Quadrula verrucosa - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Pistolgrip
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Tritogonia verrucosa (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 80293)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.108019
Element Code: IMBIV44010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Quadrula
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B98TUR01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Tritogonia verrucosa
Taxonomic Comments: Quadrula verrucosa was formerly recognized as belonging to the monotypic genus Tritogonia for most of the last Century. Both Ortmann (1912) and Utterback (1915) placed it in the genus Quadrula based on soft tissue anatomy. Recent genetic analyses support inclusion in Quadrula (Serb et al., 2003).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 19May2009
Global Status Last Changed: 13Jul2005
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This species is widespread with some evidence of diminishing suitable habitat but still can be found to be locally numerous under favorable conditions.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4N5 (19May2009)

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 (S4), Arkansas (S5), Georgia (S4), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S2), Kansas (S3), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S4), Minnesota (S1), Mississippi (S4), Missouri (S4S5), Nebraska (S1), North Carolina (SX), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S4), Pennsylvania (S1), South Dakota (S1), Tennessee (S4), Texas (S3S4), Virginia (S2), West Virginia (S3), Wisconsin (S2)

Other Statuses

American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Found in the Mississippi river drainage and Gulf drainage streams from the Alabama river system west to central Texas (Burch, 1975); from western Pennsylvania, west to sothern Minnesota, south and west to Oklahoma and Texas; the Cumberland, Tennessee, and Albama River systems (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Recently a live specimen was found in the Big Blue River at Beatrice, Nebraska; a state previously thought to have only historical or sub-fossil specimens (Schainost, 2003).

Area of Occupancy: >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Minnesota, it is rare in the Mississippi River below St. Anthony Falls and common in the St. Croix (Sietman, 2003). In Kansas, it is in the Neosho, Verdigris, Spring, and Marais des Cygnes basins, and Grouse Creek (Arkansas basin) with relic shells in the Smoky Hill River (Kansas River basin), and S Fork Big Nemaha (Missouri drainage) (Couch, 1997); also Wakarusa (Tiemann, 2006). In the Little Blue basin it is extirpated in the Kansas portion (Hoke, 2004). In the Big Blue River system of SE Nebraska and NE Kansas, it is sub-fossil (Hoke, 2005), but one live at Beatrice, Nebraska (Schainost, 2003). Oklahoma: Lake Texoma, Poteau, Mountain Fork (Spooner and Vaughn, 2007) rivers, Blue, Kiamichi, Little (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999), Spring (Branson, 1966) Rivers, "Oklahoma City", Boggy, Kiamichi, Verdigris (Boeckman and Bidwell, 2008), Neosho, Chikaskia rivers and Cache Creek, Wichita Mountains (Branson, 1982; Vaughn, 2000). In Wisconsin, it was known from the lower Wisconsin River and scattered N and S (Mathiak, 1979). In South Dakota it is in the Missouri River along the Nebraska border (Backlund, 2000); shells in James (Perkins and Backlund, 2003) and Big Sioux (Skadsen and Perkins, 2000). In Texas, it is from the San Antonio River drainage into the N and E (Howells et al., 1996) and the Cypress Bayou system (Red drainage) in NE Texas (Mather and Bergmann, 1994); also Village Creek drainage of Hardin/Tyler/Polk Cos. (Bordelon and Harrel, 2004). In Illinois, it is occasional in most drainages; abundant at some (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991; Sietman et al., 2001). Indiana distribution: Blue (Sietman et al., 1995), East Fork White (Harmon, 1992), Muscatatuck (Harmon, 1989), Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990). It is widespread in Ohio (Big Darby, Killbuck, Symmes, Salt, White Oak, Little Scioto, Scioto Brush) but absent from Lake Erie (Watters, 1992; 1995; Hoggarth et al., 2007; Watters et al., 2009). It is in Pennsylvania in the Shenango River (Bursey, 1987). In Mississippi, it is in all drainages except Coastal (Jones et al., 2005) incl. Strong (Darden et al., 2002). In Louisiana, it is common/uncommon from most drainages (Vidrine, 1993; Brown and Banks, 2001). It occurs in the Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), lower Oucahita (Posey et al., 1996), St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), Cache and White (Gordon, 1982) Rivers, Arkansas (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005; Gordon et al. 1994); and lower Arkansas (Gordon, 1985). In Missouri, it is widespread across the state (Oesch, 1995). In Tennessee, it is statewide, from the Hatchie River in SW Tennessee E through much of the lower Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages including the Big South Fork Cumberland, Duck, Buffalo, Elk, and Harpeth Rivers; also the Conasauga River, in the SE (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Alabama, it is widely distributed in the Tennessee River drainage and Mobile basin (Ahlstedt, 1996; Mirarchi, 2004; Williams et al., 2008) including Bear Creek, Alabama/Mississippi (McGregor and Garner, 2004) and sites on the Alabama and Tombigbee drainages (McGregor et al., 1999; Williams et al., 1992). In Kentucky it is in the S Fork Kentucky (Evans, 2008), Red (Clark, 1988), Middle Green (Gordon, 1991) and Barren Rivers (Cochran and Layzer, 1993), but is statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In the Coosa River basin in Georgia, it is known historically from the Coosa, Etowah, Oostanaula, Conasauga, and Coosawattee River drainages recently throughout but not the Coosa mainstem (Williams and Hughes, 1998). Johnson and Ahlstedt (2005) located specimens in 2005 in the Luxapallila drainage on the Mississippi/Alabama border. It was found at several sites in the Middle and Upper New River drainages in Virginia (Pinder et al., 2002) and Mud River (Guyandotte drainage) (Schmidt and Zeto, 1986) and New River (Jirka and Neves, 1990) in West Virginia.

