Lampsilis teres - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Yellow Sandshell
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lampsilis teres (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 80006)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.827236
Element Code: IMBIV21240
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: 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.
Concept Reference Code: B08WIL01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Lampsilis teres
Taxonomic Comments: Clench and Turner (1956) recognized the subspecies Lampsilis anodontoides floridensis (Lea, 1852) (= teres floridensis) in the east Gulf drainages, separating it from typical Lampsilis anodontoides (= teres) by its smaller size and thinner shell. However, specimens from the Hillsborough River, the southern most record for Lampsilis, become very large (to 13.7 cm long) and somewhat thickened. Johnson (1970) recognized Lampsilis anodontoides. Johnson (1972), Heard (1979), and Turgeon et al. (1988) recognized Lampsilsi teres. Oesch (1984) recognized both as distinct species. More recently, Turgeon et al. (1998) recognized only Lampsilis teres and Parmalee and Bogan (1998) synonymized Lampsilis teres anodontoides and Lampsilis teres fallaciosa under Lampsilis teres. Lampsilis floridensis has been elevated from the synonymy of Lampsilis teres based on shell morphology and genetic analysis (Williams et al., 2008). As a result, occurrences of what were formerly attributed to Lampsilis teres from the Tampa Bay drainages of Florida west to the Escambia River drainage in Alabama and Florida are now considered Lampsilis floridensis. Because conchological differences exhibited by the putative three subspecies of L. teres (L. teres teres, L. teres anodontoides, and L. teres fallaciosa) appear to represent ecophenotypic variation, the subspecies are not recognized by Turgeon et al. (1998) or Williams et al. (2008).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 23Dec2011
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species is widespread and secure throughout most of its range across the Mississippi drainage.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (16Jul1998)

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 (S5), Arkansas (S4), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S2), Kansas (S2S3), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S5), Minnesota (S1), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (S4), Nebraska (S1), New York (SH), Ohio (S1), Oklahoma (S5), South Dakota (S1), Tennessee (S4S5), Texas (S4), West Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (S1)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (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 is found in the Mississippi drainage north to eastern South Dakota, south to northern Mexico, and all of the Gulf drainages from the Mobile basin west to the Rio Grande (Burch, 1975; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Williams et al., 2008; Howells et al., 1996). It is known from the Niagara River, New York, in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basin; widespread in the Mississippi Basin from southern Minnesota south to Louisiana (Vidrine, 1993), and from the Ohio River drainage in Ohio (Cummings and Mayer, 1992) west to Kansas (Murray and Leonard, 1962). In the Cumberland River drainage it is found downstream of the Obey River (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) and occurs in the Tennessee River drainage downstream of the Paint Rock River. It is also widespread in Gulf Coast drainages, ranging from the Mobile basin (Johnson, 1999) west to the Rio Grande in Mexico and Texas (Howells et al., 1996).

