Uniomerus tetralasmus - (Say, 1831)
Pondhorn
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Uniomerus excultus (Conrad, 1838) (TSN 80236) ;Uniomerus tetralasmus (Say, 1831) (TSN 80233)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.828541
Element Code: IMBIV46050
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Uniomerus
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: 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.
Concept Reference Code: B08WIL01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Uniomerus tetralasmus
Taxonomic Comments: There is much taxonomic confusion associated with southern and eastern forms of this genus. Dozens of forms of this character-poor genus have been described. Uniomerus declivis was included in the synonomies of both Uniomerus obesus (Lea, 1831) by Clench and Turner (1956), and of Uniomerus tetralasmus (Say, 1831) by Johnson (1972) and Simpson (1914). Clench and Turner (1956) erroneously stated it as Unio declivis Conrad, 1836, not Unio declivis Say, 1831. It is recognized as a distinct species by Morrison (1976), Heard (1979), and Turgeon et al. (1998). Johnson (1999) questions whether Uniomerus declivis is merely a phenotypic variant of Uniomerus tetralasmus.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 21May2009
Global Status Last Changed: 01Apr2005
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species is very widespread and stable throughout most of its range and has a wide tolerance of various habitat conditions.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (09May2005)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S4), Arkansas (S2), Colorado (S1), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S3), Indiana (S3), Iowa (SNR), Kansas (S3S4), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S4), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (S4), Nebraska (SNR), New York (SNA), Ohio (S2), Oklahoma (S4), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (S1), Tennessee (S4), Texas (S3), West Virginia (S1)

Other Statuses

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 is found throughout much of the central and lower Mississippian Region; Great Lakes; Southern Atlantic Slope; Peninsular Florida; Gulf Coastal Region, to the lower Rio Grande System into Mexico (Johnson, 1999). The western range extends through Iowa and Missouri to Colorado and western Oklahoma (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Cordeiro, 1999).

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

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Alabama, it is fairly common across the Gulf Coast W of the Apalachicola basin, and much of the Mobile basin (Mirarchi, 2004; Williams et al., 2008). Known from 5 historical (1 resurveyed- extant) and 21 new sites in Choctawhatchee River drainage of Alabama and Florida (Blalock-Herod et al., 2005). In a 2004 survey of 24 sites in the Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and Conecuh-Escambia River drainages in southern Alabama, Pilarczyk et al. (2006) found it (confusion as to whether it should be U. carolinianus or U. tetralasmus (as cited historically)) at 4 sites (all Choctawhatchee drainage). In Mississippi, it occurs in the Mississippi River N and S, Big Black, Yazoo, Pearl, Pascagoula, and Tombigbee drainages (Jones et al., 2005). It was not recorded in 2001 surveys of the Strong River in Mississippi despite historic documentation (Darden et al., 2002). Johnson and Ahlstedt (2005) located specimens in 2005 in the Luxapallila drainage on the Mississippi/Alabama border. In the Coosa River basin in Georgia, it is known from the Etowah River drainage (Williams and Hughes, 1998). In Louisiana, it is in much of the state (Vidrine, 1993; Brown and Banks, 2001). It occurs in the Cache (Christian et al., 2005), White (Gordon, 1982), St. Francis, Mississippi (including Lake Chicot), and Red Rivers (Anderson, 2006), Arkansas. In South Dakota, it has been collected from Ponca Creek in Gregory Co. (Backlund, 2000). In Illinois, it is occasional statewide in very small streams and sporadic in medium/large rivers (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991). It is in Wabash tributaries in Indiana (Fisher, 2006). It is localized in Ohio in prairie areas like Hellbranch Run, Big Darby Creek, Olentangy River (all Upper Scioto drainage), Salt Creek (Lower Scioto drainage) in Jackson Co., Lake Erie embayments and tributaries (Watters, 1992; 1995; Watters et al., 2009). Oklahoma distribution: Arkansas, Neosho, Verdigris, Chikaskia, Washita, Blue, Mountain Fork Rivers; Bird and Hominy Creek in Osage Co. (Branson, 1983); and historically the West Cache River (Vaughn, 2000). In Texas, it occurs from the Trinity drainage into systems N and E and from Petronila Creek, Nueces Co., and West Squirrel Creek, Medina Co. (Howells et al., 1996); while Strecker (1931) reported it from the Brazos and lower Guadalupe River drainages. In the Rio Grande system from Texas to New Mexico and south into Mexico, it is known from the Rio Grande drainage in Cameron Co., Texas, and Rio Salado drainage in Nuevo Leon, Mexico (Johnson, 1999). During surveys of the Village Creek drainage of Hardin, Tyler, and Polk Cos. in southeast Texas in 2001-2002, it was found in 2 sites (of 22 surveyed) (2 spms.) (Bordelon and Harrel, 2004). In West Virginia, it occurs in the Upper Ohio/Kanawha (Zeto et al., 1987); possibly other areas of the Ohio (Taylor and Horn, 1983). In Tennessee, it is in the Hatchie and Forked Deer Rivers of west Tennessee, and those in the Reelfoot Lake area (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Kentucky, it is occasional to sporadic from the Mississippi River to the lower Green River (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). This species is all but extirpated from Colorado where the only recent records are two dead shells from the Arkansas River basin in the southeastern portion of the state (Cordeiro, 1999; Clarke et al., 2003; Wu, 1989). In Kansas, it occurs nearly statewide (Couch, 1997; Tiemann, 2006) into Spring River in Missouri (Branson, 1966). In the Little Blue River basin it is known in the Kansas and Nebraska portions (Hoke, 2004). It is known from the White River, Arkansas (Gordon et al., 1994). In the Big Blue River system of southeastern Nebraska and northeastern Kansas this species was relatively widespread but live populations were restricted to creeks, ponds, and headwater reaches of larger rivers (Hoke, 2005). It is in the south channel of the Platte River, Nebraska (Freeman and Perkins, 1992).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)

