Cyprogenia aberti

(Conrad, 1850)

Western Fanshell

G1Critically Imperiled (G1G2) Found in 6 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G1Critically ImperiledGlobal Rank
Data deficientIUCN
Very high - mediumThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.120551
Element CodeIMBIV10010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryInvertebrate Animal
IUCNData deficient
CITESAppendix II
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumMollusca
ClassBivalvia
OrderUnionoida
FamilyUnionidae
GenusCyprogenia
Other Common Names
Edible Naiad (EN) Edible Pearly Mussel (EN) Western Fan-shell (EN) Western Fanshell Mussel (EN)
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
Cyprogenia aberti is not a monophyletic group and may comprise 2 and possibly 5 distinct taxa that are cryptic and difficult to distinguish. Kim and Roe (2021) suggest breaking C. aberti into the following units: 1 C. "aberti" in Black/Spring rivers, Arkansas, 2. C. "aberti" . Saline River, Arkansas (Ouachita Highlands) 3. C. "aberti" in the Ouachita/Caddo rivers, Arkansas, 4. C. "aberti" in the St. Francis River, Missouri, . 5. C. "aberti" in Spring and Fall rivers (Ozark Highlands) in Kansas. However, because of the small number of samples from the in the Fall River and total lack of samples from the Verdigris River, formal taxonomic changes will require more thorough sampling. Confusion regarding the type locality of Unio lamarckianus Lea, 1852, requires resolution to determine whether that name is available for the Ouachita River drainage population. Williams et al. (2017) recognize the distinctiveness of this species but defer including it in their list until a specific epithet can be designated.

In analyses by Serb (2003, 2006), there are 2 major clades of fanshells, A and B. Cyprogenia from the Black River (White River system) are closely related to C. stegaria from the Clinch River in Tennessee, and form one clade within clade A. Cyprogenia from the upper Arkansas system also form one well-supported clade within clade A. A portion of the Cyprogenia from the Ouachita and St. Francis River systems form the final clade in clade A. Cyprogenia from the St. Francis, White and Ouachita River systems form the two clades within Clade B. Serb (2006) surmises that the best fit scenario to the phylogenetic results obtained is that C. aberti contains cryptic biological diversity including distinct lineages (species) of unionids on separate evolutionary paths including two distinct non-interbreeding entities occurring sympatrically in the Ouachita System with reproductive barriers. She does not go so far as to separate the entities into distinct species yet but suggests other independent data (such as life history traits) are needed to support designation of multiple species. Based on morphology, the above work by Serb, and differences in host specificity and conglutinate morphology, Eckert (2003) and Barnhart and Eckert (2004) believe the type population in the Verdigris River system should retain the name Cyprogenia aberti. Further study of genetics and host requirements of populations in the Black River and populations east of the Mississippi are needed. In a study of mitochondrial DNA sequences, conglutinate morphology, and host fish compatibility, two different mtDNA clades were found to exist sympatrically within most populations (also diagnosed by at least one morphological character- egg color), but the hypothesis of heritage infidelity of the two different mitochondrial genomes was tested and falsified. However, populations from the major river systems utilized different host fish suggesting populations are not ecologically exchangeable with one another and may represent different taxa (cryptic species) (see Serb and Barnhart 2008).
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2023-03-31
Change Date2023-03-31
Edition Date2023-03-31
Edition AuthorsFraser, D.F. (2023), Cordeiro, J. (2011), Vaughn, Caryn C. (1998).
Threat ImpactVery high - medium
Range Extent20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences6 - 80
Rank Reasons
The taxon is a regional endemic that has experienced significant declines in the last 40 years and is predicted to continue to do so. It has been extirpated from a 17 of the 32 historically occupied watersheds and is at low numbers throughout most of its remaining range. Most populations are under some threat of habitat degradation. A 2020 analysis by the USFWS concludes that declines are almost certain to continue over the next 40 years.
Range Extent Comments
Endemic to the USA. Mostly likely this "species" represents a complex of cryptic species found in Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Arkansas. It is extirpated from Louisiana. Cyprogenia shells are known from archeological samples in Mississippi but species identification of those samples is uncertain (USFWS 2020). The species complex is considered endemic to the Ozark and Ouachita mountain ranges of the interior highlands west of the Mississippi River. It is known historically from the Little Missouri, Saline, Caddo and Ouachita Rivers (Red River drainage); Spring, Elk, Fall, Caney, Neosho, Verdigris and Shoal Rivers (Arkansas River drainage) Little Black, Black, Buffalo, Current, Spring, Strawberry, and White Rivers, and Cane and Castor Creeks (White River drainage) and the St. Francis River. The species is now extirpated from the Caney, Elk and Neosho rivers (Obermeyer et al., 1997; Vaughn, 1998; Couch, 1997), the Oklahoma portion of the Verdigris and Spring rivers (Vaughn, 1998), and from Castor and Cane Creeks, Missouri (Oesch, 1995). Occurrences in Arkansas are more viable with populations in at least 8 rivers and locally abundant in 2 or 3 of them (Harris et al., 1997). It was collected in the Saline River, Arkansas, after several years of supposed absence (Davidson and Gosse, 2003). Archeological remains exist on Big Sunflower and Yazoo Rivers in Mississippi, but there are no extant populations (Jones et al 2005). The most recent genetic investigation (Kim and Roe 2021) of suggests that C. aberti could be regarded as 6 taxonomic groups.
Occurrences Comments
The species complex is currently known from nine streams in Arkansas, five in Missouri, and three in Kansas. Based on the definition of an occurrence, there are 20 total known occurrences (nine in Arkansas, seven in Missouri, and four in Kansas).
Threat Impact Comments
USFWS (2020, 2023) summarized the factors that were the largest risk to future viability of the species: water quality degradation, altered flow, landscape changes, and habitat fragmentation, all of which are exacerbated by climate change. The "species" currently occupies 15 of 31 historical watersheds. That assessment looked at two likely scenarios, 1. with a moderate deterioration in conditions, 2. with a severe deterioration in conditions. Under scenario 1. extirpation was likely within 40 years for 7 of 15 currently occupied watersheds with 5 in moderate condition and the remainder in low condition (i.e. no recruitment). Under scenario 2 extirpation was likely in 7 of the 15 currently occupied watersheds in the same time period but all in low condition where there was no recruitment of young mussels in the population and long-term extinction. No watershed was predicted to have a population in a high condition in either scenario.