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

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species may be extirpated from Minnesota but fresh dead shells from the lower Minnesota River are known (Sietman, 2003). In Illinois, it is declining but still in many drainages in the central part (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991). It is in the Wabash (Fisher, 2006), Muscatatuck (Harmon, 1989), and historically the Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990) in Indiana. In Ohio, it is very rare - last live specimen from Ohio Brush Creek 1988 (Watters, 1992; Watters et al., 2009) but locally common below the Gallipolis Lock and Dam in the Ohio River (Watters, 1995). In Alabama it was found recently from the Black Warrior River in Tuscaloosa and Greene/Hale Cos. and upper Tombigbee in Sumter and Greene Cos., Alabama (Williams et al., 1992); but is common and throughout the Tennessee drainage and Mobile Basin (Mirarchi, 2004); but unknown from the Tennessee River upstream of the Paint Rock (Ahlstedt, 1996) and from the Tallapoosa River drainiage upstream of the Fall line (Williams et al., 2008). In Mississippi, it occurs in all drainages except the extreme south Coastal (Jones et al., 2005) (including Strong River- Darden et al., 2002). It is widespread and very common in Louisiana, from every major drainage (Vidrine, 1993). It occurs in Arkansas in the Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996; Posey, 1997), Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), Cache and White Rivers (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005; Gordon, 1982; Gordon et al., 1994) and lower Arkansas (Gordon, 1985). In Wisconsin, it is rare in the lower Wisconsin River in only a few sites (Mathiak, 1979). It is rare in South Dakota with reports from the Big Sioux (Skadsen and Perkins, 2000), Vermillion (Backlund, 2000), shells in James (Perkins and Backlund, 2003). In West Virginia, it is in the Middle Ohio River (Taylor and Horn, 1983). In Tennessee, it is widespread and common in the Hatchie River and the Elk, Stones, Duck, Caney Fork, Cumberland, Red, and Tennessee (Kentucky Lake) Rivers (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Kentucky, it is nearly statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003; Gordon, 1991). Oklahoma distribution: "Oklahoma City"; Chickaskia River; Red, Washita, Blue, Lower and Clear Boggy, Kiamichi, Little, North and Deep Fork Canadian, Verdigris (Boeckman and Bidwell, 2008), Neosho, Poteau and Chickaskia Rivers and Cache, Salt, Black Bear, Gar, Caston, Shoofly, Fourteenmile, Pryor and Big Cabin Creeks; Blue, Kiamichi, Glover and Little (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999) Rivers and Beaver (Jefferson Co.), Gates and Pennington Creeks; Mountain Fork (Spooner and Vaughn, 2007); Poteau River and Fourche Maline Creek; Lake Texoma; Big and Middle Caney Rivers; Blue River and Spavinaw Creek (Branson, 1984; Vaughn, 2000). In Kansas, it is scattered in the Neosho, Verdigris, Fall, Spring (Branson, 1966), and Marais des Cygnes basins and historical northeast to the South Fork Big Nemaha (Missouri basin), northwest to the North Fork Smoky Hill (Kansas basin), and west to the Ninnescah (Arkansas basin) (Couch, 1997); and Wakarusa (Tiemann, 2006). In the Little Blue River basin it is known from weathered and subfossil shells in the Kansas and Nebraska portions (Hoke, 2004). In the Big Blue River system of SE Nebraska and NE Kansas, there is sub-fossil material only (mostly Kansas) and may be extirpated (Hoke, 2005). In Texas, it is in all major systems (Howells et al., 1996; Bordelon and Harrel, 2004). In the Rio Grande system from Texas to New Mexico into Mexico, it is known from the Pecos; Las Moras; Elm; Rio Grande drainages (all in Texas); and Rio Salado drainage in Coahuila (Metcalf, 1982) and Nuevo Leon, Mexico (Johnson, 1999); although Mexican occurrences might be extirpated (Howells, 2003).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: In the ACF basin, it was recently collected from 67 of 324 sites (100 live, 300 shells) in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia primarily from main channels (Apalachicola, Flint, Chipola, Chattahoochee Rivers) (Brim-Box and Williams, 2000). During surveys of the Village Creek drainage of Hardin, Tyler, and Polk Cos. in southeast Texas in 2001-2002, this species was found in 13 sites (of 22 surveyed) (170 spms.) (Bordelon and Harrel, 2004).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Stable, viable populations occur in Tennessee in the Hatchie River and locally in the Cumberland and Tennessee (Kentucky Lake) Rivers (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: This species historically occurred in the Minnesota River and Mississippi River below St. Anthony Falls, Minnesota, but may be extirpated from that state (Sietman, 2003). It may also be extirpated in northern Mexico (Howells, 2003).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: In Ohio it is extirpated from the state (lower Scioto, Great Miami, Muskingum, most of Ohio Rivers) except one site in lower Ohio Brush Creek (Watters et al., 2009).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) This species is found in the Mississippi drainage north to eastern South Dakota, south to northern Mexico, and all of the Gulf drainages from the Mobile basin west to the Rio Grande (Burch, 1975; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Williams et al., 2008; Howells et al., 1996). It is known from the Niagara River, New York, in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basin; widespread in the Mississippi Basin from southern Minnesota south to Louisiana (Vidrine, 1993), and from the Ohio River drainage in Ohio (Cummings and Mayer, 1992) west to Kansas (Murray and Leonard, 1962). In the Cumberland River drainage it is found downstream of the Obey River (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) and occurs in the Tennessee River drainage downstream of the Paint Rock River. It is also widespread in Gulf Coast drainages, ranging from the Mobile basin (Johnson, 1999) west to the Rio Grande in Mexico and Texas (Howells et al., 1996).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

