinois, it was formerly generally distributed in 20 of 25 drainages but is now confined to just 5 (Cummings and Mayer, 1997).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: The last collection of this species in the North Fork Holston River, Virginia are from the early 1900s so it is likely extirpated there (Jones and Neves, 2007). The species only historically occurred in the Wakarusa basin, Kansas (Tiemann, 2006). It occurred in the Tennessee River across northern Alabama historically including some large tributaries but is extant only in Guntersville and Wilson Dam tailwaters (possibly Paint Rock River) (Williams et al., 2008).

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 is widespread in the eastern U.S., occurring throughout much of the Mississippi River system, and portions of the Great Lakes drainage (Mirarchi et al., 2004). Distribution includes the entire Mississippi River drainage from the St. Lawrence River and its tributaries south to northern Louisiana and west to the tributaries of the Red River, Oklahoma (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Canada, it is common in the Great Lakes and their tributaries from Lake Michigan to Lake Erie, uncommon in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River (Clarke, 1981).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NY, OH, OK, PA, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV
Canada ON, QC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Colbert (01033), Jackson (01071), Lauderdale (01077), Limestone (01083)*, Madison (01089), Marshall (01095), Morgan (01103)
GA Catoosa (13047)*
IA Allamakee (19005), Buchanan (19019), Clayton (19043), Franklin (19069), Hardin (19083), Howard (19089), Humboldt (19091), Linn (19113), Mitchell (19131), O Brien (19141), Osceola (19143)
IL Boone (17007), Brown (17009), Cass (17017), Champaign (17019)*, Clay (17025), Clinton (17027), Coles (17029), Cook (17031)*, De Witt (17039), Douglas (17041), Grundy (17063), Iroquois (17075), Kane (17089), Kankakee (17091), La Salle (17099), Livingston (17105), Massac (17127), Mchenry (17111), Moultrie (17139), Ogle (17141), Richland (17159), Rock Island (17161), Stephenson (17177), Wabash (17185), Wayne (17191)*, White (17193)*, Will (17197), Winnebago (17201), Woodford (17203)*
KS Chase (20017), Cherokee (20021), Coffey (20031), Franklin (20059), Linn (20107), Marion (20115), Miami (20121), Neosho (20133)
LA Madison (22065), Morehouse (22067), Richland (22083), Winn (22127)*
MN Blue Earth (27013), Brown (27015), Carver (27019), Cass (27021), Chippewa (27023), Chisago (27025), Cottonwood (27033), Dakota (27037), Fillmore (27045), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Jackson (27063), Kanabec (27065), Mower (27099), Nicollet (27103), Olmsted (27109), Pine (27115), Ramsey (27123), Redwood (27127), Renville (27129), Rice (27131), Scott (27139), Steele (27147), Swift (27151), Wabasha (27157), Wadena (27159), Washington (27163), Winona (27169), Yellow Medicine (27173)
MS Benton (28009), Sharkey (28125), Sunflower (28133), Washington (28151)
NC Alleghany (37005), Ashe (37009), Cherokee (37039), Clay (37043), Macon (37113), Swain (37173), Watauga (37189)
OK LeFlore (40079)*, Ottawa (40115)*, Pushmataha (40127)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 Upper New (05050001)+, Lower Wabash (05120113)+, Little Wabash (05120114)+, Lower Ohio (05140206)+
06 Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)+*, Hiwassee (06020002)+, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+
07 Crow Wing (07010106)+, Twin Cities (07010206)+, Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Pomme De Terre (07020002)+, Hawk-Yellow Medicine (07020004)+, Chippewa (07020005)+, Redwood (07020006)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Cottonwood (07020008)+, Blue Earth (07020009)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Kettle (07030003)+, Snake (07030004)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Root (07040008)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Upper Iowa (07060002)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, Upper Cedar (07080201)+, Upper Iowa (07080207)+, Pecatonica (07090003)+, Lower Rock (07090005)+, Kishwaukee (07090006)+, Des Moines Headwaters (07100001)+, Upper Des Moines (07100002)+, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+, Kankakee (07120001)+, Iroquois (07120002)+, Des Plaines (07120004)+, Upper Illinois (07120005)+, Upper Fox (07120006)+, Lower Fox (07120007)+, Vermilion (07130002)+, Mackinaw (07130004)+*, Upper Sangamon (07130006)+*, Salt (07130009)+, Lower Illinois (07130011)+, Upper Kaskaskia (07140201)+, Middle Kaskaskia (07140202)+*, Shoal (07140203)+
08 Wolf (08010210)+, Big Sunflower (08030207)+, Bayou Bartholomew (08040205)+, Dugdemona (08040303)+*, Boeuf (08050001)+, Bayou Macon (08050002)+, Tensas (08050003)+
10 Little Sioux (10230003)+, Upper Marais Des Cygnes (10290101)+, Lower Marais Des Cygnes (10290102)+
11 Upper Cottonwood (11070202)+, Upper Neosho (11070204)+, Middle Neosho (11070205)+, Lake O' the Cherokees (11070206)+*, Spring (11070207)+, Poteau (11110105)+*, Kiamichi (11140105)+*
+ 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: Duncan and Eckert (2009) confirmed the following glochidial hosts: largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), and Holston sculpin (Cottus spp.).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, MEDIUM RIVER, Riffle, SPRING/SPRING BROOK
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Deep water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: It occurs in medium streams to large rivers primarily in shoal habitat of unimpounded streams and rivers but can occasionally be found in tailwaters of dams (Tennessee River) in water 4 to 8 m deep and can even be found in lakes under some conditions (Williams et al., 2008).
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: 26Jan2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 26Jan2009
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., C. Walker, and S. Bakaletz. 2008. Status of freshwater mussels in the coal mining basin of the New River (Big South Fork Cumberland River drainage) in portions of Scott, Anderson, Morgan and Campbell Counties, Tennessee (2006-2008). Ellipsaria, 10(3): 7.

