Lampsilis cardium - Rafinesque, 1820
Plain Pocketbook
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lampsilis cardium Rafinesque, 1820 (TSN 80016)
French Common Names: lampsile cordiforme
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.108882
Element Code: IMBIV21250
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Lampsilis
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: Lampsilis cardium
Taxonomic Comments: There has been considerable uncertainty as to the precise taxonomic relationship of Lampsilis ventricosa (= Lampsilis cardium) within the Lampsilis ovata/cardium/satura/excavata (= Lampsilis ornata) complex. Putnam (1971) concluded L. ovata and L. ventricosa (= L. cardium) should be considered two distinct but closely related species. Cvancara (1963) considered northern forms (upper Mississippi River drainage in latitudes encompassing New York, northern Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and northern Illinois) L. ventricosa (= L. cardium) and southern forms (including Kentucky and Tennessee) as L. ovata; with intermediate areas (southern Ohio and Illinois) that intergade in form as L. ovata ventricosa. Goodrich and van der Schalie (1944) noted the gradual procession of change in posterior ridge morphology from the the ovata form to the ovata ventricosa form as one moves upstream into headwater areas in Indiana. Clarke (1981) listed only Lampsilis ventricosa (presumably = Lampsilis cardium) as occurring in Canada. Williams et al. (2008) noted a clear change in shell morphology progressing from the large river to the headwater form of Lampsilis ovata, resulting in confusion with Lampsilis cardium in the southeast; and do not recognize Lampsilis cardium as occurring in Alabama.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 17Aug2006
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species can be found in the entire upper Mississippi River drainage from northern Arkansas and Tennessee north to Minnesota and Wisconsin, and from New York west to eastern Kansas; as well as the Winnipeg, Red, and Nelson River systems of central Canada; Great Lakes- St. Lawrence system throughout except most of Lake Superior. It is considered stable througout the majority of its wide range.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (16Jul1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4N5 (03Aug2017)

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 Arkansas (S5), Illinois (SNR), Indiana (S5), Iowa (S3), Kansas (S3), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S1), Maryland (SNA), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S3), Missouri (S4S5), Nebraska (S2), New York (S4), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S4), Pennsylvania (S4), South Dakota (S1), Tennessee (S4S5), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (S3), Wisconsin (S4), Wyoming (S3)
Canada Manitoba (S4), Ontario (SNR), Quebec (S3S4), Saskatchewan (SU)

Other Statuses

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

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species can be found in the entire upper Mississippi River drainage from northern Arkansas and Tennessee north to Minnesota and Wisconsin, and from New York west to eastern Kansas; as well as the Winnipeg, Red, and Nelson River systems of central Canada; Great Lakes- St. Lawrence system throughout except most of Lake Superior (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Clarke, 1981).

