Toxolasma parvum - (Barnes, 1823)
Lilliput
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Toxolasma parvus (Barnes, 1823) (TSN 80364)
French Common Names: toxolasme nain
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.113961
Element Code: IMBIV43050
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Toxolasma
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B98TUR01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Toxolasma parvus
Taxonomic Comments: The spelling Toxolasma parvus formerly followed Turgeon et al. (1998). When the genus name Toxolasma was proposed by Rafinesque (1831), he did not designate a gender nor was it clear from the species included in the genus. A recent review of Toxolasma (Lee, 2006) determined the gender is neuter and endings of four species have changed: Toxolasma lividus to lividum; Toxolasma parvus to parvum; Toxolasma paulus to paulum; and Toxolasma texasensis to texasense. Through misinterpretations of species identities and synonomy, Toxolasma has been considered to contain two to eight species (e.g., Johnson, 1970; Burch, 1975; Turgeon et al., 1988; Turgeon et al, 1998). Examination of museum vouchers indicate that there may be as many as 15 species.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 21May2009
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species is widespread throughout the Mississippian Region to southern Canada. Although considered stable throughout much of its range, it is rare in Canada (only a few records from Ontario remain), but has expanded its range in the south and southeastern U.S.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (16Jul1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1 (01Aug2017)

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 (S3), Arkansas (S4), Florida (SNR), Georgia (SH), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S3), Iowa (S1), Kansas (S2S3), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S4), Michigan (S1), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S4), Missouri (S4), Nebraska (SNR), New York (S1), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S4), Pennsylvania (S1S2), South Dakota (S3), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S3), West Virginia (S2), Wisconsin (S3)
Canada Manitoba (SNR), Ontario (S1)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (03May2013)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This species has a fairly restricted range in Canada, confined to tributaries of Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. Populations once found in the open Canadian waters of Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie and the Detroit River have disappeared. Overall, the species has lost 44% of its former range in Canada. The invasion of freshwater habitat by the exotic Zebra and Quagga mussels, combined with pollution from urban development and sedimentation are the main cause of populations disappearing and the range shrinking.

Status history: Designated Endangered in May 2013.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
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: This species ranges throughout the Mississippian Region; Great Lakes into western New York state, west to Minnesota, southern Canada; Peninsular Florida; Apalachicolan region; western Gulf Coastal region in most drainages in Louisiana to the Rio Grande system in Texas (Johnson, 1999).