  • 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.

  • Branson, B.A. 1966a. A partial biological survey of the Spring River drainage in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. Part I, collecting sites, basic limnological data, and mollusks. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 69(3/4): 242-293.

  • 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.

  • Campbell, D. and P. Harris. 2006. Report on molecular systematics of poorly-known freshwater mollusks of Alabama. Report to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama. 34 pp.

  • 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.

  • Clark, C.F. 1988. Some fresh-water mussels from the Red River drainage, Kentucky. Malacology Data Net, 2(3/4): 100-104.

  • Clarke, A.H. 1981a. The Freshwater Molluscs of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, D.W. Friesen and Sons, Ltd.: Ottawa, Canada. 446 pp.

  • Clarke, A.H. and C.O. Berg. 1959. The freshwater mussels of central New York. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir 367.

  • Combes, M. and D. Edds. 2005. Mussel assemblages upstream from three Kansas reservoirs. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 20(1): 139-148.

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

  • 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, K.S. and J.M. Berlocher. 1990. The naiades or freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Tippecanoe River, Indiana. Malacological Review 23:83-98.

  • 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, M. 1987. Freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Cannon River drainage in southeastern Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Nongame Wildlife Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 21 pp. + figures and original data sheets.

  • Davis, Mike. 1987. Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Cannon River Drainage in Southeastern Minnesota. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program. Results in unpublished report.

  • Dawley, C. 1947. Distribution of aquatic mollusks in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 38:671-697.

  • 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.

  • Duncan, A.E. and N.L. Eckert. 2009. Confirmation of glochidial host for spike (Elliptio dilatata) from the Clinch River. Ellipsaria 11(3):17.

  • Ecological Specialists, Inc. 1996. Unionid Mussel Survey of the Blue River, Indiana. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. 23 pp.

  • Fraley, S.J. and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2000. The recent decline of the native mussels (Unionidae) of Copper Creek, Russell and Scott Counties, Virginia. Pages 189-195 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.

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

  • 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

  • Harmon, J.L. 1992. Naiades (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Sugar Creek, east fork White River drainage, in central Indiana. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):31-42.

  • Hart, R. A. 1999. Population dynamics of unionid mussels in Lake Pepin, Upper Mississippi River, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Dissertation, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota. 162 pp.

  • Hart, R. A., M. Davis, J. W. Grier, and A. C. Miller. 2001. Survival of unionids following removal of attached zebra mussels. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 16(1):29-33.

  • 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.

