Catharus fuscescens - (Stephens, 1817)
Veery
Other English Common Names: veery
Other Common Names: Sabiá-Ferrugem
Synonym(s): Hylocichla fuscescens
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Catharus fuscescens (Stephens, 1817) (TSN 179796)
French Common Names: grive fauve
Spanish Common Names: Zorzal Rojizo, Parulata Cachetona
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103031
Element Code: ABPBJ18080
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Turdidae Catharus
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Catharus fuscescens
Taxonomic Comments: Formerly placed in genus hylocichla (AOU 1983).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 07Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 03Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large nesting range in North America; small winter range in Brazil; overall, population evidently is large but undergoing a steady decline, possibly due to habitat loss in wintering and breeding areas. Ranks needs further review; NatureServe rank calculator version 6.2 yielded a rank of G4.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N5M (29Jan2018)

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 (SNRM), Arizona (S1), Arkansas (S2N), Colorado (S3B), Connecticut (S5B), Delaware (S2B), District of Columbia (S2B,S3N), Florida (SNA), Georgia (S4), Idaho (S3B), Illinois (S3), Indiana (S3B), Iowa (S3N), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (S3S4B), Louisiana (SNA), Maine (S5B), Maryland (S4B), Massachusetts (S5B), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (S3B), Navajo Nation (SNR), Nebraska (SNRN), New Hampshire (S5B), New Jersey (S3B), New Mexico (S1B,S4N), New York (S5B), North Carolina (S4B), North Dakota (SNRB), Ohio (S4), Oregon (S4?B), Pennsylvania (S5B), Rhode Island (S5B), South Carolina (SNA), South Dakota (S2B), Tennessee (S4B), Texas (S4N), Utah (SHB), Vermont (S5B), Virginia (S4), Washington (S3S4B), West Virginia (S3B), Wisconsin (S4B), Wyoming (S5B)
Canada Alberta (S4B), British Columbia (S5B), Manitoba (S4S5B), New Brunswick (S4B,S4M), Newfoundland Island (S2B,SUM), Nova Scotia (S3S4B), Ontario (S4B), Prince Edward Island (S3B), Quebec (S4?), Saskatchewan (S5B)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

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: Nesting range extends from southern British Columbia across southern Canada to Nova Scotia and southwestern Newfoundland, south to central Oregon, Colorado, South Dakota, southern Great Lakes region, and New Jersey, and in the Appalachians to northern Georgia; also east-central Arizona and probably northern New Mexico (Moskoff 1995, AOU 1998).

Winter range may be restricted to three small areas in south-central and southeastern Brazil, at the periphery of or south of the Amazon basin (Remsen 2001). Formerly the species was thought to winter in South America from Guyana, northern Venezuela, and eastern Colombia to Amazonian Brazil and northern Bolivia (Cochabamba and Santa Cruz) (a few records from Peru and Chile) (Hilty and Brown 1986, Ridgely and Tudor 1989, Moskoff 1995).

Range extent score reflects nonbreeding range.

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

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by a very large number of occurrences (subpopulations).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but presumably exceeds 1,000,000. Rich et al. (2004) estimated population size at 14,000,000.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very many (>125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Many occurrences appear to have at least good viability.

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Declines presumably are due to loss of habitat, both on the breeding and wintering ranges. The fact that the winter range is likely restricted to three small areas in Brazil where habitat loss is occurring is of great concern (Remsen 2001). In the nesting range, forest fragmentation may lead to increased parasitism by brown-headed cowbird (Bevier et al. 2005), but the population impact of this needs further study. Increased browsing of forest understory vegetation by growing populations of white-tailed deer may be a threat to nesting habitat, but this needs confirmation (Bevier et al. 2005).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a significant annual population decline of 1.9 percent for the period 1980-2007. This rate of decline translates to an estimated loss of 17 percent of the population over a 10-year period.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: Long-term trend (last 200 years) is uncertain. North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a significant annual population decline of 1.5 percent for the period 1966-2007 (decline from average of 5-6 birds per route to 3-4 birds per route). This rate of decline translates to an estimated loss of 46 percent of the population.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Nesting range extends from southern British Columbia across southern Canada to Nova Scotia and southwestern Newfoundland, south to central Oregon, Colorado, South Dakota, southern Great Lakes region, and New Jersey, and in the Appalachians to northern Georgia; also east-central Arizona and probably northern New Mexico (Moskoff 1995, AOU 1998).