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

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Minnesota it is sporadic in the S but locally common in the Minnesota and St. Croix drainages, Mississippi drainage below (and recently above) St. Anthony Falls (Sietman, 2003). In Illinois, it is common in most drainages (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991); including upper Illinois (Sietman et al., 2001; Schanzle et al., 2004), Rock (Tiemann et al., 2005). Indiana distribution: Wabash tributaries (Fisher, 2006), Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990), E Fork White (dead shells) (Harmon, 1992), Muscatatuck (Harmon, 1989), St. Joseph and Maumee (Pryor, 2005). In Ohio, it is widespread (Watters, 1992; 1995; Grabarciewicz, 2008; Hoggarth et al., 2007) but uncommon (Watters et al., 2009). In West Virginia, it occurs in the Ohio and Mud Rivers (Guyandotte drainage) (Schmidt and Zeto, 1986). In South Dakota it is known from the Whetstone and Yellowbank Rivers (Backlund, 2000) and Big Sioux tribs. (Skadsen and Perkins, 2000). In Oklahoma, it occurs in "Oklahoma City", Bluff Creek (Grant Co.); Washita, Clear Boggy, Kiamichi, Blue, Illinois, Poteau, Chickaskia Rivers; Lake Texoma; Little (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999), Glover and Mountain Fork (Spooner and Vaughn, 2007) Rivers; Poteau; Lake Carl Blackwell (Payne Co.) and Waterfall Creek (McCurtain Co.); and Ft. Gibson Reservoir (Branson, 1984; Vaughn, 2000). In Texas, it is reported from the Rio Grande and Red Rivers, and several central localities; also Nueces, Frio, Arkansas, Guadalupe, San Saba Rivers and San Miguel Creek, McMullen Co. (Howells et al., 1996). In the Rio Grande, it is in the Rio Grande system (Devils River and Rio Grande drainages) in New Mexico, Texas, and Tamaulipas, Mexico; Deviss River drainage in Texas; Las Moras Creek drainage in Texas (Johnson, 1999). In Wisconsin, it is in the southern half (Mathiak, 1979). In Alabama, it is from the Tennessee River system, Mobile basin (Mirarchi, 2004), and recently expanded into a Gulf Coast drainages (most records for the Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and Escambia drainages are now believed to be Toxolasma sp.) (Williams et al., 2008). In the Coosa basin, it is only in the lower Tallapoosa tributaries in Alabama (Gangloff, 2003) and historical from the Coosa, Etowah, Oostanaula, and Conasauga in Georgia (Williams and Hughes, 1998). It is widespread and common in Louisiana (Vidrine, 1993), less so in the E (Brown and Banks, 2001). It occurs in Arkansas historically in the Cache and White Rivers (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005; Gordon, 1982; Gordon et al., 1994); recently Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004) and Ouachita (Posey, 1997). In Mississippi, it is in the Mississippi River N and S, Yazoo, Tennessee, Lake Pontchartrain, Pearl, Pascagoula, and Tombigbee drainages (Jones et al., 2005); but not the Strong River, despite historical documentation (Darden et al., 2002). In Tennessee, it is in the lower Holston, Clinch, Tennessee, and Little Tennessee Rivers in the E; Cumberland and Stones Rivers in the Cumberland River drainage; and Reelfoot Lake, tributaries to the Hatchie River, and lower Tennessee River (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Kentucky, it is sporadic statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In Kansas it is in the E half and may be common (Couch, 1997; Tiemann, 2006) incl. Spring River in Missouri (Branson, 1966). In the Little Blue River basin it exists as weathered/subfossil shells in the Kansas portion (Hoke, 2004). In the Big Blue River system of SE Nebraska and NE Kansas it was uncommon in the Nebraska portion but shells widespread in Kansas (Hoke, 2005). In Canada, it is represented historically by 8 records from the Detroit, Grand, and Thames Rivers in Ontario; one live in the lower Sydenham River in 1991 (none 1997- Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2003) and 2 live near the mouth of the Grant River in 1997 (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004). Recently only dead shells were found in the Marais des Cygnes, Elk, and Fall Rivers in Kansas (Combes and Edds, 2005).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: In the Cuyahoga Valley National Park (between Cleveland and Akron, Ohio), this species was found in the Ohio and Erie Canal within the park in decent numbers (Smith et al., 2002).

Short-term Trend: Increase of >10%
Short-term Trend Comments: Recently this species has expanded above St. Anthony Falls on the Mississippi River drainage in Minnesota (Sietman, 2003). In Canada, it is represented historically by only 8 records from the Detroit, Grand, and Thames Rivers in Ontario; with a single live specimen found in the lower Sydenham River in 1991 and 2 live specimens near the mouth of the Grant River in 1997 (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: It appears to have increased its range during the past century, apparently associated with habitat alterations as large rivers were impounded, along with mass culture and widespread introduction of game fishes (Williams et al., 2008).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Unknown

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is found typically in the shallows of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, as well as in small to large rivers, where it lives in mud, sand, or fine gravel (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)) This species ranges throughout the Mississippian Region; Great Lakes into western New York state, west to Minnesota, southern Canada; Peninsular Florida; Apalachicolan region; western Gulf Coastal region in most drainages in Louisiana to the Rio Grande system in Texas (Johnson, 1999).

