Procyon lotor - (Linnaeus, 1758)
Raccoon
Other English Common Names: Northern Raccoon, raccoon
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Procyon lotor (Linnaeus, 1758) (TSN 180575)
French Common Names: raton laveur
Spanish Common Names: Mapache, Zorra Manglera
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.798324
Element Code: AMAJE02010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Carnivores
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Carnivora Procyonidae Procyon
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. Available online at: http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/index.cfm
Concept Reference Code: B05WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Procyon lotor
Taxonomic Comments: Clearwater et al. (1989) studied cranial variation and concluded that P. l. maritimus should be regarded as a synonym of P. l. lotor. See Ritke and Kennedy (1988) for study of geographic variation in cranial characteristics. See Decker and Wozencraft (1991) for a phylogenetic analysis on procyonid genera (analysis based on skeletal and soft morphological characters). The following comments were obtained from Wilson and Reeder (2005): Includes the Caribbean introduced populations of gloveralleni, minor, and maynardi after Helgen and Wilson (2003); includes insularis after Helgen and Wilson (2005). Synonyms allocated according to Cabrera (1957), Lotze and Anderson (1979), and Helgen and Wilson (2003; 2005).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 04Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 18Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Sep1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (01Jan2018)

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), Arizona (S4), Arkansas (S5), California (SNR), Colorado (S5), Connecticut (S5), Delaware (S5), District of Columbia (S5), Florida (S5), Georgia (S5), Idaho (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S5), Kansas (S5), Kentucky (S5), Louisiana (S5), Maine (S5), Maryland (S5), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (S5), Montana (S5), Navajo Nation (S5), Nebraska (S5), Nevada (S5), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (S5), New Mexico (S4), New York (S5), North Carolina (S5), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S5), Oregon (S5), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (S5), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (S5), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S5), Utah (S5), Vermont (S5), Virginia (S5), Washington (S5), West Virginia (S5), Wisconsin (S5), Wyoming (S5)
Canada Alberta (S4), British Columbia (S5), Manitoba (S5), New Brunswick (S5), Nova Scotia (S5), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (SNA), Quebec (S5), Saskatchewan (S5)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Southern Canada, United States (except parts of the Rocky Mountains and desert southwest), Mexico, and Central America south to Panama; introduced in parts of Europe and Asia (Wozencraft, in Wilson and Reeder 2005).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Southern Canada, United States (except parts of the Rocky Mountains and desert southwest), Mexico, and Central America south to Panama; introduced in parts of Europe and Asia (Wozencraft, in Wilson and Reeder 2005).

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, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NN, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BCnative and exotic, MB, NB, NS, ON, PEexotic, QC, SK