Winter range may be restricted to three small areas in south-central and southeastern Brazil, at the periphery of or south of the Amazon basin (Remsen 2001). Formerly the species was thought to winter in South America from Guyana, northern Venezuela, and eastern Colombia to Amazonian Brazil and northern Bolivia (Cochabamba and Santa Cruz) (a few records from Peru and Chile) (Hilty and Brown 1986, Ridgely and Tudor 1989, Moskoff 1995).

Range extent score reflects nonbreeding range.

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
NOTE: The maps for birds represent the breeding status by state and province. In some jurisdictions, the subnational statuses for common species have not been assessed and the status is shown as not-assessed (SNR). In some jurisdictions, the subnational status refers to the status as a non-breeder; these errors will be corrected in future versions of these maps. A species is not shown in a jurisdiction if it is not known to breed in the jurisdiction or if it occurs only accidentally or casually in the jurisdiction. Thus, the species may occur in a jurisdiction as a seasonal non-breeding resident or as a migratory transient but this will not be indicated on these maps. See other maps on this web site that depict the Western Hemisphere ranges of these species at all seasons of the year.
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, AZ, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NN, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, MB, NB, NF, NS, ON, PE, QC, SK

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; WILDSPACETM 2002; WWF-US, 2000


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Apache (04001)
DE New Castle (10003)
IA Clinton (19045)
ID Ada (16001), Adams (16003), Bannock (16005), Benewah (16009), Blaine (16013), Boise (16015), Bonner (16017), Bonneville (16019), Boundary (16021), Cassia (16031), Clark (16033), Clearwater (16035), Custer (16037), Elmore (16039), Fremont (16043), Idaho (16049), Jefferson (16051), Kootenai (16055), Latah (16057), Lemhi (16059), Madison (16065), Nez Perce (16069), Shoshone (16079), Twin Falls (16083), Valley (16085)
MT Beaverhead (30001), Big Horn (30003), Blaine (30005), Broadwater (30007), Carbon (30009), Cascade (30013), Chouteau (30015), Custer (30017), Deer Lodge (30023), Fergus (30027), Flathead (30029), Gallatin (30031), Glacier (30035), Granite (30039), Jefferson (30043), Lake (30047), Lewis and Clark (30049), Liberty (30051), Lincoln (30053), Madison (30057), McCone (30055), Meagher (30059), Mineral (30061), Missoula (30063), Musselshell (30065), Park (30067), Petroleum (30069), Phillips (30071), Pondera (30073), Powder River (30075), Powell (30077), Ravalli (30081), Richland (30083), Roosevelt (30085), Rosebud (30087), Sanders (30089), Silver Bow (30093), Stillwater (30095), Sweet Grass (30097), Teton (30099), Wheatland (30107), Yellowstone (30111)
NJ Atlantic (34001), Bergen (34003), Burlington (34005), Cape May (34009), Cumberland (34011), Essex (34013), Hunterdon (34019), Mercer (34021), Middlesex (34023), Monmouth (34025), Morris (34027), Ocean (34029), Passaic (34031), Somerset (34035), Sussex (34037), Warren (34041)
SD Lawrence (46081), Lincoln (46083)*, Marshall (46091), Roberts (46109)
UT Box Elder (49003)*, Cache (49005)*, Davis (49011)*, Morgan (49029)*, Salt Lake (49035)*, Sevier (49041)*, Summit (49043)*, Uintah (49047)*, Utah (49049)*, Wasatch (49051)*, Weber (49057)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Rondout (02020007)+, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Sandy Hook-Staten Island (02030104)+, Raritan (02030105)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+, Crosswicks-Neshaminy (02040201)+, Lower Delaware (02040202)+, Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+
07 Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Lower Wapsipinicon (07080103)+
09 St. Marys (09040001)+
10 Red Rock (10020001)+, Ruby (10020003)+, Big Hole (10020004)+, Jefferson (10020005)+, Boulder (10020006)+, Madison (10020007)+, Gallatin (10020008)+, Upper Missouri (10030101)+, Upper Missouri-Dearborn (10030102)+, Smith (10030103)+, Sun (10030104)+, Belt (10030105)+, Two Medicine (10030201)+, Marias (10030203)+, Teton (10030205)+, Bullwhacker-Dog (10040101)+, Arrow (10040102)+, Judith (10040103)+, Fort Peck Reservoir (10040104)+, Upper Musselshell (10040201)+, Middle Musselshell (10040202)+, Flatwillow (10040203)+, Box Elder (10040204)+, Middle Milk (10050004)+, Sage (10050006)+, Beaver (10050014)+, Prarie Elk-Wolf (10060001)+, Charlie-Little Muddy (10060005)+, Upper Yellowstone (10070002)+, Shields (10070003)+, Upper Yellowstone-Lake Basin (10070004)+, Stillwater (10070005)+, Clarks Fork Yellowstone (10070006)+, Shoshone (10080014)+, Little Bighorn (10080016)+, Upper Tongue (10090101)+, Lower Tongue (10090102)+, Lower Yellowstone-Sunday (10100001)+, Rosebud (10100003)+, Lower Yellowstone (10100004)+, Redwater (10120203)+, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+*
14 Lower White (14050007)+*, Lower Green-Diamond (14060001)+*, Ashley-Brush (14060002)+*
15 Little Colorado headwaters (15020001)+
