Argia alberta - Kennedy, 1918
Paiute Dancer
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Argia alberta Kennedy, 1918 (TSN 102153)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.113097
Element Code: IIODO68120
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Dragonflies and Damselflies
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper, 56: 86 pp. Available: http://www.ups.edu/x7015.xml.
Concept Reference Code: A99PAU01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Argia alberta
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 06Jun1995
Global Status Last Changed: 06Jun1995
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Possibly a regional endemic; habitat (streams) threatened throughout the range.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (06Jun1995)

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 Arizona (SNR), California (SNR), Colorado (S1S2), Idaho (SNR), Iowa (S2), Kansas (SNR), Missouri (S1), Montana (S2S3), Nebraska (SNR), Nevada (SNR), New Mexico (SNR), Oklahoma (S4?), Oregon (SNR), South Dakota (SNR), Utah (S4), Wyoming (SNR)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Primarily a Great Basin species (Garrison, 1994). Records from Colorado, Utah, southern Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, western Kansas, Nebraska, south Dakota, western Oklahoma, northern Arizona, northern New Mexico, and California (Garrison, 1994; Evans, 1995; Evans, 1988; Kennedy, 1918).

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Reported from at least 13 locations in 12 states (Garrison, 1994; Evans, 1995; Evans, 1988; Kennedy, 1918).

Population Size: 2500 - 10,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Unknown. Relatively few (less than 20) specimens reported in literature (Garrison, 1994; Evans, 1995; Evans, 1988; Kennedy, 1918).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: The genus ARGIA is generally associated with gently stony streams and rivers (Walker, 1953; Carpenter, 1991). Stream habitats may be threatened by water diversion and other anthropogenic development. Pesticides kill damselfly larvae, sewage, organic wastes and fertilizer runoff cause algae and bacteria to grow which reduces oxygen content of the water. Siltation and disturbance of the streambed due to livestock grazing, agricultural plowing, and forest clearcuts up to the banks change bottom characteristics and plant composition. Dredging, ditching, channelization and creation of reservoirs with fluctuating water levels destroy stream habitats. Fish introduction reduces damselfly populations, and eliminates some species (Dunkle, 1990).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Unknown for this species. The genus Argia is generally associated with slower moving stony streams and rivers (Carpenter, 1991). Stream damselflies have been much more severely impacted by human activities than pond species. Decline assumed, based on continuing threats to stream habitats throughout Western U.S. (Dunkle, 1990).

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Unknown. Scattered localities reported by Garrison and others may indicate local distribution. Isolated, small populations may be more susceptible to habitat alteration or destruction.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Survey high quality stream habitats on Eastern Slope of the Rocky Mountains, the West Coast, Colorado Plateau and Great Basin regions.

Protection Needs: Protect natural hydrologic regime in areas of occurrence.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) Primarily a Great Basin species (Garrison, 1994). Records from Colorado, Utah, southern Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, western Kansas, Nebraska, south Dakota, western Oklahoma, northern Arizona, northern New Mexico, and California (Garrison, 1994; Evans, 1995; Evans, 1988; Kennedy, 1918).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AZ, CA, CO, IA, ID, KS, MO, MT, NE, NM, NV, OK, OR, SD, UT, WY

