Lampsilis fasciola - Rafinesque, 1820
Wavyrayed Lampmussel
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lampsilis fasciola Rafinesque, 1820 (TSN 79992)
French Common Names: lampsile fasciolée
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.116472
Element Code: IMBIV21070
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 fasciola
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 23Dec2011
Global Status Last Changed: 12Jul2005
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: The range of this species includes the Great Lakes drainage in the tributaries of Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Huron, and the Ohio-Mississippi drainage south to the Tennessee River system with edge of range populations (especially in Canada) experiencing slight decline.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (12Jul2005)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2 (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 Alabama (S2), Georgia (S1), Illinois (S2), Indiana (S3), Kentucky (S4S5), Michigan (S2), Mississippi (S1), New York (S1), North Carolina (S2), Ohio (S3), Pennsylvania (S3S4), Tennessee (S4), Virginia (S4), West Virginia (S3)
Canada Ontario (S1)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: SC (05Jun2003)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Special Concern (25Apr2010)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This medium-sized freshwater mussel is confined to four river systems and the Lake St. Clair delta in southern Ontario. Since the original COSEWIC assessment of Endangered in 1999, surveys have identified a large, previously unknown reproducing population in the Maitland River. The mussels in the Thames River are also now reproducing. The largest population is in the Grand River; smaller but apparently reproducing populations are in the Ausable River and Lake St. Clair delta. Although water and habitat quality have declined throughout most of the species' former range in Canada, there are signs of improvement in some populations but habitats in Great Lakes waters are now heavily infested with invasive mussels and are uninhabitable for native mussels. The main limiting factor is the availability of shallow, silt-free riffle/run habitat. All riverine populations are in areas of intense agriculture and urban and industrial development, subject to degradation, siltation, and pollution. Invasive mussels continue to threaten the Lake St. Clair delta population and could be a threat to populations in the Grand and Thames rivers if they invade upstream reservoirs.

Status history: Designated Endangered in April 1999. Status re-examined and confirmed in October 1999. Status re-examined and designated Special Concern in April 2010.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Clarke (1981) cites the range of this species as the Great Lakes drainage in the tributaries of Laek Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, and Lake Erie, and the Ohio-Mississippi drainage south to the Tennessee River system. Strayer and Jirka (1997) list distribution as the Ohio River basin, and in the tributaries of Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, southern Lake Huron, and southwestern Lake Ontario. The only reproducing populations left in Canada are in Ontario on the Grand and Maitland Rivers (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004). It likely still persists in the Upper, North, and Middle Thames River in Ontario but may no longer be successfully reproducing (Cudmore et al., 2004).