16 Little Bear-Logan (16010203)+*, Lower Bear-Malad (16010204)+*, Upper Weber (16020101)+*, Lower Weber (16020102)+*, Utah Lake (16020201)+*, Spanish Fork (16020202)+*, Provo (16020203)+*, Jordan (16020204)+*, Northern Great Salt Lake Desert (16020308)+*, Curlew Valley (16020309)+*, Middle Sevier (16030003)+*
17 Upper Kootenai (17010101)+, Fisher (17010102)+, Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Upper Clark Fork (17010201)+, Flint-Rock (17010202)+, Blackfoot (17010203)+, Middle Clark Fork (17010204)+, Bitterroot (17010205)+, North Fork Flathead (17010206)+, Middle Fork Flathead (17010207)+, Flathead Lake (17010208)+, Swan (17010211)+, Lower Flathead (17010212)+, Lower Clark Fork (17010213)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+, Upper Coeur D'alene (17010301)+, Coeur D'alene Lake (17010303)+, St. Joe (17010304)+, Upper Spokane (17010305)+, Palisades (17040104)+, Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Lower Henrys (17040203)+, Portneuf (17040208)+, Raft (17040210)+*, Goose (17040211)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Big Lost (17040218)+, Big Wood (17040219)+, Little Wood (17040221)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, Boise-Mores (17050112)+, South Fork Boise (17050113)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, South Fork Payette (17050120)+, Middle Fork Payette (17050121)+, North Fork Payette (17050123)+, Weiser (17050124)+, Hells Canyon (17060101)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)+, Palouse (17060108)+, Upper Salmon (17060201)+, Lemhi (17060204)+, Lower Salmon (17060209)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Lower North Fork Clearwater (17060308)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A bird (thrush).
General Description: An 18-cm-long bird with a reddish brown dorsum, white belly, gray flanks, grayish face, small spots (often indistinct) on the breast, indistinct grayish eyering, and straight slim bill. Western populations have a darker dorsum and more breast spotting than do eastern populations.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from other thrushes in having less breast spotting (less distinct and more restricted). Differs from Pacific coast populations of Swainson's thrush (CATHARUS USTULATUS) in having gray (vs. buffy brown) flanks.
Reproduction Comments: Eggs are laid in May-June. Clutch size is three to five (usually four). Incubation lasts 11-12 days, by female. Young are tended by both parents, leave nest at 10-12 days.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Veery arrives in the southern U.S. in April, still common in migration mid-May, on northern nesting grounds by late April-early May (Terres 1980). Costa Rica: uncommon to sporadically common fall transient (late September-late October), rare spring transient (March-April) (Stiles and Skutch 1989).
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Nesting habitat includes swampy forest, especially in more open areas with shrubby understory, as well as second growth, willow or alder shrubbery near water; large tracts of forest are most suitable. Nests usually are on or near the ground, at the base of a shrub, in a clump of herbaceous vegetation, or in a shrub or low tree (Terres 1980). In migration and winter this species occurs also in lowland forest, woodland, and scrub.
Adult Food Habits: Frugivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Frugivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet includes insects and other invertebrates and small fruits; foraging occurs on forest floors and in trees (Terres 1980), often near water (Stiles and Skutch 1989). This species eats many fruits during migration (Stiles and Skutch 1989).
Adult Phenology: Crepuscular, Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Crepuscular, Diurnal
Length: 18 centimeters
Weight: 31 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Classified as area sensitive (i.e., occurs more frequently or at higher population density as forest size increases) by Freemark and Collins (1992), but other data on area-sensitivity inconsistent (see Askins et al. 1987, Robbins et al. 1989, Blake 1991). In Illinois, nesting occurred in forest patches of 27-1000+ ha; only two of 22 patches were smaller than 100 ha; mean patch size was 309 ha; patches used for nesting tended to be surrounded by other forested habitat (Herkert 1995). In Wisconsin, nesting was much more likely in forest patches larger than 100 ha than in smaller patches (Temple, cited by Herkert 1995). Robbins et al. (1989) found that nesting in the mid-Atlantic states was most likely in forest patches of 3000 ha or larger but breeding sometimes occurred in patches as small as nine ha. Associated with large (> 8 ha) aspen groves in Saskatchewan (Johns 1993).
Management Requirements: Litwin and Smith (1992): nesting population in Sapsucker Woods, Ithaca, NY declined 58% from 1950-1980, correlated with maturation of forest, decline in density of shrub layers and decline in overall vertical and horizontal structural heterogeneity; implies that some disturbance may be necessary to maintain suitable nesting habitat.