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Small size damselfly (Odonata: Coenagrionidae).
General Description: The small size (hindwing 16-20 mm, length of abdomen 22mm), predominantly dark coloration of the abdominal segments, and elongate, linear cerci distinguish this species from any other in the U.S. ARGIA ALBERTA can be confused only with A. SEDULA, which can be separated by the penes (Garrison, 1994; Kennedy, 1918). Male.-- Color: Labrum pale blue, the remainder of the face and head blue with an olive or, in some dried material, a violet cast. Under surface of head yellowish gray with a small black spot on each side of the occipital foramen. Clypeus edged with black. A wide bar through the paired ocelli and a broad, black stripe behind each postoccular area. Eyes dark blue, paler below. Prothorax black dorsally with a bluish spot on each side. Mesothoroax and metathorax dull blue (violet or brown in dried material) darker and duller on the dorsal surface and grayish on the sides. Middorsal stripe occupying one-third of the area between the humeral sutures. Humeral stripe half as wide as the mid-dorsal, it's upper third forked. A black line on the second lateral suture 1mm. wide. Pterostigmata brown subtended by one cell. Legs pale with blue on base of femora, broadly marked with black on the dorsal and anterior surfaces of the tibiae. Tarsi black. Abdomen with seg. 1-3 dull blue becoming duller or brownish on the lower sides. Seg. 1 with a baso-dorsal black spot. Seg. 2 with a narrow apical band and a lateral stripe black. Segs. 4-7 with the apical third and the dorsum black except a narrow basal band blue, the sides bluish or brownish. Segs 8-10 pure, pale blue, the lower edges more or less blotched with black. Superior appendages twice as long as wide when viewed from above, slender in profile. A prominent, internal, apical hook directed ventrad. Inferior appendages bifid, the lower ramus round or bluntly triangular directed caudad, superior lobe directed dorsad and terminating in an acute point. Female.-- Color as in male but with the blue of the head and thorax paler. Eyes gray bluish above. Humeral stripe but half as wide as in the male, it's branches linear. Legs marked as in male but the black on the femora reduced somewhat. Abdomen brown with a narrow apical band on Segs. 2-6. Segs. 2-6 with an apical dorsal spot, a lateral stripe and an oblique spot on the lower apical angle of the side. Segs. 8-9 with dorsolateral stripe. Seg. 10 pale. In some females Seg. 6 is colored like 7. Mesostigmal laminae with no special modifications (Kennedy, 1918).
Diagnostic Characteristics: The small size (hindwing 16-20 mm, length of abdomen 22mm), predominantly dark coloration of the abdominal segments, and elongate, linear cerci distinguish this species from any other in the U.S. ARGIA ALBERTA can be confused only with A. SEDULA, which can be separated by the penes (Garrison, 1994; Kennedy, 1918).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient
Habitat Comments: Dancers (Genus ARGIA) are usually associated with slow moving stony streams and rivers. Argia adults are often found perched on rocks, logs and woodland paths, a habit distinctive of this genus (Walker, 1953; Carpenter, 1991). Argias are usually associated with flowing water, where nymphs cling to undersides of rocks, etc. in current (Kondratieff, Rith, pers. comm.).
Phenology Comments: Adults found late May (May 29, 1994 in Southern CA) through mid August (August 17, 1915 in Owens Valley, CA); based on records reported by Garrison (1994), and Kennedy (1918).
Length: 2.2 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: River-Breeding Damselfly Odonates