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
FL Monroe (12087)
ID Ada (16001)*, Blaine (16013), Boise (16015)*, Cassia (16031)*, Clearwater (16035), Franklin (16041), Gem (16045)*, Gooding (16047)*, Idaho (16049)*, Kootenai (16055)*, Latah (16057)*, Lemhi (16059), Nez Perce (16069)*, Owyhee (16073)*, Shoshone (16079)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Florida Bay-Florida Keys (03090203)+
16 Middle Bear (16010202)+
17 Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+*, Coeur D'alene Lake (17010303)+*, St. Joe (17010304)+*, Hangman (17010306)+*, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Goose (17040211)+*, Big Wood (17040219)+*, C. J. Idaho (17050101)+*, Lower Boise (17050114)+*, Payette (17050122)+*, Palouse (17060108)+*, Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203)+, Lower Selway (17060302)+*, Clearwater (17060306)+*, Upper North Fork Clearwater (17060307)+, Lower North Fork Clearwater (17060308)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Breeds late winter (late January to mid-March). Gestation lasts 63 days. One litter of 3-7 (average 3-4) is produced late April to early May. Young are weaned at 10-12 weeks. Young stay with mother through winter or until next litter born. Sexually mature in 1-2 years; % of yearlings breeding varies annually and/or regionally. Males mate promiscuously.
Ecology Comments: Average home range is 90-150 acres (Baker 1983). Population density was reported as l individual per 10-16 acres by Baker (1983). Winter density was 1/70.4 ha and 1/34.5 ha at two locations in Tennessee (Kissell and Kennedy 1992). Typically solitary except female with young.
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Bare rock/talus/scree, Cropland/hedgerow, Desert, Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Shrubland/chaparral, Suburban/orchard, Urban/edificarian, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil, Fallen log/debris, Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: Various habitats; usually in moist situations, often along streams and shorelines. Dens under logs or rock, in tree hole, ground burrow, or in bank den (Armstrong 1975).
Adult Food Habits: Carnivore, Frugivore, Granivore, Invertivore, Piscivore
Immature Food Habits: Carnivore, Frugivore, Granivore, Invertivore, Piscivore
Food Comments: Opportunistic omnivore; eats fruits, nuts, insects, small mammals, bird eggs and nestlings, reptile eggs, frogs, fishes, aquatic invertebrates, worms, garbage, etc.--whatever is available. Often forages along streams. Obtains most food on or near ground near water.
Adult Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Primarily nocturnal and crepuscular. May become dormant when foraging trail is covered by deep snow. Young may be active in colder subfreezing weather than are adults. Activity may be reduced on nights of full moonlight.
Length: 95 centimeters
Weight: 21600 grams
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: Commonly hunted for sport and trapped for pelt (made into coats, collars, muffs, trimmings). Sometimes regarded as a pest due to destruction of waterfowl nests, killing of poultry, or damage to corn. Raccoon roundworms have caused human fatalities as a result of eosinophilic meningoencephalitis; infection occurs through ingestion of eggs (e.g., from raccoon feces) (Kazacos 1983, Kidder et al. 1989).
Management Summary
Help
Species Impacts: Raccoon latrines contain infective eggs of the roundworm Baylisascaris procyonis, and these sites may be important in the transmission of this parasite to mammals and birds (Page et al. 1998). This parasite is associated with declines in certain populations of Neotoma magister.
Management Requirements: See Conover (1990) for information on the use of emetine dihydrochloride to reduce predation on chicken eggs.

In northern New York, relocated raccoons returned to original capture area from distances of up to 17.8 km; most studies indicate apparent random dispersal from release sites, though another study documented homing from a distance of 20-25 km (Belant 1992).

See Taulman and Williamson (1993) for information on a simple apparatus and technique for anesthetization.

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers: Water bodies greater than 1 kilometer across that do not freeze.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 15 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 15 km
Separation Justification: Raccoons are highly mobile and may have home ranges that average as large as 2,560 ha (range 670-4,946 ha) in males in North Dakota (Fritzell 1978). In other areas, movements may be more limited: mean home range sizes for males was 204 hectares in Michigan (Stuewer 1943), 65 hectares on St. Catherine's Island, Georgia (Lotze 1979) (see also Lotze and Anderson 1981). Raccoons have been reported moving distances of up to at least 254 km (see Lotze and Anderson 1981).

Separation distances are arbitrary but attempt to balance the high mobility of these mammals against the need for occurrences of practical size for conservation purposes.

Because raccoons are highly adaptable and traverse many kinds of habitats, it is difficult to distinguish suitable from unsuitable habitat. Hence separation distance is the same regardless of habitat.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a conservatively small average male home range size of just under 100 hectares.
Date: 22Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 31Jan1994
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

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

References
Help
  • Allen, A.W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and furbearers. Pp. 164-179 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch (eds). Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ottawa. 1150 pp.

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des mammifères du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 5 pages.

  • Armstrong, D. M. 1975. Rocky Mountain mammals. Rocky Mountain Nature Asscoc., Inc. 174 pp.

  • B.C Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks. 1992. Preventing Raccoon Problems. (Brochure).

  • BEE, J.W., G.E. GLASS, R.S. HOFFMANN, AND R.R. PATTERSON. 1981. MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV.KANS.MUS.NAT.HIST., PUB.ED. SERIES NO.7.