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

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In New York, two recently dead shells and some older shells were found in the lower mainstem of Tonawanda Creek (Niagara River drainage) in western New York, indicating a small population there (Marangelo and Strayer, 2000), the only population documented in New York state since 1906 (Strayer and Jirka, 1997). It was found in Little Mahoning Creek watershed, Pennsylvania (Chapman and Smith, 2008). This species was found at 7 sites in the Middle New River drainage in Virginia (Pinder et al., 2002). It was reported recently in the upper Clinch (Jones et al., 2001) and Copper Creek (Upper Clinch drainage) in Virginia (Fraley and Ahlstedt, 2000; Hanlon et al., 2009); and upper South Fork Holston (Stansbery and Clench, 1978). Jones and Neves (2007) summarize distribution in the upper North Fork Holston River (Smyth and Bland Cos., Virginia) as rkm 135.8 to 197.1. In Illinois, it is now occasionally found only in the Vermilion River drainage (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). It was recently collected in the Middle Fork North Branch Vermillion River and Jordan Creek in Illinois (Szafoni et al., 2000). Indiana distribution: Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990), East Fork White (Harmon, 1992), St. Joseph (Pryor, 2005). It occurs in the New River in West Virginia (Jirka and Neves, 1990). In Ohio, it is found only in good quality streams in Ohio and Lake Erie tribs. (absent from unglaciated Ohio), such as the Big Darby Creek in Scioto (Watters, 1995; Watters et al., 2009) but may be extirpated from the Upper Ohio/ Little Kanawha region of the Ohio River (Ohio/ West Virginia) (OSUM spms.). In Kentucky, it is generally distributed to occasional nearly statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003; Clark, 1988; Evans, 2008). In Tennessee, it occurs in a large number of the small creeks and medium-sized rivers throughout east and middle Tennessee, as well as very locally in the main Cumberland and Tennessee River reservoirs (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Alabama, it is restricted to the Tennessee River drainage and is extant only in Bear Creek (Colbert Co.), and the Paint Rock River system (Ahlstedt, 1996; Mirarchi, 2004); also Cypress and Shoal Creeks in Lauderdale Co. (Williams et al., 2008). McGregor and Garner (2004) recently documented this species in the Bear Creek drainage in Alabama/Mississippi. In North Carolina, it occurs in a large number of medium-sized rivers including the Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, Pigeon, and French Broad Rivers (Bogan, 2002) in Cherokee, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Mitchell, Swain, and Yancey Cos. (LeGrand et al., 2006). It is known from extreme northwestern Georgia, within drainages of the Tennessee River system (GA NHP, pers. comm., March 2007). This species is also known from the Clinton River drainage in Michigan (Trdan and Hoeh, 1993; Strayer, 1980). Specimens from the Black River (St. Clair drainage), Michigan, were relocated to the Detroit River in 1992 (Trdan and Hoeh, 1993). The only reproducing populations left in Canada are in Ontario on the Grand and Maitland Rivers (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004). It likely still persists in the Upper, North, and Middle Thames River in Ontario but may no longer be successfully reproducing (Cudmore et al., 2004) although recent evidence of reproduction exists for the Thames (Zanatta et al., 2007). Dead shells recently in the Sydenham River (Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2003).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Smith and Crabtree (2010) found this species at 7 of 32 sites (0 with recruitment) along the entire length of Pennsylvania's French Creek.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very many (>125)

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Cudmore et al. (2004) cite the following threats in the Thames River in Canada: sedimentation from uran projects, loss of habitat through clearing of riparian vegetation and livestock access to waterways, industrial and municipal outfalls, zebra mussel impacts.

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Historically in Canada it occurred in Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, and the Maitland, Ausable, St. Clair, Sydenham, Detroit, Thames, and Grand Rivers. The only reproducing populations left in Canada are in Ontario on the Grand and Maitland Rivers (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004); and also Thames River (Zanatta et al., 2007). In Illinois it has been extirpated from the Fox River and Wolf Lake and remains only in the Vermilion River (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). A recently discovered population in the Niagara River drainage in New York is the only documented population left in that state. It historically occurred in Mississippi only in the Tennessee River drainage but is now extirpated in that state (Jones et al., 2005).

