Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101074
Element CodeAFCJB28530
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderCypriniformes
FamilyLeuciscidae
GenusNotropis
Other Common NamesMuseau noir (FR)
Concept ReferenceRobins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.
Taxonomic CommentsPopulations in Middle Cumberland River system were described as a separate species, N. rupestris, by Page and Beckham (1987).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2015-08-18
Change Date2013-01-16
Edition Date2001-09-05
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G. (2001); rev. M. Anions (2013)
Threat ImpactMedium
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 to >300
Rank ReasonsLarge range from southcentral Canada to Nova Scotia, south to Kansas (formerly), Missouri, Ohio, and New York; extirpated and declining acros most of the southern part of the range, but still common in areas of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and very common in many provinces in Canada; threats include land alterations that result in turbidity, siltation, and loss of aquatic vegetation.
Range Extent CommentsAtlantic, Great Lakes, Hudson Bay, and Mississippi River basins from Nova Scotia to Saskatchewan, south to Ohio, Illinois, south-central Missouri, and (formerly) Kansas; common in some parts of range (especially Ontario, Michigan, and Wisconsin), disappearing from southern part (Page and Burr 1991). A record from Kentucky likely is erroneous (Burr and Warren 1986).
Occurrences CommentsHistorically known from hundreds of collection sites, with concentrations from Minnesota to Ontario and sparse occurrences in most of the rest of the range (Smith 1979, Lee et al. 1980, Trautman 1981, Becker 1983, Smith 1985, Cross and Collins 1995, Pflieger 1997). Occurs as isolated, highly localized populations (Pflieger 1997).
Threat Impact CommentsDecline in south is due to increased turbidity, siltation of stream bottoms, and resulting disappearance of aquatic vegetation (Becker 1983, Herkert 1992). Pflieger (1997) mentioned land disturbance (clearing, logging, overgrazing) and subsequent siltation and loss of vegetated backwaters as causes for the decline in the Ozarks of Missouri. He stated that ongoing loss of native grass cover in the prairie region of Missouri will affect long-term survival of the species in that state. Lakeshore development may be contributing to the decline (Eddy and Underhill 1974).