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

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Baldwin (01003), Bibb (01007), Blount (01009)*, Clarke (01025), Dallas (01047), Greene (01063), Jefferson (01073), Limestone (01083)*, Lowndes (01085), Madison (01089), Marengo (01091), Marshall (01095), Montgomery (01101), Morgan (01103)*, Perry (01105), Pickens (01107), Shelby (01117), Sumter (01119), Tuscaloosa (01125), Wilcox (01131)
IA Allamakee (19005), Black Hawk (19013), Buchanan (19019), Cedar (19031), Cerro Gordo (19033), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Des Moines (19057), Dickinson (19059), Floyd (19067), Hamilton (19079), Humboldt (19091), Johnson (19103), Linn (19113), Louisa (19115), Mitchell (19131), Muscatine (19139), Sac (19161), Washington (19183), Webster (19187)
IN Bartholomew (18005), Cass (18017), Crawford (18025), Daviess (18027), Dubois (18037), Fountain (18045), Gibson (18051), Greene (18055), Harrison (18061), Jackson (18071), Jefferson (18077), Jennings (18079), Knox (18083), Lawrence (18093), Miami (18103), Montgomery (18107), Owen (18119), Parke (18121), Pike (18125), Posey (18129), Spencer (18147), Sullivan (18153), Tippecanoe (18157), Vermillion (18165), Vigo (18167), Wabash (18169), Warren (18171), Warrick (18173)
KS Allen (20001), Anderson (20003), Atchison (20005), Brown (20013), Chase (20017), Chautauqua (20019), Cherokee (20021), Coffey (20031), Cowley (20035), Crawford (20037), Elk (20049), Franklin (20059), Greenwood (20073), Johnson (20091), Labette (20099), Linn (20107), Lyon (20111), Miami (20121), Montgomery (20125), Neosho (20133), Pawnee (20145), Saline (20169), Shawnee (20177), Wilson (20205), Woodson (20207)
LA Ouachita (22073)
MN Blue Earth (27013), Brown (27015), Carver (27019), Chippewa (27023), Chisago (27025), Dakota (27037), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Le Sueur (27079), Nicollet (27103), Ramsey (27123), Scott (27139), Sibley (27143), Swift (27151), Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163), Yellow Medicine (27173)
NE Burt (31021), Cass (31025), Cedar (31027), Colfax (31037), Cuming (31039)*, Dixon (31051)*, Dodge (31053), Douglas (31055), Gage (31067), Jefferson (31095)*, Lancaster (31109), Nemaha (31127), Otoe (31131), Pawnee (31133), Richardson (31147), Washington (31177)*, Wayne (31179)*
OH Adams (39001), Brown (39015)*, Pike (39131)*, Ross (39141)*, Scioto (39145)
OK Craig (40035), Nowata (40105), Ottawa (40115)
SD Brown (46013), Davison (46035), Hanson (46061), Hutchinson (46067), Union (46127), Yankton (46135)
WI Columbia (55021), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Grant (55043), Iowa (55049), Pepin (55091)*, Pierce (55093)*, Richland (55103), Sauk (55111)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Upper Alabama (03150201)+, Cahaba (03150202)+, Middle Alabama (03150203)+, Lower Alabama (03150204)+, Sipsey (03160107)+, Locust (03160111)+*, Upper Black Warrior (03160112)+*, Middle Tombigbee-Chickasaw (03160201)+, Sucarnoochee (03160202)+
05 Lower Scioto (05060002)+*, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Upper Wabash (05120101)+, Middle Wabash-Deer (05120105)+, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Vermilion (05120109)+, Sugar (05120110)+, Middle Wabash-Busseron (05120111)+, Lower Wabash (05120113)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Upper East Fork White (05120206)+, Muscatatuck (05120207)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+
06 Wheeler Lake (06030002)+
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Hawk-Yellow Medicine (07020004)+, Chippewa (07020005)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Blue Earth (07020009)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, South Skunk (07080105)+, Upper Cedar (07080201)+, Shell Rock (07080202)+, Middle Cedar (07080205)+, Lower Cedar (07080206)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Upper Des Moines (07100002)+, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+, Boone (07100005)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+
08 Bayou D'arbonne (08040206)+
10 Upper James (10160003)+, Elm (10160004)+, Mud (10160005)+, Lower James (10160011)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+, Lower Platte-Shell (10200201)+, Salt (10200203)+, Lower Elkhorn (10220003)+*, Logan (10220004)+, Blackbird-Soldier (10230001)+*, Little Sioux (10230003)+, Big Papillion-Mosquito (10230006)+, Boyer (10230007)+, Keg-Weeping Water (10240001)+, Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)+, Little Nemaha (10240006)+, South Fork Big Nemaha (10240007)+, Big Nemaha (10240008)+, Independence-Sugar (10240011)+, Lower Smoky Hill (10260008)+, Middle Kansas (10270102)+, Middle Big Blue (10270202)+, Lower Little Blue (10270207)+*, Upper Marais Des Cygnes (10290101)+, Lower Marais Des Cygnes (10290102)+, Lower Missouri-Crooked (10300101)+
11 Pawnee (11030005)+, Lower Walnut River (11030018)+, Kaw Lake (11060001)+, Upper Verdigris (11070101)+, Fall (11070102)+, Middle Verdigris (11070103)+, Elk (11070104)+, Caney (11070106)+, Neosho headwaters (11070201)+, Upper Cottonwood (11070202)+, Lower Cottonwood (11070203)+, Upper Neosho (11070204)+, Middle Neosho (11070205)+, Lake O' the Cherokees (11070206)+, Spring (11070207)+
+ 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
General Description: See Clench and Turner (1956).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Elongate (2:1 L:H), fairly inflated, yellowish, rayless, and fairly smooth periostracum, white lustrous nacre.
Reproduction Comments: Probably bradytictic (long-term brooder), as are other members of the genus. Rypel (2008) observed the temporal display pattern (pulsating) of mantle flat lures after dark (no display during daytime) in May 2005 at Lake Tuscaloosa, Tuscaloosa Co., Alabama.
Ecology Comments: The most wide ranging, common, and successful LAMPSILIS species in the region. It is tolerant of reservoirs, and of silt, more so than most other unionids.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Greatest potential during glochidial stage on fish. Adults of this species are essentially sessile. Some passive movement downstream may occur during high flows.
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: "Lives in sand in either swift or slowly moving water" (Johnson, 1972). "In muddy sand and sand in slight to moderate current and in a few lakes and reservoirs" (Heard, 1979). Occurs in medium-sized creeks to large rivers, often in slower current areas of stream borders. In the ACF basin, over 50% of individuals recently collected were listed as having sand as primary substrate, followed by mud (29%), rock (13%), and silt (4%) (Brim Box and Williams, 2000).
Adult Food Habits: Detritivore
Immature Food Habits: Parasitic
Food Comments: Presumably fine particulate organic matter, primarily detritus, and/or zooplankton, and/or phytoplankton (Fuller, 1974). Larvae (glochidia) of freshwater mussels generally are parasitic on fish and there may be a specificity among some species.
Length: 13.7 centimeters
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: 01Nov2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 23Dec2011
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J. (2011); BUTLER, R.S. (1992)