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, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, NE, NY, OH, OK, PA, SD, TN, TX, WI, WV
Canada MB, ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Lawrence (01079)*, Limestone (01083), Lowndes (01085)*, Marengo (01091)*, Morgan (01103)
AR Arkansas (05001), Ashley (05003), Bradley (05011), Chicot (05017), Clark (05019), Dallas (05039), Desha (05041), Drew (05043), Fulton (05049), Garland (05051), Grant (05053), Hot Spring (05059), Howard (05061), Jefferson (05069), Lincoln (05079), Miller (05091), Mississippi (05093), Monroe (05095), Montgomery (05097), Nevada (05099), Ouachita (05103), Perry (05105), Polk (05113), Pulaski (05119), Randolph (05121), Saline (05125), Scott (05127), Searcy (05129), Sevier (05133), Sharp (05135), Van Buren (05141), Washington (05143), Yell (05149)
IA Allamakee (19005), Black Hawk (19013), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Des Moines (19057), Dubuque (19061), Jackson (19097), Johnson (19103), Lee (19111), Scott (19163), Wapello (19179)
IN Allen (18003), Boone (18011), Carroll (18015), Cass (18017), De Kalb (18033), Delaware (18035), Hamilton (18057), Hancock (18059), Jennings (18079), Johnson (18081), Kosciusko (18085), Lawrence (18093), Madison (18095), Marion (18097), Montgomery (18107), Posey (18129)*, Pulaski (18131), Rush (18139), Tippecanoe (18157)*
MI Benzie (26019)*, Berrien (26021), Hillsdale (26059), Ionia (26067), Kent (26081), Lenawee (26091)*, Macomb (26099)*, Monroe (26115), Ottawa (26139)*, Saginaw (26145), Wayne (26163)
NY Livingston (36051), Monroe (36055), Niagara (36063), Orleans (36073), Wayne (36117)
PA Allegheny (42003), Armstrong (42005)*, Crawford (42039)*, Erie (42049), Lawrence (42073)
SD Grant (46051), Lincoln (46083)
WV Hancock (54029), Jackson (54035), Ritchie (54085), Tyler (54095), Wetzel (54103), Wood (54107)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Middle Alabama (03150203)+*, Middle Tombigbee-Chickasaw (03160201)+*
04 St. Joseph (04050001)+, Black-Macatawa (04050002)+*, Maple (04050005)+, Lower Grand (04050006)+, Betsie-Platte (04060104)+*, Tittabawassee (04080201)+*, Shiawassee (04080203)+, Flint (04080204)+, Cass (04080205)+, Clinton (04090003)+*, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+*, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+, Raisin (04100002)+, St. Joseph (04100003)+, Upper Maumee (04100005)+, Chautauqua-Conneaut (04120101)+, Lake Erie (04120200)+, Oak Orchard-Twelvemile (04130001)+, Upper Genesee (04130002)+, Lower Genesee (04130003)+, Irondequoit-Ninemile (04140101)+, Seneca (04140201)+
05 French (05010004)+*, Middle Allegheny-Redbank (05010006)+*, Lower Allegheny (05010009)+, Upper Ohio (05030101)+, Beaver (05030104)+, Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)+, Upper Ohio-Shade (05030202)+, Little Kanawha (05030203)+, Upper Wabash (05120101)+, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+*, Sugar (05120110)+, Lower Wabash (05120113)+*, Upper White (05120201)+, Driftwood (05120204)+, Muscatatuck (05120207)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+
06 Wheeler Lake (06030002)+
07 Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+
08 Lower St. Francis (08020203)+, Lower White (08020303)+, Ouachita Headwaters (08040101)+, Upper Ouachita (08040102)+, Little Missouri (08040103)+, Upper Saline (08040203)+, Lower Saline (08040204)+, Bayou Bartholomew (08040205)+, Boeuf (08050001)+, Bayou Macon (08050002)+
10 Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+
11 Buffalo (11010005)+, Lower Black (11010009)+, Spring (11010010)+, Strawberry (11010012)+, Little Red (11010014)+, Illinois (11110103)+, Poteau (11110105)+, Fourche La Fave (11110206)+, Lower Arkansas-Maumelle (11110207)+, Mountain Fork (11140108)+, Lower Little (11140109)+, Mckinney-Posten Bayous (11140201)+
+ 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
Reproduction Comments: Glochidial hosts include Lepomis cyanellus (green sunfish), Lepomis gulosus (warmouth), Lepomis humilis (orangespotted sunfish), Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill), Pomoxis annularis (white crappie) (Fuller, 1978; Mermilliod, 1974; Wilson, 1916; Hove, 1995). New host fish confirmation from Watters et al. (2005): Etheostoma nigrum (Johnny darter).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is found typically in the shallows of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, as well as in small to large rivers, where it lives in mud, sand, or fine gravel (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: 21May2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 23Apr2007
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
  • 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.

