Obovaria subrotunda

(Rafinesque, 1820)

Round Hickorynut

G3Vulnerable Found in 2 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G3VulnerableGlobal Rank
EndangeredIUCN
HighThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.117121
Element CodeIMBIV31050
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryInvertebrate Animal
IUCNEndangered
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumMollusca
ClassBivalvia
OrderUnionoida
FamilyUnionidae
GenusObovaria
Synonyms
Lampsilis orbiculata(Hildreth, 1828)Obovaria leibii(I. Lea, 1862)Obovaria retusa lens(I. Lea, 1831)
Other Common Names
Obovarie ronde (FR)
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
This species was originally described in the genus Obliquaria. It has also been placed in the genus Unio.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2024-01-09
Change Date2024-01-09
Edition Date2024-01-09
Edition AuthorsWhittaker, J.C. and K.S. Cummings (1998); rev. J. Cordeiro (2010); rev. T. Cornelisse (2024)
Threat ImpactHigh
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences21 - 80
Rank Reasons
This species has a moderately large range and distribution, but due to long and short-term population declines and many ongoing threats, many occurrences are at high risk of extirpation.
Range Extent Comments
This species occurs throughout the Tennessee, Cumberland, Great Lakes, Lower Mississippi, and Ohio river systems in the United States from western Pennsylvania and peninsular Michigan, south to Mississippi and Alabama and in Ontario, Canada in the East Sydenham River and a portion of the Lake St. Clair delta (Parmalee and Bogan 1998; COSEWIC 2003; Watters et al. 2009; USFWS 2019).
Occurrences Comments
This species is known from 69 populations as of 2019 (USFWS 2019).
Threat Impact Comments
This species is threatened by habitat fragmentation from dams and other barriers; habitat loss and degraded water quality from chemical contamination and erosion from poorly managed development, agriculture, mining, and timber operations; direct mortality from dredging and harvest; invasive species; and habitat alteration due to climate change, including increased water temperatures and drought (USFWS 2019).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

SHELL: Shell round or circular, moderately thick, and inflated. Anterior and posterior ends rounded in males, somewhat truncated in females. Umbos low and centrally placed, slightly elevated above the hinge line. Beak sculpture consists of a few indistinct, concentric ridges, usually evident only on very young shells. Shell smooth, growth lines dark but often indistinct. Periostracum yellowish brown to dark chestnut brown or blackish, and rayless. Adult size to 3 inches. Pseudocardinal teeth moderately small, serrated, and divergent. Lateral teeth slightly curved, fairly short, and moderately thin. Interdentum narrow or absent. Beak cavity fairly deep. Nacre white, iridescent posteriorly (Cummings and Mayer, 1992).

ANIMAL: "Structure of soft parts essentially the same as in O. retusa. In the sterile female, the ovisacs are slightly narrower than the regular water-tubes. Number of ovisacs up to thirty and more. As in the preceding species the edge of the mantle in front of the branchial is in the female slightly lamellar and crenulated, but has only a brown (not blackish) mark along it." (Ortmann, 1912:323).

From COSEWIC (2003): The round hickorynut, Obovaria subrotunda (Rafinesque, 1820) is easily recognized by its circular shape, centrally located beaks, unsculptured and unrayed periostracum, and relatively small size. It may be occasionally confused with smooth specimens of Quadrula pustulosa, which, however, have a bright golden-yellow periostracum. The type locality is "Ohio" (the Ohio River). The following description of the species was adapted from Clarke (1981), Strayer and Jirka (1997) and Parmalee and Bogan (1998). The shell is circular to subcircular and thick. The surface is smooth except for prominent growth rests. The periostracum is generally dark brown or olive-brown and without rays except in some very young specimens. The posterior slope is distinctly lighter than the remainder of the shell. Beaks are centrally placed, curved inward, and elevated well above the hinge line. Beak sculpture is fine and consists of 4-6 short, slightly sinuous bars. Hinge teeth are rather heavy and strong. The left valve has two thick, roughened, triangular pseudocardinal teeth and two short, strong, slightly curved lateral teeth. The right valve has one large, triangular serrated pseudocardinal tooth, usually with two small, compressed teeth on either side, and one short, thick, roughened lateral tooth, often with a secondary inner low, incomplete lateral tooth. The interdentum is narrow or absent. Adductor scars are deeply impressed. The nacre is silvery white, with a tinge of blue or pink in some specimens. Sexual differences in the shell are obscure; in females, the posterior margin of the shell may be truncated. However, there is a distinct difference in size, with females being considerably smaller than males. The species shows considerable ecophenotypic variation in shell inflation among specimens from large rivers, small rivers, and lakes.

