DOCSLIB.ORG

Wildlife of Arlington: a Natural Resource Heritage Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wildlife of Arlington: a Natural Resource Heritage Technical Report July 2011 1 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report Arlington County Board Chairman Christopher Zimmerman, Vice Chairman Mary Hughes Hynes and members Barbara A. Favola, Jay Fisette, and J. Walter Tejada. County Manager Barbara Donnellan Director, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Dinesh Tiwari Division Chief, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Parks and Natural Resources Divi- sion, Caroline Temmermand Principle Researcher, Author and Editor: Greg Zell, ([email protected]), Natural Resource Specialist, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cul- tural Resources, Parks and Natural Resources Division, Conservation and Interpretation Section. Contributing Researchers: Part III – Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata): Andy Rabin ([email protected]) and Kevin Munroe, ([email protected]) Contract Specialists. Part IV – Butterflies and Moths (Lepidoptera): Alonso Abugattas, ([email protected]), Park Na- turalist, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Parks and Natural Resources Division, Conservation and Interpretation Section. Part V – Birds (Avifauna): David Farner, ([email protected]), Park Manager, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources, Parks and Natural Resources Division, Conservation and Interpreta- tion Section. Cover Photo Credits: John White – red fox, green frog, cardinal, red-spotted purple. Greg Zell – beaver lodge, northern dusky salamander, and hickory horned devil. 2 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report Part I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Report Format .................................................................................................................................... 5 Arlington’s Natural Past ................................................................................................................... 6 Early Human History ........................................................................................................................ 6 Impact of Urbanization ..................................................................................................................... 8 Study Area: Current Profile .............................................................................................................. 9 Project Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 10 Historical Records ........................................................................................................................... 12 Part II. MAMMALS, REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS ...................................................................... 14 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Species Accounts .............................................................................................................................. 15 Mammals (Class Mammalia) ..................................................................................................... 15 Reptiles (Class Reptilia) .............................................................................................................. 33 Amphibians (Class Amphibia) .................................................................................................. 44 Summary of Survey Results ............................................................................................................ 52 Part III. DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (Class Insecta) ...................................................... 54 ntroduction ....................................................................................................................................... 54 Odonate Survey Overview .............................................................................................................. 55 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 55 Field Collections and Observational Records, April 29 – October 8, 2007 Field Season ....... 56 Damselflies (Sub-order Zygoptera) ........................................................................................... 56 Dragonflies (Sub-Order Anisoptera) ........................................................................................ 57 Survey Results .................................................................................................................................. 60 Species of Note ............................................................................................................................. 61 Arlington’s Best Observation Sites ............................................................................................ 61 Part IV. BUTTERFLIES (Class Insecta) .............................................................................................. 63 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 63 Lepidoptera Survey Overview ........................................................................................................ 64 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 65 Survey Results and Species of Note ............................................................................................... 68 Part V. BIRDS OF ARLINGTON (Class Aves) ................................................................................... 70 3 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 70 Habitats ............................................................................................................................................. 71 Historical Changes in Species and Frequency ............................................................................. 71 Backyard Habitats ............................................................................................................................ 72 Birdwatching in Arlington County ............................................................................................... 73 Arlington County Bird Checklist ................................................................................................... 74 Part VI: THE FUTURE OF WILDLIFE IN ARLINGTON ................................................................ 85 Habitat Fragmentation .................................................................................................................... 86 Loss of Habitat Diversity ................................................................................................................ 