Etheostoma maculatum - Kirtland, 1840
Spotted Darter
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Etheostoma maculatum Kirtland, 1840 (TSN 168408)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.106310
Element Code: AFCQC02420
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Fishes - Bony Fishes - Perches and Darters
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Actinopterygii Perciformes Percidae Etheostoma
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B91ROB01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Etheostoma maculatum
Taxonomic Comments: Etheostoma sanguifluum and E. vulneratum formerly were included as subspecies of E. maculatum.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 20Dec2011
Global Status Last Changed: 20Dec2011
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Small scattered populations over a wide range in the Ohio River basin; riverine habitat is widely degraded by pollution and siltation.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2N3 (20Dec2011)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Indiana (S2S3), Kentucky (S2), New York (S1), Ohio (S1), Pennsylvania (S2), West Virginia (S1)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: VU - Vulnerable
American Fisheries Society Status: Threatened (01Aug2008)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This darter has a spotty distribution in the Ohio River basin from northwestern Pennsylvania (upper Allegheny River and French Creek) and western New York through Ohio (Big Darby and Deer Creeks, Scioto basin) to north-central Indiana (upper Wabash River, East Fork White River, and Blue River) and south to West Virginia (middle section of the Elk River system) and Kentucky (Trautman 1981, Osier 2005, Simon 2005, Page and Burr 2011). Species is now absent from much of former range (Kuehne 1983).

Extent of occurrence is roughly 200,000 square kilometers, but the species is absent from the vast majority of this area.

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Mayasich et al. (2004) reviewed current status and determined that this species occurs (based on post-1970 records) in two waters (USGS Hydrologic Units) of the Allegheny River drainage, eight waters of the Green River drainage, a single water of the Kanawha River drainage (10 sites along the Elk River; Osier 2005), six waters of the Ohio River drainage, and two waters of the Wabash River drainage. The number of occurrences and locations is larger than the number of hydrologic units.

Population Size: Unknown
Population Size Comments: This species is extremely localized and uncommon (Page and Burr 2011). It was moderately common in the 1970s in French Creek, New York (Smith 1985).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threats include siltation, damming of flowing waters, changes in water quality, and introduction of non-native predator species (Simon 2005).

Because they are so limited, populations in New York (Paul McKewon, New York Department of Environment & Conservation), West Virginia (Cincotta 1987), and Pennsylvania are probably most affected by agricultural, forestry, urbanization, and other land uses that result in silt deposition. In New York, Bowers et al. (1992) noted that stream channel alterations and increased turbidity and siltation due to poor agricultural and silvicultural practices could have significant adverse effects.

In West Virginia, stream sedimentation resulting from recent coal mining operations may be the biggest threat (Dan Cincotta, pers. comm.). This is primarily because of the need for low sulfur coal, which is available in this area, and new mining technologies ("mountain-topping"). Within the Elk River watershed in West Virginia, sedimentation results from many sources, including logging, coal mining, and oil and gas extraction and may degrade spotted darter habitat (Osier and Welsh 2007).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Trend over the past 10 years or three generations is uncertain, but distribution and abundance probably are declining.

Long-term Trend:  
Long-term Trend Comments: The species is now scarce and highly localized in Ohio. Trautman (1981) commented that the size of spotted darter populations in Ohio varied considerably. Bowers et al. (1992) also presented data indicating that spotted darter populations fluctuate considerably within short time periods. Jay Stauffer, (Pennsylvania State University, pers. comm.) commented that in New York, only a few spotted darter individuals have been observed in recent years, and the species has gone from no official listing in that state to "threatened" status. Kuehne and Barbour (1983) noted that the darter currently known as E. maculatum was absent from much of its historical range.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Extant populations should be sought throughout the historical range.

Protection Needs: Protect at least a couple of pristine EOs.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) This darter has a spotty distribution in the Ohio River basin from northwestern Pennsylvania (upper Allegheny River and French Creek) and western New York through Ohio (Big Darby and Deer Creeks, Scioto basin) to north-central Indiana (upper Wabash River, East Fork White River, and Blue River) and south to West Virginia (middle section of the Elk River system) and Kentucky (Trautman 1981, Osier 2005, Simon 2005, Page and Burr 2011). Species is now absent from much of former range (Kuehne 1983).

Extent of occurrence is roughly 200,000 square kilometers, but the species is absent from the vast majority of this area.