Habitat

This species is found in small streams to large rivers, and lakes, with sand, gravel, and cobble substrates and moderate flow (Cummings and Mayer 1992; Parmalee and Bogan 1998; COSEWIC 2003; USFWS 2019).

Reproduction

This species is a long-term brooder and gravid year-round in southern populations (USFWS 2019).
Other Nations (2)
United StatesN3
ProvinceRankNative
New YorkSHYes
TennesseeS2Yes
IllinoisSXYes
PennsylvaniaS1Yes
MichiganS1Yes
OhioS1Yes
IndianaS1Yes
West VirginiaS3Yes
AlabamaS2Yes
KentuckyS2Yes
ArkansasS1Yes
GeorgiaSXYes
MississippiS1Yes
CanadaN1
ProvinceRankNative
OntarioS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. decline
1.1 - Housing & urban areasLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. decline
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.1 - Annual & perennial non-timber cropsLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.1.3 - Agro-industry farmingLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7 - Natural system modificationsLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/useLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1.2 - Named speciesLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionLarge (31-70%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.2 - Industrial & military effluentsLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.3.2 - Soil erosion, sedimentationLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11.1 - Habitat shifting & alterationLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (2)
Idaho (1)
AreaForestAcres
Bear CreekCaribou-Targhee National Forest118,582
Kentucky (1)
AreaForestAcres
WolfpenDaniel Boone National Forest2,835
References (74)
  1. Ahlstedt, S.A. 1995-1996. Status survey for federally listed endangered freshwater mussel species in the Paint Rock River system, northeastern Alabama, U.S.A. Walkerana 8(19):63-80.
  2. Badra, P.J. and R.R. Goforth. 2003. Freshwater mussel surveys of Great Lakes tributary rivers in Michigan. Report Number MNFI 2003-15 to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Coastal Zone Management Unit, Lansing, Michigan. 40 pp.
  3. Blatchley, W.S. and L.E. Daniels. 1903. On some Mollusca known to occur in Indiana. A supplementary paper to Call's catalogue. 27th Annual Report of the Department of Geology and Natural Resources of Indiana, 1902: 577-680.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Bursey, C.R. 1987. The unionid (Mollusca: Bivalvia) fauna of the Shenango River in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Proceeding of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science, 61: 41-43.
  7. 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.
  8. Clark, C.F. 1988. Some fresh-water mussels from the Red River drainage, Kentucky. Malacology Data Net, 2(3/4): 100-104.
  9. Clarke, A.H. 1981a. The Freshwater Molluscs of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, D.W. Friesen and Sons, Ltd.: Ottawa, Canada. 446 pp.
  10. Clarke, A.H. 1992. Ontario's Sydenham River, an important refugium for native freshwater mussels against competition from the zebra mussel, <i>Dreissena polymorpha</i>. Malacology Data Net, 3(1-4): 43-55.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the round hickorynut <i>Obovaria subrotunda</i> in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Canada. 31 pp.
  14. Cudmore, B., C.A. MacKinnon, and S.E. Madzia. 2004. Aquatic species at risk in the Thames River watershed, Ontario. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2707. 123 pp.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Evans, R. 2008. Year 1 update of freshwater mollusk monitoring in the South Fork Kentucky River system. Ellipsaria, 10(3): 12-13.
  19. Evermann, B.W. and H.W. Clark. 1918. The Unionidae of Lake Maxinkukee. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1917:251-285.
  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. Frierson, L.S. 1927. A classified and annotated checklist of the North American naiades. Baylor University Press. Waco, Texas. 111 pp.
  22. 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.
  23. Grabarkiewicz, J.D. 2008. Three years of unionid surveys in Swan Creek, Lower Maumee River watershed, Lucas Co., OH. Final Report to the Ohio Division of Wildlife, Toledo Naturalists' Association, and Metroparks of the Toledo Area, Toledo, Ohio. 18 pp. + app.
  24. Graf, D.L. 2002. Historical biogeography and late glacial origin of the freshwater pearly mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) faunas of Lake Erie, North America. Occasional Papers on Mollusks 6(82):175-211.
  25. 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.
  26. Haag, W. R. 2019. Reassessing enigmatic mussel declines in the United States. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 22(2):43-60.
  27. Harmon, J.L. 1989. Freshwater bivalve mollusks (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Graham Creek, a small southeastern Indiana stream. Malacology Data Net, 2(5/6): 113-121.
  28. Harmon, J.L. 1992. Naiades (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Sugar Creek, east fork White River drainage, in central Indiana. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):31-42.
