Ophiogomphus anomalus - Harvey, 1898
Extra-striped Snaketail
Synonym(s): Ophiogomphus anomalis ;Ophionuroides anomalus
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Ophiogomphus anomalus Harvey, 1898 (TSN 101746)
French Common Names: ophiogomphe bariolé
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.118008
Element Code: IIODO12020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Dragonflies and Damselflies
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Odonata Gomphidae Ophiogomphus
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper, 56: 86 pp. Available: http://www.ups.edu/x7015.xml.
Concept Reference Code: A99PAU01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Ophiogomphus anomalus
Taxonomic Comments: Placed in subgenus Ophionuroides (Carle, 1986; 1992).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 21Oct2005
Global Status Last Changed: 21Oct2005
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: There are approximately 150-200 known occurrences of this dragonfly with others likely to be found. No significant decrease in range has been recorded.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (21Oct2005)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4 (03Aug2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Maine (S4), Michigan (S2S3), Minnesota (S3), New Jersey (S3), New York (S2S3), Pennsylvania (S2?), Wisconsin (S2S3)
Canada New Brunswick (S4), Nova Scotia (S1), Ontario (S3), Quebec (S2S3)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Currently known range is from New Brunswick, west to Wisconsin, with occurrences likely in Minnesota, and south to the upper Delaware River. It is apparently very local throughout its range.

Area of Occupancy: 101-2,000 1-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 81 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species has been searched for extensively in Maine, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In Maine, occurs in over 100 sites in 28 rivers (P. deMaynadier, ME Dept. Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, pers. comm., October 2005), additional occurrences likely to be discovered in several states and provinces. In 1993 an occurrence was located in Charlotte County, New Brunswick (Brunelle, 1997). Number of occurrences not as well known elsewhere, but probably least dozens. Probably around 200 globally.

Population Size: 2500 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Possibly more than 250 mi (400 km) of occurrences. Occasionally abundant where found: South Fork Flambeau River (Wisconsin) and Mattawamkeug River (Maine).

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Unimpounded streams with very high water quality continue to become degraded or destroyed by channelization, dredging, siltation, agricultural non-point pollution, municipal and industrial pollution.

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable

Long-term Trend: Unknown

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Continue status surveys for this species in New York and Maine (as well as extent of known occurrences in Maine). Initiate status surveys in Ontario, Quebec, Michigan and Minnesota.

Protection Needs: Work with local, state, and federal agencies to protect water quality at known occurrences.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) Currently known range is from New Brunswick, west to Wisconsin, with occurrences likely in Minnesota, and south to the upper Delaware River. It is apparently very local throughout its range.

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 ME, MI, MN, NJ, NY, PA, WI
Canada NB, NS, ON, QC

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
MI Gogebic (26053), Iron (26071)
MN Cook (27031), St. Louis (27137)
NJ Sussex (34037)*
NY Delaware (36025), Essex (36031), Oneida (36065), Orange (36071)*, Saratoga (36091), St. Lawrence (36089), Sullivan (36105), Warren (36113)
PA Pike (42103), Wayne (42127)
WI Burnett (55013), Chippewa (55017), Forest (55041), Marinette (55075), Price (55099), Rusk (55107), Sawyer (55113), Taylor (55119)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Upper Hudson (02020001)+, Hudson-Hoosic (02020003)+, Upper Delaware (02040101)+, Lackawaxen (02040103)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+
04 Baptism-Brule (04010101)+, St. Louis (04010201)+, Black-Presque Isle (04020101)+, Lake Superior (04020300)+, Peshtigo (04030105)+, Brule (04030106)+, Black (04150101)+, Raquette (04150305)+, St. Regis (04150306)+
07 Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Namekagon (07030002)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Upper Chippewa (07050001)+, Flambeau (07050002)+, South Fork Flambeau (07050003)+, Jump (07050004)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A medium-sized bright green dragonfly.
General Description: A medium sized mostly bright green dragonfly with an interrupted N-shaped black marking on the side of the thorax, and face with narrow black cross-lines. Larva flat, brown, with oval abdomen and divergent wing cases.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Coloration characteristic. Larval antennae unique, tipped by a cap-like 4th segment. (Needham & Westfall, 1955; Walker, 1958)
Ecology Comments: Needs clear high quality water.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, High gradient, Moderate gradient
Habitat Comments: Medium to large moderate-gradient rivers; free flowing with very high water quality; water depth usually less than 1 m; erosional areas (riffles); larval substrate gravel/sand/cobble. Eggs broadcast in water, larvae burrow in bottom, adults forage and mate on bushes and trees. Males perch along rivers on vegetation back from edge, not on rocks in water, while waiting for females.
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Phenology Comments: Larvae overwinter, flight season early June to early August.
Length: 4.5 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Determine tolerance levels to pollutants.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: River-breeding Dragonfly Odonates