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. 1928.  The fresh water mollusca of Wisconsin:  part II: Pelecypoda.  Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin No. 70, Part II.  University of Wisconsin, Madison.  495 pp.

  • Bordelon, V.L. and R.C. Harrel. 2004. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Village Creek drainage basin in southeast Texas. The Texas Journal of Science, 56(1): 63-72.

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

  • Bright, R. C., C. Gatenby, D. Olson, and E. Plummer. 1990. A survey of the mussels of the Minnesota River, 1989. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 106 pp.

  • Burch, J.B. 1975. Freshwater unionacean clams (mollusca: pelecypoda) of North America. Malcological Publications. Hamburg, Michigan. 204 pp.

  • Christian, A.D. 1995. Analysis of the commercial mussel beds in the Cache and White Rivers in Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 210 pp.

  • 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.

  • Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from the Escambia to the Suwanee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences, 1(3): 97-239.

  • 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. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5, Illinois. 194 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.

  • Darden, R.I., T.L. Darden, and B.R. Kreiser. 2002. Mussel fauna of the Strong River, Mississippi. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 17(4): 651-653.

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

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

  • Fisher, B.E. 2006. Current status of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River drainage of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 115(2): 103-109.

  • Fuller, S.L.H. 1974. Chapter 8: Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Pages 215-273 in: C.W. Hart, Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller (eds.) Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press: New York. 389 pp.

  • HOKE, ELLET, 1983. UNIONID MOLLUSKS OF THE MISSOURI RIVER ON THE NEBRASKA BORDER. AMERICAN MALACOLOGICAL BULLETIN VOL. 1(1983):71-74.

  • 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.

  • Havlik, M.E. 2008. A mussel translocation at the McCollister Boulevard Bridge, Iowa River, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, 9-14 September 2007. Ellipsaria, 10(2): 6-7.

  • Heard, W.H. 1979. Identification manual of the fresh water clams of Florida. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series, 4(2): 1-82.

  • 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.