86 Loss of Wetlands .............................................................................................................................. 86 Invasive Plants .................................................................................................................................. 87 Part VII. A STRATEGY FOR THE CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION OF WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................ 87 Management Limitations ................................................................................................................ 87 Management Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 88 Appendix I – Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians Species Occurrence and Frequency ...... 94 Appendix II – 2007 Odonate Survey Site Locations and Habitat Descriptions ....................... 99 Appendix III – Odonate Species Recorded in Fairfax County (Not Observed in Arlington County in 2007) ............................................................................................................................. 100 Appendix IV –Observations of Moth Species in Arlington, Virginia 2005-2010 ................. 103 Appendix V – References and Citations ..................................................................................... 106 Appendix VI – Acknowledgments .............................................................................................. 110 4 WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report WILDLIFE OF ARLINGTON: A Natural Heritage Resource Inventory Technical Report Part I. INTRODUCTION Purpose n 2008, county staff completed a three- year comprehensive Natural Heritage IResource Inventory (NHRI) of Arling- ton County, Virginia. The inventory project was initiated in response to recommenda- tions made within the Public Spaces Master Plan (2005), which called attention to Ar- lington County’s lack of contemporary knowledge or data regarding extant natural resources, and hence, its lack of the ability to effectively manage those resources.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices
    Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices A: Initial List of Important Sites..................................................................................................... 2 B: An Annotated List of the Mammals of Albemarle County........................................................ 5 C: Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 18 An Annotated List of the Birds of Albemarle County.............................................................. 18 Bird Species Status Tables and Charts...................................................................................... 28 Species of Concern in Albemarle County............................................................................ 28 Trends in Observations of Species of Concern..................................................................... 30 D. Fish of Albemarle County........................................................................................................ 37 E. An Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians of Albemarle County.......................................... 41 F. An Annotated Checklist of the Reptiles of Albemarle County, Virginia................................. 45 G. Invertebrate Lists...................................................................................................................... 51 H. Flora of Albemarle County ...................................................................................................... 69 I. Rare
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Repair and Self-Cleaning of the Lepidopteran Proboscis
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Dissertations Dissertations 8-2019 Self-Repair and Self-Cleaning of the Lepidopteran Proboscis Suellen Floyd Pometto Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations Recommended Citation Pometto, Suellen Floyd, "Self-Repair and Self-Cleaning of the Lepidopteran Proboscis" (2019). All Dissertations. 2452. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2452 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SELF-REPAIR AND SELF-CLEANING OF THE LEPIDOPTERAN PROBOSCIS A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy ENTOMOLOGY by Suellen Floyd Pometto August 2019 Accepted by: Dr. Peter H. Adler, Major Advisor and Committee Co-Chair Dr. Eric Benson, Committee Co-Chair Dr. Richard Blob Dr. Patrick Gerard i ABSTRACT The proboscis of butterflies and moths is a key innovation contributing to the high diversity of the order Lepidoptera. In addition to taking nectar from angiosperm sources, many species take up fluids from overripe or sound fruit, plant sap, animal dung, and moist soil. The proboscis is assembled after eclosion of the adult from the pupa by linking together two elongate galeae to form one tube with a single food canal. How do lepidopterans maintain the integrity and function of the proboscis while foraging from various substrates? The research questions included whether lepidopteran species are capable of total self- repair, how widespread the capability of self-repair is within the order, and whether the repaired proboscis is functional.
    [Show full text]
  • Manitoba Oakworm Moth
    Manitoba Oakworm Moth because of their limited dispersal ability, and its larval preference for younger Bur Oak. This species may actually be Threatened, but data are currently insufficient to assess whether it meets thresholds for status criteria. Wildlife Species Description and e n n e Significance H n o D © : o Manitoba Oakworm Moth (Anisota manitobensis) t o h P is a medium-sized moth (forewing length 19-30 mm) in the family Saturniidae (silk worm moths). Scientific name There are four life stages and the species grows Anisota manitobensis through complete metamorphosis. Adults are brownish-orange, and females are typically Taxon pinker than darker males. The flattened, ovate Arthropods eggs are smooth and yellow, turning to brownish COSEWIC status with age. Larvae are typically dark brown to black Special Concern with paler stripes (tending to pink in later instars) with spines and thoracic horns. Pupae are brown Canadian range and approximately 3 cm long. Manitoba Reason for designation Distribution This large moth has a small global distribution, The known global and Canadian range of most of which is in Canada, and restricted to a Manitoba Oakworm Moth is restricted to southern small area in southern Manitoba and the adjacent Manitoba and extreme northern North Dakota United States. Localized population irruptions and Minnesota. The majority of the global range occurred irregularly through the 1900s, but their is in Manitoba where it has been recorded from frequency declined and the last one was in 1997; approximately 25 sites as far north as Riding no individuals have been detected since 2000. Mountain National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2