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown
Viability/Integrity Comments: This species is common but rarely abundant in the lower St. Croix River in Minnesota (Sietman, 2003). This species was recorded from the Strong River in Mississippi in 2001 in high numbers (Darden et al., 2002).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Suitable habitat in Upper Mississippi river system is becoming more scarce due to dredging and increased sedimentation.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Recently this species has become extirpated from the Minnesota River in Minnesota (Sietman, 2003). This species has also been extirpated from North Carolina where it formerly occurred in the New River basin, a tributary to the Ohio River in Allethany and Ashe Cos. (Bogan, 2002; LeGrand et al., 2006). Recently a live specimen was found in the Big Blue River at Beatrice, Nebraska; a state previously thought to have only historical or sub-fossil specimens (Schainost, 2003).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: It is historical in the Little Miami and much of the Scioto and Muskingum drainages in Ohio (Watters et al., 2009).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Moderate to broad.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is found in large rivers with gravel or rocky substrates. Because of its apparent adaptability to a variety of habitat conditions, this species may be found living at river depths of one foot up to 20 feet and in a substrate composed of coarse gravel, sand, and/or mud (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Found in the Mississippi river drainage and Gulf drainage streams from the Alabama river system west to central Texas (Burch, 1975); from western Pennsylvania, west to sothern Minnesota, south and west to Oklahoma and Texas; the Cumberland, Tennessee, and Albama River systems (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Recently a live specimen was found in the Big Blue River at Beatrice, Nebraska; a state previously thought to have only historical or sub-fossil specimens (Schainost, 2003).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, NCextirpated, NE, OH, OK, PA, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Bibb (01007), Blount (01009), Choctaw (01023), Colbert (01033), Dallas (01047), Fayette (01057), Franklin (01059), Greene (01063), Jackson (01071), Jefferson (01073), Lamar (01075), Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Marion (01093), Marshall (01095), Montgomery (01101), Morgan (01103), Perry (01105)*, Pickens (01107), Shelby (01117), Sumter (01119), Tuscaloosa (01125)
IA Appanoose (19007), Cedar (19031), Clayton (19043), Des Moines (19057), Johnson (19103), Jones (19105), Lee (19111), Linn (19113), Muscatine (19139), Scott (19163), Washington (19183), Webster (19187)
KY Crittenden (21055), Edmonson (21061), Hart (21099), Livingston (21139)
MN Blue Earth (27013), Brown (27015), Carver (27019), Chippewa (27023), Chisago (27025), Dakota (27037), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Le Sueur (27079), Nicollet (27103), Ramsey (27123), Scott (27139), Sibley (27143), Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163), Winona (27169), Yellow Medicine (27173)
MS Tishomingo (28141)
NE Dixon (31051)*, Dodge (31053)*, Gage (31067), Wayne (31179)*
OH Clermont (39025), Franklin (39049), Hamilton (39061), Lawrence (39087), Pickaway (39129), Warren (39165)
