Cyprogenia stegaria

(Rafinesque, 1820)

Fanshell

G1Critically Imperiled Found in 3 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G1Critically ImperiledGlobal Rank
Critically endangeredIUCN
Very highThreat Impact
Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria). Photo by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Public Domain (U.S. Government Work), via ECOS.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.110462
Element CodeIMBIV10020
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryInvertebrate Animal
IUCNCritically endangered
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumMollusca
ClassBivalvia
OrderUnionoida
FamilyUnionidae
GenusCyprogenia
Synonyms
Cyprogenia irrorata(I. Lea, 1828)Cyprogenia irrorata irrorata(I. Lea, 1828)Cyprogenia irrorata pusillaSimpson, 1900Unio irroratusLea, 1828
Concept Reference
Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, Jr., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, P. M. Mikkelsen, R. J. Neves, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J. D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland. 526 pp.
Taxonomic Comments
Turgeon et al. (1998) recognized two species, Cyprogenia stegaria and C. alberti. Subsequent molecular data suggested cryptic species diversity in the genus (Serb and Barnhart 2008, Grobler et al. 2011). The most recent molecular analysis of Cyprogenia identified three independent evolutionary lineages: C. aberti in the Ozark drainages of Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas; C. stegaria in the Ohio River Basin; and a third lineage in the Ouachita River drainage in Arkansas (Chong et al. 2016, Williams et al. 2017). Formerly placed in the genera Obovaria and Unio.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2020-09-28
Change Date1998-01-30
Edition Date2020-09-28
Edition AuthorsJackson, D. R. (2020); Cordeiro, J. (2009); Morrison, M., and Cummings, K. S. (1998)
Threat ImpactVery high
Range Extent250-1000 square km (about 100-400 square miles)
Number of Occurrences1 - 20
Rank Reasons
This mussel is rare throughout its limited range in the Tennessee and Ohio river systems; four viable populations remain in Kentucky and Tennessee. Steep declines (>80%) have occurred over the past century and particularly in recent decades. Remaining fanshell populations are small and geographically isolated from each other. Water quality degradation, invasive species, and habitat loss threaten most populations
Range Extent Comments
This species was historically considered endemic to the eastern highlands east of the Mississippi River, USA. It was historically widely distributed in the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Ohio River systems (Parmalee and Bogan 1998), although it has become very rare in recent years (USFWS 2019). In the Ohio River drainage, records from the latter part of the 20th century exist for the deep channel of the Ohio River between Cincinnati and Pittsburgh (Johnson 1980); lower Muskingum and Walhonding rivers, Ohio (Stansbery et al. 1982); Salt and Licking rivers, tributaries of the Ohio River (Stansbery, pers. comm. to J. Cordeiro); Green River, Kentucky (USFWS 1991); Kanawha River, West Virginia (Stansbery, pers. comm. to J. Cordeiro); Allegheny River, Pennsylvania (Dennis 1970); and lower Clinch River in Scott County, Virginia (Neves 1991).
Occurrences Comments
The four best, reproducing populations occur in the upper Green and Licking rivers in Kentucky (Cicerello and Schuster 2003), the Clinch River in Tennessee (USFWS 1991, 2019), and Rolling Fork River in Kentucky; the last is relatively small compared to the first three (USFWS 2019). The only Ohio River extant population in Ohio is from Muskingum Island near the confluence of the Ohio and Muskingum rivers (anonymous, 1996; Watters et al. 2009) at the Belleville dam pool (Watters and Flaute 2010) and the Markland dam pool in eastern Indiana (Watters and Flaute 2010), but weathered shells are known from Killbuck Creek (Muskingum River tributary) (Watters et al., 2009). A few other apparently non-reproducing populations are known from Indiana (Tippecanoe River [Cummings and Berlocher 1990, Fisher 2006; as shell only] and a few tributaries of the Wabash River such as lower East Fork White River [Fisher, 2006]), West Virginia (upper Kanawha River [Taylor and Horn 1983]), and Illinois (Wabash River in 1984 [Cummings and Mayer 1997]). It has been collected in Kentucky in the Middle Green and Barren rivers (Cochran and Layzer 1993). Also, a small reproducing population may exist in the Tennessee River below Pickwick Landing Dam (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). In the Alabama and Mobile basin, it occurred historically across the state of Alabama and the Elk River, but is known to be extant only in Wilson Dam tailwaters with questionable viability (Williams et al. 2008). A population has also been located in the Rolling Fork River (tributary of the Salt River, which flows to the Ohio River in Kentucky; USFWS 2019). Adults from the Licking River have also been translocated to other rivers in Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky, but it is unknown if these have resulted in recruitment (USFWS 2019).
Threat Impact Comments
Smith (1971) ranked the causes of extirpation or declines in fish species as follows: siltation, drainage of bottomland lakes, swamps, and prairie marshes, desiccation during drought, species introductions, pollution, impoundments, and increased water temperatures. All of these factors render habitats unsuitable, cause extirpations, and lead to the isolation of populations thereby increasing their vulnerability to extirpation for many aquatic species (including mussels) throughout North America. The loss of many historical populations was likely due to the impacts of impoundments, navigation projects, pollution, and habitat alterations, such as gravel and sand dredging, that directly affected the species and reduced or eliminated its fish host (USFWS, 1991). The zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, has destroyed mussel populations in the Great Lakes and significantly reduced mussels in many of the large rivers of the eastern North America and has the potential to severely threaten other populations especially if it makes its way into smaller streams. Additionally, the black (Asian) carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus), a known mussel predator, has now been recorded in the lower Ohio River and poses a potential threat if populations expand and move upstream (USFWS 2019). Pollution through point (industrial and residential discharge) and non-point (siltation, herbicide and fertilizer run-off) sources is perhaps the greatest on-going threat to this species and most freshwater mussels. Lowered dissolved oxygen content and elevated ammonia levels (frequently associated with agricultural runoff and sewage discharge) have been shown to be lethal to some species of freshwater naiads, including C. stegaria (Horne and McIntosh 1979, Hernandez et al. 2016). Residential, mineral and industrial development also pose a significant threat. Destruction of habitat through stream channelization and maintenance and the construction of dams although slowed in recent years is still a threat in some areas. Impoundments reduce currents that are necessary for the most basic physiological activities such as feeding, waste removal and reproduction. In addition, reduced water flow typically results in a reduction in water oxygen levels and a settling out of suspended solids (silt, etc.), both of which are detrimental. Dredging of streams has an immediate effect on existing populations by physically removing and destroying individuals. Dredging also affects the long-term recolonization abilities by destroying much of the potential habitat, making the substrates and flow rates uniform throughout the system. Rotenone, a toxin used to kill fish in bodies of water for increased sport fishery quality, has been shown to be lethal to mussels as well (Heard, 1970). Natural predators include raccoons, otter, mink, muskrats, turtles and some birds, which feed heavily upon freshwater mussels (Simpson, 1899; Boepple and Coker, 1912; Evermann and Clark, 1918; Coker et al., 1921; Parmalee, 1967; Snyder and Snyder, 1969). Domestic animals such as hogs can root mussel beds to pieces (Meek and Clark, 1912). Fishes, particularly catfish, Ictalurus spp. and Amieurus spp., and freshwater drum, Aplodinotus grunniens also consume large numbers of unionids.

