Urocyon cinereoargenteus - (Schreber, 1775)
Gray Fox
Other English Common Names: Grey Fox, gray fox
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Urocyon cinereoargenteus (Schreber, 1775) (TSN 180609)
French Common Names: renard gris
Spanish Common Names: Zorro Gris, Tigrillo
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104188
Element Code: AMAJA04010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Carnivores
Image 7598

© Larry Master

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Carnivora Canidae Urocyon
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
Concept Reference Code: B93WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Taxonomic Comments: Has been placed in the genus Canis or in the genus Vulpes by some authors (as recently as the 1970s). Urocyon cinereoargenteus and U. littoralis have been regarded as possibly conspecific by some authors; treated as distinct species by Jones et al. (1992) and Wozencraft (in Wilson and Reeder 2005).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 05Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 15Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Sep1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1 (01Jan2018)

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 (S5), Arizona (S5), Arkansas (S5), California (SNR), Colorado (S4), Connecticut (S5), Delaware (S5), District of Columbia (S3), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S3), Kansas (S3), Kentucky (S4), Louisiana (S4S5), Maine (S5), Maryland (S5), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S4), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (S4), Navajo Nation (S5), Nebraska (S4), Nevada (S5), New Hampshire (S4S5), New Jersey (S5), New Mexico (S5), New York (S5), North Carolina (S5), North Dakota (SU), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S4), Oregon (S4), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (S5), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (S5), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S5), Utah (S3S4), Vermont (S5), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S5), Wisconsin (S4S5), Wyoming (S2)
Canada Ontario (S1)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: T (12Jan2005)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Threatened (26Nov2015)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This southern fox is apparently expanding northward, but very few mature, breeding individuals are known to live in Canada. These animals are restricted to two sub-populations; one in the Rainy River ? Thunder Bay region, which has a strong rescue effect, but rescue effect for the other, Pelee Island, is uncertain. Sub-population threats include incidental trapping and roadkill. Animals have been recorded in Manitoba and Quebec, but breeding is not evident at this time. Recent records in New Brunswick likely represent dispersing non-breeding animals.

Status history: Designated Special Concern in April 1979. Status re-examined and designated Threatened in May 2002 and November 2015.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado in the west and the U.S.-Canadian border in the east, south through Mexico and Central America to northern Colombia and Venezuela (Wozencraft, in Wilson and Reeder 1993). See Steers (1979 COSEWIC report) for information on distribution in Canada.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado in the west and the U.S.-Canadian border in the east, south through Mexico and Central America to northern Colombia and Venezuela (Wozencraft, in Wilson and Reeder 1993). See Steers (1979 COSEWIC report) for information on distribution in Canada.

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, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NN, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY
Canada ON

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; NatureServe, 2005; Sechrest, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IA Chickasaw (19037), Sac (19161)
ND Grand Forks (38035)*
WY Carbon (56007), Converse (56009), Crook (56011), Fremont (56013), Natrona (56025), Niobrara (56027), Platte (56031), Weston (56045)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
07 Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+
09 Turtle (09020307)+*
10 Upper Wind (10080001)+, South Fork Powder (10090203)+, Salt (10090204)+, Antelope (10120101)+, Dry Fork Cheyenne (10120102)+, Upper Cheyenne (10120103)+, Lance (10120104)+, Beaver (10120107)+, Upper Belle Fourche (10120201)+, Redwater (10120203)+, Niobrara Headwaters (10150002)+, Pathfinder-Seminoe Reservoirs (10180003)+, Little Medicine Bow (10180005)+, Sweetwater (10180006)+, Middle North Platte-Casper (10180007)+, Glendo Reservoir (10180008)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Breeds mainly in winter. Gestation lasts 51-63 days (average 53). Parturition occurs in April or May in the south-central U.S. Litter size averages 3-5. Parturition occurs March-April. Weaned in 8-10 weeks. Sexually mature within 1 year.
Ecology Comments: Home range up to a few square miles in winter, less in summer (Richards and Hine 1953). Home ranges may or may not overlap. Probably reaches peak densities every 10 years. Probably averages around one family for every 4 square miles.
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Desert, Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Grassland/herbaceous, Shrubland/chaparral, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil, Fallen log/debris, Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: Often in woodland and shrubland in rough, broken country. Usually avoids open areas. May climb tree to avoid danger. Dens in cleft, small cave, hollow in tree or log, or debris pile; less frequently in burrow abandoned by other mammal.
Adult Food Habits: Carnivore, Frugivore, Herbivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Carnivore, Frugivore, Herbivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Opportunistic omnivore. Often chiefly depends on rabbits and other small mammals in winter, insects and fruit in summer. Overall diet may be dominated by plant material in some areas.
Adult Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Primarily crepuscular and nocturnal, but often active in daytime.
Length: 113 centimeters
Weight: 5900 grams
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: Trapped for pelt.
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Not applicable
Subtype(s): Breeding Den Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: 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 in appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers: Major water bodies (arbitrarily set at 300 meters wide at low water) that do not freeze.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 15 km
Separation Justification: Dispersal is apparently highly variable among locations and between sexes; juveniles have been found as far as 84 km from their natal area (Sheldon 1953); males may disperse farther than do females, or dispersal may by minimal in both sexes (reviewed by Fritzell and Haroldson 1982). Home range highly variable: Wisconsin, 13 to 310 hectares; Florida, mean of 770 hectares; Utah, mean of 100 hectares (reviewed by Trapp and Hallberg 1975); annual home range up to 2,755 ha in Alabama (Fritzell, in Wilson and Ruff 1999).

