Typhlichthys subterraneus - Girard, 1859
Southern Cavefish
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Typhlichthys subterraneus Girard, 1859 (TSN 164399)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102393
Element Code: AFCLA04010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Fishes - Bony Fishes - Other Bony Fishes
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Actinopterygii Percopsiformes Amblyopsidae Typhlichthys
Genus Size: A - Monotypic genus
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B91ROB01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Typhlichthys subterraneus
Taxonomic Comments: Monotypic genus; synonyms include T. osborni and T. wyandotte (Lee et al. 1980). Genetic studies by D. Noltie and D. Bergstrom were underway in Missouri in the early 1990s (Figg 1991, 1993).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 27Sep2010
Global Status Last Changed: 27Sep2010
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Discontinuous range in subterranean waters of Missouri and Arkansas west of the Mississippi River, and Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia east of the Mississippi; many occurrences, large area of potentially occupied habitat; possibly declining, but trends are poorly known because most of habitat is inaccessible; vulnerable to groundwater pollution and sedimentation.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (27Sep2010)

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 (S1), Georgia (S1), Indiana (SX), Kentucky (S2S3), Missouri (S2S3), Tennessee (S3)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: VU - Vulnerable
American Fisheries Society Status: Vulnerable (01Aug2008)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This fish is widely distributed in two major karst regions west and east of the Mississippi River: Ozark Plateau of southern Missouri and northeastern Arkansas; and Cumberland and Interior Low plateaus of northern Alabama (to Coosa River system), northwestern Georgia, central Tennessee and Kentucky, and possibly extreme southern Indiana (generally regarded as an invalid record; Lewis 2002). Some apparently isolated populations actually may be in contact through subterranean channels (Etnier and Starnes 1993), whereas other populations, such as those in the eastern Mississippian Plateau of Kentucky may be truly disjunct (Cooper and Beiter 1972). Reported occurrences of this species in northeastern Oklahoma and Greene County in southwestern Missouri are based on Amblyopsis.

Area of Occupancy:  
Area of Occupancy Comments: Most of the potential habitat is inaccessible, so the true area of occupancy is unknown and likely much larger than available information indicates. For example, in Missouri, "the substantial vertical and lateral extent of the Potosi Dolomite and Eminence Dolomite occupied by southern cavefish suggests that these fish have a relatively large and comparatively continuous volume of habitat in which to dwell and through which to disperse" (Noltie and Wicks 2001).

Number of Occurrences: 81 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by a large number of occurrences (subpopulations) and locations. However, the precise number of distinct occurrences is unknown because the degree of connectivity among the various observed populations is uncertain.

East of the Mississippi River, Etnier and Starnes (1993) mapped 27 collection sites in Tennessee. Mettee et al. (1996) mapped about 50 collection sites in Alabama, and Boschung and Mayden mapped 39 widely distributed collection sites in Alabama. Burr and Warren (1986) mapped several collection sites in Kentucky, and for the period 1984-2005 the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources mapped at least 8 collection sites. Lewis (2005) documented cave occurrences in Tennessee in 19 caves in Fentress, Franklin, Gruncy, Marion, Overton, Putnam, Van Buren, Warren, and White counties..

West of the Mississippi River, Pflieger (1997) mapped 25 collection sites in Missouri. Robison and Buchanan (1988) mapped 3 (one pre-1960) collection sites in Arkansas. Noltie and Wicks (2001) noted the same number of sites in Missouri and Arkansas.

Population Size: 2500 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but probably is at least several thousand and likely much larger than that. For example, although most observed populations are relatively small (see following), at least "hundreds" of southern cavefishes were found dead in a spring 21 kilometers from a toxin spill in Missouri; based on cavefish habitat and geological considerations, Noltie and Wicks (2001) believed that the actual number killed was much larger (most dead cavefishes would have remained hidden in the aquifer). Because cavefish habitat appears to be extensive (Noltie and Wicks 2001), and most southern cavefish habitat is inaccessible to humans, available information from observable populations probably greatly underestimates the species' true abundance.