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 ideally with evidence of on-site breeding (teneral adults, mating pairs, territorial males, ovipositing females, larvae, or exuviae) at a given location with potential breeding habitat. Although oviposition may not necessarily yield progeny that survive to adulthood (Fincke, 1992) and movements resembling oviposition may not necessarily result in egg deposition (Okazawa and Ubukata, 1978; Martens, 1992; 1994), presence of on-site oviposition is here accepted as an indicator of a minimum element occurrence because the time and effort involved in determining success of emergence is beyond the scope of the general survey. As adults of some species might disperse moderate distances (see below), only sites with available larval habitat can be considered appropriate for a minimum occurrence. Single, non-breeding adults captured away from potential suitable breeding habitat should not be treated as element occurrences. 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. A photograph may be accepted as documentation of an element occurrence for adults only (nymphs and subimagos are too difficult to identify in this manner) provided that the photograph shows diagnostic features that clearly delineate the species from other species with similar features. Sight records, though valuable, should not be accepted as the basis for new element occurrences. Instead, such records should be utilized to further study an area to verify the element occurrence in that area.
Separation Barriers: Within catchments there are likely no significant barriers to movement of sexually mature adults between microhabitats, with even extensive sections of inappropriate waterway or major obstructions to flow being readily traversed by adults within the flight season. Dams large enough to cause extensive pooling may serve as separation barriers.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: None
Separation Justification: Odonate dispersal capability has been poorly documented with long-range movements inferred from observations in transit and analogy with other insects (Conrad et al., 1999; Corbet, 1999). Adults are known to wander, some over great distances (not so for damselflies). Mass migration over great distances is not herein considered when drafting separation distances as such behavior is limited to few species (e.g. Anax junius, Libellula quadrimaculata and other Libellula spp., Sympetrum spp.), occurs unpredictably and infrequently (10 year cycles for L. quadrimaculata), are unidirectional or intergenerational (Freeland et al., 2003), or occurs under unusual circumstances such as irritation by trematode parasites (Dumont and Hinnekint, 1973) or during major weather events (Moskowitz et al., 2001; Russell et al., 1998).

Corbet (1999) estimated the average distance traveled for a commuting flight (between reproductive and roosting or foraging sites) to be less than 200 m but sometimes greater than one km. Distance traveled is generally greatest for river-breeding odonates, but can vary considerably between taxa (Corbet, 1999). Both D. Paulson and S. Valley (personal communication, 1998) suggest a population should be defined by the river drainage in which it is found, but drainages or catchments vary by orders of magnitude in size and isolation so it is not obvious how to effect this recommendation.