Separation distance is arbitrary but attempts to balance significant dispersal capability against the need for occurrences that are not unreasonably large for conservation purposes. Occurrence delineation requires attention to seasonal changes in location and habitat use (if any); different parts of the annual home range are of course included in the same occurrence regardless of how far apart they are.

Habitat use is very broad, although usually avoids wide open areas, which can be regarded as unsuitable habitat.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1.1 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a small 'average' home range size of 100 hectares (see Separation Justification).
Date: 22Sep2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 20Apr1994
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

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

References
Help
  • Alberico, M., A. Cadena, J. Hernández-Camacho, and Y. Muñoz-Saba. 2000. Mamíferos (Synapsida: Theria) de Colombia. Biota Colombiana. 1(1):43-75.

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Armstrong, D. M. 1975. Rocky Mountain mammals. Rocky Mountain Nature Asscoc., Inc. 174 pp.

  • Armstrong, D.M. 1972. Distribution of Mammals in Colorado. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. University of Kansas Printing Service, Lawrence. 415 pp.

  • BEE, J.W., G.E. GLASS, R.S. HOFFMANN, AND R.R. PATTERSON. 1981. MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV.KANS.MUS.NAT.HIST., PUB.ED. SERIES NO.7.

  • Baker, R. H. 1983. Michigan mammals. Michigan State University Press. 642 pp.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 438 pp.

  • Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook. R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D.J. Schmidly, F.B. Stangl Jr., R.A. Van den Bussche and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 327:1-28. Available at: http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP327.pdf

  • CRAIN, J.L. AND J.W. CLIBURN. 1965. A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE MAMMALS OF SOUTHEASTERN MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 2:271-280.

  • Caire, W., J. D. Tyler, B. P. Glass, and M. A. Mares. 1989. Mammals of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Oklahoma. 567 pp.

  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 1999. Canadian Species at Risk: April 1999. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 17 pp.

  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2015. COSEWIC Assessment Results, November 2015. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

  • Connor, P.F. 1971. The mammals of Long Island, New York. NYS Museum and Science Service Bull. 416. 78 pp.

  • Coombs, E. M. [no date-1977?]. Wildlife observations of the hot desert region, Washington County, Utah, with emphasis on reptilian species and their habitat in relation to livestock grazing. A report to the Cedar City District, BLM by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

  • Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the mammals in Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, 355 Leslie Road, Don Mills, Ontario, M3B 2W8. 120 pp.

  • Eisenberg, J. F. and K. H. Redford. 1989. Mammals of the Neotropics, The Northern Neotropics, Volume 1, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

  • FRITZELL, E.K., AND K.J. HAROLDSON. 1982. MAMMALIAN SPECIES NO. 189, UROCYON CINEREOARGENTEUS. THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MAMMALOGISTS, 8 P.

  • Fitzgerald, J. P. et al. 1992. Mammals of Colorado. Review manuscript.