Benefits from logging (Maurer et al. 1981, Webb et al. 1977).

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Passerines

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Nest Site, Nesting Colony
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical breeding, or current and likely recurring breeding, at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of one or more breeding pairs in appropriate habitat. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.

Mapping Guidance: Breeding occurrences include nesting areas as well as foraging areas.

For swallows and other species that have separate nesting and foraging areas, separations are based on nest sites or nesting areas, not to locations of foraging individuals. For example, nesting areas separated by a gap larger than the separation distance are different occurrences, regardless of the foraging locations of individuals from those nesting areas. This separation procedure is appropriate because nesting areas are the critical aspect of swallow breeding occurrences, tend to be relatively stable or at least somwhat predictable in general location, and so are the basis for effective conservation; foraging areas are much more flexible and not necessarily static.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Significant dispersal and associated high potential for gene flow among populations of birds separated by tens of kilometers (e.g., Moore and Dolbeer 1989), and increasing evidence that individuals leave their usual home range to engage in extrapair copulations, as well as long foraging excursions of some species, make it difficult to circumscribe occurrences on the basis of meaningful population units without occurrences becoming too large. Hence, a moderate, standardized separation distance has been adopted for songbirds and flycatchers; it should yield occurrences that are not too spatially expansive while also accounting for the likelihood of gene flow among populations within a few kilometers of each other.

Be careful not to separate a population's nesting areas and foraging areas as different occurrences; include them in the same occurrence even if they are more than 5 km apart. Mean foraging radius (from nesting area) of Brown-headed Cowbird females was 4.0 kilometers in California, 1.2 kilometers in Illinois-Missouri (Thompson 1994). Yellow-headed Blackbirds, Brewer's Blackbirds, and probably Red-winged Blackbirds all forage up to 1.6 kilometers away from breeding colony (Willson 1966, Horn 1968). In one study, Brewer's Blackbirds were found as far as 10 kilometers from nesting area (Williams 1952), but this may be unusual.