The distribution and reproductive capacity of this species have been seriously impacted by the construction of impoundments and navigation facilities, dredging for channel maintenance, sand and gravel mining, and water pollution. The four known reproducing populations are threatened by a variety of factors. The Green River has been degraded by runoff from oil and gas exploration and production sites and by alteration of stream flows by an upstream reservoir. Land use practices along the Clinch River have contributed to a decline in water quality and mussel populations. The Clinch River has also experienced some adverse impacts from coal mining, and the river has been subjected to two mussel kills resulting from toxic substance spills from a riverside coal-fired power plant. At least 30 collecting sites on the Clinch River once contained more than 18 different species of freshwater mussels (Ahlstedt, 1984). At one point, the mussel abundance in the Clinch River had decreased from an average of 11.64 mussels per square meter in 1979, to 6 mussels per square meter by 1988 (USFWS, 1991). The fanshell has been known from about 86 river miles of the Clinch River; yet, this species comprised less than 1 percent of the mussels collected at 11 sampling sites in 1979 and 1988 (USFWS, 1990).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

SHELL: Rounded, solid, and moderately inflated. Anterior margin rounded, posterior margin bluntly rounded or truncated. Ventral margin broadly rounded. Umbos not elevated above the hinge line. Beak sculpture, if visible, of a few weak ridges. Growth lines appear as distinct elevated ridges. Numerous pustules usually concentrated in the center, but occasionally covering the entire surface of the shell. Periostracum usually greenish yellow, with a pattern of dark green rays made up of numerous smaller broken lines or dots. Length to 3 inches. Pseudocardinal teeth relatively large and serrated; two in the left valve, one in the right. Lateral teeth roughened, straight to slightly curved, heavy and very short. Interdentum wide. Beak cavity shallow to moderately deep. Nacre white, iridescent posteriorly (Cummings and Mayer, 1992).