PA Allegheny (42003)*, Armstrong (42005)*, Beaver (42007)*, Greene (42059), Lawrence (42073)*, Mercer (42085), Washington (42125)*, Westmoreland (42129)*
SD Yankton (46135)
TN Humphreys (47085)
VA Montgomery (51121), Pulaski (51155), Radford (City) (51750)
WI Adams (55001), Buffalo (55011), Columbia (55021), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Dunn (55033), Eau Claire (55035), Grant (55043), Green (55045), Green Lake (55047), Iowa (55049), Jackson (55053), Juneau (55057), La Crosse (55063), Lafayette (55065), Monroe (55081), Outagamie (55087), Pepin (55091), Pierce (55093), Polk (55095), Richland (55103), Sauk (55111), Shawano (55115), St. Croix (55109), Trempealeau (55121), Waupaca (55135), Winnebago (55139)
WV Braxton (54007)*, Fayette (54019), Lincoln (54043)*, Raleigh (54081), Summers (54089), Wayne (54099)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Upper Alabama (03150201)+, Cahaba (03150202)+, Middle Alabama (03150203)+, Buttahatchee (03160103)+, Sipsey (03160107)+, Locust (03160111)+, Upper Black Warrior (03160112)+, Middle Tombigbee-Chickasaw (03160201)+, Sucarnoochee (03160202)+
04 Upper Fox (04030201)+, Wolf (04030202)+
05 Middle Allegheny-Redbank (05010006)+*, Lower Monongahela (05020005)+, Upper Ohio (05030101)+*, Shenango (05030102)+, Mahoning (05030103)+*, Beaver (05030104)+*, Upper New (05050001)+, Middle New (05050002)+, Lower New (05050004)+, Upper Kanawha (05050006)+, Elk (05050007)+*, Upper Scioto (05060001)+, Lower Guyandotte (05070102)+*, Tug (05070201)+, Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)+, Little Miami (05090202)+, Upper Green (05110001)+, Lower Green (05110005)+, Lower Cumberland (05130205)+
06 Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+, Bear (06030006)+, Buffalo (06040004)+
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Hawk-Yellow Medicine (07020004)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Black (07040007)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Eau Claire (07050006)+, Red Cedar (07050007)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+, Baraboo (07070004)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, Lower Wapsipinicon (07080103)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, Skunk (07080107)+, Lower Cedar (07080206)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Pecatonica (07090003)+, Sugar (07090004)+, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+
10 Lower James (10160011)+, Logan (10220004)+*, Middle Big Blue (10270202)+, 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
Help
Basic Description: a freshwater mussel
Reproduction Comments: An unpublished study by Pepi and Hove (1997) found the yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis) facilitated glochidial metamorphosis. This was confirmed by Hove et al. (1998). Hosts listed by Hove and Kapuscinski (1998) include yellow bullhead and brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosa), confirmed by Hove et al. (1998). Hove et al. (2004) confirmed flathead catfish, Pylodictis olivaris, as a fish host, originally documented by Howells (1996; 1997).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is found in large rivers with gravel or rocky substrates. Because of its apparent adaptability to a variety of habitat conditions, this species may be found living at river depths of one foot up to 20 feet and in a substrate composed of coarse gravel, sand, and/or mud (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Freshwater Mussels

