Toxolasma texasiense - (I. Lea, 1857)
Texas Lilliput
Synonym(s): Toxolasma mearnsi (Simpson, 1900) ;Toxolasma texasense (I. Lea, 1857)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Toxolasma mearnsi (Simpson, 1900) (TSN 80363) ;Toxolasma texasiensis (I. Lea, 1857) (TSN 568379)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.116097
Element Code: IMBIV43080
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 texasiensis
Taxonomic Comments: Howells et al. (1996) placed Toxolasma mearnsi in the synonymy of Toxolasma texasiense based on electrophoretic analysis, a change overlooked by Turgeon et al. (1998); Williams et al. (2017) recognize placement of T. mearnsi in the synonymy of T. texasiense. Undescribed species of Toxolasma have been recognized (e.g., Gulf Lilliput) but have yet to be formerly described (Williams et al. 2008, 2014) (Williams et al. 2017).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 29Aug2006
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This species is widespread and often times common in the southern U.S. with most populations considered stable.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (16Jul1998)

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 Arkansas (S3), Illinois (S3), Indiana (S1), Kentucky (S1), Louisiana (S4), Mississippi (S4), Missouri (S3), Oklahoma (S1), Tennessee (S3), Texas (S4)

Other Statuses

American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species ranges from the southern coast of Texas, east to western Mississippi, up the Mississippi River embayment through Louisiana, eastern Arkansas, and Missouri to southern Illinois, Indiana, and western Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Area of Occupancy: 2,501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 81 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Texas it is reported from all major drainages (Howells et al., 1996), most recently in Austin County. Recently the first records for Austin Co., Texas were found (Reimer and Linam, 2005). It is particularly abundant in the Cypress Bayou system of northeast Texas (Mather and Bergmann, 1994). In the Rio Grande system from Texas to New Mexico and south into Mexico, it is known from the Rio Grande system the Las Moras Creek drainage, Kinney Co., Texas (although Johnson, 1999, synonymizes it with Toxolasma parvus). During surveys of the Village Creek drainage of Hardin, Tyler, and Polk Cos. in southeast Texas in 2001-2002, this species was found in 11 sites (of 22 surveyed). In Oklahoma, it is reported only from Yashau Creek in McCurtain Co. (Branson, 1984) and recently Mountain Fork River (Spooner and Vaughn, 2007). In Mississippi, it occurs in the Mississippi River South, Big Black, Yazoo, Lake Pontchartrain, Pearl, and Pascagoula drainages (Jones et al., 2005). In Louisiana, it is widespread in many drainages across the state, especially larger rivers, lakes and ponds (Vidrine, 1993); including Amite, Tangipahoa and Pearl (Brown and Banks, 2001). In Tennessee, it has been found only in the Hatchie River and adjoining backwaters and at Reelfoot Lake, all west Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Indiana, Fisher (2006) restrictes it to only a few tributary and oxbow sites in the southwest Wabash drainage but not in hte mainstem. In Illinois, it is restricted to the southern third of the state where it is occasionally found in small- to medium-sized streams (Big Muddy River, Cache River, Massac, Bay, Lusk, Big Grand Pierre, Big Creek drainages, Saline River) (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). It occurs in Arkansas in the White (Gordon et al., 1994), St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), and Cache River (Christian et al., 2005), as well as throughout the Ouachita and Red Rivers (Anderson, 2006). In Missouri, the Texas lilliput has been reported from Williams Creek, Brushy Creek and the Floodways of Dunklin County with additional records recently documented from Indian Hill Slough (St. Francis River system) in Dunklin Co. (Hutson and Barnhart, 2004). In Kentucky, it is sporadic in the Mississippi River to the Tradewater River and just into Cypress Creek in the Tennessee River system (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: During surveys of the Village Creek drainage of Hardin, Tyler, and Polk Cos. in southeast Texas in 2001-2002, this species was found in 17 sites (of 22 surveyed) (89 spms.) (Bordelon and Harrel, 2004).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species is now extinct in Indiana (formerly Ohio River in southwest corner of the state).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is typically found in still waters often from feeder creeks, protected or ponded waters on mud or sand (Howells et al., 1996), but Cummings and Mayer (1992) described it from small to medium streams and sloughs in mud and sand under slow-flow conditions.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)) This species ranges from the southern coast of Texas, east to western Mississippi, up the Mississippi River embayment through Louisiana, eastern Arkansas, and Missouri to southern Illinois, Indiana, and western Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AR, IL, IN, KY, LA, MO, MS, OK, TN, TX