The combination of breeding dispersal in the range of a few km with the potential for periodic long distance dispersal providing landscapes are not fragmented has led to the somewhat arbitrary assignment of separation distances at 10 km (unsuitable and suitable).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: The few studies determining area of adult foraging habitat surrounding breeding sites have indicated a range of 30 meters to 300 meters [see Briggs (1993) for Enallagma laterale; Corbet (1999) for Nesciothemis nigeriensis and Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis; Beukeman (2002) for Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis; and Samways and Steytler (1996) for Chorolestes tessalatus]. As a result, an element occurrence should include the breeding site and surrounding pond or upland habitat extending 500 m in a radius from the breeding site.
Date: 02Jun2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: River breeding dragonflies:
ANISOPTERA: Aeshnidae: Aeshna dugesi, A. persephone, A. walkeri, Anax strenuus, A. walsinghami, Basiaeschna, Boyeria, Oplonaeschna; Cordulegastridae: Cordulegaster diadema, C. dorsalis, C. maculata; Corduliidae: Helocordulia, Somatochlora elongata, S. ensigera, S. filosa, S. forcipata, S. georgiana, S. linearis, S. margarita, S. minor, S. ozarkensis, S. tenebrosa, S. walshii; Gomphidae: Dromogomphus, Erpetogomphus, Gomphus (Gomphurus): all species, Gomphus (Gomphus): all species, Gomphus (Hylogomphus): all species, Gomphus (Stenogomphus): all species, Gomphus (Phanogomphus) borealis, G. descriptus, G. hodgesi, G. lividus, G. minutus, G. quadricolor, Hagenius, Lanthus, Neurocordulia, Octogomphus, Ophiogomphus, Phyllogomphoides albrighti, Progomphus borealis, P. obscurus, Remartina, Stylogomphus, Stylurus; Libellulidae: Brechmorhoga, Dythemis, Macrothemis, Nesogonia, Paltothemis, Pseudoleon; Macromiidae: Macromia

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: 21Oct2005
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2005); Vogt, T. E.; Novak, P. (1997),Schweitzer, D.F
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 16Jan1991
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): DUNKLE, S. W.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Bick, G.H. 1983. Odonata at risk in conterminous United States and Canada. Odonatologica 12(3):209-226.

  • Bright, E., and M. F. O'Brien. 1999. Odonata larvae of Michigan: keys for, and notes on, the dragon- and damselfly larvae found in the state of Michigan. <http://insects.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/michodo/test/Home.htm> Accessed 22 July 2003.

  • Brunelle, Paul-Micheal. 1997. Distribution of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) of the Atlantic Provinces, Canada. Northeastern Naturalist 4(2):61-82.

  • Burke, P.  1995.  Behavior of Ophiogomphus anomalus at Algonquin Park.  Argia 7(3):27.

  • Carrol, M., and R. Gunderson. 1995. Distribution of Minnesota dragonflies (Odonata: Anisoptera). Occasional Papers in Aquatic Biology. St. Cloud State University 2(1):1-32.

  • Daigle, J.J. 1988. OPHIOGOMPHUS ANOMALUS Harvey rediscoverd in Maine, United States (Anisoptera: Gomphidae). Notulae Odonatologicae, 3(2):32-33.

  • Donnelly, T. W. 1992. The odonata of New York State. Bulletin of American Odonatology. 1(1):1-27.

  • Donnelly, T.W. 2004. The Odonata of New York State. Unpublished data. Binghamton, NY.

  • Dunkle, S.W. 2000. Dragonflies through binoculars: A field guide to dragonflies of North America. Oxford University Press: 266 pp.

  • Gibbs, E., B. Bradeen, and D. Boland. 2004. Spatial and temporal segregation among six species of coexisting Ophiogomphus (Odonata: Gomphidae) in the Aroostook River, Maine. Northeastern Naturalist 11(3):295-312.

  • Lee, Y. 2007. Special animal abstract for Ophiogomphus anomalus (extra-striped snaketail). Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, MI. 4pp. Available http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/abstracts/zoology/Ophiogomphus_anomalus.pdf (Accessed January 18, 2009).

  • Mead, K. 2003. Dragonflies of the North Woods. Kollath-Stensaas Publishing, Duluth, MN. 2003 pp.

  • Mead, K. 2003. Dragonflies of the North Woods. Kollath-Stensaas Publishing, Duluth, Minnesota. 203 pp.

  • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: the Laurentian mixed forest province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 352 pp.

  • Minnesota Planning Land Management Information Center (LMIC). 2002. Environmental atlas: digital maps and database for GIS analysis of natural resources. CD-Rom produced by LMIC.

  • Montz, G. R. 1993. Aquatic macroinvertebrates of the Pigeon River, Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Unpaged.

  • Montz, Gary R. 1992-1993. Aquatic Macroinvertebrates of the Pigeon River, MN. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. Results in unpublished report.

  • NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 5.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. . Accessed 19 July 2006.

  • NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 18, 2009)

  • Needham, J. G., and M. J. Westfall, Jr.  1955.  A manual of the dragonflies of North America (Anisoptera):  including the Greater Antilles and the Provinces of the Mexican border.  University of California Press, Oakland.  615 pp.