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 18Oct2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: Contact Jay Cordeiro (jay_cordeiro@natureserve.org) for a complete list of freshwater mussel taxa sorted by flow regime.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 19May2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 24May2007
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J.

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

References
Help
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. and J.J. Jenkinson. 1991. Distribution and abundance of Potamilus capax and other freshwater mussels in the St. Francis River system, Arkansas and Missouri, U.S.A. Walkerana, 5(14): 225-261.

  • Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.

  • Bordelon, V.L. and R.C. Harrel. 2004. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Village Creek drainage basin in southeast Texas. The Texas Journal of Science, 56(1): 63-72.

  • Branson, B.A. 1966a. A partial biological survey of the Spring River drainage in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. Part I, collecting sites, basic limnological data, and mollusks. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 69(3/4): 242-293.

  • Bright, R. C., C. Gatenby, D. Olson, and E. Plummer. 1990. A survey of the mussels of the Minnesota River, 1989. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 106 pp.

  • Burch, J.B. 1975a. Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Malacological Publications: Hamburg, Michigan. 204 pp.

  • Christian, A.D. 1995. Analysis of the commercial mussel beds in the Cache and White Rivers in Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 210 pp.

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

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

  • Darden, R.I., T.L. Darden, and B.R. Kreiser. 2002. Mussel fauna of the Strong River, Mississippi. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 17(4): 651-653.

  • Dawley, C. 1947. Distribution of aquatic mollusks in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 38:671-697.

  • Doolittle, T. C. J. 1987. The qualitative analysis, relative abundance, and distribution of freshwater unionid mussels in the St. Croix and Namekagon rivers. Draft final report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 21 pp.

  • Doolittle, Thomas C. J. 1987. The Qualitative Analysis, Relative Abundance, and Distribution of Freshwater Unionid Mussels in the St. Croix and Namekagon Rivers. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program. Results in published 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.

  • Gordon, M.E., S.W. Chordas, G.L. Harp. and A.V. Brown. 1994. Aquatic Mollusca of the White River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas, U.S.A. Walkerana, 7(17/18): 1-9

  • Harmon, J.L. 1992. Naiades (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Sugar Creek, east fork White River drainage, in central Indiana. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):31-42.

  • Havlik, M.E. 2008. A mussel translocation at the McCollister Boulevard Bridge, Iowa River, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, 9-14 September 2007. Ellipsaria, 10(2): 6-7.

  • 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.

  • Hornbach, D. J. 1991. A preliminary evaluation of the bivalve distribution in the St. Louis river, Cloquet, MN to Lake Superior. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 11+ pp.

  • Hornbach, D. J. 1991. Factors influencing the distribution of unionid mussels in the lower St. Croix river at Franconia, MN. Report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 23+ pp.

  • Hornbach, D. J. 1992. An examination of the population structure, community relationships and habitat characteristics for the Winged Mapleleaf mussel (Quadrula fragosa) at Interstate Park, Saint Croix River, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 17 pp. + tables, figures, appendices.

  • Hornbach, D. J. 1994. The factors influencing the distribution of mussels in the lower St. Croix river. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 16+ pp.

  • Hornbach, Daniel J. 1990-1991. The Factors Influencing the Distribution of Mussels in the Lower St. Croix River. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program; Macalester College; and the Blandin Foundation. Results in unpublished report.

  • Hornbach, Daniel J. 1992-1994. The Factors Influencing the Distribution of Mussels in the Lower St. Croix River. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program; Macalester College; and the Blandin Foundation. Unpublished.

  • Hove, M. C., J. E. Kurth, and A. R. Kapuscinski. 1998. Brown Bullhead suitable host for Tritogonia verrucosa; Cumberlandia monodonta host(s) remain elusive. Triannual Unionid Report 15:13.

