Lasmigona costata - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Other English Common Names: Fluted Shell, Fluted-shell, Fluted-shell Mussel, Sand Mussel
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lasmigona costata (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 80139)
French Common Names: lasmigone cannelée
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.118167
Element Code: IMBIV22030
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
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 costata
Taxonomic Comments: In an unpublished study of molecular systematics, Campbell and Harris (2006) found this species to be very different from some of the other species currently assigned to Lasmigona.
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10May2016
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species is found throughout most of Mississippi River system, some of the southern and western tributaries of the Great Lakes, and some tributaries of Hudson Bay. It is considered stable throughout its range except parts of New York and in the western plains states.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (16Jul1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (01Aug2017)

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 (S3), Georgia (SH), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S2), Kansas (S1), Kentucky (S4S5), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (S2), Mississippi (SH), Missouri (S4), New York (S5), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (S4), Oklahoma (S1), Pennsylvania (S4), Tennessee (S5), Vermont (S2), Virginia (S4), West Virginia (S3), Wisconsin (S3)
Canada Manitoba (S2), Ontario (S5), Quebec (S3)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Candidate (Low) (10Jul2017)
American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species is found throughout most of Mississippi River system, some of the southern and western tributaries of the Great Lakes, and some tributaries of Hudson Bay (Burch, 1975; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Area of Occupancy: 2,501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Minnesota, it is in the Red River of the North, Minnesota, and St. Croix drainages, and Mississippi River drainage below St. Anthony Falls; rare in the Rainy River drainage and SE streams (Sietman, 2003; Graf, 1997; Cvancara, 1970); also Lake of the Woods (Hove et al., 1997). In Illinois, it is sporadic in the northern half, in half the drainages it once occupied (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991) but healthy in Vermillion (Wabash drainage) and Kankakee systems (Schanzle et al., 2004); Fox and other upper Illinois basins with some decline (esp. in Wisconsin) (Sietman et al., 2001; Schanzle et al., 2004). Indiana distribution: Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990), East Fork White (Harmon, 1992), Muscatatuck (Harmon, 1989), St. Joseph and Maumee (Pryor, 2005). It is widespread but sporadic in glaciated Ohio (Watters, 1992; 1995; Lyons et al., 2007; Grabarciewicz, 2008; Watters et al., 2009). In West Virginia, it occurs in the Mud (Guyandotte drainage) (Schmidt and Zeto, 1986) and Upper Kanawha (Morris and Taylor, 1992); and upper Clinch River, Virginia (Jones et al., 2001) incl. Copper Creek (Hanlon et al., 2009). It is in the Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), lower Arkansas (Frog Bayou) (Gordon, 1985), Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996), and White (Gordon, 1982; Christian, 1995) River drainages, Arkansas. In Kansas, it is in the Neosho and Spring (Branson, 1966) River basins with relic shells in the Marais des Cygnes and Pottawatomie Creek (Marais des Cygnes River basin), and Fall, Elk, Big Caney, and South Fork of the Cottonwood River (Neosho River basin) (Couch, 1997). In Vermont, it is in Lake Champlain tributaries (Fichtel and Smith, 1995) in Lamoille, Winooski, Poultney Rivers, Otter and Lewis Creeks, and Missisquoi River (shells) (Kart et al., 2005). In Wisconsin, it is common and widespread except the SW section of the state (Mathiak, 1979). In Virginia, it was recently in the upper South Fork Holston (Stansbery and Clench, 1978), Powell and Clinch Rivers (Ahlstedt and Tuverville, 1997), and upper North Fork Holston River (Jones and Neves, 2007) where it is rare. In Tennessee, it is most common in east and middle Tennessee from unimpounded upper Powell and Clinch Rivers and other tributaries of the upper Tennessee system, S and W to the Elk, Duck, Stones, Big South Fork Cumberland, and Harpeth Rivers (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Alabama, it is uncommon and limited to the Tennessee River system extant only in the Paint Rock and Elk Rivers and a short reach of Bear Creek in Colbert Co. (Ahlstedt, 1996; Mirarchi, 2004; Williams et al., 2008). It has been collected in Kentucky in the South Fork Kentucky (Evans, 2008), Middle Green (Gordon, 1991) and Barren Rivers (Cochran and Layzer, 1993), but is generally distributed in the Tennessee River eastward (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003) and Red River (Clark, 1988). Athearn (1992) lists a range extension into Georgia in South Chickamauga Creek in Catoosa Co. It occurs in the Lake Michigan and St. Clair drainage (Badra and Goforth, 2003), Michigan (Strayer, 1980; Trdan and Hoeh, 1993) and parts of the upper peninsula (Goodrich and Van der Schalie, 1939) and Kalamazoo River (Mulcrone and Mehlne, 2001). It is rare in Oklahoma in: Neosho, Little (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999), Glover, and Mountain Fork (Spooner and Vaughn, 2007) Rivers, and eastern tributaries of the Arkansas River (possibly historic) (Branson, 1983; Vaughn, 2000). In Canada, it is abundant in Ontario (particularly southern), the core of its Canada range, and less abundant with decline in Manitoba (Red and Winnipeg Rivers- Watson, 2000) and Quebec; likely extirpated from the St. Lawrence River (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004). Clarke (1981) lists Canadian distribution as Hudson Bay drainage in the Red and Winnipeg River systems; Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system from southern Lake Huron and tributaries to the Ottawa River and Lake Champlain; and entire Ohio-Mississippi River system.