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

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Narrow to moderate.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is mainly found in and around riffle areas of clear, hydrologically stable small- to medium-sized streams and rivers of various sizes at depths of up to 1 m with clean substrates of gravel and sand stabilized with cobble and boulders (Cudmore et al., 2004).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Clarke (1981) cites the range of this species as the Great Lakes drainage in the tributaries of Laek Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, and Lake Erie, and the Ohio-Mississippi drainage south to the Tennessee River system. Strayer and Jirka (1997) list distribution as the Ohio River basin, and in the tributaries of Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, southern Lake Huron, and southwestern Lake Ontario. The only reproducing populations left in Canada are in Ontario on the Grand and Maitland Rivers (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004). It likely still persists in the Upper, North, and Middle Thames River in Ontario but may no longer be successfully reproducing (Cudmore et al., 2004).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, GA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MS, NC, NY, OH, PA, TN, VA, WV
Canada ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Colbert (01033), Jackson (01071), Lauderdale (01077)*, Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Marshall (01095)
GA Catoosa (13047), Fannin (13111)
IL Champaign (17019), Ford (17053)*, Vermilion (17183)
IN Allen (18003), Bartholomew (18005), Benton (18007), Boone (18011), Carroll (18015), Cass (18017), Clark (18019), Clinton (18023), Crawford (18025), De Kalb (18033), Decatur (18031), Delaware (18035), Fountain (18045), Fulton (18049), Hamilton (18057), Hancock (18059), Harrison (18061), Henry (18065), Howard (18067), Huntington (18069), Jackson (18071), Johnson (18081), Kosciusko (18085), Lawrence (18093), Madison (18095), Marion (18097), Marshall (18099), Miami (18103), Montgomery (18107), Noble (18113), Parke (18121), Perry (18123), Pulaski (18131), Putnam (18133), Randolph (18135), Rush (18139), Shelby (18145), Steuben (18151), Tippecanoe (18157), Tipton (18159), Vermillion (18165)*, Wabash (18169), Warren (18171), Washington (18175), White (18181), Whitley (18183)
MI Barry (26015)*, Hillsdale (26059), Jackson (26075), Leelanau (26089), Lenawee (26091), Livingston (26093), Macomb (26099), Monroe (26115), Oakland (26125), Sanilac (26151), St. Clair (26147), Washtenaw (26161), Wayne (26163)
MS Tishomingo (28141)
NC Cherokee (37039), Clay (37043), Graham (37075), Haywood (37087), Jackson (37099), Macon (37113), Mitchell (37121), Swain (37173), Yancey (37199)
NY Cattaraugus (36009), Chautauqua (36013), Genesee (36037)
OH Allen (39003), Ashland (39005), Ashtabula (39007), Belmont (39013), Clermont (39025), Columbiana (39029), Coshocton (39031), Darke (39037), Delaware (39041), Franklin (39049), Greene (39057), Lake (39085), Logan (39091), Lorain (39093), Madison (39097), Marion (39101), Montgomery (39113), Pickaway (39129), Putnam (39137), Richland (39139), Union (39159), Williams (39171)
PA Armstrong (42005), Clarion (42031), Crawford (42039), Erie (42049), Forest (42053), Greene (42059), Indiana (42063), Lawrence (42073), McKean (42083), Mercer (42085), Venango (42121), Warren (42123), Westmoreland (42129)
TN Blount (47009)
WV Clay (54015), Fayette (54019), Raleigh (54081), Summers (54089), Webster (54101)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Kalamazoo (04050003)+, Betsie-Platte (04060104)+, St. Clair (04090001)+, Lake St. Clair (04090002)+, Clinton (04090003)+, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+*, Raisin (04100002)+, St. Joseph (04100003)+, Auglaize (04100007)+, Huron-Vermilion (04100012)+, Grand (04110004)+, Niagara (04120104)+
05 Upper Allegheny (05010001)+, Conewango (05010002)+, Middle Allegheny-Tionesta (05010003)+, French (05010004)+, Middle Allegheny-Redbank (05010006)+, Kiskiminetas (05010008)+, Lower Monongahela (05020005)+, Upper Ohio (05030101)+, Shenango (05030102)+, Connoquenessing (05030105)+, Upper Ohio-Wheeling (05030106)+, Mohican (05040002)+, Walhonding (05040003)+, Middle New (05050002)+, Lower New (05050004)+, Upper Kanawha (05050006)+, Elk (05050007)+, Upper Scioto (05060001)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Upper Great Miami (05080001)+, Little Miami (05090202)+, Upper Wabash (05120101)+, Salamonie (05120102)+*, Mississinewa (05120103)+, Eel (05120104)+, Middle Wabash-Deer (05120105)+, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Wildcat (05120107)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Vermilion (05120109)+, Sugar (05120110)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Eel (05120203)+, Driftwood (05120204)+, Flatrock-Haw (05120205)+, Upper East Fork White (05120206)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+
06 Pigeon (06010106)+, Nolichucky (06010108)+, Watts Bar Lake (06010201)+, Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Tuckasegee (06010203)+, Lower Little Tennessee (06010204)+, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)+, Hiwassee (06020002)+, Ocoee (06020003)+, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+*, Bear (06030006)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Glochidial hosts include smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) (Zale and Neves, 1982a; 1982b). Watters et al. (2009) confirmed host ransformation on longear sunfish, Lepomis megalotis (43%). Four distinct and sympatric mantle displays were observed by Zanatta et al. (2007) that could not be distinguished genetically.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, MEDIUM RIVER, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is mainly foind in and around riffle areas of clear, hydrologically stable small- to medium-sized streams and rivers of various sizes at depths of up to 1 m with clean substrates of gravel and sand stabilized with cobble and boulders (Cudmore et al., 2004).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Because different mantle displays are used by different wild populations, in managing populations for propagation, augmentation, and translocation, polymorphic lures should be represented in proportion to what is observed in wild populations (Zanatta et al., 2007).
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: 23Dec2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 23Dec2011
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J.