  • Baker, R. H. 1983. Michigan mammals. Michigan State University Press. 642 pp.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 438 pp.

  • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, and University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. xxv + 438 pp.

  • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

  • Beck, W.H. 1958. A guide to Saskatchewan mammals. Special Publication No. 1. Saskatchewan Natural History Society, Regina, Saskatchewan.

  • Belant, J. L. 1992. Homing of relocated raccoons, PROCYON LOTOR. Can. Field-Nat. 106:382-384.

  • Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook. R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D.J. Schmidly, F.B. Stangl Jr., R.A. Van den Bussche and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 327:1-28. Available at: http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP327.pdf

  • CRAIN, J.L. AND J.W. CLIBURN. 1965. A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE MAMMALS OF SOUTHEASTERN MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 2:271-280.

  • Caire, W., J. D. Tyler, B. P. Glass, and M. A. Mares. 1989. Mammals of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Oklahoma. 567 pp.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1975. Racoon. Hinterland Who's Who. Environment Canada, Wildlife Service, Ottawa.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1989. Hinterland Who's who: Raccoon. Environment Canada. Canada. 4p.

  • Cannings, S. 2001. EO Specifications for Northern Raccoon (Procyon lotor). NatureServe, Unpublished. 1 pp.

  • Carlson, M. 1991. Notes on Raccoons from Edam, Saskatchewan. Blue Jay 49:101-103.

  • Carrillo, E., G. Wong, and A. Cuarón. 2000. Monitoring mammal populations in Costa Rican protected areas under different hunting restrictions. Conservation Biology 14:1580-1591.

  • Clearwater, Denise H., et al. 1989. Taxonomic analysis of t he coastal marsh raccoon (PROCYON LOTOR MARITIMUS) in Maryland. Brimleyana 15:31-36.

  • Connor, P.F. 1966. The mammals of the Tug Hill Plateau, New York. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin. 406. 82 pp.

  • Connor, P.F. 1971. The mammals of Long Island, New York. NYS Museum and Science Service Bull. 416. 78 pp.

  • Conover, M. R. 1990. Reducing mammalian predation on eggs by using a conditioned taste aversion to deceive predators. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:360-365.

  • Coombs, E. M. [no date-1977?]. Wildlife observations of the hot desert region, Washington County, Utah, with emphasis on reptilian species and their habitat in relation to livestock grazing. A report to the Cedar City District, BLM by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

  • Dawson, N. 2001. A survey of Ontario trappers to estimate wildlife population levels and population changes: 1999-2000 Summary Report. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Region, Wildlife Assessment Program. Unpaginated.

  • Decker, D. M., and W. C. Wozencraft. 1991. Phylogenetic analysis of recent procyonid genera. Journal of Mammalogy 72:42-55.

  • Dingwall, L. 1985. Raccoons. Nature's Children Series. Grolier. Toronto. 48p.

  • Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, Ontario. 120 pp.

  • ESHER, ROBERT I. AND DWIGHT K. BRADSHAW. 1988. DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE AF VERTEBRATES OF DELISLE FOREST AND ADJACENT MARSH. MS. STATE UNIV. RES. CENTER. 51 pp.

  • ESHER,R.J., ET. AL. 1986-1987. MAMMALIAN STUDIES: PHASE II, GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE. CONTRACT NO. CX5320-5-1546. MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTER, NSTL STATION, MISSISSIPPI, III P.

  • Escamilla, A., M. Sanvicente, M. Sosa, and C. Galindo-Leal. 2000. Habitat mosaic, wildlife availability, and hunting in the tropical forest of Calakmul, Mexico. Conservation Biology 14:1592-1601.

  • Fitzgerald, J. P. et al. 1992. Mammals of Colorado. Review manuscript.

  • Forsyth, A. 1985. Mammals of the Canadian wild. Camden House, Camden East, Ont. 351p.

