Medionidus parvulus - (I. Lea, 1860)
Coosa Moccasinshell
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Medionidus parvulus (I. Lea, 1860) (TSN 80265)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.113013
Element Code: IMBIV28040
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Medionidus
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: Medionidus parvulus
Taxonomic Comments: Genetic analysis is needed to determine the proper identification of some populations (e.g., Medionidus specimens from the Conasauga River).ted that they integrated. Johnson (1977) synonymized M. parvulus with M. acutissimus. Genetic analysis is needed to determine the proper identification of some populations (e.g., Medionidus specimens from the Conasauga River). The relationship of Medionidus acutissimus to Medionidus parvulus is unclear as the two overlap in shell morphology in parts of their ranges (Williams et al., 2008).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G1Q
Global Status Last Reviewed: 17Nov2011
Global Status Last Changed: 27Sep1997
Rounded Global Status: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: This is a declining regional endemic whose low numbers make it vulnerable to any impact. All populations have been eliminated (including all occurrences in Alabama) leaving only Conasauga headwaters occurrences (2 or 3) that may not be viable.
Nation: United States
National Status: N1 (27Sep1997)

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), Georgia (S1), Tennessee (S1)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE: Listed endangered (17Mar1993)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R4 - Southeast
IUCN Red List Category: EN - Endangered
American Fisheries Society Status: Endangered (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 250-1000 square km (about 100-400 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: The type locality for Medionidus parvulus is listed as the Coosa River, Alabama and the Chatooga River, Georgia. Historically, the species has been reported from the Cahaba River, the Sipsey Fork of the Black Warrior River, and the Coosa River, and their tributaries, in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee (USFWS, 2004). Recent records include a single specimen in the headwaters of the Sipsey Fork in 1985, a single specimen taken by Hanley from the Little River in 1981, and the Conasauga River, however, recent surveys did not find the species in the Cahaba River (USFWS, 1993) and it isno longer extant in the Cahaba River, Alabama (McGregor et al., 2000). It apparently is extant only in some headwaters in Georgia (Mirarchi et al., 2004).

Area of Occupancy: 126-2,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 1 - 5
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species was widespread with sporadic distribution in the Mobile basin. In the Coosa River basin in Georgia, it is known historically from the Coosa and Conasauga River drainages but has not been collected live recently except in sites listed below (Williams and Hughes, 1998). Since its listing, presence has been confirmed only in the Conasauga River (Murray/Whitfield County, Georgia and Bradley County, Tennessee) (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998), and its tributary, Holly Creek (Murray County, Georgia) (USFWS, 2000; 2004). Johnson et al. (2005) recently reported this species from Holly Creek, adjacent to the Chattahoochee National Forest, Murray Co., Georgia.

Population Size: 1 - 1000 individuals
Population Size Comments: The species is common in portions of the Conasauga River, Polk County, Tennessee; rare elsewhere (Doug Shelton, pers. obs. 1997). Population estimates are not known.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: None (zero)
Viability/Integrity Comments: All populations are small and localized (USFWS, 2000).

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Habitat modification, sedimentation and water quality degredation represent the major threats to this species. The species may also be threatened by overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes as well as disease and predation (U. S. Fish Wildlife Service, 1993). Unrestricted cattle access is a direct threat in portions on the Conasauga River in Bradley and Polk Counties, Tennessee. During recent surveys a gravid female was found in the center of the stream crushed. This site was in an area bordered by grazing land and unrestricted cattle access (Doug Shelton, pers. obs. 1997). Disappearance from significant portions of its range are primarily due to changes in river and stream channels due to dams, dredging, or mining, and historic or episodic pollution events. The species is not known to survive in impounded waters and more than 1700 km of large and small river habitat in the Basin have been impounded by dams for navigation, flood control, water supply, and/or hydroelectric production purposes (USFWS, 2004).

From USFWS (2000):
In the Mobile River basin, the greatest threats are dams (for navigation, water supply, electricity, recreation, and flood control), channelization (causing accelerated erosion, altered depth; and loss of habitat diversity, substrate stability, and riparian canopy), dredging (for navigation or gravel mining), mining (for coal, sand, gravel, or gold) in locally concentrated areas, pollution- point source (industrial waste effluent, sewage treatment plants, carpet and fabric mills, paper mills and refineries in mainstem rivers), pollution- nonpoint source (construction, agriculture, silviculture, urbanization).