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 ideally with evidence of on-site breeding (teneral adults, mating pairs, territorial males, ovipositing females, larvae, or exuviae) at a given location with potential breeding habitat. Although oviposition may not necessarily yield progeny that survive to adulthood (Fincke, 1992) and movements resembling oviposition may not necessarily result in egg deposition (Okazawa and Ubukata, 1978; Martens, 1992; 1994), presence of on-site oviposition is here accepted as an indicator of a minimum element occurrence because the time and effort involved in determining success of emergence is beyond the scope of the general survey. As adults of some species might disperse moderate distances (see below), only sites with available larval habitat can be considered appropriate for a minimum occurrence. Single, non-breeding adults captured away from potential suitable breeding habitat should not be treated as element occurrences. 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. A photograph may be accepted as documentation of an element occurrence for adults only (nymphs and subimagos are too difficult to identify in this manner) provided that the photograph shows diagnostic features that clearly delineate the species from other species with similar features. Sight records, though valuable, should not be accepted as the basis for new element occurrences. Instead, such records should be utilized to further study an area to verify the element occurrence in that area.Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens ideally with evidence of on-site breeding (teneral adults, mating pairs, territorial males, ovipositing females, larvae, or exuviae) at a given location with potential breeding habitat. Although oviposition may not necessarily yield progeny that survive to adulthood (Fincke, 1992) and movements resembling oviposition may not necessarily result in egg deposition (Okazawa and Ubukata, 1978; Martens, 1992; 1994), presence of on-site oviposition is here accepted as an indicator of a minimum element occurrence because the time and effort involved in determining success of emergence is beyond the scope of the general survey. As adults of some species might disperse moderate distances (see below), only sites with available larval habitat can be considered appropriate for a minimum occurrence. Single, non-breeding adults captured away from potential suitable breeding habitat should not be treated as element occurrences. 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. A photograph may be accepted as documentation of an element occurrence for adults only (nymphs and subimagos are too difficult to identify in this manner) provided that the photograph shows diagnostic features that clearly delineate the species from other species with similar features. Sight records, though valuable, should not be accepted as the basis for new element occurrences. Instead, such records should be utilized to further study an area to verify the element occurrence in that area.
Separation Barriers: Within catchments there are likely no significant barriers to movement of sexually mature adults between microhabitats, with even extensive sections of inappropriate waterway or major obstructions to flow being readily traversed by adults within the flight season. Dams large enough to cause extensive pooling may serve as separation barriers.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: None
Separation Justification: Odonate dispersal capability has been poorly documented with long-range movements inferred from observations in transit and analogy with other insects (Conrad et al., 1999; Corbet, 1999). Adults are known to wander, some over great distances (not so for damselflies). Finer scale movement patterns (i.e. meters to tens of meters) for damselflies were found to be a function of behavioral responses to the probability of crossing a patch boundary (patch scale permeability) and the rate of movement in a given habitat patch (viscosity) (Jonson and Taylor, 2000a; 2000b); wherein transplanted Calopteryx spp. exhibited a greater propensity to move away from streams with some degree of forest cover as opposed to streams with no forest cover. In other words, the likelihood of inter-habitat movement is higher within fragmented landscapes than within continuous forested landscapes (see also Pither and Taylor, 1998; Taylor and Merriam, 1995). Mass migration over great distances is not herein considered when drafting separation distances as such behavior is limited to few species (e.g. Anax junius, Libellula quadrimaculata and other Libellula spp., Sympetrum spp.), occurs unpredictably and infrequently (10 year cycles for L. quadrimaculata), are unidirectional or intergenerational (Freeland et al., 2003), or occurs under unusual circumstances such as irritation by trematode parasites (Dumont and Hinnekint, 1973) or during major weather events (Moskowitz et al., 2001; Russell et al., 1998). Further, long-distance migration is much more frequently observed in dragonflies than in damselflies.

Corbet (1999) estimated the average distance traveled for a commuting flight (between reproductive and roosting or foraging sites) to be less than 200 m but sometimes greater than one km. Distance traveled is generally greatest for river-breeding odonates, but can vary considerably between taxa (Corbet, 1999). Both D. Paulson and S. Valley (personal communication, 1998) suggest a population should be defined by the river drainage in which it is found, but drainages or catchments vary by orders of magnitude in size and isolation so it is not obvious how to effect this recommendation. Heymer (1972) found 54% of displaced Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis returned to their capture site following a 2 km displacement while no individuals returned following a 6 km displacement. Pither and Taylor (1998) found the damselflies, Calopteryx aequabilis and Calopteryx maculata, capable of moving from forest to stream through 700 meters of forest or pasture. Beukema (2002) similarly found immature individuals of Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis in Spain remaining in the area of emergence during their first week then moved up to a few hundred meters during the following week. Movement ceased once males defended a territory. Moore (1983) found Megalagrion heterogamias, Megalagrion nigrohammatum, and Megalagrion orestitrophum in Hawaii may present territorial behavior, remaining close to breeding sites, but evidence was somewhat inconclusive. Evidence for territorial behavior in Megalagrion blackburni was inconclusive.

The combination of breeding dispersal in the range of one to a few km with the potential for periodic long distance dispersal providing landscapes are not fragmented has led to the somewhat arbitrary assignment of separation distances at 5 km (unsuitable and suitable) for riverine damselflies.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: The few studies determining area of adult foraging habitat surrounding breeding sites have indicated a range of 30 meters to 300 meters [see Briggs (1993) for Enallagma laterale; Corbet (1999) for Nesciothemis nigeriensis and Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis; Beukeman (2002) for Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis; and Samways and Steytler (1996) for Chorolestes tessalatus]. As a result, an element occurrence should include the breeding site and surrounding pond or upland habitat extending 500 m in a radius from the breeding site.
Date: 02Jun2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: River breeding damselflies:
ZYGOPTERA:
-Calopterygidae: Calopteryx, Hetaerina; Coenagrionidae: Argia, Chromagrion, Hesperagrion, Megalagrion blackburni, M. caliphya, M. heterogamias, M. oceanicum, Zoniagrion; Lestidae: Archilestes; Megapodagrionidae; Platystictidae: Palaemnema; Protoneuridae: Neoneura, Protoneura capillarius, P. cara, P. dunklei, P. sanguinipes; Synlestida