  • Fritzell, E. K. 1978. Aspects of raccoon (PROCYON LOTOR) social organization. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56:260-71.

  • GEHLBACH, FREDERICK R. 1991. THE EAST-WEST TRANSITION ZONE OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES IN CENTRAL TEXAS: A BIOGEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS. TEXAS J. SCI. 43(4):415-427.

  • GOETZE, J.R., R.W. MANNING, F.D. YANCEY, AND C. JONES. 1996. THE MAMMALS OF KIMBLE COUNTY, TEXAS. OCCAS. PAPERS MUS., TEXAS TECH UNIV. 160:1-31.

  • Goodpaster, W.W. and Hoffmeister, D.F. 1952. Notes on the mammals of western Tennessee. Journal of Mammalogy 33(3):

  • Gordon, D.C. 1986. Mammals of Jefferson and Lewis counties, New York. Humphrey Press, Canandaigua, N.Y. 135 pp.

  • Grundel, Ralph, Noel B. Pavlovic, and Christina L. Sulzman. 1995. The Impact of Habitat Structure and Edge Effects on Avian Nest Predation in Oak and Associated Habitats. Lake Michigan Ecological Research Station. 34 pp.

  • HALL, E.R. 1981. THE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA, SECOND EDITION, 2 VOLUMES. JOHN WILEY & SONS, NEW YORK. (1:600 P., 2:581 P.).

  • HALL,E. 1955. HANDBOOK OF MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV KS MUS NAT HIST AND KBS.

  • HALL,E. AND K.KELSON. 1959. THE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA, VOL 1 & 2.

  • HAMILTON, W.J. JR., AND J.O. WHITAKER, JR. 1979. MAMMALS OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES, SECOND EDITION. CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS, ITHACA, NEW YORK. 346 P.

  • Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.

  • Hall, E. Raymond and Keith R. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Company, New York. 1083 pp.

  • Hamilton, W. J., Jr., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 346 pp.

  • Hamilton, W.J., Jr. and J.O. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York. 346 pp.

  • Hebda, A.J. 2011. List of mammals of Nova Scotia (including synonyms used in the literature relating to Nova Scotia) (revision 2) 24 July 2011. Nova Scotia Museum Collections Unit, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 24 pp. Online. Available: https://naturalhistory.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/inline/images/names_and_synonyms_ver3.pdf

  • Hutchinson, B.C. 1985. 1985 Status Report on the Raccoon (Procyon lotor) in Canada. Prepared for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the Canadian Wildlife Service.

  • Jackson, Hartley T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI 53701. 504pp.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr. and C. Jones. 1992. Revised checklist of recent land mammals of Texas, with annotations. The Texas Journal of Science 44(1):53-74.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., C. Jones, and D. J. Schmidly. 1988. Annotated checklist of recent land mammals of Texas. Occasional Papers The Museum Texas Tech University 119:1-26.

  • Jones, J. K., S. Demarais, and C. T. McAllister. 1995. Contribution to a bibliography of recent Texas mammals 1981-1990. Special Publications, The Museum Texas Tech University 38:1-64.

  • KAUFMANN, J. H. 1982. RACCOON AND ALLIES. PP. 567-585 IN WILD MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA. OP CIT.

  • KENNEDY, M.L. 1968. A SURVEY OF THE MAMMALS OF DE SOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. M.S. THESIS, MEMPHIS STATE UNIVERSITY.

  • KENNEDY, M.L., ET. AL. 1974. A REVIEW OF MISSISSIPPI MAMMALS. STUDIES IN NATURAL SCIENCES. 2(1):1-36.

  • Kazacos, K. R. 1983. Raccoon roundworms (Baylisascaris procyonis) - a cause of animal and human disease. Purdue Research Foundation, West Lafayette, Indiana. 25 pp.

  • Kennedy, M.L., G.D. Baumgardner, M.E. Cope, F.R. Tabatabai and O.S. Fuller. 1986. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) density as estimated by the census-assessment line technique. Journal of Mammalogy 67(1): 166-168.