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Smith and Crabtree (2010) found this species at 9 of 32 sites (5 with recruitment) along the entire length of Pennsylvania's French Creek.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Recently, zebra mussels were found in areas previously occupied by this species on the Rideau River in eastern Ontario (Schueler and

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Pip (2000) was unable to find this species in Manitoba in recent surveys despite historical presence in similar surveys in 1975-1978; but it is still present there, though declining (Watson, 2000).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species formerly inhabited the main channels of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, as well as medium-sized rivers such as the Obey, Caney Fork, Red, Roaring, Emory, Watauga, French Broad, and Holston in Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It formerly occurred in Mississippi in the Tennessee River drainage but is now extirpated (Jones et al., 2005). In Alabama it has declined from across Northern Alabama to only the Elk and Paint Rock Rivers and Bear Creek, Colbert Co. (Williams et al., 2008). Hoggarth et al. (2008) note subfossil and historic records for Symmes Creek (Raccoon basin) in Ohio.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Global Range: (20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)) This species is found throughout most of Mississippi River system, some of the southern and western tributaries of the Great Lakes, and some tributaries of Hudson Bay (Burch, 1975; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

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, MI, MN, MO, MS, ND, NY, OH, OK, PA, TN, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada MB, ON, QC

Range Map
No map available.

U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Jackson (01071), Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Marshall (01095)
IA Allamakee (19005), Chickasaw (19037), Clayton (19043), Floyd (19067), Greene (19073), Hamilton (19079), Hardin (19083), Jones (19105), Linn (19113), Mitchell (19131), Webster (19187), Winneshiek (19191)
KS Allen (20001), Cherokee (20021), Franklin (20059), Labette (20099), Neosho (20133)
MI Allegan (26005), Alpena (26007)*, Antrim (26009)*, Barry (26015), Benzie (26019)*, Berrien (26021)*, Branch (26023)*, Calhoun (26025), Cass (26027)*, Cheboygan (26031), Chippewa (26033)*, Clare (26035)*, Clinton (26037), Crawford (26039)*, Dickinson (26043), Eaton (26045), Genesee (26049), Grand Traverse (26055)*, Gratiot (26057), Hillsdale (26059)*, Huron (26063)*, Ingham (26065), Ionia (26067), Isabella (26073), Jackson (26075)*, Kalamazoo (26077), Kent (26081), Lake (26085)*, Lapeer (26087)*, Leelanau (26089)*, Lenawee (26091)*, Livingston (26093)*, Luce (26095)*, Mackinac (26097)*, Macomb (26099), Mecosta (26107)*, Menominee (26109), Midland (26111), Monroe (26115), Montcalm (26117), Montmorency (26119)*, Newaygo (26123)*, Oakland (26125)*, Oceana (26127)*, Osceola (26133), Ottawa (26139)*, Presque Isle (26141)*, Roscommon (26143)*, Saginaw (26145), Sanilac (26151), Shiawassee (26155)*, St. Clair (26147), St. Joseph (26149), Tuscola (26157), Van Buren (26159)*, Washtenaw (26161)*, Wayne (26163)
MN Aitkin (27001), Blue Earth (27013), Brown (27015), Carlton (27017), Carver (27019), Chippewa (27023), Chisago (27025), Clearwater (27029), Dakota (27037), Dodge (27039), Faribault (27043), Fillmore (27045), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Itasca (27061), Kanabec (27065), Lac Qui Parle (27073), Mahnomen (27087), Mower (27099), Nicollet (27103), Olmsted (27109), Otter Tail (27111), Pennington (27113), Pine (27115), Polk (27119), Ramsey (27123), Red Lake (27125), Redwood (27127), Renville (27129), Rice (27131), Scott (27139), Steele (27147), Stevens (27149), Swift (27151), Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163), Wilkin (27167), Winona (27169), Yellow Medicine (27173)
OK Adair (40001), Cherokee (40021), McCurtain (40089), Ottawa (40115)*, Pushmataha (40127)
PA Greene (42059)
VT Addison (50001), Chittenden (50007), Franklin (50011), Rutland (50021)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Tahquamenon (04020202)+*, Menominee (04030108)+, Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+*, St. Joseph (04050001)+, Black-Macatawa (04050002)+*, Kalamazoo (04050003)+, Upper Grand (04050004)+, Maple (04050005)+, Lower Grand (04050006)+, Thornapple (04050007)+, Pere Marquette-White (04060101)+*, Muskegon (04060102)+, Betsie-Platte (04060104)+*, Boardman-Charlevoix (04060105)+*, Manistique (04060106)+*, Brevoort-Millecoquins (04060107)+*, Lone Lake-Ocqueoc (04070003)+*, Cheboygan (04070004)+, Thunder Bay (04070006)+*, Au Sable (04070007)+*, Tittabawassee (04080201)+, Pine (04080202)+, Shiawassee (04080203)+, Flint (04080204)+, Cass (04080205)+, Saginaw (04080206)+, Lake Huron (04080300)+*, St. Clair (04090001)+, Lake St. Clair (04090002)+, Clinton (04090003)+, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+*, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+*, Raisin (04100002)+, St. Joseph (04100003)+*, Tiffin (04100006)+*, Mettawee River (04150401)+, Otter Creek (04150402)+, Winooski River (04150403)+, Lamoille River (04150405)+, Missiquoi River (04150407)+, Lake Champlain (04150408)+