Population censuses for six caves by Poulson (1963) yielded estimated that ranged from 7-150 fish per cave, with a mean population size of 41. "In a given cave, population sizes vary from a few individuals to a couple of hundred" (Boschung and Mayden 2004). Pflieger (1997) mentioned a Missouri population in an underground lake that conservatively included at least 90 individuals. Robison and Buchanan (1988) reported observations of about 20 individuals in each of two caves in Arkansas, though these values do not necessarily represent the full population size. In Kentucky, this species is "sporadic and generally uncommon" (Burr and Warren 1986).

Viability/Integrity Comments: The viability of most occurrences is unknown, due in part to lack of adequate information on population size and connectivity among different locations.

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The habitat of the southern cavefish is fragile and vulnerable to water quality degradation resulting from human activities. Boschung and Mayden (2004) reported that professional spelunkers told them that this species is disappearing from many caves in Alabama as a result of groundwater depletion and pollution. The population in Sloans Valley Cave, Kentucky, which may be a distinct taxon (Cooper and Beiter 1972), was at least formerly at risk from heavy metal runoff from a landfill site (Tercafs 1992), but Hopper and Hansen (1996) described an optimistic outcome for this site (fide Proudlove 2001). A population was extirpated from Hidden River Cave in Kentucky after gross pollution lasting several decades (Lewis 1996).

However, this species "is thought to be in no immediate danger so long as ground water quality is not threatened by percolation of agricultural chemicals or other contaminants" (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Contaminants that potentially could negatively affect southern cavefish habitat and populations include toxins from sewage plant effluent, septic field waste, campground outhouses, feedlots, grazing pastures, or any other source of human or animal waste; pesticides or herbicides used for crops, livestock, trails, roads, or other applications; fertilizers used for crops or lawns; toxins from mineral exploration and development, such from zinc and lead mines in the Ozarks; and hazardous material introductions via accidental spills or deliberate dumping, including road salting (see Lewis 2002). Pflieger (1997) described an incident in Missouri where a pipeline break 21 kilometers from a cavefish site in a spring resulted in leakage of fertilizer into the spring's aquifer and mass mortality of cavefishes and other species.

Habitat alteration due to sedimentation is a pervasive threat potentially caused by logging, road or other construction, trail building, farming, or any other kind of development that disturbs ground cover (Lewis 2002). Sedimentation potentially changes cave habitat, blocks recharge sites, or alters flow volume and velocity. Pesticides and other harmful compounds like PCBs may adhere to clay and silt particles and be transported into caves via sedimentation (Lewis 2002).

Dewatering of karst systems by well drawdown and mine pumping may also be a threat to the cavefish and other groundwater species (Lewis 2002).

Construction of roads or trails near cave entrances encourages human entry into cavefish habitat. Human intrusion results in increased risk of vandalism or littering, trampling of fauna, introduction of non-native microbial flora, or introduction of hazardous materials such as spent carbide batteries (see Lewis 2002).

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Current trend is presumed to be relatively stable or slowly declining as a result of ongoing habitat degradation, but the actual degree of decline, if any, is unknown. Warren et al. (2000) categorized this species a "vulnerable" (may become endangered or threatened by relatively minor disturbances to habitat or deserves careful monitoring of distribution and abundance).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <50% to Relatively Stable
Long-term Trend Comments: Historical and recent (through May 2005) records in Kentucky indicate an apparently reduced extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, and number of subpopulations (Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources). The species also appears to have disappeared from many caves in Alabama (Boschung and Mayden 2004). However, these reports are based on observable (accessible) populations, and trends in the large extent of inaccessible habitat are unknown. Noltie and Wicks (2001) cautioned that periodic censuses at accessible sites may not accurately reflect trends in the population as a whole, most of which is inaccessible.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Highly to moderately vulnerable.
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Rate of increase and reproductive capacity are low.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Better information is needed on area of occupancy and population size in subterranean waters.