  • COKER, R.E. AND J.B. SOUTHALL. 1915. MUSSEL RESOURCES IN TRIBUTARIES OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER. BUREAU OF FISHERIES DOCUMENT NO. 812. WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

  • COSSARO. 2013. Ontario Species at Risk Evaluation Report for Lilliput (Toxolasma parvum). June 2013 (final). 15pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Combes, M. and D. Edds. 2005. Mussel assemblages upstream from three Kansas reservoirs. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 20(1): 139-148.

  • 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.

  • FREST, TERRENCE J. 1987. MUSSEL SURVEY OF SELECTED INTERIOR IOWA STREAMS. REPORT TO US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND IOWA DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

  • Fisher, B.E. 2006. Current status of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River drainage of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 115(2): 103-109.

  • Fuller, S.L.H. 1978. Fresh-water mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Upper Mississippi River: Observations at selected sites within the 9-foot channel navigation project on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers No. 78-33. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 401 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Hove, M.C. 1995. Suitable fish hosts of the lilliput, Toxolasma parvus. Triannual Unionid Report, 8: 9

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

  • Jass, J.P. 2005. Larger lilliputs? Ellipsaria, 7(3): 12-14.

  • 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.

  • Lee, H.G. 2006. Musings on a local specimen of Toxolasma paulum (I. Lea, 1840), the iridescent lilliput. The Shell-O-Gram 47(5):3-6.

  • 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.

  • Marshall, W.B. 1895. Geographical distribution of New York Unionidae. Annual Report. New York State Museum. 48: 47-99.

  • Mermilliod, W. 1974. An investigation for the natural host of the glochidia of Toxolasma parva. Undergraduate Research Paper, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. ?? 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.

  • OVER, W.H. 1942. MOLLUSCA OF SOUTH DAKOTA. NATURAL HISTORY STUDIES NO.5 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA, VERMILLION.

  • PERKINS, K. 1975. DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF THE UNIONID MUSSELS IN THE VERMILLION RIVER, SD. MS THESIS, USD, VERMILLION.

  • PERKINS, KEITH III, DENNIS SKADSEN AND DOUG BACKLUND, 1997. A SURVEY FOR UNIONID MUSSELS IN DAY, DEUEL, GRANT, AND ROBERTS COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA, AUGUST-OCTOBER 1995.REPORT TO SD GAME, FISH AND PARKS.

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

  • Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006. Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains. Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.

  • 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.

  • Rafinesque, C.S. 1831. Continuation of a monograph of bivalve shells of the River Otto and other rivers of the western states. Brussels. 8pp.

  • SKADSEN, DENNIS R., 1998. A REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY FOR UNIONID MUSSELS ON THE UPPER AND MIDDLE BIG SIOUX RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES: GRANT, CODINGTON, HAMLIN, BROOKINGS, AND MOODY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. GFP REPORT 98-02.

  • 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.

  • 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., 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. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks, Second Edition. American Fisheries Society Spec. Pub. 26.

  • 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.

  • 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. 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.

  • Watters, G.T., T. Menker, S. Thomas, and K. Luehnl. 2005. Host identifications or confirmations. Ellipsaria, 7(2): 11-12.

  • 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., 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., 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
  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Gangloff, M.M. 2003. The status, physical habitat associations, and parasites of freshwater mussels in the upper Alabama River Drainage, Alabama. Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University.

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

  • 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

  • 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.

  • Graf, D.L. 2002. Historical biogeography and late glacial origin of the freshwater pearly mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) faunas of Lake Erie, North America. Occasional Papers on Mollusks 6(82):175-211.

  • 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.

  • Hoke, E. 2005a. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidea) of northern Nebraska: the Missouri, Niobrara, and White River basins. American Malacological Bulletin, 20: 27-35.

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

  • Johnson, R.I. 1999. Unionidae of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo del Norte) system of Texas and Mexico. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 6(77): 1-65.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 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.

  • Posey II, W.R. 1997. Location, species composition and community estimates for mussel beds in the St. Francis and Ouachita Rivers, Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 178 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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., R.E. Szafoni, and K. Roman. 2005. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of Kyte River, Ogle County, Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 98(3-4):159-169.

  • 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.

  • 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 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. 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., 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 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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