Eurycea cirrigera

Jacobs (1987) examined allozyme variation and concluded that Eurycea bislineata subspecies bislineata, cirrigera, and wilderae should be regarded as distinct species. Most subsequent authors, including Sever (1999), have followed this treatment, but Petranka (1998) retained these taxa as subspecies of Eurycea bislineata, pending study of genetic interactions in contact zones. Camp et al. (2000) examined allozyme and morphological variation in Eurycea at a contact zone between E. cirrigera and E. wilderae in Georgia and concluded that the two are distinct species. Kozak and Montanucci (2001) examined genetic variation across a wilderae-cirrigera contact zone in South Carolina, found evidence of an extended history of reduced gene exchange, and concluded that the two are distinct species. Bonett et al. (2014 "2013") suggested that there are at least 2 lineages under this name, one most closely related to Eurycea wilderae and another most closely related to Eurycea bislineata. Stuart et al. (2020) suggested on molecular grounds that this nominal species is composed of several unnamed lineages, some not particularly closely related (Frost 2020).

The status of Eurycea aquatica has been problematic. Sever (1999) reasoned that E. aquatica may be a valid species, but recent checklists did not regard Eurycea aquatica as a valid species but instead included it in Eurycea cirrigera (Crother et al. 2000, 2003; Collins and Taggart 2002) or E. bislineata (sensu lato, Petranka 1998).

A phylogeographic analysis of the E. bislineata complex based on mtDNA data (Kozak et al. 2006) revealed that E. cirrigera and E. wilderae as currently circumscribed are not monophyletic lineages but rather consist of several distinct lineages. Eurycea bislineata (as currently defined, separate from E. cirrigera and E. wilderae) was represented by two lineages. Eurycea junaluska and E. aquatica (Alabama samples) each formed monophyletic lineages that were deemed worthy of recognition as distinct species. Kozak et al. did not make a formal taxonomic revision of the E. bislineata complex and did not propose names for the newly identified lineages. Until the taxonomy has been resolved, this database retains E. bislineata, E. cirrigera, and E. wilderae as mapped by Conant and Collins (1991), except that E. aquatica is recognized as a distinct species rather than as part of E. cirrigera.

Large range in southeastern United States; high abundance; many secure populations throughout the range; no major pervasive threats.

Illinois, Indiana, southern Ohio, western West Virginia, and central Virginia south to northern Florida, southern Alabama, southern Mississippi, and southeastern Louisiana (Jacobs 1987, Conant and Collins 1991, Sever 1999). An old record for Michigan needs verification (Sever 1999).

Represented by many and/or large occurrences throughout the range.

Like many salamanders, this species is sensitive to intensive timbering, land clearing, and stream pollution and siltation, and it is often absent from urban areas and highly disturbed landscapes (Petranka 1998), but overall the species is unthreatened.

Abundance reflects levels of habitat disturbance, including areas outside riparian buffer zones. For example, in North Carolina, abundance was inversely proportional to the percentage of disturbed habitat in the entire headwater watershed but less affected by the percentage of disturbed habitat present within buffer zones (Willson and Dorcas 2003).