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

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: This species typically inhabits the quiet or slow-moving, shallow waters of sloughs, borrow pits, ponds, ditches, and meandering streams. It is tolerant of poor water conditions and can be found well buried in a substrate of fine silt and/or mud. It has been known to survive for extended periods of time when a pond or slough has temporarily dried up by burying itself deep into the substrate (Cordeiro, 1999; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species typically inhabits the quiet or slow-moving, shallow waters of sloughs, borrow pits, ponds, ditches, and meandering streams. It is tolerant of poor water conditions and can be found well buried in a substrate of fine silt and/or mud. It has been known to survive for extended periods of time when a pond or slough has temporarily dried up by burying itself deep into the substrate (Cordeiro, 1999; 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 is found throughout much of the central and lower Mississippian Region; Great Lakes; Southern Atlantic Slope; Peninsular Florida; Gulf Coastal Region, to the lower Rio Grande System into Mexico (Johnson, 1999). The western range extends through Iowa and Missouri to Colorado and western Oklahoma (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Cordeiro, 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, CO, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, NE, NYexotic, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, WV

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Barbour (01005), Bullock (01011), Coffee (01031), Conecuh (01035), Dallas (01047), Geneva (01061)*, Lowndes (01085)*, Pike (01109), Wilcox (01131)
AR Ashley (05003), Craighead (05031), Crittenden (05035), Grant (05053), Greene (05055), Hempstead (05057)*, Jefferson (05069), Lincoln (05079), Miller (05091), Mississippi (05093), Montgomery (05097), Poinsett (05111), Polk (05113), Pulaski (05119), Saline (05125), Searcy (05129), Van Buren (05141)
CO Kiowa (08061)
MS Chickasaw (28017)*, Grenada (28043), Hinds (28049), Itawamba (28057), Jefferson (28063), Leflore (28083), Madison (28089), Pearl River (28109), Tallahatchie (28135), Warren (28149)*, Yazoo (28163)
OH Crawford (39033)*, Delaware (39041), Franklin (39049), Hardin (39065), Huron (39077)*, Jackson (39079), Licking (39089)*, Marion (39101), Mercer (39107), Montgomery (39113)*, Ottawa (39123)*, Paulding (39125)
WV Wetzel (54103), Wood (54107)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Pea (03140202)+, Lower Conecuh (03140304)+, Middle Alabama (03150203)+, Upper Tombigbee (03160101)+, Tibbee (03160104)+*, Lower Pearl. Mississippi (03180004)+
04 St. Marys (04100004)+, Upper Maumee (04100005)+, Cedar-Portage (04100010)+*, Huron-Vermilion (04100012)+*
05 Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)+, Licking (05040006)+*, Upper Scioto (05060001)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Upper Great Miami (05080001)+*
08 Lower St. Francis (08020203)+, Little River Ditches (08020204)+, Cache (08020302)+, Bayou Meto (08020402)+, Yalobusha (08030205)+, Upper Yazoo (08030206)+, Ouachita Headwaters (08040101)+, Upper Saline (08040203)+, Bayou Bartholomew (08040205)+, Boeuf (08050001)+, Lower Big Black (08060202)+, Coles Creek (08060204)+
11 Buffalo (11010005)+, Little Red (11010014)+, Upper Arkansas-John Martin (11020009)+, Lower Arkansas-Maumelle (11110207)+, Mckinney-Posten Bayous (11140201)+, Bodcau Bayou (11140205)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: a freshwater mussel
Reproduction Comments: This species is likely bradytictic (Oesch, 1984) and the glochidial host is the golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) (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
Palustrine Habitat(s): TEMPORARY POOL
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species typically inhabits the quiet or slow-moving, shallow waters of sloughs, borrow pits, ponds, ditches, and meandering streams. It is tolerant of poor water conditions and can be found well buried in a substrate of fine silt and/or mud. It has been known to survive for extended periods of time when a pond or slough has temporarily dried up by burying itself deep into the substrate (Cordeiro, 1999; 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
  • Anderson, J.E. (ed.) 2006. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2028 pp.

