Lemiox rimosus - (Rafinesque, 1831)
Birdwing Pearlymussel
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lemiox rimosus (Rafinesque, 1831) (TSN 80255)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.110500
Element Code: IMBIV23010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
Image 11985

Public Domain

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Lemiox
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: Lemiox rimosus
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G1
Global Status Last Reviewed: 25Nov2011
Global Status Last Changed: 11Jun1997
Rounded Global Status: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: Range reduced to only a few extant occurrences in three rivers, a fraction of its former range. The population in the Duck River is threatened by inundation upon dam completion.
Nation: United States
National Status: N1 (17Jul1998)

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 (SX), Tennessee (S1), Virginia (S1)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE, XN: Listed endangered, nonessential experimental population (14Jun1976)
Comments on USESA: The FWS is currently monitoring the following populations of the Birdwing pearlymussel :

Endangered: Entire Range; Except where listed as Experimental Populations

Experimental Population, Non-Essential: U.S.A. (AL;The free-flowing reach of the Tennessee R. from the base of Wilson Dam downstream to the backwaters of Pickwick Reservoir [about 12 RM (19 km)] and the lower 5 RM [8 km] of all tributaries to this reach in Colbert and Lauderdale Cos.

Experimental Population, Non-Essential: U.S.A. (TN - specified portions of the French Broad and Holston Rivers.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R4 - Southeast
IUCN Red List Category: CR - Critically endangered
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Protection Status (CITES): Appendix I
American Fisheries Society Status: Endangered (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: <100 square km (less than about 40 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species historically had a wide distribution including the Tennessee River and major tributary streams (USFWS, 1983). Historical records are known from throughout the Tennessee River drainage, but it is believed to be absent from Cumberland River (Terwilliger, 1991; Wilson and Clark, 1914) despite an early report there by Rafinesque (USFWS, 1983). It is currently known from the Clinch, Powell, Elk (possibly now extirpated), and Duck Rivers in Tennessee and Virginia (USFWS, 1983). A disjunct population in the Duck River may be the only viable population; extirpated from Alabama (Mirarchi et al., 2004).

Area of Occupancy: 26-500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 1 - 5
Number of Occurrences Comments: A 1980 survey in Virginia reported nine occurrences. Similarly, a 1980 survey of 201 km of the Elk River from the Alabama border through Tennessee revealed a single, recently dead shell (tissue attached) in a muskrat midden in Lincoln Co., Tennessee (Ahlstedt, 1983). At least one good population exists on the Duck River in Tennessee. Populations in the Clinch and Powell drainages (Tennessee and Virginia) may have fallen below viable levels (Terwilliger, 1991; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) but are still extant (Jones et al., 2010).

Population Size: 50 - 1000 individuals
Population Size Comments: One of the last sizable populations (Lillard Mill, Duck River) was surveyed in August of 1997 and 59 males, 23 females, and 11 juveniles were found (Watson, 1998). This followed a 1000 individual transplant experiment from this same site to the following sites: Cuck River in Bedford Co.; Buffalo River in Wayne Co.; Nolichucky River in Greene Co.; and North Fork River in Hawkings Co. in 1982 (USFWS, 1983) which proved largely unsuccessful. Other sites have proven to be largely unviable: 2 fresh dead specimens in the lower Elk River (120 mile survey) in 1980; 7 live specimens in the Clinch River (170 mile survey) in 1979, 1 fresh dead specimen in 1978, 9 fresh dead from muskrat middens in 1981, and 2 live specimens in 1982; and 8 live specimens from the Powell River (102 mile survey) in 1979, 18 live specimens in 1981 (USFWS, 1983). Densities in the Clinch River, Tennessee, were stable and ranged from 0.07 to 0.27 per sq. m from 2004-2007 and in the Duck River, Tennessee from 0.6 to 1.0 per sq. m (Jones et al., 2010).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few (1-3)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Barr et al. (1994) determined (based on 1981 survey data) that viable populations exist in the Duck River at Lillard Mill (pop. est. 8273 individuals) and Clinch River at Kyles Ford (pop. est. 102 individuals). A disjunct population in the Duck River may be the only viable population; extirpated from Alabama (Mirarchi et al., 2004).

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The greatest factor contributing to this species' decline is alteration and destruction of stream habitat due to impoundment of the Tennessee River and its tributaries for flood control, navigation, hydroelectric power production, and recreation. Siltation due to strip mining, coal washing, dredging, farming, logging, and road construction is a second factor that has negatively impacted this species. Pollution caused by municipal, agricultural, and industrial waste discharges has also severely impacted this species. Recently, the introduced Asian clam (southwestern Virginia) has been found in areas (Clinch River) where this species is found. Impacts have not been measured. The largest population in the Duck River is threatened by the Tennessee Valley Authorities Columbia Dam Project; is extirpated from impounded sections of other rivers (USFWS, 1983).