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AR Ashley (05003), Calhoun (05013), Clark (05019), Clay (05021), Craighead (05031), Crittenden (05035), Cross (05037), Desha (05041), Drew (05043), Grant (05053), Greene (05055), Jefferson (05069), Lee (05077), Lincoln (05079), Lonoke (05085), Miller (05091), Mississippi (05093), Monroe (05095), Montgomery (05097), Ouachita (05103), Poinsett (05111), Polk (05113)*, Prairie (05117), Saline (05125), Sevier (05133), St. Francis (05123)
KY Caldwell (21033), Carlisle (21039), Fulton (21075), Graves (21083), Hickman (21105), Hopkins (21107), Marshall (21157), Union (21225)
MO Dunklin (29069), Mississippi (29133), New Madrid (29143)
OK McCurtain (40089), Pushmataha (40127)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 Tradewater (05140205)+
06 Lower Tennessee (06040006)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+, Bayou De Chien-Mayfield (08010201)+, Obion (08010202)+, New Madrid-St. Johns (08020201)+, Lower St. Francis (08020203)+, Little River Ditches (08020204)+, Lower White-Bayou Des Arc (08020301)+, Cache (08020302)+, Lower White (08020303)+, Lower Arkansas (08020401)+, Ouachita Headwaters (08040101)+, Upper Ouachita (08040102)+, Little Missouri (08040103)+, Lower Ouachita-Smackover (08040201)+, Upper Saline (08040203)+, Bayou Bartholomew (08040205)+, Boeuf (08050001)+
11 Kiamichi (11140105)+, Upper Little (11140107)+*, Mountain Fork (11140108)+, Lower Little (11140109)+, Mckinney-Posten Bayous (11140201)+
12 Upper San Antonio (12100301), Medina (12100302), Lower San Antonio (12100303), Upper Nueces (12110103), Turkey (12110104)*, Middle Nueces (12110105), Upper Frio (12110106), Lower Frio (12110108), Lower Nueces (12110111)
+ 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: This species is a long-term breeder, with a lapse in breeding in July and August in Dallas, Texas. Females with glochidia were observed extending relatively long caruncles and vigorously waving them about suggesting possible fish attracting behavior (Howells et al., 2006). Glochidial hosts include warmouth (Lepomis gulosus) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) (Stern and Felder, 1978).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is typically found in still waters often from feeder creeks, protected or ponded waters on mud or sand (Howells et al., 1996), but Cummings and Mayer (1992) described it from small to medium streams and sloughs in mud and sand under slow-flow conditions.
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: 12Jun2007
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.

Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 15Feb2007
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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5, Illinois. 194 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Howells, R. G. 2004. Taxonomic problems among freshwater mussels in Texas: future work for the gel jocks. Ellipsaria 6(3):10-11.

  • Howells, R.G. 1997d. Taxonomic status of western lilliput (Toxolasma mearnsi). Triannual Unionid Report 11: 37-38.

  • Howells, Robert G. 2004. Taxonomic problems among freshwater mussels in Texas: Future work for the gel jocks. Ellipsaria 6(3):10-11. December 2004.

  • Hutson, C. and C. Barnhart. 2004. Survey of endangered and special concern mussel species in the Sac, Pomme de Terre, St. Francis, and Black River systems of Missouri, 2001-2003. Endangered Species Grant Final Report (Grant No. E-1-36) prepared 14 October 2004 for the Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 370 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Reimer, M.M. and L.A. Linam. 2005. Texas mussel watch, a citizen based volunteer monitoring program. Ellipsaria, 7(3): 5-6.

  • Simpson, C.T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiades, or pearly freshwater mussels. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 22(1205): 501-1044.

  • Stern, E.M. and D.L. Felder. 1978. Identification of host fishes for four species of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae). American Midland Naturalist, 100(1): 233-236.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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, 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 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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., 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

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

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.