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

  • Jirka, K.J. and R.J. Neves. 1990. Freshwater mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the New River Gorge National River, West Virginia. The Nautilus, 103(4): 136-139.

  • Johnson, R.I. 1970a. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University 140(6):263-449.

  • Jones, J.W. and R.J. Neves. 2007. Freshwater mussel status: Upper North Fork Holston River, Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist, 14(3): 471-480.

  • 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.

  • KESLER, DAVID H. 1998. SCIENTIFIC PERMIT COLLECTION REPORT TO THE MS DEPT. OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES, & PARKS. 7 PAGES.

  • LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.

  • 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.

  • Lyons, M.S., R.A. Krebs, J.P. Holt, L.J. Rundo, and W. Zawiski. 2007. Assessing causes of change in the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Black River, Ohio. American Midland Naturalist, 158: 1-15.

  • Marangelo, P.J. and D.L. Strayer. 2000. The freshwater mussels of the Tonawanda Creek basin in western New York. Walkerana, 11(25): 97-106.

  • 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.

  • Mohler, J.W., P. Morrison, and J. Haas. 2006. The mussels of Muddy Creek on Erie National Wildlife Refuge. Northeastern Naturalist 13(4):569-582.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Robertson, I. and C. Blakeslee. 1948. The mollusca of the Niagara Frontier region. Bulletin Buffalo Society Natural Science 19: 1-191.

  • Schanzle, R.W. and K.S. Cummings. 1991. A survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Sangamon River basin, Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes, 137: 1-25.

  • Schanzle, R.W., G.W. Kruse, J.A. Kath, R.A. Klocek, and K.S. Cummings. 2004. The freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Fox River basin, Illinois and Wisconsin. Illinois Natural History Biological Notes, 141: 1-35.

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

  • Sietman,. B.E., M.A. Furman, and F.A. Pursell. 1995. A qualitative unionid mussel survey of the Blue River, Indiana. Triannual Unionid Report, 8: 16-17.

  • Smith, T.A. and D. Crabtree. 2010. Freshwater mussel (Unionidae: Bivalvia) distributions and densities in French Creek, Pennsylvania. Northeastern Naturalist 17(3):387-414.

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

  • Stansbery, D. H. and W. J. Clench. 1977 [1978]. The Pleuroceridae and Unionidae of the Upper South Fork Holston River in Virginia. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union 1977:75-79.

  • 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.

  • Strayer, David L. 1987. Ecology and zoogeography of the freshwater mollusks of the Hudson River basin. Malacological Review 20:1-68.

  • Strayer, David L. 1995. Some collections of freshwater mussels from Schoharie Creek, Tonawanda Creek, and the Allegheny basin in New York in 1994. Unpublished report. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Latham, NY.

  • Strayer, David L. and J. Ralley 1991. The freshwater mussels (Bivalva: Unionidae) of the upper Delaware River drainage. American Malacological Bulletin 9 (1): 21-25.

  • Strayer, David L., Kurt J. Jirka, and Kathryn J. Schneider. 1991. Recent collections of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from western New York. Walkerana 5(12): 63-72.

  • 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.

  • 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. Thomas. 1996. 1996 Survey of the Mussels of the Fish Creek Drainage. Final Report to the Indiana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.

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

  • Watters, G.T. 1992b. Distribution of the Unionidae in south central Ohio. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):56-90.

  • Wendeln, K.L., J.R. Runkle, and G.T. Watters. 2009. The freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of Twin Creek, Southwest Ohio. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 24(3):451-460. DOI: 10.1080/02705060.2009.9664318

  • White, D.S. 1977. Changes in the freshwater mussel populations of the Poteau River system, Le Flore County, Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 57: 103-105.

  • 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.

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.

  • Backlund, D.C. 2000. Summary of current known distribution and status of freshwater mussels (Unionoida) in South Dakota. Central Plains Archaeology, 8(1): 69-77.

  • Badra, P.J. and R.R. Goforth. 2003. Freshwater mussel surveys of Great Lakes tributary rivers in Michigan. Report Number MNFI 2003-15 to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Coastal Zone Management Unit, Lansing, Michigan. 40 pp.

  • 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.

  • Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.