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: It is statewide in Minnesota in most drainages (Sietman, 2003); incl. Red, Lake Superior, and Lake of the Woods (Graf, 1997; Cvancara, 1970). In Illinois, it is common except extreme S (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991; Sietman et al., 2001; Schanzle et al., 2004; Tiemann et al., 2005). Indiana: Blue (Sietman et al., 1995), Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990), East Fork White (Harmon, 1992), Muscatatuck (Harmon, 1989), St. Joseph (Pryor, 2005). In Ohio, it is widespread statewide (Watters, 1992; 1995; Lyons et al., 2007; Hoggarth et al., 2007; Watters et al., 2009). It is rare in South Dakota- Big Sioux River in decent numbers (Skadsen and Backlund, 2000) and Vermillion River (Backlund, 2000), shells in James (Perkins and Backlund, 2003). In North Dakota, it is in the Red (Cvancara, 1970), Devils Lake, Cannonball-Heart-Knife, and James (historic) drainages (Cvancara, 1983). In Texas, it is in the Red River (Howells et al., 1996). In Wisconsin, it is widespread and abundant (Mathiak, 1979). Oklahoma: Red, Washita, Blue, Clear Boggy, Verdigris (Boeckman and Bidwell, 2008), Neosho, Illinois, Poteau Rivers; Neosho and Spring Rivers; Blue, Little, Glover Rivers; Mountain Fork (Spooner and Vaughn, 2007); Lake Texoma; Poteau; Big Caney (weathered/fossils from Middle Caney, North Bird and Salt Creeks); Blue, Spavinaw and Medicine Creeks (Branson, 1984); also Little, Blue, Boggy, and Kiamichi Rivers (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999; Vaughn, 2000). In Mississippi, it is in the Mississippi River S, Big Black, Yazoo, and Tennessee drainages (Jones et al., 2005). In Louisiana, it is rare in Bayou Bartholomew, few sites in the upper Mississippi, and questionably Tensas River (Vidrine, 1993). It occurs in Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996; Posey, 1997), Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), Arkansas in the Cache and White Rivers (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005; Gordon, 1982; Gordon et al., 1994). It is in most medium and large rivers in E to middle Tennessee including the Cumberland, Tennessee, French Broad, Holston, Clinch, Powell, Elk, Duck, Buffalo, Harpeth, and Stones (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Kentucky it is in the Middle Green (Gordon, 1991) and Barren Rivers (Cochran and Layzer, 1993), but is statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In Kansas, it is in the Neosho, Spring, and Verdigris basins, including small tributaries of the Cottonwood, Fall, and Elk Rivers and the Marais des Cygnes River basin with historical occurrences as far northwest as the Republican River, and Smoky Hill River and its tributaries (Kansas River drainage), and west to Grouse Creek, and the Walnut and Ninnescah Rivers (Arkansas River drainage) (Couch, 1997); shells in Wakarusa (Tiemann, 2006). In Maryland, it is in the Upper Potomac and Washington Metro drainages (Bogan and Proch, 1995). It occurs in Patterson Creek (North Potomac drainage), West Virginia (Clayton et al., 2001; Taylor, 1985), Potomac headwaters (Taylor, 1985), Upper Ohio/Kanawha (Zeto et al., 1987) and Mud Rivers (Guyandotte drainage) (Schmidt and Zeto, 1986). In the Big Blue River system of SE Nebraska and NE Kansas it was widespread but infrequently live (only West Fork Big Blue River and upper Big Blue River in Nebraska) with only older shells and no recruitment (Hoke, 2005). In the Little Blue basin it is known from the Kansas and Nebraska portions (Hoke, 2004). In Wyoming, it occurs in the North Platte River drainage Natrona, Platte, and Converse Cos. It occurs in the Kalamazoo River (Mulcrone and Mehlne, 2001), Lakes Michigan, Huron, St. Clair drainages (Badra and Goforth, 2003), Michigan (Strayer, 1980; Trdan and Hoeh, 1993) and upper peninsula (Goodrich and Van der Schalie, 1939. In Canada, it is considered widespread and secure in Manitoba (incl. Assiniboine- Watson, 2000; Pip, 2006) and Ontario (incl. Sydenham- Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2003) and is also fairly common in Saskatchewan and Quebec (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Smith and Crabtree (2010) found this species at 8 of 32 sites (2 with recruitment) along the entire length of Pennsylvania's French Creek.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: It was recently documented in the Fox River basin in Illinois and Wisconsin where it was widespread and abundant (Schanzle et al., 2004).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: It is likely extirpated from Swan Creek (Lower Maumee drainage) in Ohio (Grabarciewicz, 2008).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) This species can be found in the entire upper Mississippi River drainage from northern Arkansas and Tennessee north to Minnesota and Wisconsin, and from New York west to eastern Kansas; as well as the Winnipeg, Red, and Nelson River systems of central Canada; Great Lakes- St. Lawrence system throughout except most of Lake Superior (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; 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 AR, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MDexotic, MI, MN, MO, MS, ND, NE, NY, OH, OK, PA, SD, TN, VAexotic, WI, WV, WY
Canada MB, ON, QC, SK

