Lasmigona complanata - (Barnes, 1823)
White Heelsplitter
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lasmigona complanata complanata (Barnes, 1823) (TSN 80136) ;Lasmigona complanata (Barnes, 1823) (TSN 80135)
French Common Names: lasmigone blanche
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.116734
Element Code: IMBIV22012
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Lasmigona
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 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: Lasmigona complanata complanata
Taxonomic Comments: Lasmigona complanata was recognized as being comprised of two subspecies, L. c. complanata, and L. c. alabamensis, but L. c. alabamensis was elevated to species status based on shell morphology and preliminary genetic analysis (Williams et al., 2008).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 30Apr2009
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species is distributed throughout the entire Mississippi River drainage from Lake Winnipeg-Nelson River system to western Ontario, the middle Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system and tributaries of Lake Michigan, Lake St. Clair, and Lake Erie; Pennsylvania west to Minnesota and Iowa south to Oklahoma and Louisiana, and in the western Gulf Coast drainage. It is considered stable throughout its range and expanding in some places.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (16Jul1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4N5 (03Aug2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S2), Arkansas (S3S4), Georgia (SX), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S5), Iowa (S2), Kansas (S3), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S1), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S3), Missouri (SNR), Montana (SNA), Nebraska (SNR), New York (SH), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S5), Pennsylvania (S1S2), South Dakota (S5), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S1), West Virginia (S3), Wisconsin (S5), Wyoming (S2)
Canada Alberta (S2), Manitoba (S3), Ontario (S4), Saskatchewan (SU)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: It occurs in the southern Hudson Bay basin, Canada and Minnesota, as well as western and southern portions of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basin east to western New York (Clarke, 1985; Graf, 1997; Strayer and Jirka, 1997). In the Mississippi Basin it occurs from Minnesota (Dawley, 1947) south to Louisiana (Vidrine, 1993), and from headwaters of the Ohio River drainage in Pennsylvania (Ortmann, 1909) west to North Dakota (Cvancara, 1983); and also ranges west into Kansas and Nebraska (Hoke, 2005). It appears to have been recently introduced into the Missouri River in Montana (Gangloff and Gustafson, 2000). In the Cumberland River drainage, it occurs from near the mouth of Caney Fork downstream to the mouth of the Cumberland River and in the Tennessee River drainage from headwaters in eastern Tennessee downstream to the mouth of the Tennessee River (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It occurs in the Gulf Coast tributaries from the Pascagoula River drainage west ot the Mississippi River and a single specimen is known from the Marcos River in 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: In Minnesota, it is statewide and abundant (Sietman, 2003), incl. Red, Lake of the Woods, Lake Superior (Graf, 1997; Cvancara, 1970). It is in most streams in South Dakota (Backlund, 2000); James, Big Sioux, Minnesota, and Missouri (Perkins and Backlund, 2003; Shearer et al., 2005; Skadsen and Perkins, 2000). In Montana, it is introduced to the Lower Milk and Beaver Creek (Little Missouri trib.) (Stagliano, 2010). In Wyoming, it is in the Belle Fourche drainage in Cooke Co. (Cvancara, 2005). In Wisconsin, it