  • Anderson, T. (2005, February 15). Uniomerus tetralasmus (pondhorn): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pondhorn.pdf [date of access].

  • Blalock-Herod, H.N., J.J. Herod, J.D. Williams, B.N. Wilson, and S.W. McGregor. 2005. A historical and current perspective of the freshwater mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from the Choctawhatchee River drainage in Alabama and Florida. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History, 24: 1-26.

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

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

  • 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., P. Hovingh, and J.J. Clarke. 2003. A survey of the freshwater mollusks and crayfishes of eastern Colorado, at altitudes of less than 6000 feet, carried out during 2001 and 2002. Final Report to Colorado Division of Wildlife, State of Colorado, contract PSC-701-2001, 25 June 2003. 61 pp. + tabs. + app.

  • Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from the Escambia to the Suwanee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences, 1(3): 97-239.

  • Codeiro, J.R. 1999. Distribution and habitat of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoida: Unionidae) in Colorado. Natural history inventory of Colorado No. 19. University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, CO.

  • Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2006. Colorado's Wildlife Action Plan: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/ColoradoWildlifeActionPlan/

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Freeman, P.W. and K. Perkins. 1992. Survey of mollusks of the Platte River: Final Report. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Island, Nebraska, March 1992. 28 pp. + app.

  • Gangloff, M.M. and P.W. Hartfield. 2009. Seven populations of the southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi) discovered in the choctawhatachee River basin, Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist 8(2):245-254.

  • 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

  • Heard, W.H. 1979. Identification manual of the fresh water clams of Florida. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series, 4(2): 1-82.

  • 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.

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

  • Johnson, R.I. 1970a. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University 140(6): 263-449.

  • Johnson, R.I. 1972a. The Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of peninsular Florida. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum of Biological Science 16(4): 181-249.

  • 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.

  • Lewis, J. 1860. Catalogue of the mollusks in the vicinity of Mohawk, New York. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 12: 17-19.

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

  • Morrison, J.P.E. 1976. Species of the genus Uniomerus. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union, 1976: 10-11.

  • NatureServe Explorer:an online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2001. Version 1.6. Arlington, Virginia, USA:NatureServe. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed Jan. 8, 2002.)

  • Nelson Harrold, M. N., and R. P. Guralnick. 2007. A field guide to the freshwater mollusks of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 126 pp.

  • Parmalee, P.W. 2005. A prehistoric record of the pond mussel (Uniomerus tetralasmus) from the Tennessee River, Hardin County, Tennessee. Ellipsaria 7(1): 7-8.

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

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

  • 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.

  • Simpson, C.T. 1914. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Naiades or Pearly Fresh-water Mussels. Bryant Walker: Detroit, Michigan. 1540 pp.

  • 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, 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.

  • Strecker, J.K. 1931. The naiades or pearly fresh-water mussels of Texas. Baylor University Museum Special Bulletin, 2: 1-71.

  • 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.

  • VIDRINE, M.F. 1993. THE HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN LOUISIANA. COPYRIGHT 1993 BY GAIL Q. VIDRINE COLLECTABLES. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG NO. 93-078568.

  • 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.

  • Watters, G.T. 1992b. Distribution of the Unionidae in south central Ohio. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):56-90.

  • 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.

  • 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., 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.

  • Wu, S.-K. 1989. Colorado freshwater mollusks. Natural History Inventory of Colorado 11: 1-117.

  • Wu, Shi-Kuei. 1989. Colorado freshwater mollusks. Natural History Inventory of Colorado 11:9-10.

  • Zeto, M.A., W.A. Tolin, and J.E. Schmidt. 1987. The freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the upper Ohio River, Greenup and Belleville Pools, West Virginia. The Nautilus, 101: 182-185.

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. 1983. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part II: the Unioninae, Pleurobemini, and Anodontini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 63: 49-59

  • 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.

  • Cordeiro, J. 1999. Distribution and habitat of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoida: Unionidae) in Colorado. Natural History Inventory of Colorado, 19: 1-56.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Taylor, R.W. and K.J. Horn. 1983. A list of freshwater mussels suggested for designation as rare, endangereed or threatened in West Virginia. Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Science (Biology Section) 54:31-34.

  • 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.

  • 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., 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.