For swallows and other parrerines with similar behavioral ecology, separation distance pertains to nest sites or nesting colonies, not to locations of foraging individuals. For example, nesting areas separated by a gap of more than 5 km are different occurrences, regardless of the foraging locations of individuals from those nesting areas. This separation procedure is appropriate because nesting areas are the critical aspect of swallow breeding occurrences, tend to be relatively stable or at least somwhat predictable in general location, and so are the basis for effective conservation; foraging areas are much more flexible and not necessarily static.

Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.

Unsuitable habitat: Habitat not normally used for breeding/feeding by a particular species. For example, unsuitable habitat for grassland and shrubland birds includes forest/woodland, urban/suburban, and aquatic habitats. Most habitats would be suitable for birds with versatile foraging habits (e.g., most corvids).

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Roost Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: For most passerines: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating individuals (including historical) and potential recurring presence at a given location; minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat.

For swallows: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating flocks (including historical) and potential recurring presence at a given location; minimally a reliable observation of 100 birds in appropriate habitat (e.g., traditional roost sites).

Occurrences should be locations where the species is resident for some time during the appropriate season; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 7 days annually.

EOs should not be described for species that are nomadic during nonbreeding season: e.g., Lark Bunting.

Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary but intended to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.

For swallows and other species with similar behavioral ecology, the separation distance pertains to communal roost sites rather than to foraging areas; the former tend to be more stable and specific over time than the latter.

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Roost Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Any area used traditionally in the nonbreeding season (used for populations that are not resident in a location year-round). Minimally, reliable observations of 10 or more individuals in appropriate habitat for 20 or more days at a time. For G1-G3 species, observations of fewer individuals could constitute an occurrence of conservation value. Sites used during migration should be documented under the 'migratory stopover' location use class.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance is necessarily arbitrary but attempts to balance the high mobility of birds with the need for occurrences of reasonable spatial scope. Note that a population's roost sites and foraging areas are parts of the same occurrence, even if they are more than 5 km apart.

For swallows and other species with similar behavioral ecology, the separation distance pertains to communal roost sites rather than to foraging areas; the former tend to be more stable and specific over time than the latter.

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Nonmigratory
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a particular location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in or near appropriate habitat.

These occurrence specifications are used for nonmigratory populations of passerine birds.

Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Significant dispersal and associated high potential for gene flow among populations of birds separated by tens of kilometers (e.g., Moore and Dolbeer 1989), and increasing evidence that individuals leave their usual home range to engage in extrapair copulations, as well as long foraging excursions of some species, make it difficult to circumscribe occurrences on the basis of meaningful population units without occurrences becoming too large. Hence, a moderate, standardized separation distance has been adopted for songbirds and flycatchers; it should yield occurrences that are not too spatially expansive while also accounting for the likelihood of gene flow among populations within a few kilometers of each other.

Be careful not to separate a population's nesting areas and breeding-season foraging areas as different occurrences; include them in the same occurrence even if they are more than 5 km apart. Blue jays have small summer home ranges but fly up to 4 kilometers to harvest mast (Tarvin and Woolfenden 1999). Flocks of pinyon jays range over 21-29 square kilometers (Ligon 1971, Balda and Bateman 1971); nesting and foraging areas may be widely separated. Tricolored blackbirds forage in flocks that range widely to more than 15 kilometers from the nesting colony (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Unsuitable habitat: Habitat not normally used for breeding/feeding by a particular species. For example, unsuitable habitat for grassland and shrubland birds includes forest/woodland, urban/suburban, and aquatic habitats. Most habitats would be suitable for birds with versatile foraging habits (e.g., most corvids).

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: These specs pertain to nonmigratory species.
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: 16Mar2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cannings, S. G., and G. Hammerson
Management Information Edition Date: 20Sep2000
Management Information Edition Author: BOWEN, R.; REVISIONS BY D.W. MEHLMAN
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 16Mar2009
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
  • Alabama Ornithological Society. 2006. Field checklist of Alabama birds. Alabama Ornithological Society, Dauphin Island, Alabama. [Available online at http://www.aosbirds.org/documents/AOSChecklist_april2006.pdf ]

  • 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.