ANIMAL: "Color of soft parts whitish. Abdominal sac and mantle suffused with black. Edge of mantle brown with black spots, this mottling extending all around. Marsupium, when charged, red, (according to Sterki) sometimes white. Branchial, anal and supra-anal as usual, the latter two separated by a very short mantle-connection. Branchial with papillae, anal finely crenulated. In front of the branchial, the inner edge of the mantle has a series of fine crenulations which soon disappear, the edge becoming smooth. Palpi normal, posterior margins connected at base only. Gills short and broad, the inner much wider than the outer throughout its whole length. Diaphragm normal, inner lamina of inner gills free from abdominal sac, except at the anterior end. Anterior attachment of gills as usual. Septa and water-tubes in both gills normally developed, the latter moderately wide in the male and the non-marsupial gills of the female. Marsupium formed by a section in the middle of the outer gill: in fact this section is a little more toward the anterior end of the gill. Ovisacs few (three to eight in my specimens; up to eleven reported by other authors; Simpson gives for the genus twenty-three as maximum), hardly different in width from the rest of the water-tubes, that is to say in the longitudinal direction. But, when charged, they swell somewhat in the transverse direction, so as to become subcylindrical. The ovisacs project to an extreme degree beyond the edge of the gill. Although they begin near the base of the gill, and although a considerable part is enclosed between the original laminae of the gill, this part is very small when compared with the prolonged portion. The latter curves backward in a circle, and is rolled up spirally, the spiral forming about one and a half to two turns, but only the posterior ovisacs complete the whole revolution, while the anterior ones stop earlier, the first after completing the circle about once. The distal parts of the spiral wind up in the direction toward the median line of the body, so that in a view from the outside, they are hidden under the outer gill and the first whorl of the marsupium. The ova fill the ovisacs in the shape of closely packed masses, forming distinct and very solid placentae, red n color, rarely white." (Ortmann, 1912 313-314).

Diagnostic Characteristics

A white nacre is characteristic except posteriorly, where it becomes iridescent (Simpson, 1914).

Habitat

Characteristic habitat is medium to large streams (Dennis, 1984). It has been found in river habitats with gravel substrates and a strong current, in both deep and shallow water (Ortmann, 1919; Parmalee, 1967).