is most abundant E of Green Bay to Beloit and is scattered statewide (Mathiak, 1979). In Kansas, it is in most eastern basins and is locally common (Couch, 1997), Wakarusa (Tiemann, 2006). In Texas, it is reported from Lake Texoma, the Red River and Lake Lewisville in N Texas, and Pine Creek in Lamar Co. (Howells et al., 1996). In Mississippi, it is in the Tennessee, Pearl, and Pascagoula drainages (Jones et al., 2005); also Strong River in 2001 (Darden et al., 2002). In Louisiana, Vidrine (1993) reported it historically (no recent), although the LA NHP has records for the Tensas River, Bayou Mothiglam, Madison Co. It occurs in the Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), Cache and White Rivers, Arkansas (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005; Gordon, 1982; Gordon et al., 1994). In Illinois, it is very common and widespread in all drainages (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991); much of upper Illinois basin (Schanzle et al., 2004; Sietman et al., 2001; Tiemann et al., 2005). Indiana: Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990), East Fork White (Harmon, 1992), Muscatatuck (Harmon, 1989), St. Joseph and Maumee (Pryor, 2005). In Ohio it is widespread (Watters, 1992; 1995; Lyons et al., 2007; Grabarciewicz, 2008; Hoggarth et al., 2007; Watters et al., 2009). In West Virginia, it is in the Upper Ohio (Zeto et al., 1987). In Tennessee, it is in most medium to large rivers incl. the Cumberland drainage near the mouth of Caney Fork downstream to the mouth of the Cumberland and the Tennessee drainage from headwaters in E Tennessee downstream to the mouth of the Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It has been collected in Kentucky in the Middle Green (Gordon, 1991) and Barren Rivers (Cochran and Layzer, 1993), but is occasional nearly statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In Alabama, L. complanata is restricted to the Tennessee River system and impounded reaches in Wheeler Reservoir (Tennessee River) and free-flowing tributaries like the Elk and Paint Rock River (Williams et al., 2008; Mirarchi, 2004) and Bear Creek drainage in Alabama/Mississippi (McGregor and Garner, 2004); also Bogue Chitto Creek (McGregor et al., 1999). Oklahoma: Chikaskia, Washita, Blue, Boggy, Clear Boggy, Neosho, Illinois, Poteau, Arkansas Rivers, Lake Texoma, "Oklahoma City", Big and Middle Caney rivers; Bird, Osage, Salt and Hominy creeks in Osage and Tulsa Cos. (Branson, 1983; Vaughn, 2000); Verdigris (Boeckman and Bidwell, 2008); Spring (Branson, 1966), Little River (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999). In the Little Blue basin it survives in the Kansas and Nebraska portions (Hoke, 2004). In the Big Blue system of SE Nebraska and NE Kansas it was thriving in parts alive in several creeks as well as from Tuttle Creek Lake (Hoke, 2005); also Platte River (Freeman and Perkins, 1992). It occurs in the Kalamazoo River (Mulcrone and Mehlne, 2001) and Lakes Michigan, Huron, St. Clair drainages (Badra and Goforth, 2003), Michigan (Strayer, 1980; Trdan and Hoeh, 1993). In Canada, it widely distributed from Alberta (only central North Saskatchewan and Battle Rivers) to Saskatchewan (Saskatchewan, North Saskatchewan, Carrot, Qu'Appelle systems) close to Manitoba border) to Ontario (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004) including Assiniboine drainage, Manitoba (Watson, 2000) and Sydenham, Ontario (Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2003).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Smith and Crabtree (2010) found this species at 3 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)
Viability/Integrity Comments: It was recently documented in the Fox River basin in Illinois and Wisconsin where it was very widespread and abundant (Schanzle et al., 2004).

