Potamilus alatus - (Say, 1817)
Pink Heelsplitter
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Potamilus alatus (Say, 1817) (TSN 80282)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.115707
Element Code: IMBIV37010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Potamilus
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Concept Reference: Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B98TUR01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Potamilus alatus
Taxonomic Comments: This species was formerly placed in the genus Proptera which was widely used in the 1950s and 1960s. A recent ruling published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1992) recommended retention of the older name Potamilus. In an analysis of systematic relationships of species in the genus Potamilus using DNA sequence data, Roe and Lydeard (1998) concluded that Potamilus is paraphyletic with Leptodea fragilis and Lampsilis ornata nested between Potamilus capax and the remaining Potamilus species (all of which appeared to be monophyletic). This study somewhat cautiously suggests Potamilus purpuratus coloradoensis may represent a species distinct from Potamilus purpuratus as listed doubtfully by Simpson (1914) and, based on genetic distance, P. purpuratus coloradoensis is phenetically more similar to Potamilus alatus (1.2%) than P. purpuratus (1.5%).
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 14May2009
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species is widespread throughout central North America and is considered stable and secure throughout its range, although some Canadian occurrences are declining as are occurrences at the edge of the range of the species.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (16Jul1998)
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 Alabama (S5), Arkansas (S1), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S2), Kansas (S2S3), Kentucky (S4S5), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S2), Missouri (S5), Nebraska (SNR), New York (S2S3), North Carolina (S1), North Dakota (S4), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S4), Pennsylvania (S4), South Dakota (S3), Tennessee (S5), Vermont (S2), Virginia (S4), West Virginia (S3), Wisconsin (S4)
Canada Manitoba (S4), Ontario (S3), Quebec (S1)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species ranges throughout the Mississippi River drainage from western Pennsylvania to Minnesota, west to Kansas and Nebraska, and south to Arkansas. In the St. Lawrence River system it occurs from Lake Huron to Lake Champlain also in the Canadian Interior Basin in parts of the Red River of the North and the Winnipeg River (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Minnesota, it occurs in the Red River of the North, St. Croix, Mississippi River drainages (Sietman, 2003; Graf, 1997; Cvancara, 1970). It is generally distributed and common in medium streams in central and S Illinois (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991); Fox River basin, and into Wisconsin (dead shell farthest downstream near Illinois River confluence, may be exirpated) (Sietman et al., 2001; Schanzle et al., 2004). It is in the St. Joseph, St. Mary's, Maumee (Pryor, 2005); Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990) and Muscatatuck drainage in Indiana (Harmon, 1989). In Ohio, it is widespread statewide (not Mahoning) (Watters, 1992; 1995; Lyons et al., 2007; Grabarciewicz, 2008; Hoggarth et al., 2007; Watters et al., 2009); only Cuyahoga mainstem (Smith et al., 2002). In West Virginia, it is in the Upper Ohio/Kanawha (Zeto et al., 1987; Morris and Taylor, 1992). In Tennessee, it is widespread in the Tennessee basin incl. French Broad, Holston, Powell, Clinch, Little Tennessee, Emory, Hiwassee, Sequatchie, Elk, and Duck Rivers. It is also in the Cumberland River and tributaries including Big South Fork Cumberland, Obey, Caney Fork, Stones, Harpeth, and Red Rivers (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Mississippi, it is in the Tennessee River drainage only (Jones et al., 2005). In Alabama it is common but restricted to the Tennessee River system (Mirarchi, 2004) in the Tennessee, Elk and Paint Rock (Ahlstedt, 1996) Rivers and Bear Creek, Colbert Co. and Cypress Creek, Lauderdale Co. (Williams et al., 2008). McGregor and Garner (2004) recently in the Bear Creek drainage, Alabama/Mississippi. It has been collected in Kentucky in the S Fork Kentucky (Evans, 2008), Red (Clark, 1988), Middle Green (Gordon, 1991) and Barren Rivers (Cochran and Layzer, 1993), but is generally statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In South Dakota it is not common but in lakes and larger rivers in the Minnesota, Vermillion, and Missouri River drainages (Backlund, 2000); also Lower James (Perkins and Backlund, 2003), Lake Oahe, Lewis and Clark Lake region (Shearer et al., 2005). It reaches its NNE limit in Vermont in Lake Champlain and tributaries below fall lines (Fichtel and Smith, 1995); Missisquoi, Lamoille, Winooski, Poultney Rivers; Otter, Lewis, and Hospital Creeks (Kart et al., 2005). In Michigan, it is in the Clinton (Strayer, 1980); Au Sable, Pine, Bele, and Huron (Badra and Goforth, 2003) drainages. In Wisconsin, it is along the Mississippi and lower Wisconsin Rivers and a narrow line from Shawano to Green Lake Cos.; few more along W edge of state (Mathiak, 1979). In Arkansas, many misidentifications of P. purpuratus are attributed to this species, only confirmed record is 1 specimen from the Mississippi River at West Memphis, Crittenden Co., 1981 (Harris and Gordon, 1987; Harris et al., 1997; Anderson, 2006). In Kansas, it is restricted to the mainstem Kansas River and the Marais des Cygnes River drainage, including Pottawatomie Creek, and the Little Osage, Marmaton, and Marais des Cygnes Rivers (Couch, 1997) and Wakarusa (Tiemann, 2006). In the Little Blue River basin, it survives in the Kansas portion (Hoke, 2004). It is in the Neosho and Illinois drainages and Grand Lake (Branson, 1984). Survey work in the Big Blue River system of SE Nebraska and NE Kansas revealed it in lower (Kansas) reaches of the Big Blue basin including Tuttle Creek Lake and the Big Blue River in Nebraska and lower reaches of Indian Creek in Gage Co. (Hoke, 2005); in the Platte River only in Sarpy Co. (Freeman and Perkins, 1992). In Canada, it is in the Red/ Assiniboine (Watson, 2000) and Winnipeg River systems of Manitoba (Pip, 2006) and lower Great Lakes/ St. Lawrence drainage of Ontario (Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2003) and Quebec; widespread but not abundant and in decline due to zebra mussels in some areas (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: In 1991, it was reported as the third most abundant species in Wheeler Reservoir, with a population of 56,150,000 (Ahlstedt and McDonough, 1993).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Zebra mussels threatend the population at the mouth of the South Nation River in the Ottawa River (Schueler and Karstad, 2007).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Some Canadian historical sites are now extirpated (Outaouais River and St. Lawrence River close to Montreal, for example) (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004). Recently this species has been confirmed to be likely extirpated from the main channel of the Detroit River between Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, Michigan/Ontario; due to zebra mussel invasion (Schloesser et al., 2006). It was recently documented in the Fox River basin in Illinois and Wisconsin represented only by a single dead specimen at the farthest downstream reach near the Illinois River confluence at Ottawa, Illinois so it may be exirpated from the drainage (Schanzle et al., 2004).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: Only dead shells and subfossil material was found in the Big Sioux River in South Dakota (Skadsen and Perkins, 2000).