Reproduction

The mussel is reported as a long-term breeder (holds glochidia overwinter for spring release) (Ortmann, 1919), and the glochidial host has been reported to be banded sculpin, Cyprogenia stegaria; greenside darter, Etheostoma blennioides; mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi; Tennessee snubnose darter, Etheostoma simoterum; banded darter, Etheostoma zonale; Tengerine darter, Percina aurantiaca; blotchside logperch, Percina burtoni; logperch, Percina caprodes; and Roanoke darter, Percina roanoka (Schulz and Marbain, 1998; Jones and Neves, 2001l 2002). Glochidia are contained in red, worm-like conglutinates that resemble oligochaetes. These are about 20 to 80 mm long and are released through the excurrent aperture. Estimated fecundity is 22,357 to 63,459 glochidia/mussel (Jones and Neves, 2001).
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN1
ProvinceRankNative
IllinoisS1Yes
IndianaS1Yes
AlabamaS1Yes
TennesseeS1Yes
VirginiaS1Yes
PennsylvaniaSHYes
KentuckyS1Yes
OhioS1Yes
West VirginiaS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.2 - Commercial & industrial areasLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
3 - Energy production & miningLarge (31-70%)Extreme - seriousHigh - moderate
3.1 - Oil & gas drillingLarge (31-70%)Extreme - seriousHigh - moderate
3.2 - Mining & quarryingLarge - restrictedExtreme - seriousHigh - moderate
5 - Biological resource useRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineModerate (short-term)
5.1 - Hunting & collecting terrestrial animalsRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineModerate (short-term)
5.1.2 - Unintentional effects (species being assessed is not the target)Restricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineModerate (short-term)
7 - Natural system modificationsLarge (31-70%)Extreme - seriousHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/useLarge (31-70%)Extreme - seriousHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.1 - Domestic & urban waste waterLarge - restrictedSerious - moderateHigh - moderate
9.2 - Industrial & military effluentsRestricted (11-30%)Serious - moderateHigh - moderate
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsLarge (31-70%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (3)
Idaho (1)
AreaForestAcres
Bear CreekCaribou-Targhee National Forest118,582
Illinois (1)
AreaForestAcres
Burke BranchShawnee National Forest6,231
Indiana (1)
AreaForestAcres
Mogan RidgeHoosier National Forest8,435
References (84)
  1. Ahlstedt, S.A. 1984. Twentieth century changes in the freshwater mussel fauna of the Clinch River (Tennessee and Virginia). M.S. Thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 102 pp.
  2. Anonymous. 1996. Recovery updates- Region 5. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin, 21(1): 31.
  3. Barr, W.C., S.A. Ahlstedt, G.D. Hickman, and D.M. Hill. 1993-1994. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation program. Activity 8: Analysis of macrofauna factors. Walkerana 7(17/18):159-224.
  4. Bates, J.M. and S.D. Dennis. 1978. The mussel fauna of the Clinch River, Tennessee and Virginia. Sterkiana, 69-70: 3-23.
  5. Biological Resources Division, USGS. 1997. Database of museum records of aquatic species. Compiled by J. Williams (USGS-BRD, Gainesville, FL).
  6. Boepple, J.F. and R.E. Coker. 1912. Mussel resources of the Holston and Clinch rivers of eastern Tennessee. Bureau of Fisheries Document 765. 13 pp.
  7. Bogan, A.E. 1993a. Workshop on freshwater bivalves of Pennsylvania. Workshop hosted by Aquatic Systems Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, held at Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6-7 May 1993. 80 pp.
  8. Bogan, Art (Curator of Aquatic Invertebrates, North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences). 1997. Review and annotation of mussel watershed distribution maps for TN. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. September 1997.
  9. Chamberlain, T.K. 1934. The glochidial conglutinates of the Arkansas fanshell, <i>Cyprogenia aberti</i> (Conrad). Biological Bulletin, 66: 55-61.
  10. Chong, J. P., J. L. Harris, and K. J. Roe. 2016. Incongruence between mtDNA and nuclear data in the freshwater mussel genus <i>Cyprogenia </i>(Bivalvia: Unionidae) and its impact on species delineation. Ecology and Evolution 6:2439–2452.
  11. Cicerello, Ronald R. (Kentucky State Nature Preserves). 1997b. Review and annotation of mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. September 1997.
  12. Cicerello, Ronald R. (Kentucky State Nature Preserves). 1997c. Review and annotation of mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Larry Master, TNC. June 1997.
  13. Cicerello, R.R. and G.A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series 7:1-62.
  14. Cochran, T.G. II and J.B. Layzer. 1993. Effects of commercial harvest on unionid habitat use in the Green and Barren Rivers, Kentucky. Pages 61-65 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (eds.) Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels: Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 12-14 October, 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 189 pp.
  15. Coker, R.E., A.F. Shira, H.W. Clark, and A.D. Howard. 1921. Natural history and propagation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 839] 37(1919-20):77-181 + 17 pls.
  16. Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5, Illinois. 194 pp.
  17. Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145 in: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.
  18. Cummings, K.S. and J.M. Berlocher. 1990. The naiades or freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Tippecanoe River, Indiana. Malacological Review 23:83-98.
  19. Dennis, S.D. 1970. Ecology and distribition of freshwater mussels of Western Pennsylvania. M.S. Thesis. Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan.
