DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 240/Tuesday, December 15, 1998

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 240/Tuesday, December 15, 1998 69008 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 240 / Tuesday, December 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations C. Paperwork Reduction Act silt), reduced water quality, tributary streambed, spring flow and/or The Paperwork Reduction Act does impoundment, stream channelization, groundwater seepage. The predominant not apply because the final rule does not and stream dewatering. The species also substrate (surface) types within these impose any information collection is impacted by introduced predaceous streams are clean gravel, cobble and requirements that require the approval fishes. This determination implements sand. However, bedrock and clay of the Office of Management and Budget Federal protection provided by the Act hardpan (layer of hard soil) overlain by under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. for Notropis topeka. We further a thin layer of silt are not uncommon determine that designation of critical (Minckley and Cross 1959). Topeka List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 236 habitat is neither beneficial nor prudent. shiners most often occur in pool and Government procurement. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 14, 1999. run areas of streams, seldom being Michele P. Peterson, ADDRESSES: The complete file for this found in riffles (choppy water). They are pelagic (living in open water) in nature, Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition rule is available for inspection, by Regulations Council. appointment, during normal business occurring in mid-water and surface hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife areas, and are primarily considered a Therefore, 48 CFR Part 236 is Service, Kansas Ecological Services schooling fish. Occasionally, amended as follows: Field Office, 315 Houston Street, Suite individuals of this species have been found in larger streams, downstream of PART 236ÐCONSTRUCTION AND E, Manhattan, Kansas 66502. known populations, presumably as ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William H. Gill, Field Supervisor, or waifs (strays) (Cross 1967; Pflieger 1975; 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Vernon M. Tabor, Fish and Wildlife Tabor in litt. 1992a). Part 236 continues to read as follows: Biologist, at the above address (913/ Data regarding the food habits and Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR 539±3474). reproduction of Topeka shiners are Chapter 1. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: limited and detailed reports have not been published. However, Pflieger 236.601 [Amended] Background (Missouri Department of Conservation, 2. Section 236.601 is amended in The Topeka shiner was first described in litt. 1992) reports the species as a paragraph (1)(ii) by removing by C.H. Gilbert in 1884, using nektonic (swimming independently of ``$300,000'' and adding in its place specimens captured from Shunganunga currents) insectivore (insect eater). In a ``$500,000''. Creek, Shawnee County, Kansas (Gilbert graduate research report, Kerns [FR Doc. 98±33176 Filed 12±14±98; 8:45 am] 1884). The Topeka shiner is a small, (University of Kansas, in litt. 1983) BILLING CODE 5000±04±M stout minnow, not exceeding 75 states that the species is primarily a millimeters (mm) (3 inches (in)) in total diurnal (daytime) feeder on insects, length. The head is short with a small, with chironomids (midges), other dipterans (true flies), and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR moderately oblique (slanted or sloping) mouth. The eye diameter is equal to or ephemeropterans (mayflies), making up Fish and Wildlife Service slightly longer than the snout. The the bulk of the diet. However, the dorsal (back) fin is large, with the height microcrustaceans cladocera and 50 CFR Part 17 more than one half the predorsal length copapoda (zooplanktons) also contribute of the fish, originating over the leading significantly to the species' diet. The RIN 1018±AE42 edge of the pectoral (chest) fins. Dorsal Topeka shiner is reported to spawn in Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and pelvic fins each contain 8 rays pool habitats, over green sunfish and Plants; Final Rule To List the (boney spines supporting the membrane (Lepomis cyanellus) and orangespotted Topeka Shiner as Endangered of a fin). The anal and pectoral fins sunfish (Lepomis humilis) nests, from contain 7 and 13 rays respectively, and late May through July in Missouri and AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, there are 32 to 37 lateral line scales. Kansas (Pflieger 1975; Kerns in litt. Interior. Dorsally the body is olivaceous (olive- 