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

References
Help
  • Baker, F.C. 1906. A catalogue of the mollusca of Illinois. Bull. Ill. State Lab. Nat. Hist. 7:53-136.

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

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

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

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

  • Cudmore, B., C.A. MacKinnon, and S.E. Madzia. 2004. Aquatic species at risk in the Thames River watershed, Ontario. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2707. 123 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.

  • Cummings, Kevin S. et al. 1992. Survey of the Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) of the Wabash River Drainage. Final Report. INHS Center for Biodiversity Tech. Rep. 1992 (1):210 pp.

  • Dextrase, A.J. 1999. COSSARO Candidate V,T,E Species Evaluation Form for Wavy-rayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola). Unpublished report prepared for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 3 pp.

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

  • Evans, R. 2008. Year 1 update of freshwater mollusk monitoring in the South Fork Kentucky River system. Ellipsaria, 10(3): 12-13.

  • Fraley, S.J. and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2000. The recent decline of the native mussels (Unionidae) of Copper Creek, Russell and Scott Counties, Virginia. Pages 189-195 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propogation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 30:102-201.

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

  • Marshall, W.B. 1895. Geographical distribution of New York Unionidae. Annual Report. New York State Museum. 48: 47-99.

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

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J. L., S. K. Staton, E. L. West. 1998. Status of the Wavy-rayed Lampmussel, Lampsilis fasciola, in Ontario. DRAFT COSEWIC status report prepared by Aquatic Ecosystem Protection Branch, National Water Research Institute, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, ON. 38 pp. + maps and appendices

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

  • 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.

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

  • Parmalee, P.W. 1967. The fresh-water mussels of Illinois. Ill. State Mus., Popular Sci. Series Vol. VIII. 108pp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Strayer, David L. and 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.

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

  • Szafoni, R.E., K.S. Cummings, and C.A. Mayer. 2000. Freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) of the Middle Branch, North Fork Vermillion River, Illinois, Indiana. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Sceince, 93(3): 229-237.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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., T. Gibson, and B. Kelly. 2009a. Host identifications or confirmations. Ellipsaria 11(1):19.

  • 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 pages.

  • Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993b. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9): 6-22.

  • Zale, A.V. and R.J. Neves. 1982a. Fish hosts of four species of lampsiline mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) in Big Moccasin Creek, Virginia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60: 2535-2542.

  • Zale, A.V. and R.J. Neves. 1982c. Reproductive biology of four freshwater mussesl species (Mollusca: Unionidae) in Virginia. Freshwater Invertebrate Biology 1(1): 17-28.

  • Zanatta, D.T., S.J. Fraley, and R.W. Murphy. 2007b. Population structure and mantle display polymorphisms in the wavy-rayed lampmussel, Lampsilis fasciola (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 85:1169-1181.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Graf, D.L. 2002. Historical biogeography and late glacial origin of the freshwater pearly mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) faunas of Lake Erie, North America. Occasional Papers on Mollusks 6(82):175-211.

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

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

  • 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.

  • Ohio State University Museum of Zoology (OSUM) Mollusks Department collections. Columbus, OH.

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

  • Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama & the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi & Tennessee. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 908 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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