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 IN, KY, NY, OH, PA, WV

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IN Carroll (18015)*, Crawford (18025), Daviess (18027), Dubois (18037), Fulton (18049)*, Harrison (18061), Lawrence (18093), Martin (18101), Pulaski (18131), Washington (18175)
KY Adair (21001), Allen (21003)*, Barren (21009)*, Breathitt (21025), Edmonson (21061), Green (21087), Harrison (21097)*, Hart (21099), Leslie (21131)*, Metcalfe (21169), Monroe (21171)*, Simpson (21213)*, Warren (21227)
NY Chautauqua (36013)
OH Coshocton (39031)*, Franklin (39049), Knox (39083), Pickaway (39129), Ross (39141)*
PA Crawford (42039), Erie (42049), Forest (42053), Mercer (42085), Venango (42121), Warren (42123)
WV Clay (54015), Webster (54101)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Upper Genesee (04130002)*
05 Middle Allegheny-Tionesta (05010003)+, French (05010004)+, Shenango (05030102)+*, Mahoning (05030103)*, Walhonding (05040003)+, Elk (05050007)+, Upper Scioto (05060001)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, South Fork Licking (05100102)+*, North Fork Kentucky (05100201)+, Middle Fork Kentucky (05100202)+*, Upper Kentucky (05100204), Upper Green (05110001)+, Barren (05110002)+, Middle Wabash-Deer (05120105)+*, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A 3-inch fish (darter).
General Description: A medium-sized darter (reaching two or three inches total length), with a laterally compressed body, sharply pointed snout, and scattered small spots (red, edged with black on males and brown or black on females) along the side of the otherwise gray body. Fins are speckled with dark spots, and the fins of breeding males are dark so that the speckles are obscured. Dorsal spines 11-13; dorsal soft rays 10-14; and lateral-line incomplete, with 54-64 pored scales and 1-10 unpored scales toward the posterior.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Spotted darters are most similar to bloodfin and wounded darters (E. sanguifluum and E. vulneratum) but probably not sympatric with either. Bluebreast darters are potentially sympatric with spotted darters and also similar. Bluebreast darters are separated from bluebreast darters by the narrow, black margin found on the edges of the second dorsal, caudal and anal fins. These are lacking in spotted darters. Bluebreast darters also have a more blunt snout than spotted darters, and the red spots on the male's sides do not have the black edge around them that the do on spotted darters. Young spotted darters may also be confused with tippecanoe darters, but tippecanoe darters have a dark vertical bars on their sides, and a prominent one in front of the caudal fin; females have two light spots on the base of the caudal fin.
Reproduction Comments: Life history information was summarized by Page (1983), Kuehne and Barbour (1983), and Raney and Lachner (1939); some of these summaries include data on bloodfin and wounded darters, as these taxa formerly were not separated from spotted darters.

Spawns late May to late June or July. Eggs guarded by male. Female spawns several times each season. Females can apparently spawn with more than one male, and a single male's nest may contain eggs from several different females. Females apparently sexually mature in 2 years in Pennsylvania; longevity probably maximum of 4 years (Page 1983, Kuehne and Barbour 1983, Bart and Page 1992). Raney and Lachner (1939) reported that hatchling spotted darters average 5-6 mm and reach about 25 mm by their first fall. Reaches about 30 mm by age one (females), 44-48 mm by age two (both sexes), and about 50 mm by age three (females) (Page 1983).