05 Lower Monongahela (05020005)+
06 Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Pomme De Terre (07020002)+, Hawk-Yellow Medicine (07020004)+, Chippewa (07020005)+, Redwood (07020006)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Cottonwood (07020008)+, Blue Earth (07020009)+, Watonwan (07020010)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Kettle (07030003)+, Snake (07030004)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Zumbro (07040004)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Root (07040008)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Upper Iowa (07060002)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, Upper Cedar (07080201)+, Upper Iowa (07080207)+, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+, Boone (07100005)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+
09 Bois De Sioux (09020101)+, Otter Tail (09020103)+, Eastern Wild Rice (09020108)+, Red Lake (09020303)+, Clearwater (09020305)+, Big Fork (09030006)+
10 Upper Marais Des Cygnes (10290101)+
11 Upper Neosho (11070204)+, Middle Neosho (11070205)+, Lake O' the Cherokees (11070206)+*, Spring (11070207)+, Illinois (11110103)+, Upper Little (11140107)+, Mountain Fork (11140108)+
+ 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
Reproduction Comments: A known glochidial host is the carp (Clarke 1981). Infestation by glochidia confirmed (though transformation not tested) on Dorosoma cepedianum, Moxostoma carinatum (Weiss and Layzer, 1995). Lefevre and Curtis (1910; 1912) cited Cyprinus carpio (common carp) as a host. Watters et al. (1999) confirmed Etheostoma zonale (banded darter), Hypentelium nigricans (northern hogsucker), Lepomis gibbosus (pumpkinseed), Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass), Rhinichthys cataractae (longnose dace). Watters et al. (1998) also confirmed Hypentelium nigricans (northern hogsucker), Rhinichthys cataractae (longnose dace). New host fish confirmation from Watters et al. (2005): Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill), Senmotilus atromaculatus (creek chub), Carassius auratus (goldfish), Campostoma anomalum (central stoneroller).
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): Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species occurs in canals, rivers, and lakes. It is found on gravel, sand, or mud bottoms (Clarke, 1981).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Population/Occurrence Delineation
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 ( for a complete list of freshwater mussel taxa sorted by flow regime.
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
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).

  • Ahlstedt, S.A. and J.M. Tuberville. 1997. Quantitative reassessment of the freshwater mussel fauna in the Clinch and Powell rivers, Tennessee and Virginia. Pages 72-97 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, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Athearn, H.D. 1992. New records for some species of Alasmidontini. Malacology Data Net, 3(1-4): 90-91.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Bright, R. C., E. Plummer, and D. Olson. 1988. A survey of the mussels of the Zumbro River drainage, southeastern Minnesota. Report submitted to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 27 pp. + tables, figures, and appendices.

  • Bright, R. C., T. Atkinson, and C. Gatenby. 1994. Survey of the mussels of the Otter Tail and Pelican rivers, Minnesota: the data. Report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 191 pp.

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

  • Burch, J.B. 1975b. Freshwater Sphaeriacean Clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. 96 pp.

  • Campbell, D. and P. Harris. 2006. Report on molecular systematics of poorly-known freshwater mollusks of Alabama. Report to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama. 34 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.

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

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

  • 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 C. A. Mayer. 1992. Field guide to freshwater mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual No. 5. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Doolittle, T. C. J. 1988. Distribution and relative abundance of freshwater mussels in the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resouces. Unpaged.

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

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

  • Fichtel, C. and D.G. Smith. 1995. The freshwater mussels of Vermont. Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Technical Report 18. 54 pp.