The species is threatened by impoundments and channelization, gravel mining, agricultural practices that result in siltation and organic inputs, and the ultimate spread of the zebra mussel which now occurs in the Arkansas River drainage. Obermeyer (2000) found a reduction in the overall range associated with habitat loss due to large impoundments. St. Francois, Reynolds, and Iron Counties in Missouri are located within the Southeast Missouri Lead Mining District, an area that was mined extensively for lead and zinc for more than a century. As a result of this, large amounts of toxic metals including cadmium, lead, zinc, and nickel were released and are continuing to be released into Missouri's environment (Mosby and Weber, 2009). These metals are known to have an impact on freshwater mussels (Naimo 1995). Non-native species, such as Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) occur in portions of the Fanshell mussels range and negatively affect mussel survival and reproduction. The Asian Clam competes with native mussels, particularly juveniles, for food, nutrients, and space (Neves and Widlak 1987, Leff et al. 1990). Both of these non-native mollusks may ingest sperm, glochidia, and newly metamorphosed juveniles of native mussels (Strayer 1999, Yeager et al. 2000). The introduced Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus), which feeds on mollusks as an adult, is a potential threat to mussels (Strayer 1999). Climate change is expected to exacerbate several of the threats because of increased flood events. Flooding increases sedimentation, runoff of chemical contaminants, and facilitates the movement of alien species into new watersheds. Direct impacts of climate change include droughts which reduce waterflows and causes rising water temperatures that are predicted to increase mortalities (USFWS 2020, 2023).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

Shell roughly triangular with a rounded ventral margin; anterior end uniformly rounded; posterior end tgruncated and rather sharply rounded ventrally. Shell strong, thicker anteriorly; compressed to moderately inflated; posterior ridge prominent, raised and rounded, a slight sulcus anterior to the posterior ridge. Beaks low, only slightly raised above the hinge line, equipartite; beak sculpture is very faint. Growth lines distinct, rest periods seen as alternating grooves. Epidermis dull to a low luster, background color tan, surface covered with small green flecks or spots becoming dense enough to form distinct rays anteriorly, though narrow or absent posteriorly. Central part of valve appears wrinkled, especially in the sulcus; posterior slope has fine parallel ridges directed towards the margin. Left valve with two divergent, rough pseudocardinal teeth; the anterior tooth is high and compressed laterally, the posterior tooth triangular; there are deep grooves between the teeth; lateral teeth slightly curved, short and striated. Right valve has one triangular, striated pseudocardinal; the single lateral tooth is short, slightly curved and striated. Interdentum broad; beak cavities moderately deep; nacre bluish white, sometimes tinged with salmon, iridescent posteriorly (Oesch, 1995).