Protection Needs: Protection of groundwater quality is a basic need.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)) This fish is widely distributed in two major karst regions west and east of the Mississippi River: Ozark Plateau of southern Missouri and northeastern Arkansas; and Cumberland and Interior Low plateaus of northern Alabama (to Coosa River system), northwestern Georgia, central Tennessee and Kentucky, and possibly extreme southern Indiana (generally regarded as an invalid record; Lewis 2002). Some apparently isolated populations actually may be in contact through subterranean channels (Etnier and Starnes 1993), whereas other populations, such as those in the eastern Mississippian Plateau of Kentucky may be truly disjunct (Cooper and Beiter 1972). Reported occurrences of this species in northeastern Oklahoma and Greene County in southwestern Missouri are based on Amblyopsis.

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, INextirpated, KY, MO, TN

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Colbert (01033), DeKalb (01049)*, Jackson (01071), Lauderdale (01077), Lawrence (01079), Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Marshall (01095)*, Morgan (01103)*
AR Baxter (05005), Fulton (05049), Randolph (05121), Stone (05137)
GA Catoosa (13047), Dade (13083)
IN Harrison (18061)*
KY Barren (21009), Christian (21047)*, Edmonson (21061), Hart (21099), Pulaski (21199)*, Simpson (21213), Trigg (21221), Warren (21227)
MO Camden (29029), Carter (29035), Dallas (29059)*, Dent (29065), Howell (29091), Laclede (29105)*, Oregon (29149), Phelps (29161), Ripley (29181), Shannon (29203), Wayne (29223)
TN Coffee (47031), DeKalb (47041), Decatur (47039), Dickson (47043), Fentress (47049), Franklin (47051), Grundy (47061), Hardin (47071), Hickman (47081), Lewis (47101), Marion (47115), Marshall (47117), Maury (47119), Montgomery (47125), Overton (47133), Perry (47135), Putnam (47141), Robertson (47147), Rutherford (47149), Smith (47159), Sumner (47165), Van Buren (47175), Warren (47177), Wayne (47181), White (47185), Wilson (47189)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Middle Coosa (03150106)+*
05 Upper Green (05110001)+, Barren (05110002)+, Upper Cumberland-Lake Cumberland (05130103)+, Obey (05130105)+, Upper Cumberland-Cordell Hull (05130106)+, Collins (05130107)+, Caney (05130108)+, Lower Cumberland-Old Hickory Lake (05130201)+, Stones (05130203)+, Lower Cumberland (05130205)+, Red (05130206)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+*
06 Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)+, Sequatchie (06020004)+, Guntersville Lake (06030001)+, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Upper Elk (06030003)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+, Lower Tennessee-Beech (06040001)+, Upper Duck (06040002)+, Buffalo (06040004)+
07 Meramec (07140102)+
08 Upper St. Francis (08020202)
10 Lake of the Ozarks (10290109)+, Niangua (10290110)+, Upper Gasconade (10290201), Big Piney (10290202), Lower Gasconade (10290203)
11 Middle White (11010004)+, Upper Black (11010007)+, Current (11010008)+, Spring (11010010)+, Eleven Point (11010011)+
+ 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: An eyeless, pink-white fish that reaches a length of 8-9 centimeters.
Reproduction Comments: Breeding behavior may be similar to that of the northern cavefish (Pflieger 1975). As few as 50% of the adult female population may breed in any one year. Species may be a branchial (i.e., gill chamber) brooder, which is also indicated by the position of the jugular vent and the size and shape of the gill chamber (Poulson 1963). Breeding may take place in the spring, after which the eggs and then young are probably held in the gill chamber for 4 to 5 months to June or July (Poulson 1963, Pflieger 1975, Robison and Buchanan 1992). Females become sexually mature in 2 years; individuals live up to at least 4 years in the wild (Poulson 1963), more than a decade in captivity (Noltie and Wicks 2001). Low reproductive capacity.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Subterranean Habitat(s): Subaquatic
Special Habitat Factors: Subterranean obligate
Habitat Comments: This troglodytic species is known only from cool (10-14 C), clear, waters of cave streams, underground lakes, wells, and outlets of springs, over mixed gravel, sand, and mud substrates (Burr and Warren 1986, Pflieger 1997, Boschung and Mayden 2004). Most occupied locations have a permanently effluent spring that discharges at the surface into a spring pool or that contributes to a cave stream or the filling of a sink hole (Noltie and Wicks 2001). Immersed substrates vary from exposed bedrock to clays; coarser substrates generally are found where the spring upwelling occurs, especially where the effluent flows are large and the spring throat expansive (Noltie and Wicks 2001).