  • American Ornithologists Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th edition. American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C. 829 pages.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU), Committee on Classification and Nomenclature. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds. Sixth Edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.

  • Andrews, R. R. and R. R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver. 442 pp.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des oiseaux du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 13 pages.

  • Askins, R.A., M.J. Philbrick, and D.S. Sugeno. 1987. Relationship between the regional abundance of forest and the composition of forest bird communities. Biological Conservation 39:129-152.

  • Audubon Society. 1981-1985. Breeding Bird Atlas of New Hampshire. (unpublished).

  • B83COM01NAUS - Added from 2005 data exchange with Alberta, Canada.

  • BUCKELEW, A. AND G. HALL. 1994. WV BREEDING BIRD ATLAS. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH PRESS.

  • Balda, R. P., and G. C. Bateman. 1971. Flocking and annual cycle of the piñon jay, Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus. Condor 73:287-302.

  • Behle, W. H. 1981. The birds of northeastern Utah. Utah Museum of Natural History Occasional Publications 2: i-iv + 1-136 pp.

  • Behle, W. H., E. D. Sorensen, and C. M. White. 1985. Utah birds: a revised checklist. Occas. Publ. No. 4, Utah Museum of Natural History, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. xv + 108 pp.

  • Behle, W. H., and R. K. Selander. 1952. New and additional records of Utah birds. Wilson Bull. 64: 26-32.

  • Bent, A. C. 1949. Life histories of North American thrushes, kinglets, and their allies. U. S. Nat. Mus. Bull.196. 452 pp., 51 pls.

  • Bevier, L. R., A. F. Poole, and W. Moskoff. 2005. Veery (Catharus fuscescens). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/142.

  • BirdLife International. 2004b. Threatened birds of the world 2004. CD ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

  • Blake, J.G. 1991. Nested subsets and the distribution of birds on isolated woodlots. Conservation Biology 5:58-66.

  • Braun, M. J., D. W. Finch, M. B. Robbins, and B. K. Schmidt. 2000. A field checklist of the birds of Guyana. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

  • Bull, John. 1974. Birds of New York State. Doubleday, Garden City, New York. 655 pp.

  • Cadman, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles and F.M. Helleiner (eds.) 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Long Point Bird Observatory. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario. 617 pp.

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, M.C.E. McNall and G.E.J. Smith 1997. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 3, Passerines: Flycatchers through Vireos. UBC Press in cooperation with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv. and B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. 700pp.

  • Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings, and S.G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanagan Valley, B.C. Royal B.C. Mus., Victoria, BC. 420pp.

  • Carter, M., G. Fenwick, C. Hunter, D. Pashley, D. Petit, J. Price, and J. Trapp. 1996. Watchlist 1996: For the future. Field Notes 50(3):238-240.

  • Casebere, Lee. 1978. Nesting Records for the Veery in LaGrange County. 56(4) Indiana Audubon Quarterly 158-161.

  • Colorado Bird Observatory. 1996. DRAFT 1996 Status of Colorado Birds. Submitted to Colorado Division of Wildlife. December 31, 1996. 137 p.

  • DICKINSON, MARY B., ED. 1999. FIELD GUIDE TO THE BIRDS OF NORTH AMERICA, 3RD ED. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 480 PP.

  • DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES. 1994. HUNTING AND TRAPPING REGULATIONS. WV DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, CHARLESTON, WV.

  • Desrosiers A., F. Caron et R. Ouellet. 1995. Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec. Les publications du Québec. 122

  • Dorn, Jane L. and R.D. Dorn. 1990. Wyoming Birds. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne.

  • Downes, C.M., and B.T. Collins. 2007. Canadian Bird Trends Web site Version 2.2. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3.

  • Droege, S., and J.R. Sauer. 1990. North American Breeding Bird Survey, annual summary, 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(8). 22 pp.

  • Dunn, E. H., C. M. Downes, and B. T. Collins. 2000. The Canadian Breeding Bird Survey, 1967-1998. Canadian Wildlife Service Progress Notes No. 216. 40 pp.

  • Erskine, A. J. 1992. Atlas of breeding birds of the Maritime Provinces. Nimbus Publishing and the Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

  • Fauth, Peter T. 1995. Wood Thrush Breeding Productivity Within a Fragmented Indiana Landscape. Prepared for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature Preserves. 18 pp.

  • Ford, E.R. 1956. Birds of the Chicago region. Chicago Acad. Sci. Spec. Pub. 12. 117 p.

  • Freemark, K., and B. Collins. 1992. Landscape ecology of birds breeding in temperate forest fragments. Pages 443-454 in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds, J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston, editors. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • Godfrey, W. E. 1986. The birds of Canada. Revised edition. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa. 596 pp. + plates.

  • HALL, G. 1983. BIRDS OF WV. CARNEGIE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY.

  • Hagan, J. M., III, and D. W. Johnston, editors. 1992. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xiii + 609 pp.

  • Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.

  • Harrison, H. H. 1979. A field guide to western birds' nests. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 279 pp.

  • Haw, James A. 1994. Nesting Bird Survey: Salamonie River State Forest. 2 pp.

  • Hayward, C. L., C. Cottam, A. M. Woodbury, and H. H. Frost. 1976. Birds of Utah. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs 1: 229 pp.

  • Herkert, J. R. 1995. Status and habitat area requirements of the veery in Illinois. Auk 112:794-797.

  • Herkert, J. R., editor. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of Illinois: status and distribution. Vol. 2: Animals. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. iv + 142 pp.

  • Herkert, Jim. 1998. Proposed additions, deletions, and changes to the Illinois List of Threatened and Endangered Animals. 101st ESPB Meeting, August 21, 1998. 16pp.

  • Hilty, S.L. and W. L. Brown. 1986. A Guide to the Birds of Colombia. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. 836 pp.

  • Horn, H. S. 1968. The adaptive significance of colonial nesting in the Brewer's Blackbird. Ecology 49:682-694.

  • Howell, S. N. G., and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

  • Imhof, T. A. 1976. Alabama birds. Second edition. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 445 pages.

  • Imhof, T. A. 1976. Alabama birds. Second edition. Univ. Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 445 pp.

  • JOHNSTON,R.F.1965. A DIRECTORY TO THE BIRDS OF KANSAS. MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS. LAWRENCE.

  • Johns, B. W. 1993. The influence of grove size on bird species richness in aspen parklands. Wilson Bull. 105:256-264.

  • Keinath, D.A., H. Smith, and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Inventory and monitoring of avian management indicator species for the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming; year one progress report. Unpublished report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database-University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Kleen, V.M. 1978. Field Notes. Ill. Audubon Bull. 183:30-37.

  • Laughlin, S.B. and D.P. Kibbe, eds. 1985. The Atlas of Bre eding Birds of Vermont. Univ. Press of New England. 456pp.

  • Ligon, J. D. 1971. Late summer-autumnal breeding of the piñon jay in New Mexico. Condor 73:147-153.

  • Litwin, T. S., and C. R. Smith. 1992. Factors influencing the decline of Neotropical migrants in a northeastern forest fragment: isolation, fragmentation, or mosaic effects? Pages 483-496 in J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • Lowery, George H. 1974. The Birds of Louisiana. LSU Press. 651pp.

  • Maurer, B. A., L. B. McArthur, and R. C. Whitmore. 1981. Effects of logging on guild structure of a forest bird community in West Virginia. American Birds 35:11-13.

  • McAtee W.L. 1959. Folk - names of candian birds. National Museum of Canada. Folk - names of candian birds. National Museum of Canada. 74 pages.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., editor. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pages.

  • Moore, W. S., and R. A. Dolbeer. 1989. The use of banding recovery data to estimate dispersal rates and gene flow in avian species: case studies in the Red-winged Blackbird and Common Grackle. Condor 91:242-253.

  • Moskoff, W. 1995. Veery (CATHARUS FUSCESCENS). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 142. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 16 pp.

  • Moskoff, W. 1995. Veery. Birds North Amer. 142: 1-16.