Ecology Comments: Bowers et al. (1992) estimated spotted darter population at six sites in a stream in New York during two consecutive years. At sites where spotted darters were found, densities ranged from 0.002 to 0.136 individuals per sq m. At some sites, these densities varied considerably from one year to the next. Overall, the abundance of spotted darters in French Creek was described as "moderate to low." spotted darters accounted for 6.3% to 0.2% of the darter composition in this stream in 1985 to 1989, respectively (Bowers et al. 1992). The population surveyed by Bowers et al. is at the northern extreme of the range, and these data may not be comparable with other populations. Other localities where population densities or annual and seasonal fluctuations in population size have been recorded are not known. Dispersal distances, home range size, non-breeding coloniality/sociality, major predators, competitors, parasites, age-specific survival rates, and other significant ecological factors are unknown.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, High gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Pool, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: Habitat includes large rubble and boulder areas, adjacent to or in swift deep riffles, in small to medium, clear rivers (Lee et al. 1980, Page and Burr 2011). Adults apparently spend the winter in areas somewhat deeper and with slower current (Kuehne and Barbour 1983). In the Elk River, West Virginia, spotted darters were observed primarily in glide habitats near large rocks and in moderate current velocities (Osier and Welsh 2007). Eggs are laid on undersides of stones in quiet water areas near heads of riffles in water 15-60 cm deep (Page 1983).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats mainly fly and caddisfly larvae; other important foods are immatures of stonefly, mayfly, and beetles, and water mites (Page 1983).
Length: 7 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Much basic information required for appropriate management activities for spotted darter populations is unknown. Some details of life history are lacking, as well as population and metapopulation dynamics, including movement patterns. This information is necessary for proper management. Because population fluctuations may be extreme, and extant populations are so fragmented, regular monitoring of all populations is needed. Captive propagation techniques, developed for related species (Rakes et al. 1999) may be used for this potential need.
Restoration Potential: Some extant spotted darter populations are extremely vulnerable because of small size and extent. If events occur which result in further fragmentation (habitat barriers-even if temporary), recolonization may be unlikely because of small source populations and disjunct nature of all extant populations. Recovery may be aided by reintroduction or augmentation, and should be considered a reasonable management activity. If water and habitat quality has improved in other areas where the species is currently believed to have been extirpated, consideration should be given to reintroducing the species. Captive propagation might be necessary to obtain enough individuals for these efforts.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Mostly unknown at present.
Management Requirements: Actions are needed to control sediment runoff from mining, row crop agriculture, forestry, and degradation of riparian zones and aquatic habitat by livestock. Restoring riparian vegetation, fencing livestock from streams and providing alternate water sources are recommended. In some areas, modifying dam releases and removal of small barriers, such as mill dams, might be considered. If habitat and water quality is improved, or barriers removed, reintroductions should be considered. Natural processes should be allowed to proceed so that the streambed and stream banks become stabilized.
Monitoring Requirements: Bowers et al. (1992) indicated considerable annual variation in population size and density may occur. Therefore, critical populations should be monitored annually.

Bowers et al. (1992) made specific recommendations for monitoring a spotted darter population in New York. Their sampling methods included setting a seine downstream of a riffle, and disturbing the substrate so that fishes beneath the rocks would be swept into the seine (kick-seining). All fishes collected in a single kick-seine attempt were identified and released, and the process was repeated until no new species were encountered. They then compared the number of spotted darters observed per unit area at the various survey sites. In streams clear enough, direct observation with snorkel (also keeping track of the number of individuals observed per unit effort) may also be an appropriate survey technique, and is less invasive (Heacock 1995; Greenburg 1991; Jay Stauffer, Pennsylvania State University, pers. comm. and P. W. Shute, pers. obs.)

Management Research Needs: The most immediate research need is to determine the actual current abundance of spotted darters throughout their range, movement/dispersal patterns, and metapopulation dynamics. This information will be necessary before we can determine the watershed area appropriate for sustaining viable spotted darter populations. The population studied by Bowers et al. (1992) fluctuated considerably, but these data were from near the northern limit of spotted darter's range, and may not be comparable to other populations. However, if these fluctuations are natural, they may help explain the current disjunct range of the species. Also, population fluctuations like those reported by Bowers et al. may indicate a need for frequent, regular monitoring, especially of very small, restricted populations.

Also, a more complete understanding of life history (more details on seasonal habitat preferences and larval or juvenile habitat requirements, documenting for example) will help ensure management activities are appropriate to protect habitats and other factors necessary to complete all life history stages. Although some life history information is available (Raney and Lachner 1939), more details are needed, especially to document similarities in ecology among populations range-wide. This information might be important when attempting to restore and/or manage spotted darter populations. For example, a related species, the boulder darter (Etheostoma wapiti) is believed to have larvae that drift with the current for several days or weeks after hatching (Rakes et al. 1999). The current disjunct spotted darter distribution pattern might be somewhat explained if larvae of this species also drift after hatching, and clean habitats suitable for adult spotted darters downstream of spawning sites are lacking. This behavior would also require a broader, riverine ecosystem perspective for proper long-term management of spotted darter populations.

In the event reintroduction or population augmentation is believed to be necessary or beneficial, techniques should be developed to propagate spotted darters in captivity. Natural source populations appropriate for reintroduction into particular watersheds may not be large enough to remove individuals to be successful for these type projects.

Biological Research Needs: Determine reasons for decline.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Darters

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including eggs and larvae) in appropriate habitat.
Separation Barriers: Dam lacking a suitable fishway; high waterfall; upland habitat.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Data on dispersal and other movements generally are not available. Though larvae of some species may drift with the current, Turner (2001) found no significant relationship between a larval transport index and gene flow among several different darter species.

Separation distances are arbitrary but reflect the likely low probability that two occupied locations separated by less than several kilometers of aquatic habitat would represent truly independent populations.

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

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

Date: 21Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 20Dec2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G., J. Losey, S. Roble, and P. W. Shute
Management Information Edition Date: 19Nov1999
Management Information Edition Author: SHUTE, PEGGY W.
Management Information Acknowledgments: Dan Cincotta, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources; Jay Stauffer, Pennsylvania State University; Paul McKewon and Douglas M. Carlson, New York State Department of Environment and Conservation; Ron Cicerello, Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission; Brooks Burr, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 20Dec2011
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G., and P. W. Shute

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, C., B. Forsyth, T. Wiles, and D. B. Abrell. 1985. Rediscovery of the spotted darter, Etheostoma maculatum, in Indiana waters: Blue River, Crawford, Harrison, and Washington counties; Ohio River drainage, USA. Indiana Academy of Sciences 94:603-605.

  • Bart, H. L., Jr., and L. M. Page. 1992. The influence of size and phylogeny on life history variation in North American percids. Pages 553-572 in R.L. Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 pp.

  • Bowers, N. J., J. R. Stauffer, and J. R. Pratt. 1992. The distribution, population status, and ecology of Etheostoma maculatum Kirtland in upper French Creek, New York. Final report to The Nature Conservancy, New York Field Office, Albany. 52 pp.

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

  • Carlson, Douglas M. 1998. Species Accounts for the rare fishes of New York. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. Bureau of Fisheries, Endangered Fish Project. 95pp.

  • Carlson, Douglas. 1998. Summary of activities relating to management of ETs Fishes (as listed in 1983) from 1995 to present. 5pp.

  • Cincotta, D. A. 1987. Spotted darter, Etheostoma maculatum Kirtland. Page 27A in: Nongame Wildlife Program, Wildlife Resources Division, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, compilers. Vertebrate species of concern in West Virginia, Elkins.

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

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

  • Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.

  • Greenberg, L. A. 1991. Habitat use and feeding behavior of thirteen species of benthic stream fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 31:389-401.

  • Heacock, C. H. 1995. A repeatable, visual survey of three rare Percina (Osteichthyes: Percidae) fish in Little River, Blount, County, Tennessee. M.S. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

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

  • Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.

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

  • Mayasich, J. M., D. Grandmaison, and D. A. Etnier. 2004. Spotted darter status assessment. NRRI Technical Report Number NRRI/TR 2004-02, Duluth, MN.

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

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

  • Osier, E. A. 2005. Habitat use and distribution of the crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella) and spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum) in the Elk River, West Virginia. M.Sc. thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

  • Osier, E. A., and S. A. Welsh. 2007. Habitat use of Etheostoma maculatum (spotted darter) in Elk River, West Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist 14(3):447-460.

  • Page, L. M. 1983a. Handbook of Darters. T. F. H. Publications, Inc., Neptune City, New Jersey. 271 pp.

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

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

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

  • Rakes, P. L., J. R. Shute and P. W. Shute. 1999. Reproductive behavior, captive breeding, and restoration ecology of endangered fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55:31-42.

  • Raney, E. C. and E. A. Lachner. 1939. Observations on the life history of the spotted darter, Poecilichthys maculatus (Kirtland). Copeia 1939:157-65.

  • Raney, E.C. 1939. The breeding habits of the silvery minnow Hybognathus regius Girard. American Midland Naturalist 21(3):674-680.

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

  • Simon, T. P. 2005. Conservation assessment for the spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region.

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

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

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

  • Stauffer, JAY R., JR. 1987 EVALUATION OF NON-GAME FISHES FROM THE OHIO RIVER DRAINAGE IN PENNSYLVANIA, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY. U87STA01PAUS.

  • Williams, J.E, J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D.E. McAllister, and J.E. Deacon. 1989b. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14(6):2-20.

  • Wood, R. M. 1996. Phylogenetic systematics of the darter subgenus Nothonotus (Teleostei: Percidae). Copeia 1996:300-318.

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

  • State Natural Heritage Data Centers. 1996a. Aggregated element occurrence data from all U.S. state natural heritage programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Navajo Nation and the District of Columbia. Science Division, The Nature Conservancy.

  • State Natural Heritage Data Centers. 1996c. Aggregated element occurrence data from all U.S. state natural heritage programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Navajo Nation and the District of Columbia: Export of freshwater fish and mussel records from the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1997. Science Division, The Nature Conservancy.

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

  • Trautman, M. B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Second edition. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio. 782 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

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

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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