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is found on a variety of substrates in slow to swiftly flowing water. It can also adapt to shallow lake and river-lake habitats (Oesch, 1984).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) This species ranges throughout the Mississippi River drainage from western Pennsylvania to Minnesota, west to Kansas and Nebraska, and south to Arkansas. In the St. Lawrence River system it occurs from Lake Huron to Lake Champlain also in the Canadian Interior Basin in parts of the Red River of the North and the Winnipeg River (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NY, OH, OK, PA, SD, TN, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada MB, ON, QC

Range Map
No map available.

U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Colbert (01033), Franklin (01059), Jackson (01071), Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Marshall (01095), Morgan (01103)
AR Crittenden (05035), Mississippi (05093), St. Francis (05123)
IA Allamakee (19005), Appanoose (19007), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Des Moines (19057), Greene (19073), Jackson (19097), Johnson (19103), Lee (19111), Louisa (19115), Muscatine (19139), Scott (19163), Wapello (19179)
MI Allegan (26005)*, Bay (26017)*, Berrien (26021)*, Genesee (26049), Kent (26081), Macomb (26099), Monroe (26115), Muskegon (26121)*, Ottawa (26139)*, Saginaw (26145), St. Clair (26147), Wayne (26163)
MS Bolivar (28011), Tishomingo (28141), Tunica (28143), Warren (28149)
NC Madison (37115)
ND Cass (38017)*, Grand Forks (38035), Pembina (38067)*, Ransom (38073)*, Richland (38077)*, Traill (38097)*, Walsh (38099)*
NY Erie (36029), Essex (36031), Franklin (36033), Livingston (36051), Monroe (36055), Niagara (36063), Onondaga (36067), Orleans (36073), St. Lawrence (36089), Washington (36115), Wayne (36117)
PA Allegheny (42003), Armstrong (42005), Beaver (42007), Crawford (42039)*, Erie (42049), Greene (42059)*, Lawrence (42073), Mercer (42085), Warren (42123)*, Washington (42125)*, Westmoreland (42129)
SD Clay (46027)*, Davison (46035), Day (46037), Grant (46051), Hanson (46061), Hutchinson (46067), Roberts (46109), Union (46127)*, Walworth (46129), Yankton (46135)
TN Cumberland (47035), Hardin (47071)*
VT Addison (50001), Chittenden (50007), Franklin (50011), Grand Isle (50013), Rutland (50021)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+*, Black-Macatawa (04050002)+*, Kalamazoo (04050003)+*, Lower Grand (04050006)+, Muskegon (04060102)+*, Kawkawlin-Pine (04080102)+*, Pigeon-Wiscoggin (04080103)+*, Tittabawassee (04080201)+, Shiawassee (04080203)+, Flint (04080204)+, Cass (04080205)+, Saginaw (04080206)+, St. Clair (04090001)+, Lake St. Clair (04090002)+, Clinton (04090003)+, Detroit (04090004)+, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+, Raisin (04100002)+, Chautauqua-Conneaut (04120101)+, Buffalo-Eighteenmile (04120103)+, Niagara (04120104)+, Lake Erie (04120200)+, Oak Orchard-Twelvemile (04130001)+, Lower Genesee (04130003)+, Irondequoit-Ninemile (04140101)+, Seneca (04140201)+, Grass (04150304)+, St. Regis (04150306)+, Mettawee River (04150401)+, Otter Creek (04150402)+, Winooski River (04150403)+, Lamoille River (04150405)+, Missiquoi River (04150407)+, Lake Champlain (04150408)+
05 Middle Allegheny-Tionesta (05010003)+*, French (05010004)+*, Middle Allegheny-Redbank (05010006)+, Kiskiminetas (05010008)+*, Lower Allegheny (05010009)+, Lower Monongahela (05020005)+*, Upper Ohio (05030101)+, Shenango (05030102)+, Connoquenessing (05030105)+
06 Upper French Broad (06010105)+, Emory (06010208)+, Guntersville Lake (06030001)+*, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+, Bear (06030006)+
07 Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+, Lower Mississippi-Helena (08020100)+, Lower St. Francis (08020203)+, Lower Mississippi-Natchez (08060100)+
09 Bois De Sioux (09020101)+, Upper Red (09020104)+*, Elm-Marsh (09020107)+*, Lower Sheyenne (09020204)+*, Maple (09020205)+*, Sandhill-Wilson (09020301)+*, Grand Marais-Red (09020306)+*, Turtle (09020307)+, Lower Red (09020311)+*
10 Upper Lake Oahe (10130102)+, Lower James (10160011)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Vermillion (10170102)+*, Middle Big Sioux Coteau (10170201)+, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+*, Upper Chariton (10280201)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Reproduction Comments: A known glochidial host is the freshwater drum, Aplodinotus grunniens (Howard, 1913; Wilson, 1916; Howard and Anson, 1922; Cummings et al., 1993; Clarke 1981; see also Weiss and Layzer, 1995); confirmed by Brady et al. (2004). Sietman et al. (2009) confirmed freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) as a host species.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is found on a variety of substrates in slow to swiftly flowing water. It can also adapt to shallow lake and river-lake habitats (Oesch, 1984). Substrates include clay, clay mixed with silt, sand, pea gravel and sand, and cobble/sand/silt (Fichtel and Smith, 1995).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Group Name: Freshwater Mussels

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens, including live specimens or recently dead shells (i.e., soft tissue still attached and/or nacre still glossy and iridescent without signs of external weathering or staining), at a given location with potentially recurring existence. Weathered shells constitute a historic occurrence. Evidence is derived from reliable published observation or collection data; unpublished, though documented (i.e. government or agency reports, web sites, etc.) observation or collection data; or museum specimen information.
Mapping Guidance: Based on the separation distances outlined herein, for freshwater mussels in STANDING WATER (or backwater areas of flowing water such as oxbows and sloughs), all standing water bodies with either (1) greater than 2 km linear distance of unsuitable habitat between (i.e. lotic connections), or (2) more than 10 km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat (including lentic shoreline, linear distance across water bodies, and lentic water bodies with proper lotic connections), are considered separate element occurrences. Only the largest standing water bodies (with 20 km linear shoreline or greater) may have greater than one element occurrence within each. Multiple collection or observation locations in one lake, for example, would only constitute multiple occurrences in the largest lakes, and only then if there was some likelihood that unsurveyed areas between collections did not contain the element.