  • Fritzell, E.K. and K.J. Haroldson. 1982. Urocyon cineroargenteus. Am. Soc. Mamm., Mammalian Species No. 189. 8 pp.

  • GEHLBACH, FREDERICK R. 1991. THE EAST-WEST TRANSITION ZONE OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES IN CENTRAL TEXAS: A BIOGEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS. TEXAS J. SCI. 43(4):415-427.

  • GOETZE, J.R., R.W. MANNING, F.D. YANCEY, AND C. JONES. 1996. THE MAMMALS OF KIMBLE COUNTY, TEXAS. OCCAS. PAPERS MUS., TEXAS TECH UNIV. 160:1-31.

  • Gier, H. T. 1975. Ecology and behavior of the coyote (Canis latrans). Pages 247-262 in M. W. Fox, ed. The Wild Canids; their systematics, behavioral ecology and evolution. Van Nostrand and Reinhold Co., New York. xvi + 508 pp.

  • Godin, A. J. 1977. Wild mammals of New England. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 304 pp.

  • Gordon, D.C. 1986. Mammals of Jefferson and Lewis counties, New York. Humphrey Press, Canandaigua, N.Y. 135 pp.

  • HALL, E.R. 1981. THE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA, SECOND EDITION, 2 VOLUMES. JOHN WILEY & SONS, NEW YORK. (1:600 P., 2:581 P.).

  • HALL,E. 1955. HANDBOOK OF MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV KS MUS NAT HIST AND KBS.

  • HALL,E. AND K.KELSON. 1959. THE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA, VOL 1 & 2.

  • HAMILTON, W.J. JR., AND J.O. WHITAKER, JR. 1979. MAMMALS OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES, SECOND EDITION. CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS, ITHACA, NEW YORK. 346 P.

  • Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.

  • Hall, E. Raymond and Keith R. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Company, New York. 1083 pp.

  • Hamilton, W. J., Jr., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 346 pp.

  • Hamilton, W.J., Jr. and J.O. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York. 346 pp.

  • Jackson, Hartley T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI 53701. 504pp.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr. and C. Jones. 1992. Revised checklist of recent land mammals of Texas, with annotations. The Texas Journal of Science 44(1):53-74.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., C. Jones, and D. J. Schmidly. 1988. Annotated checklist of recent land mammals of Texas. Occasional Papers The Museum Texas Tech University 119:1-26.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.

  • Jones, J. K., S. Demarais, and C. T. McAllister. 1995. Contribution to a bibliography of recent Texas mammals 1981-1990. Special Publications, The Museum Texas Tech University 38:1-64.

  • Jones, R.E. and R.J. Aulerich. 1981. Bibliography of foxes. Michigan State Univ., Agric. Exp. Sta. Jour. Art. No. 9871, 141 pp.

  • KENNEDY, M.L. 1968. A SURVEY OF THE MAMMALS OF DE SOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. M.S. THESIS, MEMPHIS STATE UNIVERSITY.

  • KENNEDY, M.L., ET. AL. 1974. A REVIEW OF MISSISSIPPI MAMMALS. STUDIES IN NATURAL SCIENCES. 2(1):1-36.

  • LEHMAN, N., A. EISENHAWER, K. HANSEN, L.D. MECH, R.O. PETERSON, P.J.P. GOGAN, AND R.K. WAYNE. 1991. INTROGRESSION OF COYOTE MITOCHONDRIAL DNA INTO SYMPATRIC NORTH AMERICAN GRAY WOLF POPULATIONS. EVOLUTION 45(1):104-119.

  • LOWERY, G.H., JR. 1974. THE MAMMALS OF LOUISIANA AND ITS ADJACENT WATERS. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 565 P.

  • Layne, J.N. and W.H. McKeon. 1956. Some aspects of red fox and gray fox reproduction in New York. New York Fish and Game J. 3(1):44-74.

  • Linzey, D.W. 2016. Mammals of Great Smoky Mountains National Park: 2016 revision. Southeastern Naturalist 15(Monograph 8):1?93.

  • Linzey, D.W. and Linzey, A.V. 1968. Mammals of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of the Elisha Mit- chell Science Society 84(3):384-414

  • Lowery, George H. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Kingsport Press, Inc. Kingsport, Tennessee. 565 pp.