Diagnostic Characteristics

Shell a modified circle to triangular; surface rough, speckled with green; rays broken into blocks; sulcus anterior to the raised posterior ridge.

Habitat

This species is found on rock, gravel, and soft mud bottoms in medium sized rivers in flowing water only. This species is found in gravel, and soft mud bottoms in medium sized rivers in flowing water only (NatureServe 2009). It is generally confined to shallow riffles and runs in predominantly clean, moderately compacted, gravel-sand substrata (Obermeyer et al 1997).

Reproduction

Cyprogenia are bradytictic, meaning they begin brooding in the fall and release glochidia in the spring (Surber 1912, Ortmann 1919, Chamberlain 1934). Fanshells release their eggs as a conglutinated wormlike strand. These conglutinates consist of a core of sterile eggs with only the outermost eggs containing viable glochidia. Conglutinates resemble annelid worms, a trait that attracts host fish to attempt to consume them and encounter glochidia (Eckert 2003). In an experiment by Barnhart (Barnhart 1997a and 997b), three fish successfully supported the transformation of Cyprogenia aberti glochidia in the Spring River (upper Arkansas River system). These fish were Etheostoma flabellare, the fantail darter, Percina caprodes, the logperch, and Cottus carolinae, the banded sculpin. A total of 27 fishes were tested. Jones and Neves (2002) found 9 species to be potential hosts for Clinch River fanshell including mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), banded sculpin (C. carolinae), snubnose darter (E. simoterum), tangerine darter (P. aurantiaca), blotchside darter (P. burtoni), banded darter (Etheostoma flabellare), greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides), logperch (Percina caprodes), and Roanoke darter (P. roanoka). Chamberlain (1934) also lists Carassius auratus, the goldfish, but transformation was not mentioned. Eckert (2003) confirmed various hosts with various rates of transformation success depending on mussel population, including: logperch (Percina caprodes), rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum), slenderhead darter (P. phoxocephala), orangethroat darter (E. spectabile squamosum), greenside darter (E. blennioides), fantail darter (E. flabellare), banded darter (E. zonale) and the orangebelly darter (E. radiosum). Worth noting, glochidia from different river systems in Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas had different rates of transformation on the same host fish from different sites; sometimes not at all (Eckert 2003, Barnhart and Eckert 2004). This has implications for conservation, restoration, and relocation of endangered or threatened species.
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN2
ProvinceRankNative
OklahomaSHYes
KansasS1Yes
ArkansasS3Yes
MississippiSXYes
MissouriS2Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
3 - Energy production & miningSmall (1-10%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
3.2 - Mining & quarryingSmall (1-10%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource useLarge - restrictedSerious - moderateInsignificant/negligible or past
5.1 - Hunting & collecting terrestrial animalsLarge - restrictedSerious - moderateInsignificant/negligible or past
7 - Natural system modificationsLarge - restrictedSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/useLarge - restrictedSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesRestricted - smallExtreme - moderateHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases
9 - Pollution
9.1 - Domestic & urban waste waterRestricted (11-30%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
9.2 - Industrial & military effluentsRestricted - smallSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsLarge - restrictedSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive - largeSerious - moderateHigh - moderate
11.2 - DroughtsPervasive - largeSerious - moderateHigh - moderate
11.3 - Temperature extremesLarge - restrictedSerious - moderateHigh - moderate