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

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

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

  • Grier, N. M. 1922. Final report on the study and appraisal of mussel resources in selected areas of the Upper Mississippi River. American Midland Naturalist 8:1-33.

  • 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.

  • Hart, R. A. 1995. Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) habitat suitability criteria for the Otter Tail River, Minnesota. Thesis, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota. 60 pp.

  • Hart, R. A. 1999. Population dynamics of unionid mussels in Lake Pepin, Upper Mississippi River, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Dissertation, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota. 162 pp.

  • Hove, M., S. Strong, A. Jaconson, J. Schussler, V. Kurth. 1997. Northern Minnesota river holds three state-listed mussels. Triannual Unionid Report, 13: 22.

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

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

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

  • Kart, J., R. Regan, S.R. Darling, C. Alexander, K. Cox, M. Ferguson, S. Parren, K. Royar, B. Popp (eds.). 2005. Vermont's Wildlife Action Plan. Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department. Waterbury, Vermont. Available:

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

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

  • 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.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004b. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii + 255 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.

  • Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

  • Smith, Douglas G. 1985. A study of the distribution of freshwater mussels (mollusca: pelecypoda: Unionda) of the Lake Champlain drainage in northwestern New England. American Midland Naturalist 114: 19-29.

  • Smith, J. 1999. Unionid Ranks. Email letter to D.A. Sutherland, dated September 27. 1 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.

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

  • Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 13:253-264.

  • Strayer, D.L. 1999a. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.

  • Strayer, D.L. and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(3):247-258.

  • Strayer, David L. 1987. Ecology and zoogeography of the freshwater mollusks of the Hudson River basin. Malacological Review 20:1-68.

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • Van der Schalie, H. 1938a. The naiad fauna of the Huron River in southeastern Michigan. Miscellaneous Publication of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 40:7-78.

  • Vaughn, C.C. 2000. Changes in the mussel fauna of the middle Red River drainage: 1910 - present. Pages 225-232 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.

  • Vaughn, C.C. 2003. The mussel fauna of the Glover River, Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 83: 1-6.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Watson, E.T., L.C. Graham, and W.G. Franzin. 1998. The distribution of Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in the Assiniboine River drainage in Manitoba. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2232. Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, MB. 32 p.

  • Watters, G. Thomas. 1994. An Annotated Bibliography of the Reproduction and Propogation of the Unionoidea (Primarily of North America). Ohio Biological Survey, College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University. In cooperation with Ohio Division of Wildlife. 158 pp.

  • Watters, G. Thomas. 1996. 1996 Survey of the Mussels of the Fish Creek Drainage. Final Report to the Indiana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.

  • Watters, G.T. 1992a. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19:481-490.

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

  • Watters, G.T., S.H. O'Dee, and S. Chordas. 1998a. New potential hosts for: Strophitus undulatus- Ohio River drainage; Strophitus undulatus- Susquehanna River drainage; Alasmidonta undulata- Susquehanna River drainage; Actinonaias ligamentina- Ohio River drainage; and Lasmigona costata- Ohio River drainage. Triannual Unionid Report 15: 27-29.

  • Watters, G.T., S.W. Chordas, S.H. O'Dee, and J. Reiger. 1999. Host identification studies for six species of Unionidae. Pages 75-76 in Program Guide & Abstract of the First Symposium of the Freshwater Conservation Society, 17-19 March 1999, Chattanooga, Tennessee. 92 pp.

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

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

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

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 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.

  • Athearn, H.D. 1963. Some new records of naiades from eastern North America. Sterkiana 9:39.

  • 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.

  • Bogan, A.E. 1993a. Workshop on freshwater bivalves of Pennsylvania. Workshop hosted by Aquatic Systems Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, held at Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6-7 May 1993. 80 pp.

  • 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

  • Chapman, E.J. and T.A. Smith. 2008. Structural community changes in freshwater mussel populations of Little Mahoning Creek, Pennsylvania. American Malacological Bulletin, 26: 161-169.

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

  • Clarke, A.H. 1981a. The freshwater 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. 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.

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

  • Goodrich, C. and H. van der Schalie. 1939. Aquatic mollusks of the upper peninsula of Michigan. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 43: 1-45.

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Mohler, J.W., P. Morrison, and J. Haas. 2006. The mussels of Muddy Creek on Erie National Wildlife Refuge. Northeastern Naturalist 13(4):569-582.

  • Morris, J.S. and R.W. Taylor. 1992. A survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Kanawha River of West Virginia. The Nautilus 92(4):153-155.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

  • Schueler, F.W. and A. Karstad. 2007. Report on unionid conservation & exploration in eastern Ontario: 2007. The Popular Clammer: a Newsletter About Freshwater Unionid Mussels in Canada, 1: 1-2.

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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 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 (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:

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

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.