    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Survey of Selected Insect Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma 2. Dragonflies (Odonata), Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and selected Moths (Lepidoptera) by Boris C. Kondratieff, Paul A. Opler, Matthew C. Garhart, and Jason P. Schmidt C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 March 15, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration (top to bottom): Widow Skimmer (Libellula luctuosa) [photo ©Robert Behrstock], Stonefly (Perlesta species) [photo © David H. Funk, White- lined Sphinx (Hyles lineata) [photo © Matthew C. Garhart] ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Copyrighted 2004 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………….…1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………..…………………………………………….…3 OBJECTIVE………………………………………………………………………………………….………5 Site Descriptions………………………………………….. METHODS AND MATERIALS…………………………………………………………………………….5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………..…...11 Dragonflies………………………………………………………………………………….……..11
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Native Animals of RI
    RARE NATIVE ANIMALS OF RHODE ISLAND Revised: March, 2006 ABOUT THIS LIST The list is divided by vertebrates and invertebrates and is arranged taxonomically according to the recognized authority cited before each group. Appropriate synonomy is included where names have changed since publication of the cited authority. The Natural Heritage Program's Rare Native Plants of Rhode Island includes an estimate of the number of "extant populations" for each listed plant species, a figure which has been helpful in assessing the health of each species. Because animals are mobile, some exhibiting annual long-distance migrations, it is not possible to derive a population index that can be applied to all animal groups. The status assigned to each species (see definitions below) provides some indication of its range, relative abundance, and vulnerability to decline. More specific and pertinent data is available from the Natural Heritage Program, the Rhode Island Endangered Species Program, and the Rhode Island Natural History Survey. STATUS. The status of each species is designated by letter codes as defined: (FE) Federally Endangered (7 species currently listed) (FT) Federally Threatened (2 species currently listed) (SE) State Endangered Native species in imminent danger of extirpation from Rhode Island. These taxa may meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Formerly considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Federal listing as endangered or threatened. 2. Known from an estimated 1-2 total populations in the state. 3. Apparently globally rare or threatened; estimated at 100 or fewer populations range-wide. Animals listed as State Endangered are protected under the provisions of the Rhode Island State Endangered Species Act, Title 20 of the General Laws of the State of Rhode Island.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT Gregarine Parasitism in Dragonfly Populations of Central
    ABSTRACT Gregarine Parasitism in Dragonfly Populations of Central Texas with an Assessment of Fitness Costs in Erythemis simplicicollis Jason L. Locklin, Ph.D. Mentor: Darrell S. Vodopich, Ph.D. Dragonfly parasites are widespread and frequently include gregarines (Phylum Apicomplexa) in the gut of the host. Gregarines are ubiquitous protozoan parasites that infect arthropods worldwide. More than 1,600 gregarine species have been described, but only a small percentage of invertebrates have been surveyed for these apicomplexan parasites. Some consider gregarines rather harmless, but recent studies suggest otherwise. Odonate-gregarine studies have more commonly involved damselflies, and some have considered gregarines to rarely infect dragonflies. In this study, dragonfly populations were surveyed for gregarines and an assessment of fitness costs was made in a common and widespread host species, Erythemis simplicicollis. Adult dragonfly populations were surveyed weekly at two reservoirs in close proximity to one another and at a flow-through wetland system. Gregarine prevalences and intensities were compared within host populations between genders, among locations, among wing loads, and through time. Host fitness parameters measured included wing load, egg size, clutch size, and total egg count. Of the 37 dragonfly species surveyed, 14 species (38%) hosted gregarines. Thirteen of those species were previously unreported as hosts. Gregarine prevalences ranged from 2% – 52%. Intensities ranged from 1 – 201. Parasites were aggregated among their hosts. Gregarines were found only in individuals exceeding a minimum wing load, indicating that gregarines are likely not transferred from the naiad to adult during emergence. Prevalence and intensity exhibited strong seasonality during both years at one of the reservoirs, but no seasonal trend was detected at the wetland.
    [Show full text]
  • Saturniidae) of Rio Grande Do Sul State, Brazil
    214214 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 63(4), 2009, 214-232 ARSENURINAE AND CERATOCAMPINAE (SATURNIIDAE) OF RIO GRANDE DO SUL STATE, BRAZIL ANDERSONN SILVEIRA PRESTES Laboratório de Entomologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Caixa postal 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] FABRÍCIO GUERREIRO NUNES Laboratório de Entomologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Caixa postal 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] ELIO CORSEUIL Laboratório de Entomologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Caixa postal 1429, 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] AND ALFRED MOSER Avenida Rotermund 1045, 93030-000 São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil; email: [email protected] ABSTRACT. The present work aims to offer a list of Arsenurinae and Ceratocampinae species known to occur in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The list is based on bibliographical data, newly collected specimens, and previously existing museum collections. The Arsenurinae are listed in the following genera (followed by number of species): Arsenura Duncan, 1841 (4), Caio Travassos & