Gomphurus ventricosus - (Walsh, 1862)
Skillet Clubtail
Synonym(s): Gomphus ventricosus Walsh, 1863
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Gomphus ventricosus Walsh, 1863 (TSN 592861)
French Common Names: gomphe ventru
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.114305
Element Code: IIODO08210
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Dragonflies and Damselflies
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Odonata Gomphidae Gomphurus
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper, 56: 86 pp. Available: http://www.ups.edu/x7015.xml.
Concept Reference Code: A99PAU01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Gomphus ventricosus
Taxonomic Comments: Molecular phylogenetic analysis and reclassification of Gomphidae resulted in the recognition of additional genera based on nuclear, mitochondrial, and ribosomal sequences. In this new scheme, Gomphus in the strict sense now does not occur in North America, but is restricted to Eurasia (Ware et al. 2016).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 05Apr2007
Global Status Last Changed: 08May1998
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Apparent rarity and susceptibility to water quality degradation.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3 (08May1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2 (05Apr2017)

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 Connecticut (S2), Indiana (S1S2), Iowa (SNR), Kentucky (S1S2), Maryland (SH), Massachusetts (S2), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (SNR), Missouri (SU), New Hampshire (S1), New Jersey (SU), New York (S1), North Carolina (S1S2), Ohio (S2), Pennsylvania (SH), Tennessee (S3), Vermont (S1), Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (S4)
Canada New Brunswick (S1S2), Nova Scotia (S1), Ontario (S1), Quebec (SH)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (02Jun2017)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (26Nov2010)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This rare dragonfly of large, clean, and medium to slow-running rivers with fine sand, silt, or clay bottoms is currently known in only 3 locations in Canada. It disappeared over 60 years ago from two other rivers. The largest population is subject to a number of threats that are cumulatively leading to a decline in the quality of habitat.

Status history: Designated Endangered in November 2010.

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 species is distributed from Nova Scotia west through Ontario, south through Minnesota to Missouri, east through Tennessee and North Carolina. Canadian records are few and far between and this species is particularly rare in the maritime provinces.

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: There are approximately 28 reported populations, but there are probably many sites not yet identified (Vogt pers. comm. 1994). Wisconsin has the majority of occurrences and the most apparently extant sites. In Nova Scotia records exist from the mid-1900s in the area of Mt. Uniacke, and one exuvia was collected on the Shubenacadie River. In New Brunswick, it was first reported (Walker, 1958) from Fredericton in the early 1900s [likely associated with the Saint John River], and recently confirmed in that area (Paul Brunelle, pers. comm., April 2007).

Population Size: 2500 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: There may be more unreported sites, and the species may be more abundant.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threats include impoundments, channelization, dredging, siltation, agricultural non-point pollution, and municipal and industrial pollution. Timber harvest may increase erosion and silt and cause a decrease in dissolved oxygen as canopy cover is removed and water temperature rises (Vogt pers. comm. 1994).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: This species has declined historically, as have many riverine species. Currently, most of the remaining populations appear to be stable (Vogt pers. comm. 1994).

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Apparently sensitive to habitat and water quality degradation, especially siltation and/or low levels of dissolved oxygen.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Surveys are needed across the species range, but especially in NC, MN and MI.

Protection Needs: Water quality should be preserved at known occurrences.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) This species is distributed from Nova Scotia west through Ontario, south through Minnesota to Missouri, east through Tennessee and North Carolina. Canadian records are few and far between and this species is particularly rare in the maritime provinces.

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 CT, IA, IN, KY, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TN, VA, VT, WI
Canada NB, NS, ON, QC

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CT Hartford (09003), Litchfield (09005), Middlesex (09007), New London (09011)
IN Lagrange (18087)
MA Berkshire (25003), Franklin (25011), Hampden (25013), Hampshire (25015)
MD Montgomery (24031)*
MO Crawford (29055), Franklin (29071), Pulaski (29169)
NC Caswell (37033), Franklin (37069), Vance (37181), Wake (37183)
NH Cheshire (33005), Hillsborough (33011), Merrimack (33013)
NY Herkimer (36043)*, Orange (36071)*, St. Lawrence (36089)
OH Montgomery (39113)
PA Dauphin (42043)*, York (42133)*
VA Fairfax (51059)*, Russell (51167), Scott (51169)*, Smyth (51173)*
VT Windham (50025)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Contoocook (01070003)+, Merrimack (01070006)+, West (01080107)+, Middle Connecticut (01080201)+, Lower Connecticut (01080205)+, Westfield (01080206)+, Housatonic (01100005)+
02 Rondout (02020007)+*, Lower Susquehanna-Penns (02050301)+*, Lower Susquehanna-Swatara (02050305)+*, Lower Susquehanna (02050306)+*, Middle Potomac-Catoctin (02070008)+*
03 Lower Dan (03010104)+, Upper Tar (03020101)+, Upper Neuse (03020201)+
04 St. Joseph (04050001)+, Black (04150101)+*, Grass (04150304)+, Raquette (04150305)+
05 Upper Great Miami (05080001)+
06 North Fork Holston (06010101)+*, Upper Clinch (06010205)+
07 Meramec (07140102)+
10 Big Piney (10290202)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Skillet clubtail, Gomphidae.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER
Habitat Comments: In the Northeast, the larvae inhabit large rivers where they burrow in the soft mud of deep pools (Carle 1994).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Tolerance to pollution and dissolved oxygen levels needs to be documented.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: River-breeding Dragonfly Odonates

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 ideally with evidence of on-site breeding (teneral adults, mating pairs, territorial males, ovipositing females, larvae, or exuviae) at a given location with potential breeding habitat. Although oviposition may not necessarily yield progeny that survive to adulthood (Fincke, 1992) and movements resembling oviposition may not necessarily result in egg deposition (Okazawa and Ubukata, 1978; Martens, 1992; 1994), presence of on-site oviposition is here accepted as an indicator of a minimum element occurrence because the time and effort involved in determining success of emergence is beyond the scope of the general survey. As adults of some species might disperse moderate distances (see below), only sites with available larval habitat can be considered appropriate for a minimum occurrence. Single, non-breeding adults captured away from potential suitable breeding habitat should not be treated as element occurrences. 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. A photograph may be accepted as documentation of an element occurrence for adults only (nymphs and subimagos are too difficult to identify in this manner) provided that the photograph shows diagnostic features that clearly delineate the species from other species with similar features. Sight records, though valuable, should not be accepted as the basis for new element occurrences. Instead, such records should be utilized to further study an area to verify the element occurrence in that area.
Separation Barriers: Within catchments there are likely no significant barriers to movement of sexually mature adults between microhabitats, with even extensive sections of inappropriate waterway or major obstructions to flow being readily traversed by adults within the flight season. Dams large enough to cause extensive pooling may serve as separation barriers.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: None
Separation Justification: Odonate dispersal capability has been poorly documented with long-range movements inferred from observations in transit and analogy with other insects (Conrad et al., 1999; Corbet, 1999). Adults are known to wander, some over great distances (not so for damselflies). Mass migration over great distances is not herein considered when drafting separation distances as such behavior is limited to few species (e.g. Anax junius, Libellula quadrimaculata and other Libellula spp., Sympetrum spp.), occurs unpredictably and infrequently (10 year cycles for L. quadrimaculata), are unidirectional or intergenerational (Freeland et al., 2003), or occurs under unusual circumstances such as irritation by trematode parasites (Dumont and Hinnekint, 1973) or during major weather events (Moskowitz et al., 2001; Russell et al., 1998).

Corbet (1999) estimated the average distance traveled for a commuting flight (between reproductive and roosting or foraging sites) to be less than 200 m but sometimes greater than one km. Distance traveled is generally greatest for river-breeding odonates, but can vary considerably between taxa (Corbet, 1999). Both D. Paulson and S. Valley (personal communication, 1998) suggest a population should be defined by the river drainage in which it is found, but drainages or catchments vary by orders of magnitude in size and isolation so it is not obvious how to effect this recommendation.

The combination of breeding dispersal in the range of a few km with the potential for periodic long distance dispersal providing landscapes are not fragmented has led to the somewhat arbitrary assignment of separation distances at 10 km (unsuitable and suitable).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: The few studies determining area of adult foraging habitat surrounding breeding sites have indicated a range of 30 meters to 300 meters [see Briggs (1993) for Enallagma laterale; Corbet (1999) for Nesciothemis nigeriensis and Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis; Beukeman (2002) for Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis; and Samways and Steytler (1996) for Chorolestes tessalatus]. As a result, an element occurrence should include the breeding site and surrounding pond or upland habitat extending 500 m in a radius from the breeding site.
Date: 02Jun2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: River breeding dragonflies:
ANISOPTERA: Aeshnidae: Aeshna dugesi, A. persephone, A. walkeri, Anax strenuus, A. walsinghami, Basiaeschna, Boyeria, Oplonaeschna; Cordulegastridae: Cordulegaster diadema, C. dorsalis, C. maculata; Corduliidae: Helocordulia, Somatochlora elongata, S. ensigera, S. filosa, S. forcipata, S. georgiana, S. linearis, S. margarita, S. minor, S. ozarkensis, S. tenebrosa, S. walshii; Gomphidae: Dromogomphus, Erpetogomphus, Gomphus (Gomphurus): all species, Gomphus (Gomphus): all species, Gomphus (Hylogomphus): all species, Gomphus (Stenogomphus): all species, Gomphus (Phanogomphus) borealis, G. descriptus, G. hodgesi, G. lividus, G. minutus, G. quadricolor, Hagenius, Lanthus, Neurocordulia, Octogomphus, Ophiogomphus, Phyllogomphoides albrighti, Progomphus borealis, P. obscurus, Remartina, Stylogomphus, Stylurus; Libellulidae: Brechmorhoga, Dythemis, Macrothemis, Nesogonia, Paltothemis, Pseudoleon; Macromiidae: Macromia

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: 05Apr2007
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2007); Whittaker, J.C. (1994)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 14Jun2000

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

References
Help
  • Blust, M., and B. Pfeiffer. 2015. The Odonata of Vermont. Bulletin of American Odonatology 11(3?4):69-119.

  • Carle, F. L. 1994. Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata) known to or likely to occur in Vermont. Checklist of species and global and state ranks prepared for the Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program.

  • Curry, J.R. 2001. Dragonflies of Indiana. Everbest Printing, Ltd.: China. xiv + 303 pp.

  • Curry, James R. Ph.D. 1998. Dragonfly Survey Annual Report for 1997. Specimen Listing. 3 pp.

  • Donnelly, T. W. 1992. The odonata of New York State. Bulletin of American Odonatology. 1(1):1-27.

  • Hunt, P.D. 2012. The New Hampshire Dragonfly Survey: A Final Report. Report to the NH Fish and Game Department. Audubon Society of NH, Concord. 54 pp.

  • LeGrand, H., J. Petranka, M.A. Shields, and T.E. Howard, Jr. 2017. The Dragonflies and Damselflies of North Carolina, Eighth Approximation, Version 8.1. N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation. Online. Available: http://dpr.ncparks.gov/odes/PDFs/8th_ver_8.1.pdf

  • Mead, K. 2003. Dragonflies of the North Woods. Kollath-Stensaas Publishing, Duluth, Minnesota. 203 pp.

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

  • New York Natural Heritage Program. 2014. Database of odonate records by county for northeastern U.S. states. Data contributors available: http://nynhp.org/OdonataNE.

  • Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper, 56: 86 pp. Available: http://www.ups.edu/x7015.xml.

  • Paulson, D.R., and S.W. Dunkle. 2009. A checklist of North American Odonata including English name, etymology, type locality, and distribution. Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009. Online. Available: http://www.odonatacentral.org/docs/NA_Odonata_Checklist_2009.pdf.

  • Soltesz, Ken. 1992. Proposed Heritage ranks for New York State odonata. Unpublished report for New York Natural Heritage Program. 37 pp.

  • Swinford, Thomas O. 1997. Checklist of Status of Indiana Odonata. List. 7 pp.

  • Swinford, Thomas O. 2015. Checklist and Status of Indiana Odonata. 8 pp.

  • Swinford, Tom. 1995. Checklist and Status of Indiana Odonata. List. 7 pp.

  • Ware, J.L., E. Pilgrim, M.L. May, T.W. Donnelly, and K. Tennessen. 2016. Phylogenetic relationships of North American Gomphidae and their close relatives. Systematic Entomology 2016:1-10.

  • White, E.L., P.D Hunt, M.D. Schlesinger, J.D. Corser, and P.G. deMaynadier. 2015. Prioritizing Odonata for conservation action in the northeastern USA. Freshwater Science 34(3):1079-1093.

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.