  20. Dennis, S.D. 1984. Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Tennessee River system, with special reference to possible limiting effects of siltation. Ph.D. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 247 pp.
  21. Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology, 17: 29-42.
  22. Evermann, B.W. and H.W. Clark. 1918. The Unionidae of Lake Maxinkukee. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1917:251-285.
  23. Fisher, B.E. 2006. Current status of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River drainage of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 115(2): 103-109.
  24. Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society (FMCS). 2023. The 2023 checklist of freshwater bivalves (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Considered and approved by the Bivalve Names Subcommittee October 2023. Online: https://molluskconservation.org/MServices_Names-Bivalves.html
  25. Fuller, S. L. H. 1974. Chapter 8: Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Pp. 215-273 in: C. W. Hart, Jr., and S. L. H. Fuller (eds.). Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, New York. 389 pp.
  26. Gordon, M.E. and J.B. Layzer. 1989. Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of the Cumberland River review of life histories and ecological relationships. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 89(15): 1-99.
  27. Graf, D.L. and K.S. Cummings. 2021. A 'big data' approach to global freshwater mussel diversity (Bivalvia: Unionoida), with an updated checklist of genera and species. Journal of Molluscan Studies 87(1):1-36.
  28. Grobler, J. P., J. W. Jones, N. A. Johnson, R. J. Neves, and E. M. Hallerman. 2011. Homogeneity at nuclear microsatellite loci masks mitochondrial haplotype diversity in the endangered Fanshell Pearlymussel (Cyprogenia stegaria). Journal of Heredity 102:196–206.
  29. Heard, W.H. 1970. Eastern freshwater mollusks. 1. The south Atlantic and Gulf drainages. In: A.H. Clarke (ed.) Rare and endangered molluscs of North America. Malacologia 10:1-56.
  30. Hernández, D. L., D. M. Vallano, E. S. Zavaleta, Z. Tzankova, J. R. Pasari, S. Weiss, P. C. Selmants, and C. Morozumi. 2016. Nitrogen pollution Is linked to US listed species declines. BioScience 66(3):213–222.
  31. Horne, F.R. and S. McIntosh. 1979. Factors influencing distribution of mussels in the Blanco River of central Texas. The Nautilus 94(4):119-133.
  32. Howard, A. D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.
  33. Imlay, M.J. 1973. Effects of potassium on survival and distribution of freshwater mussels. Malacologia 12(1):97-113.
  34. Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center. 2006-2007. Personal communication with Jay Cordeiro (NatureServe) about freshwater mussel distribution in Indiana in 2006 and 2007.
  35. Jenkinson, J.J. and S.A. Ahlsedt. 1988a. Quantitative reassessment of the freshwater mussel fauna in the Clinch River, Tennessee and Virginia. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. 28 pp.
  36. Johnson, R.I. 1980. Zoogeography of North American Unionacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia) north of the maximum Pleistocene glaciation. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University 149(2): 77-189.
  37. Jones, J.W. and R.J. Neves. 2002. Life history and propagation of the endangered fanshell pearlymussel, <i>Cyprogenia stegaria</i> Rafinesque (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 21(1): 76-88.
  38. Lefevre, G. and W. T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propagation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 30:102-201.
  39. Master, Lawrence L. (Chief Zoologist, TNC). 1997a. Review and annotation of fish and mussel watershed distribution maps. Reviews coordinated by Larry Master and Ruth Mathews, TNC.
  40. Master, L. L. and A. L. Stock. 1998. Synoptic national assessment of comparative risks to biological diversity and landscape types: species distributions. Summary Report submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 36 pp.
  41. Meek, S. E., and H.W. Clark. 1912. The mussels of the Big Buffalo Fork of White River, Arkansas. Report and Special Papers of the U.S. Fish Commission [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 759] 1911:1-20.
  42. Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004b. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii + 255 pp.
  43. MolluscaBase eds. 2024. MolluscaBase. Accessed at https://www.molluscabase.org
  44. Moyle, P., and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.
  45. Neves, R.J. 1991. Mollusks. Pages 251-320 in K. Terwilliger (ed.). Virginia's Endangered Species. Proceedings of a Symposium, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
  46. Ortmann, A.E. 1912. Notes upon the families and genera of the najades. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 8(2):222-365.
  47. Ortmann, A.E. 1919. Monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III. Systematic account of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1):1-385.
  48. Parmalee, P.W. 1967. The freshwater mussels of Illinois. Illinois State Museum, Popular Science Series 8:1-108.
  49. Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
  50. Payne, B. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vickburg, Mississippi. Personal communication.
  51. Sargent, Barbara (West Virginia Natural Heritage Program). 1997. Review and annotation of mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. September 1997.
  52. Schulz, C. and K. Marbain. 1998. Hosts species for rare freshwater mussels in Virginia. Triannual Unionid Report, 15: 32-38.
  53. Serb, J.M. 2003. Mitochondrial gene arrangement and the evolution, systematics, and conservation of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of North America. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Alabama.