Short-term Trend: Decline of >70%
Short-term Trend Comments: The population in the Conasauga River appears to be stable at the present time. The species appears to be declining elsewhere to the point that it only occurs in Conasauga basin headwaters. Population estimates for the species are unavailable. The species has been eliminated from the Cahaba and Black Warrior River drainages, as well as from the Coosa River and many of its tributaries (USFWS, 2004) including all occurrences in Alabama (Mirarchi et al., 2004) and all but one Coosa tributary in northwestern Georgia (Williams et al., 2008).

Long-term Trend: Decline of >90%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Highly to moderately vulnerable.
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Sensitivity to any of the threats listed above may result in the death of individuals or populations and/or hinder the species ability to reproduce. Isolated imperiled populations in the Mobile River basin are likely vulnerable to random accidents, such as toxic spills, and to naturally catastrophic events, such as droughts and floods, even if land use and human populations were to remain constant within isolated watersheds (USFWS, 2000).

Environmental Specificity: Very narrow to narrow.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Continue surveys to determine the extent of existing populations. The mainstem of the Coosa River and its tributaries need to be surveyed for the presence/absence of this species.

Protection Needs: Critical habitat being proposed in 9 units across distribution in Mobile Basin (USFWS, 2004). Mobile River Basin recovery plan (USFWS, 2000) calls for: (1) use to fullest extent existing laws, regulations, and policies to portect listed populations and their habitats, and to develop and encourage a stream management strategy that places high priority on conservation; (2) encourage voluntary stewardship through joint initiatives and individual actions as the only practical and economical means of minimizing adverse effects of private land use and activities within watersheds; (3) continue to promote research efforts on life histories, sensitivities, and requirements of imperiled aquatic species, and develop technological capabilities to maintain and propagate them.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (250-1000 square km (about 100-400 square miles)) The type locality for Medionidus parvulus is listed as the Coosa River, Alabama and the Chatooga River, Georgia. Historically, the species has been reported from the Cahaba River, the Sipsey Fork of the Black Warrior River, and the Coosa River, and their tributaries, in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee (USFWS, 2004). Recent records include a single specimen in the headwaters of the Sipsey Fork in 1985, a single specimen taken by Hanley from the Little River in 1981, and the Conasauga River, however, recent surveys did not find the species in the Cahaba River (USFWS, 1993) and it isno longer extant in the Cahaba River, Alabama (McGregor et al., 2000). It apparently is extant only in some headwaters in Georgia (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, GA, TN

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
GA Chattooga (13055)*, Gordon (13129)*, Murray (13213), Whitfield (13313)
TN Bradley (47011), Polk (47139)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Conasauga (03150101)+, Upper Coosa (03150105)+*, Middle Coosa (03150106)*, Lower Coosa (03150107)*, Cahaba (03150202)*, Middle Alabama (03150203)*, Mulberry (03160109)*, Sipsey Fork (03160110)*, Locust (03160111)*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A freshwater mussel or bivalve mollusk which rarely exceeds 40 mm (1.6 in.) in length. The outer shell is yellow-brown to dark brown with fine green rays.
General Description: This is a small species with a thin, fragilke, and elongate shell that is elliptical to rhomboidal in outline. The posterior ridge is inflated and smoothly rounded, terminating in a broadly rounded point. The posterior slope is finely corrugated. Periostracum is yellow-brown to dark brown and has fine green rays. Nacre is blue, occasionally with salmon-colored spots (FWS, 2003).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Medionidus parvulus can be distinguished from the similar Medionidus acutissimus by its size, broadly rounded posterior ridge and apex, and nacre color (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993)
Reproduction Comments: Gravid females likely migrate to the surface of the stream bottom during spring glochidial release periods and remain buried completely the rest of the year. Fish hosts are not known but likely (not confirmed) include Percina nigrofasciata although other darter species may also serve as hosts (USFWS, 2003).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, High gradient, Moderate gradient, Riffle, SPRING/SPRING BROOK
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: The species is usually found in sand and gravel in highly oxygenated, clear streams with moderate to strong flow in streams and small rivers (Doug Shelton, pers. obs. 1997; USFWS, 2000).
Length: 4 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: This species was listed as federally endangered in the U.S. in 1993.