For freshwater mussels in FLOWING WATER conditions, occurrences are separated by a distance of more than 2 stream km of unsuitable habitat, or a distance of more than 10 stream km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat. Standing water between occurrences is considered suitable habitat when calculating separation distance for flowing water mussel species unless dispersal barriers (see Separation Barriers) are in place.

Several mussel species in North America occur in both standing and flowing water (see Specs Notes). Calculation of separation distance and determination of separation barriers for these taxa should take into account the environment in which the element was collected. Juvenile mussels do not follow this pattern and juveniles are typically missed by most standard sampling methods (Hastie and Cosgrove, 2002; Neves and Widlak, 1987), therefore juvenile movement is not considered when calculating separation distance.

Separation Barriers: Separation barriers within standing water bodies are based solely on separation distance (see Separation Distance-suitable, below). Separation barriers between standing water bodies and within flowing water systems include lack of lotic connections, natural barriers such as upland habitat, absence of appropriate species specific fish hosts, water depth greater than 10 meters (Cvancara, 1972; Moyle and Bacon, 1969) or anthropogenic barriers to water flow such as dams or other impoundments and high waterfalls.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: None
Separation Justification: Adult freshwater mussels are largely sedentary spending their entire lives very near to the place where they first successfully settled (Coker et al., 1921; Watters, 1992). Strayer (1999) demonstrated in field trials that mussels in streams occur chiefly in flow refuges, or relatively stable areas that displayed little movement of particles during flood events. Flow refuges conceivably allow relatively immobile mussels to remain in the same general location throughout their entire lives. Movement occurs with the impetus of some stimulus (nearby water disturbance, physical removal from the water such as during collection, exposure conditions during low water, seasonal temperature change or associated diurnal cycles) and during spawning. Movement is confined to either vertical movement burrowing deeper into sediments though rarely completely beneath the surface, or horizontal movement in a distinct path often away from the area of stimulus. Vertical movement is generally seasonal with rapid descent into the sediment in autumn and gradual reappearance at the surface during spring (Amyot and Downing, 1991; 1997). Horizontal movement is generally on the order of a few meters at most and is associated with day length and during times of spawning (Amyot and Downing, 1997). Such locomotion plays little, if any, part in the distribution of freshwater mussels as these limited movements are not dispersal mechanisms. Dispersal patterns are largely speculative but have been attributed to stream size and surface geology (Strayer, 1983; Strayer and Ralley, 1993; van der Schalie, 1938), utilization of flow refuges during flood stages (Strayer, 1999), and patterns of host fish distribution during spawning periods (Haag and Warren, 1998; Watters, 1992). Lee and DeAngelis (1997) modeled the dispersal of freshwater into unoccupied habitats as a traveling wave front with a velocity ranging from 0.87 to 2.47 km/year (depending on mussel life span) with increase in glochidial attachment rate to fish having no effect on wave velocity.

Nearly all mussels require a host or hosts during the parasitic larval portion of their life cycle. Hosts are usually fish, but a few exceptional species utilize amphibians as hosts (Van Snik Gray et al., 2002; Howard, 1915) or may metamorphose without a host (Allen, 1924; Barfield et al., 1998; Lefevre and Curtis, 1911; 1912). Haag and Warren (1998) found that densities of host generalist mussels (using a variety of hosts from many different families) and displaying host specialists (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but mussel females have behavioral modifications to attract hosts to the gravid female) were independent of the densities of their hosts. Densities of non-displaying host specialist mussels (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but without host-attracting behavior) were correlated positively with densities of their hosts. Upstream dispersal of host fish for non-displaying host specialist mussels could, theoretically, transport mussel larvae (glochidia) over long distances through unsuitable habitat, but it is unlikely that this occurs very often. D. Strayer (personal communication) suggested a distance of at least 10 km, but a greater distance between occurrences may be necessary to constitute genetic separation of populations. As such, separation distance is based on a set, though arbitrary, distance between two known points of occurrence.

Date: 18Oct2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: Contact Jay Cordeiro (jay_cordeiro@natureserve.org) for a complete list of freshwater mussel taxa sorted by flow regime.
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 14May2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 16Nov2007
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J.

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

  • Ahlstedt, S.A. and T.A. McDonough. 1993. Quantitative evaluation of commercial mussel populations in the Tennessee River portion of Wheeler Reservoir, Alabama. Pages 38-49 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (eds.) Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 12-14 October 1992, St. Louis, Missouri.l Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Anderson, J.E. (ed.) 2006. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2028 pp.