  • MISSISSIPPI MUSEUM OF NATURAL SCIENCE. 1989. COUNTY INFORMATION FOR MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI.

  • MITCHELL, W.A. AND C.O. MARTIN. 1985. SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI TRIVUTARIES STUDY AREA ENVIROMENTAL INVENTORY - WILDLIFE RESOURES. MISCELLANEOUS PAPER EL-85-3, U.S. ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION, VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI. 90P.

  • Merritt, J.F. 1987. Guide to the Mammals of Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 408 pp. B87MER01PAUS.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Checklist of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of New York State, including their protective status. Nongame Unit, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, NY.

  • Novak, M., J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch. 1987. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Association under the authority of the Licensing Agreement with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario, Canada. 1150 pp.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. AN ANALYSIS OF THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF MAMMALIAN DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS IN TEXAS. ECOLOGY 71(5):1823-1832.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. PATTERNS OF MAMMALIAN SPECIES RICHNESS IN RELATION TO TEMPERATURE, PRODUCTIVITY, AND VARIANCE IN ELEVATION. J. MAMM. 71(1):1-13.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Parks, E. 1968. Control of rabies in wildlife in New York. New York Fish and Game J. 15(1):98-111.

  • Reid, F. A. 1997. A field guide to the mammals of Central America and southeast Mexico. Oxford University Press, Incorporated New York, New York. 334 pp.

  • Richards, S. W. and R. L. Hine. 1953. Wisconsin fox populations. Wisconsin Dept. Conserv. Tech. Bull. 6. 78 pp.

  • SAMUEL, D. E. AND B. B. NELSON. 1982. FOXES. PP. 475-489 IN WILD MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA. OP CIT.

  • SCHWARTZ,C. AND E.SCHWARTZ. 1981. THE WILD MAMMALS OF MISSOURI, REV. ED.

  • Schwartz, C. W., and E. R. Schwartz. 1981. The wild mammals of Missouri. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. 356 pp.

  • Sealander, J.A. and G.A. Heidt. 1990. Arkansas Mammals: Their Natural History, Classification and Distribution. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 308 pp.

  • See SERO listing

  • Sheldon, J. W. 1991. Wild dogs: the natural history of the nondomestic Canidae. Academic Press. 248 pp.

  • Stangl, F.B., Jr., W.W. Dalquest, and S. Kuhn. 1993. Mammals from the Beach Mountains of Culberson County, Trans-Pecos Texas. Texas Journal of Science 45(1):87-96.

  • Steers, S. 1979. Status report on the Grey Fox UROCYON CINEREOARGENTEUS in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).

  • Trapp, G. R., and D. L. Hallberg. 1975. Ecology of the gray fox (UROCYON CINEREOARGENTEUS): a review. Pages 164-178 in M. W. Fox (editor). The wild canids. Van Nostrand, Reinhold Co., New York. 508pp.

  • Tullar, B.F. and L.T. Berchielli. 1982. Comparisons of red foxes and gray foxes in central New York with respect to certain features of behavior, movement, and mortality. New York Fish and Game J. 29(2):127-133.

  • WARD, R.P. 1965. THE MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 11:309-330.

  • WOOD, J. E., D. E. DAVIS, E. V. KOMAREK. 1958. THE DISTRIBUTION OF FOX POPULATIONS IN RELATION TO VEGETATION IN SOUTHERN GEORGIA. ECOLOGY 39:160-162.

  • Weston, J. L., and I. L. Brisbin, Jr. 2003. Demographics of a protected population of gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) in South Carolina. Journal of Mammalogy 84:996-1005.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. [Available online at: http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/ ]

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. Available online at: http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/index.cfm

  • Wilson, D. E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 750 pp.

  • Wolfe, J.L. 1971. Mississippi land mammals. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi 44 pp.

  • Yancey II, Franklin D. 1997. The mammals of Big Bend Ranch State Park, Texas. Special Publication 39. 1 October 1997. Texas Tech University. Lubbock. 210 pp.

  • ZUMBAUGH, D.M., AND J.R. CHOATE. 1985. HISTORICAL BIOGEO- GRAPHY OF FOXES IN KANSAS. TRANS.KANS.ACAD.SCI.88:1-13.

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.