  • Hove, M. and A.R. Kapuscinski. 1998. Ecological relationships between six rare Minnesota mussels and their host fishes. Final Report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, St. Paul, Minnesota. 17 pp.

  • Hove, M., M. Berg, S. Schieffers, G. Widiker, V. Kanodia, K. Yngve, C. Nelson, M. Marzec, D. Hornbach, A. Kapuscinski. 2004. High school and university researchers verify flathead catfish as host for pistolgrip (Tritogonia verrucosa). Ellipsaria 6(3): 16-18.

  • Hove, M.C., Kurth, J.E., Heath, D.J., Benjamin, R.L., Endris, M.B., Kenyon, R.L., Kapuscinski, A.R., Hillegass, K.R., Anderson, T.W., Pepi, V.E., and C.J. Lee. 1998a. Hosts and host atracting behaviors of five upper Mississippi River mussels. Abstracts, World Congress of Malacology, Washington, DC. p. 159.

  • Hove, M.C., Kurth, J.E., and A.R. Kapuscinski, A.R.1998b. Brown bullhead suitable host for Tritogonia verrucosa; Cumberlandia monodonta host(s) remain elusive. Triannual Unionid Report 15: 13.

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

  • Howells, R. G., R. W. Neck, and H. D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Press, Austin, Texas. 218 pp.

  • Howells, R.G. 1996c. Pistolgrip and Gulf mapleleaf hosts. Info-Mussel Newsletter 4(3): 3.

  • Howells, R.G. 1997b. New fish hosts for nine freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Texas. The Texas Journal of Science 49(3): 255-258.

  • Jirka, K.J. and R.J. Neves. 1990. Freshwater mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the New River Gorge National River, West Virginia. The Nautilus, 103(4): 136-139.

  • Johnson, P.D. and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2005. Results of a brief survey for freshwater mussels in the Yellow Creek Watershed, Lowndes County, Mississippi and Lamar and Fayette Counties, Alabama. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama. Unpainated.

  • LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.

  • 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.

  • Mather, C.M., and J.A M. Bergmann. 1994. Freshwater mussels of the Cypress Bayou system, northeast Texas. Malacology Data Net, 3(5/6): 139-145.

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

  • 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.

  • McGregor, S.W., T.E. Shepard, T.D. Richardson, and J.F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1999. A survey of the primary tributaries of the Alabama and Lower Tombigbee rivers for freshwater mussels, snails, and crayfish. Geological Survey of Alabama, Circular 196. 29 pp.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., et al. 2004a. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.

  • Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1912. Notes upon the families and genera of the najades. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 8(2):222-365.

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

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

  • Pepi, V. E., and M. C. Hove. 1997. Suitable fish hosts and mantle display behavior of Tritogonia verrucosa. Triannual Unionid Report 11:5.

  • Pepi, V.E. and M.C. Hove. 1997. Suitable fish hosts and mantle display behavior of Tritogonia verrucosa. Triannual Unionid Report, 11: 5.

  • 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.

  • Posey, W.R., III, J.L. Harris, and G.L. Harp. 1996b. An evaluation of the mussel community in the Lower Ouachita River. Report to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas. 28 pp.

  • 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.

  • Serb, J.M., J.E. Buhan, and C. Lydeard. 2003. Molecular systematics of the North American freshwater bivalve genus Quadrula (Unionidae: Ambleminae) based on mitochondrial ND1 sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 28: 1-11.

  • 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., M.A. Furman, and F.A. Pursell. 1995. A qualitative unionid mussel survey of the Blue River, Indiana. Triannual Unionid Report, 8: 16-17.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Utterback, W.I. 1915. The naiades of Missouri. I-IV. American Midland Naturalist, 4(2): 41-53, (3): 97-152, (4): 181-204, (5): 244-273.

  • 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.