  • Brady, T., M. Hove, C. Nelson, R. Gordon, D. Hornbach, and A. Kapuscinski. 2004. Suitable host fish species determined for hickorynut and pink heelsplitter. Ellipsaria, 6(1): 15-16.

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


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

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

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

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

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1993. Distribution and host species of the federally endangered freshwater mussel, Potamilus capax (Green, 1832) in the Lower Wabash River, Illinois and Indiana. Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity, Technical Report, 1993(1): 1-29.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Graf, D.L. and J.C. Underhill. 1997. The western Lake Superior freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) community and its origin. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 5(74): 409-417.

  • Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1987. Distribution and status of rare and endangered mussels (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 41: 49-56.

  • Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997. Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 51: 66-89.

  • Hoke, E. 2004. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Little Blue River drainage of northeastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 29: 7-24.

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

  • Howard, A.D. 1913. The catfish as a host for fresh-water mussels. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 42: 65-70.

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

  • Howard, A.D. and B.J. Anson. 1922. Phases in the parasitism of the Unionidae. Journal of Parasitology, 9(2): 68-82.

  • Hua, D. and R.J. Neves. 2007. Captive survival and pearl culture potential of the pink heelsplitter Potamilus alatus. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 69: 147-158.

  • International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). 1992. Opinion 1665, Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): not suppressed. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 49(1): 81-82.

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

  • Kesler, D. H., D. Manning, N. Van Tol, L. Smith, and B. Sepanski. 2001. Freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the Wolf River in western Tennessee and Mississippi. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 76(1):38-46.

  • 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.

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

  • Martel, André L. et Jean-Marc Gagnon. 2005. Noms scientifiques et communs des moules d'eau douce (mulettes) du Canada Musée canadien de la nature, Aylmer. 6 pages

  • McGregor, S.W. and J.T. Garner. 2004. Changes in the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna of the Bear Creek system of northwest Alabama and northeast Mississippi. American Malacological Bulletin, 18(1/2): 61-70.

  • 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.

  • Oesch, R.D. 1984a. Missouri Naiades: a Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Jefferson City, Missouri: Conservation Commision of the State of Missouri. 270 pp.



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

  • Perkins III, K. and D.C. Backlund. 2003. A survey for winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) and scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) in the James River, South Dakota. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota, Report GFP 2003-17. 21 pp.

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

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

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

  • Roe, K.J. and C. Lydeard. 1998. Molecular systematics of the freshwater mussel genus Potamilus (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacologia, 39(1-2): 195-205.


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

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

  • Schloesser, D.W., J.L. Metcalfe-Smith, W.P. Kovalak, G.D. Longton, and R.D. Smithee. 2006. Extirpation of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) following the invasion of dreissenid mussels in an interconnecting river of the Laurentian Great Lakes. American Midland Naturalist, 155: 307-320.

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

  • Sietman, B.E., K. Bloodsworth, B. Bosman, A. Lager, M. Lyons, M.C. Hove, and S.I. Boyer. 2009. Freshwater drum confirmed as a suitable host for Leptodea, Potamilus, and Truncilla species. Ellipsaria 11(3):18-19.

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

  • Smith, D.C., M.A. Gates, R.A. Krebs, and M.J.S. Tevesz. 2002. A survey of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) and other molluscs in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contribution, 8: 1-31.

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

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

  • Turgeon, D.D., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, W.K. Emerson, W.G. Lyons, W.L. Pratt, C.F.E. Roper, A. Scheltema, E.G. Thompson, and J.D. Williams. 1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the US and Canada: mollusks. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 16:1-277.

  • Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, R. S. Butler, K. S. Cummings, J. T. Garner, J. L. Harris, N. A. Johnson, and G. T. Watters. 2017. A revised list of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20:33-58.

  • Williams, J. D., 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. 1916. Copepod parasites of fresh-water fishes and their economic relations to mussel glochidia. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 824], 34: 333-374 + 15 plates.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1995-1996. Status survey for federally listed endangered freshwater mussel species in the Paint Rock River system, northeastern Alabama, U.S.A. Walkerana 8(19):63-80.

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

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

  • Branson, B.A. 1984. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma- Part 3: Lampsilini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 64: 20-36.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Strayer, D. 1980. The freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Clinton River, Michigan, with comments on man's impact on the fauna, 1870-1978. The Nautilus 94(4):142-149.

  • Strayer, D.L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26. The University of the State of New York. 113 pp. + figures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Wolf, C. and B. Stark. 2008. Survey of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) in the Marais des Cygnes River, Fall River, and Grouse Creek. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 111(1/2):1-20.

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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