Roadless Areas (6)
Arkansas (4)
AreaForestAcres
Dismal CreekOzark-St. Francis National Forest9,160
Hurricane CreekOzark-St. Francis National Forest2,279
Pedestal RocksOzark-St. Francis National Forest21,957
Richland CreekOzark-St. Francis National Forest571
Missouri (1)
AreaForestAcres
Anderson Mountain Rare II Study AreaMark Twain National Forest2,741
South Dakota (1)
AreaForestAcres
Indian CreekBuffalo Gap National Grassland24,666
References (73)
  1. Ahlstedt, S.A. and J.J. Jenkinson. 1991. Distribution and abundance of <i>Potamilus capax</i> and other freshwater mussels in the St. Francis River system, Arkansas and Missouri, U.S.A. Walkerana, 5(14): 225-261.
  2. Barnhart, C. and N. Eckert. 2004. Comparing host fish requirements for geographically isolated populations of western fanshell. Kansas Pearly Mussel Newsline, 7(1): 5-6.
  3. Barnhart, C.M. 1997a. Reproduction and fish hosts of unionid species of concern. Report submitted to the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Kansas. 23 pp.
  4. Barnhart, M.C. 1997b. Reproduction and fish hosts of the western fanshell, <i>Cyprogenia aberti</i>. Kansas Pearly Mussel Newsline, 2: 10.
  5. Boeckman, C.J. and J.R. Bidwell. 2008. Status of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in the Oklahoma section of the Verdigris River after introduction of the zebra mussel (<i>Dreissena polymorpha</i> Pallas, 1771). American Midland Naturalist 25:1-8.
  6. Branson, B.A. 1984. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma- Part 3: Lampsilini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 64: 20-36.
  7. Brim-Box, J. M. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18:99-117.
  8. Brown, A. V., and M. M. Lyttle. 1992. Impacts of gravel mining on Ozark stream ecosystems. Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
  9. Bruenderman, S.A. and A.C. Buchanan. 1998 (in prep). Qualitative survey for the Curtis pearly mussel <i>Epioblasma florentina curtisii </i>in the Upper Little Black River, Missouri. Final report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  10. Busby, William H. (Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory, Kansas Biological Survey). 1997. Review and annotation of mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. October 1997.
  11. Chamberlain, T.K. 1934. The glochidial conglutinates of the Arkansas fanshell, <i>Cyprogenia aberti</i> (Conrad). Biological Bulletin, 66: 55-61.
  12. 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.
  13. Christian, A.D. 1995. Analysis of the commercial mussel beds in the Cache and White Rivers in Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 210 pp.
  14. Clarke, A.H. and B.K. Obermeyer. 1996. A survey of rare and possibly endangered freshwater mussels (Molluska: Unionidae) of the Spring River Basin (with observations on the Elk River Basin), in Missouri. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, MO. 37 pp.
  15. Combes, M. and D. Edds. 2005. Mussel assemblages upstream from three Kansas reservoirs. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 20(1): 139-148.
  16. Couch, K.J. 1997. An Illustrated Guide to the Unionid Mussels of Kansas. Karen J. Couch. [Printed in Olathe, Kansas]. 124 pp.
  17. Davidson, C.L. 1997. Analysis of mussel beds in the Little Missouri and Saline Rivers, Blue Mountain, Ozark and Dardanelle Lakes, Arkansas. M.S. thesis, Arkansas State University.
  18. Davidson, C.L. and D. Gosse. 2003. Status and distribution of freshwater mussels (Unionacea) inhabiting the Saline River/ Holly Creek bottoms area, Saline County, Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 57: 187-192.
  19. Eckert, N.L. 2003. Reproductive biology and host requirement differences among isolated populations of Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad, 1850). MS Thesis, Southwest Missouri State University. 87 pp.
  20. 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
  21. Gordon, M.E. 1982. Mollusca of the White River, Arkansas and Missouri. The Southwestern Naturalist, 27(3): 347-352.
  22. 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.
  23. Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1987. Distribution and status of rare and endangered mussels (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 41: 49-56.
  24. Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997. Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 51: 66-89.
  25. Harris, John L. (Environmental Division, Arkansas Highway Department). 1997. Review and annotation of mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Christine O'Brien, USGS-BRD. July 1997.
  26. Hartfield, H. 1993. Headcuts and their effect on freshwater mussels. Pages 131-141 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.
  27. Howard, A. D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.
  28. Jacobson, P.J., R.J. Neves, D.S. Cherry and J.L. Farris. 1997. Sensitivity of glochidial stages of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) to copper. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16:2384-2392.
  29. 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.
  30. Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.
  31. Kim, K.S., and K.J. Roe. 2021. Genome-wide SNPs redefines species boundaries and conservation units in the freshwater mussel genus <i>Cyprogenia</i> of North America. Scientific reports 11(1):10752.
  32. 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.
  33. Mackie, G.L., D. Zanatta, J.L. Metcalf-Smith, J. Di Maio, and S.K. Staton. 2000. Toward developing strategies for re-habilitating/re-establishing Unionidae populations in southwestern Ontario. Final Report to the Endangered Species Recovery Fund.
  34. Mann, Tom. (Mississippi Natural Heritage Program. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science). 1997. Review and annotation of fish and mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC.