However, the sites where southern cavefish are seen appear not to be representative of the deep, subterranean aquatic habitats (up to at least 240 meters below the land surface) in which most individuals occur. "Instead, they represent atypical habitats into which fish have been flushed/washed/carried or transported" (Noltie and Wicks 2001). Southern cavefish appear not to be long-term inhabitants of the spaces that are humanly accessible (Noltie and Wicks 2001).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet includes larval insects, cladocerans, isopods, crayfish, copepods, amphipods, and isopods (Poulson 1963, Cooper and Beiter 1972, Boschung and Mayden 2004). Cannibalism possibly may be a factor in keeping populations small (Boschung and Mayden 2004).
Length: 7 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Methods are needed to determine cavefish presence and abundance in areas that are currently inaccessible.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Cavefishes

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals.
Separation Barriers: Hydrological discontinuity.
Alternate Separation Procedure: Each separate hydrological system constitutes a distinct occurrence. Use a separation distance of 3 km if habitat continuity is uncertain.
Separation Justification: Separation distance is arbitrary.
Date: 26Jun2001
Author: Hammerson, G.
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: 07Aug2012
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G. and J. Cordeiro
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 28Feb2008
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G., and K. B. Lister

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

References
Help
  • Aley, T., and C. Aley. 1997. Groundwater recharge area delineation, hydrobiological assessment, and vulnerability mapping of four Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) populations in Missouri. A Report to the Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 115 pp. + app.

  • Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 960 pp.

  • Brown, A. V., and L. D. Willis. 1984. Cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) in Arkansas: populations, incidence, habitat requirements and mortality factors. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Final Report, Federal Aid Project E-1-6. iii + 61 pp.

  • Burr, B. M., and M. L. Warren, Jr. 1986a. Distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Scientific and Technical Series No. 4, Frankfort, Kentucky. 398 pp.

  • Cooper, J.E., and D.P. Beiter. 1972. The southern cavefish, Typhlichthyes subterraneus (Pisces: Amblyopsidae), in the eastern Mississippian Plateau of Kentucky. Copeia 1972(4):879-881.

  • Crunkilton, R. L. 1981. Memorandum to J. R. Whitley re: Williams Brothers Pipeline Break-Maramec Spring.

  • Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.

  • Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

  • Figg, D. E. 1991. Missouri Department of Conservation Annual Nongame and Endangered Species Report July 1990 - June 1991. ii + 35 pp.

  • Figg, D. E. 1993. Missouri Department of Conservation wildlife diversity report, July 1992-June 1993. 75 pp.

  • Hopper, H. L., and W. Hansen. 1996. Sloans Valley cave system: managing an 'open system.' Pages 164-170 in Proceedings of the 1995 National Cave Management Symposium, Indiana Karst Conservancy, Indianapolis.

  • Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407.

  • Jones, S. R., and C. A. Taber. 1985. A range revision for western populations of the southern cavefish Typhlichthys subterraneus (Amblyopsidae). American Midland Naturalist 113:413-415.

  • Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.

  • Lewis, J. H. 1996. The devastation and recovery of caves and karst affected by industrialization. Pages 214-227 in Proceedings of the 1995 National Cave Management Symposium, Indiana Karst Conservancy, Indianapolis.

  • Lewis, J. J. 2002. Conservation assessment for southern cavefish (Typhlichthys subterraneus). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region.

  • Lewis, J.J. 2005c. Bioinventory of Caves of the Cumberland Escarpment Area of Tennessee. Final Report to Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency & The Nature Conservancy of Tennessee. Lewis & Associates LLC, 158 pp.

  • Mayden, R. L. and F. B. Cross. 1983. Reevaluation of Oklahoma records of the Southern Cave Fish, Typhlichthys subterraneus Girard (Amblyopsidae). Southwestern Naturalist 28: 471-473.

  • Means, M. L. 1993. Population dynamics and movement of Ozark cavefish in Logan Cave NWR, Benton County, Arkansas with additional baseline water quality information. M.S. thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 126 pp.

  • Means, M. L., and J. E. Johnson. 1995. Movement of threatened Ozark cavefish in Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas. Southwestern Naturalist 40(3):308-309.

  • Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham, Alabama. 820 pp.

  • Mount, R. H., editor. 1986. Vertebrate animals of Alabama in need of special attention. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Alabama. 124 pages.

  • Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

  • Noltie, D. B., and C. M. Wicks. 2001. How hydrogeology has shaped the ecology of Missouri's Ozark cavefish, Amblyopsis rosae, and southern cavefish, Typhlichthys subterraneus: insights on the sightless from understanding the underground. Environmental Biology of Fishes 62:171-194.

  • Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Seventh edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

  • Page, LM, H.Espinoza-Perez, L.Findley, C.Gilbert, R. Lea, N. Mandrak, R.Mayden and J.Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, 7th edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

  • Pflieger, W. L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. Columbia, Missouri. viii + 343 pp.

  • Pflieger, W. L. 1997a. The fishes of Missouri. Revised edition. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. vi + 372 pp.

  • Poulson, T. L. 1991. Assessing groundwater quality in caves using indices of biological integrity. Pages 495-511 in Proceedings of the Third Conference on Hydrology, Ecology, Monitoring and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terrains. National Groundwater Association, Dublin, Ohio.

  • Poulson, T.L. 1963. Cave adaptation in amblyopsid fishes. The American Midland Naturalist 70(2):257-290.

  • Proudlove, G. S. 2001. The conservation status of hypogean fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 62:201-213.

  • Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.

  • Robison, H. W. and T. M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 536 pp.

  • Schubert, A.L.S., and D. B. Noltie. 1993. Microhabitat selection and feeding in the southern cavefish (Typhlichthys subterraneus). M.S. thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia. 157 pp.

  • See SERO listing

  • Simon, Thomas P. 2011. Fishes of Indiana. Indiana University Press. Bloomington, 345 pp.

  • Tercafs, R. 1992. The protection of the subterranean environment. Conservation principles and management tools. Pages 481-524 in A.I. Camacho (editor). The natural history of biospeleology. Monografias del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid.

  • Warren, M. L., Jr., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart, Jr., R. C. Cashner, D. A. Etnier, B. J. Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L. Mayden, H. W. Robison, S. T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-31.

  • Willis, L. D., and A. V. Brown. 1985. Distribution and habitat requirements of the Ozark cavefish, Amblyopsis rosae. American Midland Naturalist 114:311-317.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • State Natural Heritage Data Centers. 1996a. Aggregated element occurrence data from all U.S. state natural heritage programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Navajo Nation and the District of Columbia. Science Division, The Nature Conservancy.

  • State Natural Heritage Data Centers. 1996b. Aggregated element occurrence data from all U.S. state natural heritage programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Navajo Nation and the District of Columbia: Export of freshwater fish and mussel records west of the Mississippi River in 1997. Science Division, The Nature Conservancy.

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.