  • Vaughn, C.C. 2000. Changes in the mussel fauna of the middle Red River drainage: 1910 - present. Pages 225-232 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.

  • Vaughn, C.C. and D.E. Spooner. 2004. Status of the mussel fauna of the Poteau River and implications for commercial harvest. American Midland Naturalist, 152: 336-346.

  • 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.

  • Williams, J.D. and M.H. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels of selected reaches of the main channel rivers in the Coosa drainage of Georgia. U.S. Geological report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Alabama. 21 pp.

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

  • Williams, J.D., S.L.H. Fuller, and R. Gracea. 1992a. Effects of impoundment on freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 13:1-10.

  • Williams, James, Arthur Bogan, and Jeffrey Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. pp 908

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.

  • Boeckman, C.J. and J.R. Bidwell. 2008. Status of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in the Oklahoma section of the Verdigris River after introduction of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha Pallas, 1771). American Midland Naturalist 25:1-8.

  • Bogan, A.E. 1993a. Workshop on freshwater bivalves of Pennsylvania. Workshop hosted by Aquatic Systems Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, held at Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6-7 May 1993. 80 pp.

  • Branson, B.A. 1982. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part I - Ambleminae. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 67: 38-45.

  • Brown, K.M. and P.D. Banks. 2001. The conservation of unionid mussels in Louisiana rivers: diversity, assemblage composition and substrate use. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 11(3): 189-198.

  • Bursey, C.R. 1987. The unionid (Mollusca: Bivalvia) fauna of the Shenango River in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Proceeding of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science, 61: 41-43.

  • Christian, A.D., J.L. Harris, W.R. Posey, J.F. Hockmuth, and G.L. Harp. 2005. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) assemblages of the lower Cache River, Arkansas. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(3): 487-512.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Galbraith, H.S., D.E. Spooner, and C.C. Vaughn. 2008. Status of rare and endangered freshwater mussels in southeastern Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist, 53(1): 45-50.

  • Gordon, M.E. 1982. Mollusca of the White River, Arkansas and Missouri. The Southwestern Naturalist, 27(3): 347-352.

  • Gordon, M.E. 1985. Mollusca of Frog Bayou, Arkansas. The Nautilus, 99(1): 6-9.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Howells, R.G., R.W. Neck, and H.D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Press: Austin, Texas. 218 pp.

  • Illinois State Museum. 2006. ISM Collections Online: Zoology: Fresh Water Mussel Collection Database. Curatorial Content: Dr. Robert Warren. Online. Available: http://www.museum.state.il.us/ismdepts/zoology/mussels/index.html

  • 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.

  • Murray, H.D. and A.B. Leonard. 1962. Handbook of Unionid Mussels in Kansas. Museum of Natural History, Uni- versity of Kansas, Miscellaneous Publication, 28: 1-184.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Pinder, M.J., E.S. Wilhelm, and J.W. Jones. 2002. Status survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the New River drainage, Virginia. Walkerana, 13(29/30): 189-223.

  • Posey, W.R., II, J.L. Harris and G.L. Harp. 1996a. New distributional records for freswater mussels in the Ouachita River, Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 50: 96-98.

  • Schainost, S.C. 2003. A live collection of a pistolgrip from Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist, 35(4): 277-280.

  • Schmidt, J.E. and M.A. Zeto. 1986. Naiad distribution in the Mud River drainage, southwestern West Virginia. Malacology Data Net, 1(4): 69-78.

  • 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.

  • Spooner, D.E. and C.C. Vaughn. 2007. Mussels of the Mountain Fork River, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Publications of the Oklahoma Biological Survey, 2nd series, 8: 14-18.

  • 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.

  • Vaughn, C.C. and C.M. Taylor. 1999. Impoundments and the decline of freshwater mussels: a case study of an extinction gradient. Conservation Biology, 13(4): 912-920.

  • Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Gail Q. Vidrine Collectibles: Eunice, Louisiana. xii + 225 pp. + 20 plates.

  • 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.

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.