1983). Males of the species are reported ACTION: Final rule. green), with a distinct dark stripe to establish small territories near these preceding the dorsal fin. A dusky stripe nests. Pflieger (in litt. 1992) states that SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife is exhibited along the entire the Topeka shiner is an obligate Service determines the Topeka shiner longitudinal length of the lateral line. (essential) spawner on silt-free sunfish (Notropis topeka) to be an endangered The scales above this line are darkly nests, while Cross (University of Kansas, species under the authority of the outlined with pigment, appearing cross- pers. comm. 1992) states that it is Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), hatched. Below the lateral line the body unlikely that the species is solely as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The lacks pigment, appearing silvery-white. reproductively dependent on sunfish, Topeka shiner is a small fish presently A distinct chevron-like spot exists at the and suggests that the species also known from small tributary streams in base of the caudal (tail) fin (Cross 1967; utilizes other silt-free substrates as the Kansas and Cottonwood river basins Pflieger 1975; Service 1993). spawning sites. Data concerning exact in Kansas; the Missouri, Grand, Lamine, The Topeka shiner is characteristic of spawning behavior, larval stages, and Chariton, and Des Moines river basins small, low order (headwater), prairie subsequent development is lacking. in Missouri; the North Raccoon and streams with good water quality and Maximum known longevity for the Rock river basins in Iowa; the James, Big cool temperatures. These streams Topeka shiner is 3 years, however, only Sioux and Vermillion river watersheds generally exhibit perennial (year round) a very small percentage of each year in South Dakota; and, the Rock and Big flow, however, some approach class attains the third summer. Young- Sioux river watersheds in Minnesota. intermittency (periodic flow) during of-the-year attain total lengths of 20 mm The Topeka shiner is threatened by summer. At times when surface flow to 40 mm (.78 to 1.6 in), age 1 fish 35 habitat destruction, degradation, ceases, pool levels and cool water mm to 55 mm (1.4 to 2.2 in), and age modification, and fragmentation temperatures are maintained by 2 fish 47 mm to 65 mm (1.8 to 2.5 in) resulting from siltation (the build up of percolation (seepage) through the (Cross and Collins 1975; Pflieger 1975). Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 240 / Tuesday, December 15, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 69009 Historically, the Topeka shiner was 1997, surveys in Iowa found the species (Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, widespread and abundant throughout at 1 site in the North Raccoon basin, and in litt. 1997). In Nebraska, these were low order tributary streams of the at a new locality in the Little Rock the first collections of Topeka shiners central prairie regions of the United drainage in Oscelola County. Less than since 1940. It is presently considered States. The Topeka shiner's historic 5 individual Topeka shiners were extant (in existence) at these two range includes portions of Iowa, Kansas, identified in 1997. localities (Cunningham, University of Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and In Kansas, 128 sites at or near historic NebraskaÐOmaha, pers. comm. 1996). South Dakota. Stream basins within the collection localities for the Topeka The Topeka shiner began to decline range historically occupied by Topeka shiner were sampled in 1991 and 1992. throughout the central and western shiners include the Des Moines, The species was collected at 22 of 128 portions of the Kansas River basin in the Raccoon, Boone, Missouri, Big Sioux, (17 percent) sites sampled (Tabor, in litt. early 1900's. Cross and Moss (1987) Cedar, Shell Rock, Rock, and Iowa 1992a; Tabor, in litt. 1992b). Extensive report the species present at sites in the basins in Iowa; the Arkansas, Kansas, stream surveys completed from 1995 Smoky Hill and Solomon River Big Blue, Saline, Solomon, Republican, through 1997 identified 10 new watersheds in 1887, but by the next Smoky Hill, Wakarusa, Cottonwood, localities for Topeka shiners and documented fish surveys in 1935, the and Blue basins in Kansas; the Des reconfirmed the species in a historic Topeka shiner was absent. The Topeka Moines, Cedar, and Rock basins in locale where it was previously believed shiner was extirpated (extinct) from the Minnesota; the Missouri, Grand, extirpated (removed) (Mammoliti, in litt. Wakarusa River watershed during the Lamine, Chariton, Des Moines, Loutre, 1996). 