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IA Allamakee (19005), Benton (19011), Black Hawk (19013), Bremer (19017), Buchanan (19019), Buena Vista (19021), Butler (19023), Carroll (19027), Cedar (19031), Cerro Gordo (19033), Cherokee (19035), Chickasaw (19037), Clay (19041), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Delaware (19055), Des Moines (19057), Dickinson (19059), Dubuque (19061), Floyd (19067), Franklin (19069), Greene (19073), Hamilton (19079), Hardin (19083), Howard (19089), Ida (19093), Jackson (19097), Johnson (19103), Jones (19105), Lee (19111), Linn (19113), Louisa (19115), Lyon (19119), Mitchell (19131), Muscatine (19139), Osceola (19143), Scott (19163), Story (19169), Tama (19171), Webster (19187), Winneshiek (19191), Worth (19195), Wright (19197)
LA Morehouse (22067), Ouachita (22073)
MS Attala (28007), Bolivar (28011), Claiborne (28021), Copiah (28029), Hinds (28049), Holmes (28051), Lafayette (28071), Madison (28089), Marshall (28093), Montgomery (28097), Panola (28107), Sharkey (28125), Tishomingo (28141), Warren (28149), Washington (28151), Webster (28155), Yazoo (28163)
NE Antelope (31003), Buffalo (31019)*, Cuming (31039), Dakota (31043)*, Dixon (31051)*, Dodge (31053)*, Frontier (31063)*, Gage (31067)*, Holt (31089), Jefferson (31095)*, Madison (31119), Pierce (31139), Platte (31141)*, Saline (31151), Seward (31159), Thurston (31173)*, Wayne (31179)*, York (31185)*
SD Brookings (46011), Davison (46035), Grant (46051), Hamlin (46057), Hutchinson (46067), Moody (46101), Roberts (46109), Union (46127), Yankton (46135)
WY Converse (56009), Goshen (56015), Natrona (56025), Platte (56031)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
06 Bear (06030006)+
07 Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Upper Iowa (07060002)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Maquoketa (07060006)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, Lower Wapsipinicon (07080103)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, South Skunk (07080105)+, Upper Cedar (07080201)+, Winnebago (07080203)+, West Fork Cedar (07080204)+, Middle Cedar (07080205)+, Lower Cedar (07080206)+, Upper Iowa (07080207)+, Middle Iowa (07080208)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+, Boone (07100005)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Helena (08020100)+, Little Tallahatchie (08030201)+, Big Sunflower (08030207)+, Bayou Bartholomew (08040205)+, Upper Big Black (08060201)+, Lower Big Black (08060202)+, Bayou Pierre (08060203)+
10 Lower James (10160011)+, Middle Big Sioux Coteau (10170201)+, Upper Big Sioux (10170202)+, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+, Rock (10170204)+, Middle North Platte-Casper (10180007)+, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)+, Lower Laramie (10180011)+, Wood (10200102)+*, Lower Platte-Shell (10200201)+*, Upper Elkhorn (10220001)+, North Fork Elkhorn (10220002)+, Lower Elkhorn (10220003)+, Logan (10220004)+*, Blackbird-Soldier (10230001)+*, Little Sioux (10230003)+, Medicine (10250008)+*, Middle Big Blue (10270202)+, West Fork Big Blue (10270203)+, Lower Big Blue (10270205)+*, Lower Little Blue (10270207)+*
+ 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: Several fish species, including members of the perch and sunfish families and banded killifish, are glochidial hosts (O'Dee and Watters, 2000). New host fish confirmation from Watters et al. (2005): largemouth bass. Draxler et al. (2006) transformed glochidia on the following hosts: Lepomis gibbosus (pumpkinseed), Pomoxis nigromaculatus (black crappie), and Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, MEDIUM RIVER
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
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: 17Aug2006
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 13Nov2007
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
  • Andersen, M.D. and B. Heidel. 2011. HUC-based species range maps. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

  • Cvancara, A.M. 1963. Clines in threee species of Lampsilis (Pelecypoda: Unionidae). Malacologia, 1(2): 215-225.

  • Cvancara, A.M. 1970. Mussels (Unionidae) of the Red River Valley in North Dakota and Minnesota, U.S.A.. Malacologia, 10(1): 57-92.

  • 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.

  • Draxler, B., M. Hove, S. Schieffer, M. Berg, G. Widiker, B. Sietman, D. Allen, and D. Hornbach. 2006. Suitable host fishes for fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidea) and pocketbook (Lampsilis cardium) evaluated by high school and university researchers. Ellipsaria 8(1): 11-13.

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

  • General Status, Environment Canada. 2015. Manitoba Mollusk species list and subnational ranks proposed by an expert.

  • Goodrich, C. and H. van der Schalie. 1944. A revision of the Mollusca of Indiana. The American Midland Naturalist, 32: 257-326.

  • Gordon, M.E., L.R. Kraeemer, and A.V. Brown. 1980. Unionacea of Arkansas: historical review, checklist, and observations on distributional patterns. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union 1979: 31-37.

  • Graf, D.L. 1997. Distribution of unionoid (Bivalvia) faunas in Minnesota, USA. The Nautilus, 110(2): 45-54.

  • 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.

  • Hoke, E. 2004. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Little Blue River drainage of northeastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 29: 7-24.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Martel, André L. et Jean-Marc Gagnon. 2005. Noms scientifiques et communs des moules d'eau douce (mulettes) du Canada Musée canadien de la nature, Aylmer. 6 pages

  • 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.