Short-term Trend: Increase of >10%
Short-term Trend Comments: Pip (2006) was unable to find this species in surveys of 90 sites in Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, despite previous documentation of the species there.It has recenlty colonized the Tennessee River with the earliest report from the 1970s and no museum records from Alabama prior to the mid-1990s (Williams et al., 2008) and is also a recent colonizer of the Missouri River in Nebraska (Hoke, 2000) and in Montana (Gangloff and Gustafson, 2000).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: Brown and Banks (2001) record it as historical in the Pearl River in Louisiana. Although mentioned historically in Montana, including "Columbia River" (Henderson, 1924) which could potentially be a reference to the Clark Fork River or Kootenai River in the Columbia River basin (Gangloff and Gustafson, 2000), extensive surveys in the state have not uncovered this species and it is likely extirpated (Stagliano, 2010).

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)) It occurs in the southern Hudson Bay basin, Canada and Minnesota, as well as western and southern portions of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basin east to western New York (Clarke, 1985; Graf, 1997; Strayer and Jirka, 1997). In the Mississippi Basin it occurs from Minnesota (Dawley, 1947) south to Louisiana (Vidrine, 1993), and from headwaters of the Ohio River drainage in Pennsylvania (Ortmann, 1909) west to North Dakota (Cvancara, 1983); and also ranges west into Kansas and Nebraska (Hoke, 2005). It appears to have been recently introduced into the Missouri River in Montana (Gangloff and Gustafson, 2000). In the Cumberland River drainage, it occurs from near the mouth of Caney Fork downstream to the mouth of the Cumberland River and in the Tennessee River drainage from headwaters in eastern Tennessee downstream to the mouth of the Tennessee River (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It occurs in the Gulf Coast tributaries from the Pascagoula River drainage west ot the Mississippi River and a single specimen is known from the Marcos River in 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, GAextirpated, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, MTexotic, ND, NE, NY, OH, OK, PA, SD, TN, TX, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, MB, ON, SK

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Colbert (01033), Jackson (01071), Lawrence (01079)*, Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Morgan (01103)*
IA Allamakee (19005), Appanoose (19007), Black Hawk (19013), Bremer (19017), Buchanan (19019), Buena Vista (19021), Carroll (19027), Cerro Gordo (19033), Chickasaw (19037), Clay (19041), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Delaware (19055), Des Moines (19057), Dubuque (19061), Franklin (19069), Greene (19073), Hamilton (19079), Hardin (19083), Howard (19089), Humboldt (19091), Jackson (19097), Johnson (19103), Lee (19111), Linn (19113), Louisa (19115), Lyon (19119), Mitchell (19131), Muscatine (19139), Osceola (19143), Scott (19163), Story (19169), Wapello (19179), Webster (19187), Winneshiek (19191), Worth (19195)
LA Madison (22065)
MS Copiah (28029), Forrest (28035), George (28039), Greene (28041), Hinds (28049), Itawamba (28057), Jackson (28059), Lawrence (28077), Lowndes (28087), Madison (28089), Marion (28091), Monroe (28095), Montgomery (28097), Pearl River (28109), Perry (28111), Rankin (28121), Scott (28123), Simpson (28127), Tishomingo (28141)
PA Crawford (42039), Erie (42049), Washington (42125)
TX Bowie (48037), Cass (48067), Grayson (48181), Lamar (48277)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Upper Tombigbee (03160101)+, Buttahatchee (03160103)+, Lower Chickasawhay (03170003)+*, Lower Leaf (03170005)+, Pascagoula (03170006)+, Black (03170007)+, Middle Pearl-Strong (03180002)+, Middle Pearl-Silver (03180003)+, Lower Pearl. Mississippi (03180004)+
05 French (05010004)+, Upper Ohio-Wheeling (05030106)+
06 Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+, Bear (06030006)+
07 Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Upper Iowa (07060002)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Maquoketa (07060006)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, South Skunk (07080105)+, Upper Cedar (07080201)+, Shell Rock (07080202)+, Winnebago (07080203)+, Middle Cedar (07080205)+, Upper Iowa (07080207)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Lower Rock (07090005)+, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+, Boone (07100005)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+
08 Tensas (08050003)+, Upper Big Black (08060201)+
10 Rock (10170204)+, Little Sioux (10230003)+, Upper Chariton (10280201)+
11 Lake Texoma (11130210)+, Bois D'arc-Island (11140101)+, Lower Sulphur (11140302)+
+ 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: Known glochidial hosts include the carp, green sunfish, largemouth bass, and white crappie (Clarke 1981). Infestation by glochidia confirmed (though transformation not tested) on Lepisosteus osseus, Dorosoma cepedianum, Moxostoma carinatum, Stizostedion canadense (Weiss and Layzer, 1995). Lefevre and Curtis (1910; 1912) documented Cyprinus carpio (common carp), Lepomis cyanellus (green sunfish), Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass), Pomoxis annularis (white crappie) as glochidial hosts. Young (1911) documented Fundulus diaphanus (banded killifish), Lepomis cyanellus (green sunfish), Lepomis humilis (orangespotted sunfish), Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass), Pomoxis annularis (white crappie).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Deep water, Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species may be found in a variety of habitats, from medium-sized rivers to permanent sloughs, backwater bays, lakes, and reservoirs. It prefers quiet water, usually less than three feet in depth although it has been found at depths of 15 to 20 feet. It thrives on a mud and fine sand substrate (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).
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: 30Apr2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 10Jun2008
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
  • 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.