  • Needham, J.G. and M.J. Westfall, Jr. 1954. A Manual of the Dragonflies of North America (Anisoptera). University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 615 pp.

  • New York Natural Heritage Program. 2009. Biotics Database. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY.

  • New York Natural Heritage Program. 2014. Database of odonate records by county for northeastern U.S. states. Data contributors available: http://nynhp.org/OdonataNE.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Planning Database. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY.

  • Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper, 56: 86 pp. Available: http://www.ups.edu/x7015.xml.

  • Paulson, D.R., and S.W. Dunkle. 2009. A checklist of North American Odonata including English name, etymology, type locality, and distribution. Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009. Online. Available: http://www.odonatacentral.org/docs/NA_Odonata_Checklist_2009.pdf.

  • Paulson, D.R., and S.W. Dunkle. 2016. A checklist of North American Odonata including English name, etymology, type locality, and distribution. Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009; updated February 2011, February 2012, and October 2016. Online. Available: http://www.odonatacentral.org/docs/NA_Odonata_Checklist.pdf

  • Rith-Najarian, J. C. 1998. The influence of forest vegetation variables on the distribution and diversity of dragonflies in a northern Minnesota forest landscape: a preliminary study (Anisoptera). Odonatologica 27(3):335-351.

  • Rith-Najarian, J. C.  1999.  Revised species range maps and checklist for Minnesota dragonflies.  Newsletter, Northwest region Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Non-Game Program.

  • Samways, M. J.  1989.  Insect conservation and the disturbance landscape.  Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 27(1-4):183-194.

  • Smith, W. A., T. E. Vogt, and K. H. Gaines.  1993.  Checklist of Wisconsin dragonflies.  Wisconsin Entomological Society Miscellaneous Publication No. 2, Madison, Wisconsin.  14 pp.

  • Soltesz, Ken. 1992. Proposed Heritage ranks for New York State odonata. Unpublished report for New York Natural Heritage Program. 37 pp.

  • Soltesz, Ken. 1994. A field survey of the odonata of the Upper Delaware River (Port Jervis to Callicoon) with a tentative status assessmenet for Ophiogomphus anomalus in New York State.

  • Steffens, W. 2004. 2003 Minnesota county biological survey dragonfly and butterfly surveys. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Report. 11 pp.

  • Steffens, W. P. 2001. Status survey for Ophiogomphus anomalus Harvey, and early-season dragonfly inventory of western Superior National Forest Rivers. Submitted to the Superior National Forest and the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 12 pp.

  • Steffens, W. P., and W. A Smith. 2000. New distribution records for Minnesota Odonata.
    Great Lakes Entomologist 32(3):219-223.

  • Steffens, W. P., and W. A. Smith. 1999. Status survey for special concern and endangered dragonflies of Minnesota: population status, inventory and monitoring recommendations. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 54 pp.

  • Steffens, Wayne P. (2001). Status survey for Ophiogomphus anomalus Harvey, and early-season dragonfly inventory of western Superior national Forest Rivers. (Submitted to:) Superior National Forest and Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Reseach Program. 1-12

  • Tucker, J. K., and J. B. Camerer. 1994. Colonization of the dragonfly, Gomphus vastus Walsh, by the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas) (Anisoptera: Gomphidae; - Bivalvia, Eulamellibranchia: Dreissenidae). Odonatologica 23(2):179-181.

  • Walker, E. M.  1958.  The Odonata of Canada and Alaska.  Volume 2, Part III:  The Anisoptera-four families (heritage).  University of Toronto Press, Toronta, Canada.  334 pp.

  • Walker, E.M. 1958. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol 2. The Anisoptera-four families. Univ. Toronto Press 318 pp.

  • White, E.L., P.D Hunt, M.D. Schlesinger, J.D. Corser, and P.G. deMaynadier. 2015. Prioritizing Odonata for conservation action in the northeastern USA. Freshwater Science 34(3):1079-1093.

  • van Tol, J., and M. J. Verdunk.  1988.  The protection of dragonfiles (Odanta) and their biotopes (nature and environment).  European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.  181 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 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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