  • O'Dee, S.H. and G.T. Watters. 2000. New or confirmed host identification for ten freshwater mussels. Pages 77-82 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.

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

  • Parodiz, J.J. 1967. Types of North American Unionidae in the collection of the Carnegie Museum. Sterkiana, 28: 21-30.

  • Perkins III, K. and D.C. Backlund. 2003. A survey for winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) and scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) in the James River, South Dakota. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota, Report GFP 2003-17. 21 pp.

  • Pip, E. 2000. The decline of freshwater molluscs in southern Manitoba. Canadian Field Naturalist 114(4):555-560.

  • Pip, E. 2006. Littoral mollusc communities and water quality in southern Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15: 3637-3652.

  • 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.

  • Putnam, J.D. 1971. A taxonomic study of two forms of the Lampsilis ovata complex in the Ohio River drainage system (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Naiadoida). M.S. Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 76 pp.

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

  • Skadsen, D.R. and K. Perkins III. 2000. Unionid mussels of the Big Sioux River and tributaries: Moody, Minnehaha, Lincoln, and Union Counties, South Dakota. GFP Report 2000-9 to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 52 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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. 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. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels (Bivalva: Unionoidea) of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26. The New York State Education Department.

  • Strecker, J.K. 1931. The naiades or pearly fresh-water mussels of Texas. Baylor University Museum Special Bulletin, 2: 1-71.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Watters, G.T., T. Menker, S. Thomas, and K. Luehnl. 2005. Host identifications or confirmations. Ellipsaria, 7(2): 11-12.

  • 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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • Boeckman, C.J. and J.R. Bidwell. 2008. Status of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in the Oklahoma section of the Verdigris River after introduction of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha Pallas, 1771). American Midland Naturalist 25:1-8.

  • 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. and T. Proch. 1995. Manual of the freshwater bivalves of Maryland. Prepared for a workshop held at Versar, Inc., Columbia, Maryland, 9 March 1995. 68 pp.

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

  • 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.

  • 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. 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. 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.

  • Clayton, J.L., C.W. Stihler, and J.L. Wallace. 2001. Status of and potential impacts to the freshwater bivalves (Unionidae) in Patterson Creek, West Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist 8(2):179-188.

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

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 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.

  • Cvancara, A.M. 1983. Aquatic mollusks of North Dakota. Report of Investigation No. 78, North Dakota Geological Survey. Kay's, Inc., Jamestown, North Dakota. 141 pp.

  • Cvancara, A.M. 2005. Illustrated key to Wyoming's freshwater mussels. A.M. Cvancara: Casper, Wyoming. 5 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Hoggarth, M.A., D.A. Kimberly, and B.G. Van Allen. 2007. A study of the mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Symmes Creek and tributaries in Jackson, Gallia and Lawrence Counties, Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 107(4):57-62.

  • Hoke, E. 2005b. The unionid mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Big Blue River basin of northeastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 30: 33-57.

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

  • 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, 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.

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

  • Posey II, W.R. 1997. Location, species composition and community estimates for mussel beds in the St. Francis and Ouachita Rivers, Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 178 pp.

  • 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.

  • Schmidt, J.E. and M.A. Zeto. 1986. Naiad distribution in the Mud River drainage, southwestern West Virginia. Malacology Data Net, 1(4): 69-78.

  • 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., 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.

  • Spooner, D.E. and C.C. Vaughn. 2007. Mussels of the Mountain Fork River, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Publications of the Oklahoma Biological Survey, 2nd series, 8: 14-18.

  • Taylor, R.W. 1985. Comments on the distribution of freshwater mussels (Unionacea) of the Potomac River headwaters in West Virginia. The Nautilus 99(2-3):84-87.

  • Tiemann, J.S., R.E. Szafoni, and K. Roman. 2005. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of Kyte River, Ogle County, Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 98(3-4):159-169.

  • 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.

  • University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (UMMZ) Mollusks Department collections. Ann Arbor, MI.

  • 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.

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

  • Watson, E.T. 2000. Distribution and life history of the Unionidae (Bivalvia: Mollusca) in the Assiniboine River drainage in Manitoba, with special reference to Anodontoides ferussacianus. MS Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 159 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Zeto, M.A., W.A. Tolin, and J.E. Schmidt. 1987. The freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the upper Ohio River, Greenup and Belleville Pools, West Virginia. The Nautilus, 101: 182-185.

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.