1970's (Cross, University of Kansas, Middle, Hundred and Two, and Blue In South Dakota in the early 1990s, pers. comm. 1995). The species basins in Missouri; the Big Blue, the species was captured from one disappeared from the Big Blue River Elkhorn, Missouri, and lower Loup stream in the James River basin and four watershed (Kansas River basin) in basins in Nebraska; and the Big Sioux, streams in the Vermillion River basin. Nebraska after 1940 (Clausen, Nebraska Vermillion, and James basins in South (Braaten, South Dakota State University, Game and Parks Commission, in litt. Dakota. The number of known in litt. 1991; Schumacher, South Dakota 1992). The last record of the Topeka occurrences of Topeka shiner State University, in litt. 1991). In 1997, shiner from the Arkansas River basin, populations has been reduced by stream surveys were conducted in the excluding the Cottonwood River approximately 80 percent, with Big Sioux and James river watersheds. watershed, was in 1891 near Wichita, approximately 50 percent of this decline No Topeka shiners were captured from Kansas (Cross and Moss 1987).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aquatic Fish Report
    Aquatic Fish Report Acipenser fulvescens Lake St urgeon Class: Actinopterygii Order: Acipenseriformes Family: Acipenseridae Priority Score: 27 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Gobal Rank: G3G4 — Vulnerable (uncertain rank) State Rank: S2 — Imperiled in Arkansas Distribution Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Ouachita Mountains Arkansas Valley South Central Plains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon 362 Aquatic Fish Report Ecobasins Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - Arkansas River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - St. Francis River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - White River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (Lake Chicot) - Mississippi River Habitats Weight Natural Littoral: - Large Suitable Natural Pool: - Medium - Large Optimal Natural Shoal: - Medium - Large Obligate Problems Faced Threat: Biological alteration Source: Commercial harvest Threat: Biological alteration Source: Exotic species Threat: Biological alteration Source: Incidental take Threat: Habitat destruction Source: Channel alteration Threat: Hydrological alteration Source: Dam Data Gaps/Research Needs Continue to track incidental catches. Conservation Actions Importance Category Restore fish passage in dammed rivers. High Habitat Restoration/Improvement Restrict commercial harvest (Mississippi River High Population Management closed to harvest). Monitoring Strategies Monitor population distribution and abundance in large river faunal surveys in cooperation
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)
    Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) ‐ Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals ‐ 2020 MOLLUSKS Common Name Scientific Name G‐Rank S‐Rank Federal Status State Status Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina G5 S1 Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus G3 S2 Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti G2G3Q SH Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata G4G5 S1 Elephant‐ear Elliptio crassidens G5 S3 Spike Elliptio dilatata G5 S2S3 Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi G2G3 S3 Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena G4G5 S3 Round Pearlshell Glebula rotundata G4G5 S4 Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium G5 S1 Southern Pocketbook Lampsilis ornata G5 S3 Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura G2 S2 Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea G5 S2 White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata G5 S1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta G4G5 S1 Louisiana Pearlshell Margaritifera hembeli G1 S1 Threatened Threatened Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana G2 S1S2 Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria G4 S1 Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor G3 S1 Mississippi Pigtoe Pleurobema beadleianum G3 S2 Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii G1G2 S1S2 Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum G2G3 S2 Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus G1G2 SH Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Inflated Heelsplitter Potamilus inflatus G1G2Q S1 Threatened Threatened Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis G3G4 S1 Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica G3G4 S1 Threatened Threatened Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra G4 S1 Southern Creekmussel Strophitus subvexus
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S
    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Influencing Community Structure of Riverine
    FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OF RIVERINE ORGANISMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPERILED SPECIES MANAGEMENT by David S. Ruppel, M.S. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a Major in Aquatic Resources and Integrative Biology May 2019 Committee Members: Timothy H. Bonner, Chair Noland H. Martin Joseph A. Veech Kenneth G. Ostrand James A. Stoeckel COPYRIGHT by David S. Ruppel 2019 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, David S. Ruppel, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I thank my major advisor, Timothy H. Bonner, who has been a great mentor throughout my time at Texas State University. He has passed along his vast knowledge and has provided exceptional professional guidance and support with will benefit me immensely as I continue to pursue an academic career. I also thank my committee members Dr. Noland H. Martin, Dr. Joseph A. Veech, Dr. Kenneth G. Ostrand, and Dr. James A. Stoeckel who provided great comments on my dissertation and have helped in shaping manuscripts that will be produced in the future from each one of my chapters.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of Texas Fresh-Water Fishes By
    A Checklist of I Texas Fresh-Water Fishes By CLARK HUBBS Department of Zoology The University of Texas DIVISION OF INLAND FISHERIES TEXAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION Austin, Texas Marion Toole, Director IF Series - No. 3 Revised Dec. 1958 FOREWORD A checklist of Texas fresh-water fishes by CLARK HUBBS This checklist is modified from that of Hubbs (1957a). A number of changes have been made in nomenclature. Notropis roseus and N. deliciosus have been changed to N. texanus and N. strarnineus, re­ spectively, following Suttkus (1958). Etheostorna whipplei and E. m·tesiae have been changed to E. radiosum following a re-examina­ tion of available material. Two species have been added, Garnbusia senilis, following Hubbs (1958), and Eucinoslornus argenteus, a marine species collected in a .coastal stream near Brownsville. Two species which had not been described in the previous checklist are given their names, Gambusia geiseri, following Hubbs and Springer (1957), and G. helerochir, following Hubbs (1957b). The primary difference between the checklists is the addition of information on the distribution of fishes within the state to this list. The general concepts follow those given in a previous report (Hubbs, 1957c), but emphasize the ranges of the individual species rather than the distributional patterns. The range designations follow the common names of all species. The numbers refer to the modified game areas shovvn on the map. If the fish inhabits only a part of the area, it is so designated by preceding the number with letters (N. for north, etc.) indicating· the pai·t of the area inhabited by the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Oklahoma's Species of Greatest Conservation Need Grouped by Priority Sets from the Oklahoma Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, Appendix E
    Oklahoma's Species of Greatest Conservation Need Grouped by Priority Sets from the Oklahoma Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, Appendix E Group Species Group Species Tier I species of greatest conservation need is top priority. Amph Grotto Salamander Fish Peppered (Colorless) Shiner Amph Kiamichi Slimy Salamander Fish Prairie Speckled Chub Amph Oklahoma Salamander Fish Rocky Shiner Amph Rich Mountain Salamander Fish Shovelnose Sturgeon Amph Ringed Salamander Fish Western Sand Darter Amph Sequoyah Slimy Salamander Inver Bowman's Cave Amphipod Bird Bachman's Sparrow Inver Butterfly Mussel Bird Bell's Vireo Inver Caecidotea acuticarpa Bird Black-capped Vireo Inver Caecidotea macropoda Bird Buff-breasted Sandpiper Inver Caecidotea simulator Bird Burrowing Owl Inver Cave Crayfish Bird Cerulean Warbler Inver Kiamichi Crayfish Bird Henslow's Sparrow Inver Little Dubiraphian Riffle Beetle Bird Interior Least Tern Inver Neosho Mucket Bird Lesser Prairie Chicken Inver Oklahoma Cave Amphipod Bird Loggerhead Shrike Inver Oklahoma Cave Crayfish Bird Long-billed Curlew Inver Orconectes menae Bird Mountain Plover Inver Orconectes nana Bird Red-cockaded Woodpecker Inver Ouachita Creekshell Bird Snowy Plover Inver Ouachita Kidneyshell Bird Swainson's Hawk Inver Ouachita Rock Pocketbook Bird Whooping Crane Inver Ozark Pigtoe Fish Alabama Shad Inver Procambarus tenuis Fish Arkansas Darter Inver Purple Lilliput Fish Arkansas River Shiner Inver Rabbitsfoot Fish Arkansas River Speckled Chub Inver Rich Mountain Slitmouth Snail Fish Blackspot Shiner
    [Show full text]
  • Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater
    FishTraits database Traits References Allen, D. M., W. S. Johnson, and V. Ogburn-Matthews. 1995. Trophic relationships and seasonal utilization of saltmarsh creeks by zooplanktivorous fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42(1)37-50. [multiple species] Anderson, K. A., P. M. Rosenblum, and B. G. Whiteside. 1998. Controlled spawning of Longnose darters. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 60:137-145. [678] Barber, W. E., D. C. Williams, and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila Spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970(1):9-18. [485] Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Belk, M. C., J. B. Johnson, K. W. Wilson, M. E. Smith, and D. D. Houston. 2005. Variation in intrinsic individual growth rate among populations of leatherside chub (Snyderichthys copei Jordan & Gilbert): adaptation to temperature or length of growing season? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14:177-184. [349] Bonner, T. H., J. M. Watson, and C. S. Williams. 2006. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinella proserpina Girard, 1857 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. In Press. [133] Bonnevier, K., K. Lindstrom, and C. St. Mary. 2003. Parental care and mate attraction in the Florida flagfish, Jordanella floridae. Behavorial Ecology and Sociobiology 53:358-363. [410] Bortone, S. A. 1989. Notropis melanostomus, a new speices of Cyprinid fish from the Blackwater-Yellow River drainage of northwest Florida. Copeia 1989(3):737-741. [575] Boschung, H.T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington. [multiple species] 1 FishTraits database Breder, C. M., and D. E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Sharpnose Shiner (Notropis Oxyrhynchus) and Smalleye Shiner (N
    Species Status Assessment Report For the Sharpnose Shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) And Smalleye Shiner (N. buccula) Prepared by the Arlington, Texas Ecological Services Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date of last revision: June 10, 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This species status assessment reports the results of the comprehensive status review for the sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) and smalleye shiner (N. buccula) and provides a thorough account of the species’ overall viability and, conversely, extinction risk. Sharpnose and smalleye shiners are small minnows currently restricted to the contiguous river segments of the upper Brazos River basin in north-central Texas. In conducting our status assessment we first considered what the two shiners need to ensure viability. We generally define viability as the ability of the species to persist over the long term and, conversely, to avoid extinction. We then evaluated whether those needs currently exist and the repercussions to the species when those needs are missing, diminished, or inaccessible. We next consider the factors that are causing the species to lack what it needs, included historical, current, and future factors. Finally, considering the information reviewed, we evaluated the current status and future viability of the species in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand stochastic events and, in the case of the shiners, is best measured by the extent of suitable habitat in terms of stream length. Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events by spreading the risk and can be measured through the duplication and distribution of resilient populations across its range.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana
    Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings Volume 1 Number 61 2021 Article 3 March 2021 Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana Michael H. Doosey University of New Orelans, [email protected] Henry L. Bart Jr. Tulane University, [email protected] Kyle R. Piller Southeastern Louisiana Univeristy, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Biodiversity Commons Recommended Citation Doosey, Michael H.; Bart, Henry L. Jr.; and Piller, Kyle R. (2021) "Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana," Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: No. 61. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss61/3 This Original Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings. Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana Abstract Since the publication of Freshwater Fishes of Louisiana (Douglas, 1974) and a revised checklist (Douglas and Jordan, 2002), much has changed regarding knowledge of inland fishes in the state. An updated reference on Louisiana’s inland and coastal fishes is long overdue. Inland waters of Louisiana are home to at least 224 species (165 primarily freshwater, 28 primarily marine, and 31 euryhaline or diadromous) in 45 families. This checklist is based on a compilation of fish collections records in Louisiana from 19 data providers in the Fishnet2 network (www.fishnet2.net).