  • Howells, R.G. 2003. Declining status of freshwater mussels in the Rio Grande, with comments on other bivalves. Museum of Texas Tech University Special Publications 46: 59-73.

  • 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.

  • Johnson, R.I. 1972a. The Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of peninsular Florida. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum of Biological Science 16(4): 181-249.

  • Johnson, R.I. 1972b. Bibliography in: The Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalve) of Peninsular Florida. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences 16 (4):244-247.

  • Kesler, D. H., D. Manning, N. Van Tol, L. Smith, and B. Sepanski. 2001. Freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the Wolf River in western Tennessee and Mississippi. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 76(1):38-46.

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

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

  • McGregor, S.W., T.E. Shepard, T.D. Richardson, and J.F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1999. A survey of the primary tributaries of the Alabama and Lower Tombigbee rivers for freshwater mussels, snails, and crayfish. Geological Survey of Alabama, Circular 196. 29 pp.

  • Metcalf, A.L. 1982. Fossil unionacean bivalves from three tributaries of the Rio Grande. Pages 43-59 in N.R. Davis (ed.) Proceedings of the Symposium in Recent Benthological Investigations in Texas and Adjacent States. Aquatic Science Section, Texas Academy of Science: Austin, Texas. 278 pp.

  • Murray, H.D. and A.B. Leonard. 1962. Handbook of Unionid Mussels in Kansas. Museum of Natural History, Uni- versity of Kansas, Miscellaneous Publication, 28: 1-184.

  • Oesch, R. D. 1984. Missouri naiades: a guide to the mussels of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. Jefferson City, Missouri. 270 pp.

  • Oesch, R.D. 1984a. Missouri Naiades: a Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Jefferson City, Missouri: Conservation Commision of the State of Missouri. 270 pp.

  • PERKINS, K. 1975. DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF THE UNIONID MUSSELS IN THE VERMILLION RIVER, SD. MS THESIS, USD, VERMILLION.

  • Parmalee, P. W. 1967. The fresh-water mussels of Illinois. Illinois State Museum, Popular Science Series 8. 108 pp.

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

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

  • 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.

  • Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006. Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains. Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.

  • 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.

  • Rypel, A.L. 2008. Field observations of the nocturnal mantle-flap lure of Lampsilis teres. American Malacological Bulletin, 24(1/2): 97-100.

  • 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.

  • Sietman, B. E. 2003. Field guide to the freshwater mussels of Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 144 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Turgeon, D.D., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, W.K. Emerson, W.G. Lyons, W.L. Pratt, C.F.E. Roper, A. Scheltema, E.G. Thompson, and J.D. Williams. 1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the US and Canada: mollusks. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 16:1-277.

  • 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.

  • Vaughn, C.C. and D.E. Spooner. 2004. Status of the mussel fauna of the Poteau River and implications for commercial harvest. American Midland Naturalist, 152: 336-346.

  • Watters, G. T. 1994. An annotated bibliography of the reproduction and propagation of the Unionoidea (Primarily of North America). Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contributions No. 1, Columbus, Ohio. 158 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.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.

  • Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, R. S. Butler, K. S. Cummings, J. T. Garner, J. L. Harris, N. A. Johnson, and G. T. Watters. 2017. A revised list of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20:33-58.

  • 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.

  • Williams, J.D., S.L.H. Fuller, and R. Gracea. 1992a. Effects of impoundment on freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 13:1-10.

  • van der Schalie, H. 1940. The naiad fauna of the Chipola River in northwestern Florida. Lloydia 3(3):191-208.

  • van der Schalie, H., and A. van der Schalie. 1950. The mussels of the Mississippi River. American Midland Naturalist 44:448-464.

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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Brown, K.M. and P.D. Banks. 2001. The conservation of unionid mussels in Louisiana rivers: diversity, assemblage composition and substrate use. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 11(3): 189-198.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Gordon, M.E. 1985. Mollusca of Frog Bayou, Arkansas. The Nautilus, 99(1): 6-9.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • Johnson, R.I. 1999. Unionidae of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo del Norte) system of Texas and Mexico. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 6(77): 1-65.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Taylor, R.W. and K.J. Horn. 1983. A list of freshwater mussels suggested for designation as rare, endangereed or threatened in West Virginia. Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Science (Biology Section) 54:31-34.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • Watters, G.T., M.A. Hoggarth, and D.H. Stansbery. 2009b. The Freshwater Mussels of Ohio. Ohio State University Press: Columbus, Ohio. 421 pp.

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

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

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

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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