  54. Serb, J.M. 2006. Discovery of genetically distinct sympatric lineages in the freshwater mussel <i>Cyprogenia aberti </i>(Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 72: 425-434.
  55. Serb, J.S. and M.C. Barnhart. 2008. Congruence and conflict between molecular and reproductive characteristics when assessing biological diversity in the western fanshell, <i>Cyprogenia aberti </i>(Bivalvia, Unionidae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 95:248-261.
  56. Simpson, C.T. 1899. The pearly fresh-water mussels of the United States; their habits, enemies, and diseases, with suggestions for their protection. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 413] 18(1898):279-288.
  57. Simpson, C.T. 1914. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Naiades or Pearly Fresh-water Mussels. Bryant Walker: Detroit, Michigan. 1540 pp.
  58. Smith, P.W. 1971. Illinois streams: A classification based on their fishes and an analysis of factors responsible for disappearance of native species. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 76:1-14.
  59. Snyder, N. and H. Snyder. 1969. A comparative study of mollusk predation by Limpkins, Everglade Kites, and Boat-tailed Grackles. Eighth Annual Report of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology 8:177-223.
  60. Spoo, A. 2008. The Pearly Mussels of Pennsylvania. Coachwhip Publications: Landisville, Pennsylvania. 210 pp.
  61. Stansbery, D. H., K. G. Borror, and K. E. Newman. 1982. Biological abstracts of selected species of unionid mollusks recorded from Ohio. Prepared for the Ohio Heritage Program, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio.
  62. Stansbery, D. H. Museum of Zoology, Ohio State University. Personal communication.
  63. Stern, E.M. 1982. Higgins' eye mussel recovery plan: problems and approaches. Pages 108-113 in: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, CE. "Report of Freshwater Molluscs Workshop", Vicksburg, Mississippi.
  64. Stern, E.M. 1983. Depth distribution and density of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) collected with SCUBA from the Lower Wisconsin and St. Croix Rivers. The Nautilus, 97: 36-42.
  65. Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 13:253-264.
  66. Strayer, D. L. 1999. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.
  67. Strayer, D. L., and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of <i>Alasmidonta</i>. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(3):247-258.
  68. Taylor, R.W. and K.J. Horn. 1983. A list of freshwater mussels suggested for designation as rare, endangereed or threatened in West Virginia. Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Science (Biology Section) 54:31-34.
  69. Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, Jr., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, P. M. Mikkelsen, R. J. Neves, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J. D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland. 526 pp.
  70. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985e. Recovery plan for the pink mucket pearly mussel; <i>Lampsilis orbiculata </i> (Hildreth, 1828). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. 47 pp.
  71. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Recovery plan for fanshell (<i>Cyprogenia stegaria</i> (= <i>C. irrorata</i>)). Southeast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Atlanta, Georgia. 37 pp.
  72. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Ring pink mussel recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Atlanta, Georgia. 24 pp.
  73. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; establishment of nonessential experimental population status for 15 freshwater mussels, 1 freshwater snail, and 5 fishes in the lower French Broad River and in the lower Holston River, Tennessee; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 71(113): 34195-34230.
  74. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Fanshell (<i>Cyprogenia stegaria</i>), 5-year review review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, Frankfort, Kentucky. 22 pp.
  75. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews for 67 Southeastern Species. Notice of initiation of reviews; <br/>request for information. Federal Register 88(91): 30324-30328.
  76. Van der Schalie, H. 1938. The naiad fauna of the Huron River in southeastern Michigan. Miscellaneous Publication of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 40:7-78.
  77. Watters, G. T. 1992. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19:481-490.
  78. Watters, G.T. and C.J.M. Flaute. 2010. Dams, zebras, and settlements: The historical loss of freshwater mussels in the Ohio River mainstem. American Malacological Bulletin 28:1-12.
  79. Watters, G. Thomas (Ohio Biological Survey). 1997. Review and annotation of mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Christine O'Brien, USGS-BRD. May 1997.
  80. Watters, G.T., M.A. Hoggarth, and D.H. Stansbery. 2009b. The Freshwater Mussels of Ohio. Ohio State University Press: Columbus, Ohio. 421 pp.
  81. Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama & the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi & Tennessee. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 908 pp.
  82. Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, R. S. Butler, K. S. Cummings, J. T. Garner, J. L. Harris, N. A. Johnson, and G. T. Watters. 2017. A revised list of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20:33-58.
  83. Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993b. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.
  84. Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, Jr., K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris, and R. J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.