Short-term Trend: Decline of >70%
Short-term Trend Comments: Populations in the North Fork Holston River, Nolichucky River, Tennessee River, Elk River, and Sequatchie River in Tennessee are likely now extirpated (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) as are all occurrences in Alabama (USFWS, 1983). The species only currently occupies 10% of its historic range (Jones et al., 2010). Abundance has increased only for the best population (Duck River, Tennessee) since 1988, likely due to improved minimum flows and dissolved oxygen levels in water releases from a reservoir upstream (Jones et al., 2010).

Long-term Trend: Decline of >90%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species was once widespread in the Tennessee River drainage although it was always considered rare (USFWS, 1983). In Alabama it is now extirpated but historically occurred in the Tennessee River drainage downstream to Muscle Shoals (Mirarchi, 2004). The presence of the species in the Tennessee reach of teh Elk River suggests it also occurred in Alabama reaches of that river and type material for Unio caelatus (a synonym) was probably collected from an Alabama reach of the Elk River (Williams et al., 2008). The last collection of this species in the North Fork Holston River, Virginia are from the early 1900s so it is likely extirpated there (Jones and Neves, 2007).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Highly vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: This species has a very narrow range with declining populations, questionable viability, and limited dispersal capability and is vulnerable to random events.

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This is a strict riffle dwelling species sensitive to changes in water quality and disturbance.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Verify EOs and monitor the population. Also monitor water quality.

Protection Needs: At least one, preferably more.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (<100 square km (less than about 40 square miles)) This species historically had a wide distribution including the Tennessee River and major tributary streams (USFWS, 1983). Historical records are known from throughout the Tennessee River drainage, but it is believed to be absent from Cumberland River (Terwilliger, 1991; Wilson and Clark, 1914) despite an early report there by Rafinesque (USFWS, 1983). It is currently known from the Clinch, Powell, Elk (possibly now extirpated), and Duck Rivers in Tennessee and Virginia (USFWS, 1983). A disjunct population in the Duck River may be the only viable population; extirpated from Alabama (Mirarchi et al., 2004).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States ALextirpated, TN, VA

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Colbert (01033), Lauderdale (01077), Limestone (01083)*
TN Anderson (47001)*, Bedford (47003)*, Claiborne (47025), Giles (47055)*, Grainger (47057)*, Greene (47059)*, Hancock (47067), Hawkins (47073)*, Knox (47093)*, Lincoln (47103), Marshall (47117), Maury (47119), Sullivan (47163)*, Wayne (47181)*
VA Lee (51105), Russell (51167), Scott (51169), Washington (51191)*, Wise (51195)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
06 North Fork Holston (06010101)+*, Holston (06010104)+*, Nolichucky (06010108)+*, Watts Bar Lake (06010201)*, Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Powell (06010206)+, Lower Clinch (06010207)+*, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)*, Sequatchie (06020004)*, Guntersville Lake (06030001)*, Wheeler Lake (06030002)*, Upper Elk (06030003)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+*, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+, Lower Tennessee-Beech (06040001)*, Upper Duck (06040002)+, Lower Duck (06040003)+, Buffalo (06040004)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small (to 5 cm) freshwater mussel with an olive-green shell.
Reproduction Comments: The banded darter, (Etheostoma zonale) was identified as a potential host (Jenkinson, 1982; Hill, 1986). The snubnose darter (Etheostoma simoterum) was also identified as a suitable host by Schulz and Marbain (1998) and Watson and Neves (1998). Glochidia are contained only in the outer gills of females and are released in association with a mantle-lure display that appears to mimic a small aquatic snail (Jones et al., 2010). In the Clinch River, Tennessee, females are gravid October through May and likely August through July in the Duck River (Jones et al., 2010). Jones et al. (2010) determined the following to be suitable hosts: greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides), bluebreast darter (Etheostoma camurum), redline darter (Etheostoma rufilineatum), snubnose darter (Etheostoma simoterum), banded darter (Etheostoma zonale).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, MEDIUM RIVER, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is almost always found in riffle areas with stable, sand and gravel substrates in moderate to fast currents in small to medium sized rivers (Bogan and Parmalee, 1983; USFWS, 1983).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: This species was listed as federally endangered in the U.S. in 1976 and a recovery plan created (USFWS, 1983). Objectives of the recovery plan include: (1) preserve populations and presently used habitat with emphasis on the Clinch and Powell Rivers, (2) determine feasibility of introducing the species back into rivers within its historic range and introduce where feasible, (3) conduct life history studies , (4) determine the number of individuals required to maintain a viable population, (5) investigate the necessity for habitat improvement and if feasible and desirable identify techniques and sites for improvement to include implementation, (6) develop and implement a program to monitor population levels and habitat conditions of presently established populations as well as introduced and expanding populations, (7) assess overall success of recovery program and recommend action (delist, continued protection, implement new measures, other studies, etc.).

The USFWS, in cooperation with the State of Tennessee and Conservation Fisheries, Inc., proposes to reintroduce this species into its historical habitat in the free-flowing reach of the French Broad River below Douglas Dam to its confluence with the Holston River, Knox County Tennessee, and in the free-flowing reach of the Holston River below Cherokee Dam to its confluence with the French Broad River (Federal Register, 13 June 2006).The Pendleton Island occurrence in owned by The Nature Conservancy. Nonessessential Experimental Populations (NEPs) have been established in the Tennessee River below Wilson Dam, Colbert and Lauderdale Cos., Alabama, extending 13.4 km and including the lower 8 km of all tributaries that enter the Wilson Dam tailwaters (USFWS, 2001). Nonessessential Experimental Populations (NEPs) have been proposed for reintroduction into the free-flowing reach of the French Broad River below Douglas Dam (Knox and Sevier Cos., Tennessee) to its confluence with the Holston River, Knox Co., Tennessee, and in the free-flowing reach of the Holston River below Cherokee Dam to its confluence with the French Broad River (Knox, Grainger, and Jefferson Cos., Tennessee), where this species currently does not exist (USFWS, 2006).

Biological Research Needs: Test the potential for reintroducing the species back into its historic range.
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: 25Nov2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2011); Ormes, M. and M. Morrison (1997)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 25Nov2011
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
  • Ahlsted, S.A. 1984. Twentieth Century changes in the freshwater mussel fauna of the Clinch River (Tennessee and Virginia). M.S. Thesis. Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 102 pp.

  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1983. The molluscan fauna of the Elk River in Tennessee and Alabama. American Malacological Bulletin 1:43-50.

  • Ahlstedt, Steven A. 1986. Activity 1: Mussel Distribution Surveys. Cumberlandian Mollusk Conservation Program. TVA.

  • Bogan, A.E. and P.W. Parmalee. 1983. Tennessee's rare wildlife. Vol. 2: The mollusks. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and the Tennessee Conservation Department: Nashville, Tennessee. 123 pp.

  • Hill, D.M. 1986. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation program, activity 3: identification of fish hosts. Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. 55 pp.

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

  • Jenkinson, J.J. 1982. Cumberlandian Mollusk Conservation Program. pp. 95-103 in A.C. Miller (compiler) Report of freshwater mollusks workshop (19-20 May 1981). U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 184 pp.

  • Jones, J.W., R.J. Neves, S.A. Ahlstedt, D. Hubbs, M. Johnson, H. Dan, and B.J.K. Ostby. 2010. Life history and demographics of the endangered birdwing pearlymussel (Lemiox rimosus) (Bivalvia: Unionidae). American Midland Naturalist 163:335-350.

  • 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.

  • Matthews, J.R. and C.J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. xxiii + pp 1-560 + 33 pp. appendix + 6 pp. glossary + 16 pp. index. Volume 2. Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes, Mussels, Crustaceans, Snails, Insects, and Arachnids. xiii + pp. 561-1180. Beacham Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C.

  • 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.

  • Schulz, C. and K. Marbain. 1998. Hosts species for rare freshwater mussels in Virginia. Triannual Unionid Report, 15: 32-38.

  • 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.

  • Tennessee Valley Authority. 1986. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation program. Activity 3: Identification of fish hosts, Knoxville, Tennessee: Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development, Tennessee Valley Authority.

  • Terwilliger, K. 1991. Virginia's endangered species: Proceedings of a symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Co. Blacksburg, VA.

  • 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.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Ahlstedt, S.). 1983. Recovery plan for the birdwing pearly mussel; Conradilla caelata (Conrad, 1834). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 56 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; establishment of nonessential experimental population status for 16 freshwater mussels and 1 freshwater snail (Anthony's Riversnail) in the free-flowing reach of the Tennessee River below the Wilson Dam, Colbert and Lauderdale Counties, Alabama. Federal Register, 66(115): 32250-32264.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; establishment of nonessential experimental population status for 15 freshwater mussels, 1 freshwater snail, and 5 fishes in the lower French Broad River and in the lower Holston River, Tennessee; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 71(113): 34195-34230.

  • 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.

  • Watson, B.T. and R.J. Neves. 1998. Fish host identification for two federally endangered unionids in the upper Tennessee River drainage. Triannual Unionid Report, 14: 7

  • Watson, S.N., Jr. 1998. Lillard Mill mussel survey, 1997. Triannual Unionid Report, 14: 7-8.

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

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

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

  • Wilson, C.B., and H.W. Clark. 1914. The mussels of the Cumberland River and its tributaries. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 781: 63 pp.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Barr, W.C., S.A. Ahlstedt, G.D. Hickman, and D.M. Hill. 1993-1994. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation program. Activity 8: Analysis of macrofauna factors. Walkerana 7(17/18):159-224.

  • Biological Resources Division, USGS. 1997. Database of museum records of aquatic species. Compiled by J. Williams (USGS-BRD, Gainesville, FL).

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

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

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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