A specific recovery plan has been created for the Mobile River basin (USFWS, 2000) which contains the following objectives: (1) protect habitat integrity and quality of river and stream segments that currently support or could support imperiled aquatic species, (2) consider options for free-flowing river and stream mitigation strategies that give high priority to avoidance and restoration, (3) promote voluntary stewardship as a practical and economical means of reducing nonpoint pollution from private land use, (4) encourage and support community based watershed stewardship planning and action, (5) develop and implement programs and materials to educate the public on the need and benefits of ecosystem management, and to involve them in watershed stewardship, (6) conduct basic research on endemic aquatic species and apply the results toward management and protection of aquatic communities, (7) develop and implement technology for maintaining and propagating endemic species in captivity, (8) reintroduce aquatic species into restored habitats, as appropriate, (9) monitor listed species population levels and distribution and periodically review ecosystem management strategy, (10) coordinate ecosystem management actions (more detail in USFWS, 2000).

Critical habitat has been designated in Alabama in the Coosa River, Hatchet Creek, Shoal Creek, Cheaha Creek, Yellowleaf Creek, Big Canoe Creek, and the lower Coosa River; in Georgia in the Oostanaula complex; and in Tennessee in the Oostanaula complex (115 occuppied, 404 unoccuppied km) (USFWS, 2004).

Biological Research Needs: 1. Conduct life history studies with an emphasis on host fish identification. 2. Do genetic analysis to determine the proper identification of certain populations, i.e. the identification of MEDIONIDUS specimens from the Conasauga River is problematic. In addition to M. PARVULUS and M. ACUTISSIMUS, another related species M. CONRADICUS may also exist in the Conasauga River (D. Stansbery - pers. comm., 9/27/1997. This needs to be sorted out by genetic analysis. 3. Determine if culturing of the species is a viable means of conservation. 4. Assess potential sites for reintroduction if culturing proves to be successful.
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: 17Nov2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 17Nov2011
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
  • Howard, A.D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.

  • Johnson, P.D., C. St. Aubin, and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2005. Freshwater mussel survey results for the Cherokee and Chattahoochee districts of the United States Forest Service in Tennessee and Georgia. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama. 32 pp.

  • Johnson, R.I. 1977. Monograph of the genus Medionidus (Bivalvia: Unionidae) mostly from the Apalachicolan region, southeastern United States. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 4(56): 161-187.

  • 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.

  • McGregor, S.W., P.E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna of the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11(26): 215-237.

  • 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.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1924. The naiad fauna of Duck River in Tennessee. The American Midland Naturalist, 9: 18-62.

  • PIERSON, J. MALCOLM, 1991. STATUS SURVEY OF THE SOUTHERN CLUBSHELL, PLEUROBEMA DECISUM (LEA, 1831). MUSEUM TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 13, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES, AND PARKS, MUSEUM OF NATURAL SCIENCE, JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI.

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

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

  • Simpson, C.T. 1914. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Naiades or Pearly Fresh-water Mussels. Bryant Walker: Detroit, Michigan. 1540 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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). 1989e. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of the cracking pearly-mussel as an Endangered species. Federal Register, 54(187): 39850-39853.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Draft Recovery Plan for the Mobile River basin aquatic ecosystem. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Recovery plan for the Mobile River basin aquatic ecosystem. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 128 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Endangered and Threatened Widlife and plants; proposed designation of critical habitat for three threatened mussels and eight endangered mussels in the Mobile River basin; proposed rule. Federal Register, 68(58): 14752-14832.

  • USFWS. 1991. ENDANGERED & THREATENED WILDLIFE & PLANTS; PROPOSED ENDANGERED STATUS FOR EIGHT FRESHWATER MUSSELS AND PROPOSED THREATENED STATUS THREE FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN THE MOBILE RIVER DRAINAGE. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 56, NO. 223.

  • USFWS. 1993. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS; ENDANGERED STATUS FOR EIGHT FRESHWATER MUSSELS AND THREATENED STATUS FOR THREE FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN THE MOBILE RIVER DRAINAGE. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 58, NO. 50.

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

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

  • 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.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Endangered and Threatened Widlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for three threatened mussels and eight endangered mussels in the Mobile River basin; final rule. Federal Register, 69(126): 40083-40171.

  • 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.