  • Kidder, J. D., et al. 1989. Prevalence of patent BAYLISASCARIS PROCYONIS infection in raccoons (PROCYON LOTOR) in Ithaca, New York. J. Parasitol. 75:870-874.

  • Kissell, R. E., Jr., and M. L. Kennedy. 1992. Ecologic relationships of co-occurring populations of opposums (DIDELPHIS VIRGINIANA) and raccoons (PROCYON LOTOR) in Tennessee. J. Mamm. 73:808-813.

  • LENNEDY, M.L., AND S.L. LINDSAY. 1984. MORPHOLOGIC VARIATION IN THE RACCOON, PROCYON LOTOR, AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO GENIC AND ENVIRONMANTAL VARIATION. J. MAMM. 65(2):195-205.

  • LOTZE, J., AND S. ANDERSON. 1979. MAMMALIAN SPECIES NO. 119, PROCYON LOTOR. THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MAMMALOGISTS, 8 P.

  • LOWERY, G.H., JR. 1974. THE MAMMALS OF LOUISIANA AND ITS ADJACENT WATERS. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 565 P.

  • Landau, D. and S. Stump. 1994. Living with wildlife: how to enjoy, cope with, and protect North America's wild creatures around your home and theirs. California Center for Wildlife. San Francisco. Sierra Club Books. 341p.

  • Lewis, Julian J. 1996. Inventory of the Subterranean Biota Threatened by the Urbanization of Clark and Floyd Counties, Indiana. Final Report to Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Non-game and Endangered Wildlife Program. 71 pp.

  • Linzey, D.W. 2016. Mammals of Great Smoky Mountains National Park: 2016 revision. Southeastern Naturalist 15(Monograph 8):1?93.

  • Linzey, D.W. and Linzey, A.V. 1968. Mammals of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of the Elisha Mit- chell Science Society 84(3):384-414

  • Lotze, J. 1979. The raccoon (PROCYON LOTOR) on St. Catherines Island, Georgia. 4. Comparisons of home ranges determined by live-trapping and radiotracking. American Museum Novitates, no. 2664. 25 pp.

  • Lotze, J.H. and S. Anderson 1979. Procyon lotor. Am. Soc. Mamm., Mammalian Species No. 119. 8 pp.

  • Lowery, George H. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Kingsport Press, Inc. Kingsport, Tennessee. 565 pp.

  • MISSISSIPPI MUSEUM OF NATURAL SCIENCE. 1989. COUNTY INFORMATION FOR MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI.

  • MITCHELL, W.A. AND C.O. MARTIN. 1985. SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI TRIVUTARIES STUDY AREA ENVIROMENTAL INVENTORY - WILDLIFE RESOURES. MISCELLANEOUS PAPER EL-85-3, U.S. ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION, VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI. 90P.

  • Merritt, J.F. 1987. Guide to the Mammals of Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 408 pp. B87MER01PAUS.

  • Monson, R.A. and W.B. Stone. 1976. Canine distemper in wild carnivores in New York. New York Fish and Game J. 23(2):149-154.

  • Moses, R.A. and S. Boutin. 1987. Aging Raccoons in Ontario by logistic regression on pelt sizes. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(4): 820-824.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Checklist of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of New York State, including their protective status. Nongame Unit, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, NY.

  • Novak, M., J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch (eds.) 1987. Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto. 1150 pp.

  • Novak, M., J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch. 1987. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Association under the authority of the Licensing Agreement with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario, Canada. 1150 pp.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. AN ANALYSIS OF THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF MAMMALIAN DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS IN TEXAS. ECOLOGY 71(5):1823-1832.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. PATTERNS OF MAMMALIAN SPECIES RICHNESS IN RELATION TO TEMPERATURE, PRODUCTIVITY, AND VARIANCE IN ELEVATION. J. MAMM. 71(1):1-13.