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: 19May1995
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Simonson, S.E. and B. Kondratieff
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 28Apr1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Simonson, S.E. and B. Kondratieff

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

References
Help
  • Carpenter, V. 1991. Dragonflies and Damselflies of Cape Cod. Natural History Series No. 4. Published by the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History, Brewster, Mass.

  • Carpenter, V. 1991. Dragonflies and Damselflies of Cape Cod. The Cape Cod Museum of Natural History: Brewster, Massachusetts. 79 pp.

  • Cruden, R.W., and O.J. Gode, Jr. 2000. The Odonata of Iowa. Bulletin of American Odonatology 6(2):13-48.

  • Dunkle, S. D. 1990. Damselflies of Florida, Bermuda and the Bahamas. Scientific Publishers. Gainseville, Florida.

  • Dunkle, S.W. 1990. Damselflies of Florida, Bermuda and the Bahamas. Scientific Publishers: Gainesville, Florida. 150 pp.

  • Evans, Mary A. 1988. Checklist of the Odonata of Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist. 48(1): 96-101.

  • Evans, Mary A. 1988. Checklist of the Odonata of Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist. 48(1): 96-101.

  • Evans, Mary Alice. 1995. Checklist of the Odonata of New Mexico with additions to the Colorado checklist. Proceeding of the Denver Museum of Natural History, series 3, no. 8. 6pp.

  • Evans, Mary Alice. 1995. Checklist of the Odonata of New Mexico with additions to the Colorado checklist. Proceeding of the Denver Museum of Natural History, series 3, no. 8. 6pp.

  • Garrison, R. W. 1994. A synopsis of the genus ARGIA of the United States with keys and descriptions of new species, ARGIA SABINO, A. LEONORAE, A. PIMA (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 120(4): 287-368.

  • Garrison, Rosser W. 1994. A synopsis of the genus Argia of the United States with keys and descriptions of new species, Argia sabino, A. leonorae, and A. pima (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society, vol. 120, no. 4, 287-368.

  • Johnson, J. and S. Valley. 2005. The Odonata of Oregon. Bulletin of American Odonatology 8(4):100-122.

  • Kennedy, C.H. 1918. New species of Odonata from the southwestern United States. Part I. Three new Argias. Canad. Entomol. 50(8): 256-261.

  • Kennedy, C.H. 1918. New species of Odonata from the southwestern United States. Part I. Three new Argias. Canad. Entomol. vol. 50, no. 8, 256-261.

  • Miller, K. B. and D. L. Gustafson. 1996. Distribution of the Odonata of Montana. Bulletin of American Odonatology 3(4):75-88.

  • Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper, 56: 86 pp. Available: http://www.ups.edu/x7015.xml.

  • Paulson, D.R., and S.W. Dunkle. 2009. A checklist of North American Odonata including English name, etymology, type locality, and distribution. Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009. Online. Available: http://www.odonatacentral.org/docs/NA_Odonata_Checklist_2009.pdf.

  • Paulson, D.R., and S.W. Dunkle. 2016. A checklist of North American Odonata including English name, etymology, type locality, and distribution. Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009; updated February 2011, February 2012, and October 2016. Online. Available: http://www.odonatacentral.org/docs/NA_Odonata_Checklist.pdf

  • Prather, B., and I. Prather. 2015. Insects of Western North America 9. The dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) of Colorado: an updated annotated checklist. Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University. 59 pp.

  • Stevens, L.E., and R.A. Bailowitz. 2008. Odonata of Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, southern Nevada, USA. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 40(2):128-135.

  • Stevens, L.E., and R.A. Bailowitz. 2009. Odonata biogeography in the Grand Canyon ecoregion, southwestern USA. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 102(2):261-274.

  • Walker E. M. 1953. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 1. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 292 pp.

  • Walker, E.M. 1953. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska Vol 1. Zygoptera. Univ. Toronto Press. 292 pp.

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.