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Basin Checklists and Dichotomous Keys for Inland Fishes of Texas
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 874: 31–45Drainage (2019) basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas 31 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.874.35618 CHECKLIST http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas Cody Andrew Craig1, Timothy Hallman Bonner1 1 Department of Biology/Aquatic Station, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA Corresponding author: Cody A. Craig ([email protected]) Academic editor: Kyle Piller | Received 22 April 2019 | Accepted 23 July 2019 | Published 2 September 2019 http://zoobank.org/B4110086-4AF6-4E76-BDAC-EA710AF766E6 Citation: Craig CA, Bonner TH (2019) Drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas. ZooKeys 874: 31–45. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.874.35618 Abstract Species checklists and dichotomous keys are valuable tools that provide many services for ecological stud- ies and management through tracking native and non-native species through time. We developed nine drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for 196 inland fishes of Texas, consisting of 171 native fishes and 25 non-native fishes. Our checklists were updated from previous checklists and revised using reports of new established native and non-native fishes in Texas, reports of new fish occurrences among drainages, and changes in species taxonomic nomenclature. We provided the first dichotomous keys for major drainage basins in Texas. Among the 171 native inland fishes, 6 species are considered extinct or extirpated, 13 species are listed as threatened or endangered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 59 spe- cies are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) by the state of Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Fishes of Caddo and Bossier Parishes, Louisiana
    BULLETIN OF THE MUSEUM OF LIFE SCIENCES NUMBER 3 CHECKLIST OF THE FISHES OF CADDO AND BOSSIER PARISHES, LOUISIANA LAURENCE M. HARDY AND WILLIAM H. LEGRANDE SHREVEPORT LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY IN SHREVEPORT 1979 Numbers of the BULLETIN OF THE MUSEUM OF LIFE SCIENCES are published at irregular intervals. Articles concerning any aspect of the natural history, systematics, or ecology of the flora and fauna of the southeastern United States are acceptable. Laurence M. Hardy, Editor Communications concerning manuscripts, the purchase or exchange of any number of the BULLETIN, or any editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor, Museum of Life Sciences, Louisiana State University in Shreveport, 8515 Youree Drive, Shreveport, Louisiana 71115. Date of publication: October 1, 1979 Price for this issue 50¢ This public document was published at a cost of 47 cents per copy by Louisiana State Uni- versity in Shreveport to inform citizens of Louisiana under authority of the Louisiana State Constitution. This material was printed in accordance with the standards for printing by state agencies pursuant to R.S. 43:31. Printing of this material was purchased in accordance with the provisions of Title 43 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. BULLETIN of the MUSEUM OF LIFE SCIENCES Number 3, Pages 1-12 October 1. 1979 CHECKLIST OF THE FISHES OF CADDO AND BOSSIER PARISHES, LOUISIANA LAURENCE M. HARDY Museum of Life Sciences Louisiana State University in Shreveport 8515 Youree Drive Shreveport, Louisiana 71115 WILLIAM H. LEGRANDE Department of Biology University of Wisconsin/Stevens Point Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54481 Copyright @ 1979 by Louisiana State University in Shreveport 1979 HARDY AND LEGRANDE: CHECKLIST OF FISHES 3 INTRODUCTION SOURCES OF INFORMATION Species are included in this list on the basis Bossier Parish or on published records in the of museum specimens (examined by one or both scientific literature.
    [Show full text]
  • LIFE HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS of THREE OBLIGATE RIVERINE SPECIES and DRIFT PATTERNS of LOWER BRAZOS RIVER FISHES Dissertation Pr
    LIFE HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE OBLIGATE RIVERINE SPECIES AND DRIFT PATTERNS OF LOWER BRAZOS RIVER FISHES Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of Texas State University-San Marcos in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of PHILOSOPHY by Casey S. Williams, B.S., M.S. San Marcos, Texas May 2011 LIFE HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE OBLIGATE RIVERINE SPECIES AND DRIFT PATTERNS OF LOWER BRAZOS RIVER FISHES Committee Members Approved: ______________________________ Timothy H. Bonner, Chair ______________________________ John T. Baccus ______________________________ Joanna C. Curran ______________________________ Alan W. Groeger ______________________________ Floyd W. Weckerly Approved: __________________________ J. Michael Willoughby Dean of the Graduate College COPYRIGHT by Casey Shawn Williams 2011 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Casey S. Williams, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to thank the faculty and staff of the Freeman Aquatic Building and Texas State Biology Department. Most importantly, I would like to thank my major advisor, Tim Bonner. Tim has been very patient and a great mentor throughout my graduate career. He helped instill and feed a need for learning and research, enabling me to make and attain goals that were once inconceivable.
    [Show full text]