  • Burch, J. B. 1975. Freshwater Unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Environmental Protection Agency, Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 11. 176 pp.

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

  • Burch, J.B. 1975a. Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Malacological 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.

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

  • Clarke, A.H. 1985. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae). Part II: Lasmigona and Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 399: 1-75.

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

  • Cummings, K.S. and J.M. Berlocher. 1990. The naiades or freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Tippecanoe River, Indiana. Malacological Review 23:83-98.

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

  • 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.

  • Davis, M. 1987. Freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Cannon River drainage in southeastern Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Nongame Wildlife Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 21 pp. + figures and original data sheets.

  • Davis, Mike. 1987. Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Cannon River Drainage in Southeastern Minnesota. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program. Results in unpublished report.

  • Dawley, C. 1947. Distribution of aquatic molluscs in Minnesota. The 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.

  • Freeman, P.W. and K. Perkins. 1992. Survey of mollusks of the Platte River: Final Report. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Island, Nebraska, March 1992. 28 pp. + app.

  • Garner, J.T. and S.W. McGregor. 2001. Current status of freshwater mussels (Unionidae, Margaritiferidae) in the Muscle Shoals area of Tennessee River in Alabama (Muscle Shoals revisited again). American Malacological Bulletin, 16(1/2): 155-170.

  • 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

  • Harmon, J.L. 1992. Naiades (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Sugar Creek, east fork White River drainage, in central Indiana. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):31-42.

  • Hoke, E. 2000. A critical review of the unionoid mollusks reported for Nebraska by Samuel Aughey (1877). Central Plains Archaeology 8(1):12-23.

  • 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.

  • Hughes, M.H. and P.W. Parmalee. 1999. Prehistoric and modern freshwater mussel (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unioniodea) faunas of the Tennessee River: Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15:25-42.

  • 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.

  • La Rocque, A. 1967. Pleistocene Mollusca of Ohio. Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey Bulletin 62, Part 2. 113-365 + 8 plates.

  • Lefevre, G. and W.C. Curtis. 1910. Reproduction and parasitism in the Unionidae. Journal of Experimental Zoology 9(1):79-115 + 5 plates.

  • Letson, E. J. 1905. Checklist of the Mollusca of New York. Bulletin. No. 88. New York State Museum, Albany, NY.

  • Lyons, M.S., R.A. Krebs, J.P. Holt, L.J. Rundo, and W. Zawiski. 2007. Assessing causes of change in the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Black River, Ohio. American Midland Naturalist, 158: 1-15.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 1984. Missouri Naiades: a guide to the mussels of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. 270 pp.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1909a. The destruction of the fresh-water fauna in western Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 48(191):90-110.

  • 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.

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

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

  • Schanzle, R.W. and K.S. Cummings. 1991. A survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Sangamon River basin, Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes, 137: 1-25.

  • Schanzle, R.W., G.W. Kruse, J.A. Kath, R.A. Klocek, and K.S. Cummings. 2004. The freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Fox River basin, Illinois and Wisconsin. Illinois Natural History Biological Notes, 141: 1-35.

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

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

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

  • Stagliano, D. 2010. Freshwater mussels in Montana: Comprehensive results from 3 years of SWG funded surveys. Report prepared for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana. 75 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., 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 C.M. Taylor. 1999. Impoundments and the decline of freshwater mussels: a case study of an extinction gradient. Conservation Biology, 13(4): 912-920.

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

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

  • Weiss, J.L. and J.B. Layzer. 1995. Infestation of glochidia on fishes in the Barren River, Kentucky. American Malacological Bulletin, 11(2): 153-159.

  • 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. and M.H. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels of selected reaches of the main channel rivers in the Coosa drainage of Georgia. U.S. Geological report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Alabama. 21 pp.

  • Williams, James, Arthur Bogan, and Jeffrey Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. pp 908

  • Young, D. 1911. The implantation of the glochidium on the fish. University of Missouri Bulletin, Science Series 2: 1-16, 3 pls.