  • PEPPERS L.L., D.M. BELL, J.C. CATHEY, T.W. JOLLEY, R. MARTINEZ, C.W. MASON, A.Y. NEKRUTENKO, AND R.D. BRADLEY. 1998. DISTRIBUTIONAL RECORDS OF MAMMALS IN TEXAS. OCCASIONAL PAPERS. MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY. NUMBER 183, 5 PP.

  • Page, L. K., R. K. Swihart, and K. R. Kazacos. 1998. Raccoon latrine structure and its potential role in transmission of Baylisascaris procyonis to vertebrates. American Midland Naturalist 140:180-185.

  • Palmer, E.L. 1957. Fieldbook of mammals; a unit in a series of aids to conservation. [1st ed.] Dutton Nature Fieldbook Series. Dutton. New York, New York. 321p.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Ritke, M. E., and M. L. Kennedy. 1988. Intraspecific morphologic variation in the raccoon (PROCYON LOTOR) and its relationship to selected environmental variables. Southwestern Naturalist 33:295-314.

  • Runge, W. and D. Henry. 1988. Wild furbearers of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture, Booklet.

  • Runge, W. and J. Mulhern. 1985. The status of wild furbearers in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Parks and Renewable Resources, Wildlife Branch. February. Mimeo. 43pp.

  • SCHWARTZ,C. AND E.SCHWARTZ. 1981. THE WILD MAMMALS OF MISSOURI, REV. ED.

  • Sanderson, G.C. 1961. Techniques For Determining Age of Raccoons. State of Illinois, Natural History Survey Division: Biological Notes No. 45. 16 pp.

  • Sanderson, G.C. 1987. Raccoon. pp. 486-499 in Novak, M., Baker, J.A., Obbard, M.E., and B. Malloch (eds). Wild Furbearer Management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ottawa. 1150pp.

  • Saskatchewan Museum of Natural History. 1980. Fur Bearing Animals of Saskatchewan. Reprint of 1964. Saskatchewan Museum of Natural History Popular Series 11.

  • Schwartz, C. W., and E. R. Schwartz. 1981. The wild mammals of Missouri. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. 356 pp.

  • Sealander, J.A. and G.A. Heidt. 1990. Arkansas Mammals: Their Natural History, Classification and Distribution. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 308 pp.

  • See SERO listing

  • Spanjian, B. 1988. Baby raccoon. Illustrated by Eva Cellini. Childres Press Choice. Chicago, Illinois. 24p.

  • Stangl, F.B., Jr., W.W. Dalquest, and S. Kuhn. 1993. Mammals from the Beach Mountains of Culberson County, Trans-Pecos Texas. Texas Journal of Science 45(1):87-96.

  • Stuewer, F. W. 1943. Raccoons: Their habits and management in Michigan. Ecological Monographs 13:203-257.

  • Taulman, J. F., and J. H. Williamson. 1993. A simple apparatus and technique for anesthetizing raccoons. Am. Midl. Nat. 129-:210-214.

  • WARD, R.P. 1965. THE MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 11:309-330.

  • WARD, R.P., ET. AL. 1961. A PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF MAMMALS INHABITING FORESTED AREAS OF THE LOESS OF WEST-CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 7:70-71.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. [Available online at: http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/ ]

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. Available online at: http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/index.cfm

  • Wolfe, J.L. 1971. Mississippi land mammals. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi 44 pp.

  • YEAGER, L.E. 1937. SOME HABITS OF SOUTHERN FUR-BEARERS AS INDICATED BY TRAPPING. AMER. MIDLAND NAT. 18(2):1072-1078.

  • YEAGER, L.E. 1941. TRAPPERS AND FUR ANIMALS OF THE ORIGINAL DELTA REGION OF MISSISSIPPI. JOUR. MAMM. 22:364-378.

  • Yancey II, Franklin D. 1997. The mammals of Big Bend Ranch State Park, Texas. Special Publication 39. 1 October 1997. Texas Tech University. Lubbock. 210 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.