  29. Hoggarth, M.A., D.A. Kimberly, and B.G. Van Allen. 2007. A study of the mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Symmes Creek and tributaries in Jackson, Gallia and Lawrence Counties, Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 107(4):57-62.
  30. 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.
  31. Howard, A. D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.
  32. Hubbs, D. 2002. Monitoring and management of endangered mussels. 2001-02 Annual Report Project 7365, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee. 3 pp.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. Lyons, M.S., R.A. Krebs, J.P. Holt, L.J. Rundo, and W. Zawiski. 2007. Assessing causes of change in the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Black River, Ohio. American Midland Naturalist, 158: 1-15.
  36. 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.
  37. Metcalfe-Smith, J.L. and B. Cudmore-Vokey. 2004. National general status assessment of freshwater mussels (Unionacea). National Water Research Institute / NWRI Contribution No. 04-027. Environment Canada, March 2004. Paginated separately.
  38. Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., J. Di Maio, S.K. Staton, and S.R. De Solla. 2003. Status of the freshwater mussel communities of the Sydenham River, Ontario, Canada. American Midland Naturalist 150:37-50.
  39. 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.
  40. MolluscaBase eds. 2024. MolluscaBase. Accessed at https://www.molluscabase.org
  41. Morris, J.S. and R.W. Taylor. 1992. A survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Kanawha River of West Virginia. The Nautilus 92(4):153-155.
  42. 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.
  43. Ortmann, A.E. 1912. Notes upon the families and genera of the najades. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 8(2):222-365.
  44. 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.
  45. Parmalee, P.W. 1967. The freshwater mussels of Illinois. Illinois State Museum, Popular Science Series 8:1-108.
  46. Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
  47. Pryor, W.W. 2005. Distribution of the native freshwater mussels in the rivers of Allen County, Indiana. Report to the St. Joseph River Watershed Initiative, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 71 pp.
  48. Schmidt, J.E. and M.A. Zeto. 1986. Naiad distribution in the Mud River drainage, southwestern West Virginia. Malacology Data Net, 1(4): 69-78.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.
  51. 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.
  52. Spoo, A. 2008. The Pearly Mussels of Pennsylvania. Coachwhip Publications: Landisville, Pennsylvania. 210 pp.
  53. Strayer, D. 1980. The freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Clinton River, Michigan, with comments on man's impact on the fauna, 1870-1978. The Nautilus 94(4):142-149.
  54. 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.
  55. Strayer, D. L. 1999. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.
  56. 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.
  57. Strayer, D.L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26. The University of the State of New York. 113 pp. + figures.
  58. 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.
  59. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Species Status Assessment Report for the Round Hickorynut Mussel (<i>Obovaria subrotunda</i>), Version 1.0. Asheville Ecological Services Field Office, Asheville, North Carolina. 244 pp.
  60. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for Purple Lilliput; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Longsolid and Round Hickorynut and Designation of Critical Habitat. Federal Register 85(189):61384-61458.
  61. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 85(221):73164-73179.
  62. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Review of Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Notification of Review Federal Register 87(85): 26152-26178.
  63. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Longsolid and Round Hickorynut and Designation of Critical Habitat. Final rule. Federal Register 88(46):14794-14869.
  64. 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.
  65. Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Gail Q. Vidrine Collectibles: Eunice, Louisiana. xii + 225 pp. + 20 plates.
  66. Watters, G.T. 1992b. Distribution of the Unionidae in south central Ohio. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):56-90.
  67. Watters, G. T. 1992. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19:481-490.
  68. Watters, G.T. 1995a. A field guide to the freshwater mussels of Ohio. revised 3rd edition. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, Ohio. 122 pp.
  69. Watters, G.T., M.A. Hoggarth, and D.H. Stansbery. 2009b. The Freshwater Mussels of Ohio. Ohio State University Press: Columbus, Ohio. 421 pp.
  70. 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.
  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. 1993b. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.
  73. 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.
  74. Zeto, M.A., W.A. Tolin, and J.E. Schmidt. 1987. The freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the upper Ohio River, Greenup and Belleville Pools, West Virginia. The Nautilus, 101: 182-185.