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

  • Backlund, D.C. 2000. Summary of current known distribution and status of freshwater mussels (Unionoida) in South Dakota. Central Plains Archaeology, 8(1): 69-77.

  • Badra, P.J. and R.R. Goforth. 2003. Freshwater mussel surveys of Great Lakes tributary rivers in Michigan. Report Number MNFI 2003-15 to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Coastal Zone Management Unit, Lansing, Michigan. 40 pp.

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

  • Branson, B.A. 1983. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part II: the Unioninae, Pleurobemini, and Anodontini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 63: 49-59

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Cicerello, R.R. and G.A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series 7:1-62.

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

  • Clarke, A.H. 1992. Ontario's Sydenham River, an important refugium for native freshwater mussels against competition from the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha. Malacology Data Net, 3(1-4): 43-55.

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

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145 in: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

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

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

  • Galbraith, H.S., D.E. Spooner, and C.C. Vaughn. 2008. Status of rare and endangered freshwater mussels in southeastern Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist, 53(1): 45-50.

  • Gangloff, M.M. and D.L. Gustafson. 2000. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoida) of Montana. Central Plains Archaeology, 8(1): 121-130.

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

  • Gordon, M.E. 1991. Aquatic mollusca of the Rough River in the vicinity of the Fort Hartford Mine site, Ohio County, Kentucky. Unpublished final report for Environmental and Safety Designs, Memphis, Tennessee, 6 July 1991. 10 pp.

  • Grabarkiewicz, J.D. 2008. Three years of unionid surveys in Swan Creek, Lower Maumee River watershed, Lucas Co., OH. Final Report to the Ohio Division of Wildlife, Toledo Naturalists' Association, and Metroparks of the Toledo Area, Toledo, Ohio. 18 pp. + app.

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

  • Harmon, J.L. 1989. Freshwater bivalve mollusks (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Graham Creek, a small southeastern Indiana stream. Malacology Data Net, 2(5/6): 113-121.

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

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

  • Howells, R.G., R.W. Neck, and H.D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Press: Austin, Texas. 218 pp.

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

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J.L. and B. Cudmore-Vokey. 2004. National general status assessment of freshwater mussels (Unionacea). National Water Research Institute / NWRI Contribution No. 04-027. Environment Canada, March 2004. Paginated separately.

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., J. Di Maio, S.K. Staton, and S.R. De Solla. 2003. Status of the freshwater mussel communities of the Sydenham River, Ontario, Canada. American Midland Naturalist 150:37-50.

  • Morris, T.J. and J. Di Maio. 1999. Current distributions of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in rivers of southwestern Ontario. Malacological Review, 31/32(1): 9-17.

  • Mulcrone, R.S. and C. Mehne. 2001. Freshwater mussels of the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, from Battle Creek to Saugatuck. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, Michigan. 15 pp.

  • Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition. Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.

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

  • 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.

  • Shearer, J., D. Backlund, and S.K. Wilson. 2005. Freshwater mussel surveys of the 39-Mile District- Missouri National Recreational River, South Dakota and Nebraska. Final Report to the National Park Service, O'Neill, Nebraska, SD GFP Report 2005-08, submtted 21 November 2005. 16 pp.

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

  • Sietman, B.E., S.D. Whitney, D.E. Kelner, K.D. Blodgett, and H.L. Dunn. 2001. Post-extirpation recovery of the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna in the Upper Illinois River. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 16(2): 273-281.

  • 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.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.

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

  • Tiemann, J.S.. 2006. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of the Wakurusa River basin, Kansas. Transaction of the Kansas Academy of Science, 109(3/4): 221-230.

  • Trdan, R.J. and W.R. Hoeh. 1993. Relocation of two state-listed freshwater mussel species (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana and Epioblasma triquetra) in Michigan. Pages 100-105 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch. (eds.). Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 12-14 October 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 189 pp.

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

  • Vaughn, C.C. 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.

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

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

  • Watters, G.T. 1995a. A field guide to the freshwater mussels of Ohio. revised 3rd edition. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, Ohio. 122 pp.

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

  • 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.

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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