  35. Mather, C. 1990. Status survey of the western fanshell and the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma. Final Report to the Oklahoma Deptartment of Wildlife Conservation. Project No. E-7, Oklahoma. 22 pp.
  36. Miller, E.J. 1993. Evaluation of Verdigris River, Kansas, Freshwater Mussel Refuge. Pages 56-60 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.
  37. Miller, E.J. and S.T. Lynott. 2006. Increase of unionid mussel populations in the Verdigris River, Kansas, from 1991 to 2003. Southeastern Naturalist, 5(3): 383-392.
  38. MolluscaBase eds. 2024. MolluscaBase. Accessed at https://www.molluscabase.org
  39. Mosby, D.E. and J.S. Weber. 2009. Final Phase 1 Damage Assessment Plan for Southeast Missouri Lead Mining District: Big River Mine Tailings Superfund Site, St. Francois County and Viburnum Trend Sites, Reynolds, Crawford, Washington, and Iron Counties. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, Missouri.
  40. 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.
  41. Murray, H.D. and A.B. Leonard. 1962. Handbook of Unionid Mussels in Kansas. Museum of Natural History, Uni- versity of Kansas, Miscellaneous Publication, 28: 1-184.
  42. Naimo, T. 1995. A review of the effects of heavy metals on freshwater mussels. Ecotoxicology 4:341-362.
  43. Obermeyer, B.K. 1999. Recovery plan for four freshwater mussels in southeast Kansas: neosho mucket (<i>Lampsilis rafinesqueana)</i>, ouachita kidneyshell (<i>Ptychobranchus occidentalis)</i>, rabbitsfoot (<i>Quadrula cylindrica)</i>, and western fanshell (<i>Cyprogenia aberti)</i>. Report submitted to the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks, Pratt, Kansas. 83 pp.
  44. Obermeyer, B.K., D.W. Edds, C.W. Prophet and E.J. Miller, 1997a. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Verdigris, Neosho and Spring river basins of Kansas and Missouri, with emphasis on species of special concern. American Malacological Bulletin 14: 41-55.
  45. Oesch, R.D. 1984a. Missouri Naiades: a Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Jefferson City, Missouri: Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri. 270 pp.
  46. Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition. Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.
  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. Osborne, Cindy (Arkansas Natural Heritage Program). 1997. Review and annotation of fish and mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. September 1997.
  49. Posey II, W.R. 1997. Location, species composition and community estimates for mussel beds in the St. Francis and Ouachita Rivers, Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 178 pp.
  50. Posey, W.R., III, J.L. Harris, and G.L. Harp. 1996b. An evaluation of the mussel community in the Lower Ouachita River. Report to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas. 28 pp.
  51. Roe, K. J. 2004. Conservation Assessment for Western Fanshell (<i>Cyprogenia aberti</i>). Eastern Region Office, USFS. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 12 pp.
  52. 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.
  53. 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.
  54. 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.
  55. Shively, Stephen H. (Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries). 1997. Review and annotation of fish and mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. September 1997.
  56. Sietman, B.E. and L. Sadler. 1994. Survey of the Curtis pearly mussel (<i>Epioblasma florentina curtisii</i>) in southeast Report to the Missouri and northeast Arkansas. Missouri Department of Conservation.
  57. 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.
  58. Strayer, D. L. 1999. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.
  59. 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.
  60. Surber, T. 1912. Identification of the glochidia of freshwater mussels. Report submitted to U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, document 777: 1-10.
  61. 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.
  62. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Status review of the western fanshell, <i>Cyprogenia aberti</i>. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 3 pp.
  63. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Species status assessment report for Western Fanshell (<i>Cyprogenia aberti</i>) and “Ouachita” Fanshell (<i>Cyprogenia </i>cf. <i>aberti</i>). December 2020 (Version 1.1). Columbia, Missouri.
  64. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Western Fanshell and "Ouachita" Fanshell and Designation of Critical Habitat. Proposed rule. Federal Register 87(42):12338-1238.
  65. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Western Fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ Fanshell and Designation of Critical Habitat. Final rule. Federal Register 88(122):41724-41771.
  66. 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.
  67. Vaughn, C.C. 1998. Distribution and habitat preference of the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma. Report to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
  68. Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Gail Q. Vidrine Collectibles: Eunice, Louisiana. xii + 225 pp. + 20 plates.
  69. Vidrine, M.F. 1995. River survey of freshwater mollusks of Bayou Bartholomew in northeastern Louisiana. Final Report to Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
  70. Watters, G. T. 1992. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19:481-490.
  71. 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.
  72. 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.
  73. Wolf, C. and B. Stark. 2008. Survey of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) in the Marais des Cygnes River, Fall River, and Grouse Creek. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 111(1/2):1-20.