  • Branson, B.A. 1983. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part II: the Unioninae, Pleurobemini, and Anodontini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 63: 49-59

  • Chapman, E.J. and T.A. Smith. 2008. Structural community changes in freshwater mussel populations of Little Mahoning Creek, Pennsylvania. American Malacological Bulletin, 26: 161-169.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Clarke, A.H. 1992. Ontario's Sydenham River, an important refugium for native freshwater mussels against competition from the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha. Malacology Data Net, 3(1-4): 43-55.

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

  • 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.

  • Goodrich, C. and H. van der Schalie. 1939. Aquatic mollusks of the upper peninsula of Michigan. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 43: 1-45.

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

  • Gordon, M.E. 1991. Aquatic mollusca of the Rough River in the vicinity of the Fort Hartford Mine site, Ohio County, Kentucky. Unpublished final report for Environmental and Safety Designs, Memphis, Tennessee, 6 July 1991. 10 pp.

  • Grabarkiewicz, J.D. 2008. Three years of unionid surveys in Swan Creek, Lower Maumee River watershed, Lucas Co., OH. Final Report to the Ohio Division of Wildlife, Toledo Naturalists' Association, and Metroparks of the Toledo Area, Toledo, Ohio. 18 pp. + app.

  • Hanlon, S.D., M.A. Petty, and R.J. Neves. 2009. Status of native freshwater mussels in Copper Creek, Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist 8(1):1-18.

  • Harmon, J.L. 1989. Freshwater bivalve mollusks (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Graham Creek, a small southeastern Indiana stream. Malacology Data Net, 2(5/6): 113-121.

  • Howells, R.G., R.W. Neck, and H.D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Press: Austin, Texas. 218 pp.

  • Jones, J.W., R.J. Neves, M.A. Patterson, C.R. Good, and A. DiVittorio. 2001. A status survey of freshwater mussel populations in the upper Clinch River, Tazewell County, Virginia. Banisteria, 17: 20-30.

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

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J.L. and B. Cudmore-Vokey. 2004. National general status assessment of freshwater mussels (Unionacea). National Water Research Institute / NWRI Contribution No. 04-027. Environment Canada, March 2004. Paginated separately.

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., J. Di Maio, S.K. Staton, and S.R. De Solla. 2003. Status of the freshwater mussel communities of the Sydenham River, Ontario, Canada. American Midland Naturalist 150:37-50.

  • Morris, J.S. and R.W. Taylor. 1992. A survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Kanawha River of West Virginia. The Nautilus 92(4):153-155.

  • Morris, T.J. and J. Di Maio. 1999. Current distributions of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in rivers of southwestern Ontario. Malacological Review, 31/32(1): 9-17.

  • Mulcrone, R.S. and C. Mehne. 2001. Freshwater mussels of the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, from Battle Creek to Saugatuck. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, Michigan. 15 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.

  • Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team. 2003. Ouachita Mountains ecoregional assessment. Report to the Arkansas Nature Conservancy, Little Rock, Arkansas. 41 pp. + app.

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

  • Pinder, M.J., E.S. Wilhelm, and J.W. Jones. 2002. Status survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the New River drainage, Virginia. Walkerana, 13(29/30): 189-223.

  • Pryor, W.W. 2005. Distribution of the native freshwater mussels in the rivers of Allen County, Indiana. Report to the St. Joseph River Watershed Initiative, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 71 pp.

  • Sietman, B.E., S.D. Whitney, D.E. Kelner, K.D. Blodgett, and H.L. Dunn. 2001. Post-extirpation recovery of the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna in the Upper Illinois River. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 16(2): 273-281.

  • Strayer, D. 1980. The freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Clinton River, Michigan, with comments on man's impact on the fauna, 1870-1978. The Nautilus 94(4):142-149.

  • Strayer, D.L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26. The University of the State of New York. 113 pp. + figures.

  • Tiemann, J.S.. 2006. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of the Wakurusa River basin, Kansas. Transaction of the Kansas Academy of Science, 109(3/4): 221-230.

  • Trdan, R.J. and W.R. Hoeh. 1993. Relocation of two state-listed freshwater mussel species (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana and Epioblasma triquetra) in Michigan. Pages 100-105 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Wolf, C. and B. Stark. 2008. Survey of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) in the Marais des Cygnes River, Fall River, and Grouse Creek. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 111(1/2):1-20.

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.