  • Moskoff, William. 1995. Veery; The Birds of North America. Vol. 4, No. 142. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Nelson, D. 1993. Colorado Bird Atlas: Manual on Use of Breeding Codes. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver. 27 pp.

  • Nelson, E.W. 1876. Birds of north-eastern Illinois. Bull. Essex Inst. 8:90-155.

  • New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. 1984. Preliminary species distribution maps, 1980-1984. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar, NY.

  • New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. 1985. Final breeding bird distribution maps, 1980-1985. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar, NY.

  • 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.

  • Nicholson, C.P. 1997. Atlas of the breeding birds of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press. 426 pp.

  • Ouellet H., M. Gosselin et J.P. Artigau. 1990. Nomenclature française des oiseaux d'Amérique du Nord. Secrétariat d'État du Canada. 457 p.

  • Parker III, T. A., D. F. Stotz, and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1996. Ecological and distributional databases for neotropical birds. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

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

  • Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1987. Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution. Volume 2: Passerines. Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publication, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. xi + 387 pp.

  • Peterjohn, B. J., J. R. Sauer, and S. Orsillo. 1995. Breeding bird survey: population trends 1966-1992. Pages 14-21 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our Living Resources. National Biological Service, Washington, D.C.

  • Peterson, R. T. 1980. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 384 pages.

  • Poole, A. F. and F. B. Gill. 1992. The birds of North America. The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. and The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Raffaele, H., J. Wiley, O. Garrido, A. Keith, and J. Raffaele. 1998. A guide to the birds of the West Indies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 511 pp.

  • Remsen, J. V. 2001. True winter range of the Veery (CATHARUS FUSCESCENS): lessons for determining winter ranges of species that winter in the tropics. Auk 118:838-848.

  • Resource Inventory Committee. 1999e. Inventory Methods for Forest and Grassland Songbirds. Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity. No. 15. Version 2.0.

  • Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Online. Available:

  • Ridgely, R. S. 2002. Distribution maps of South American birds. Unpublished.

  • Ridgely, R. S. and G. Tudor. 1989. The birds of South America. Volume 1. University of Texas Press, Austin, USA. 516 pp.

  • Ridgely, R. S. and J. A. Gwynne, Jr. 1989. A Guide to the Birds of Panama. 2nd edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.

  • Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989a. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs No. 103.

  • Robbins, C. S., J. R. Sauer, R. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989a. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildl. Monogr. 103:1-34

  • Robbins, C.S., D.K. Dawson, and B.A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic states. Wildl. Monogr. No. 103. 34pp.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2000. Version 2001.2, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available at: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2006. Version 10.13.2007. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

  • Sauer, J.R., and S. Droege. 1992. Geographical patterns in population trends of Neotropical migrants in North America. Pages 26-42 in J.M. Hagan, III, and D.W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • See SERO listing

  • Sibley, D. A. 2000a. The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • Spahn, R. 1987. Highlights of the spring season. Kingbird 37(3):133-142.

  • Stiles, F. G. and A. F. Skutch. 1989. A guide to the birds of Costa Rica. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 511 pp.

  • Tarvin, K. A., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1999. Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata). No. 469 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 32pp.

  • Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • Thompson, F. R., III. 1994. Temporal and spatial patterns of breeding brown-headed cowbirds in the midwestern United States. Auk 111:979-990.

  • Walters, R. E., and E. Sorensen (eds.). 1983. Utah bird distribution: latilong study. Publ. No. 83-10, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 97 pp.

  • Webb, W.L., D.F. Behrend, and B. Saisorn. 1977. Effect of logging on songbird populations in a northern hardwood forest. Wildlife Monographs 55.

  • Williams, L. 1952b. Breeding behavior of the Brewer blackbird. Condor 54:3-47.

  • Willson, M. F. 1966. Breeding ecology of the Yellow-headed Blackbird. Ecological Monographs 36:51-77.

  • Woodbury, A. M., C. Cottam, and J. W. Sugden. 1949. Annotated check-list of the birds of Utah. Bull. Univ. Utah 39(16) [Biol. Ser. 11(2)]: 1-40.

  • Zook, J. L. 2002. Distribution maps of the birds of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Unpublished.

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.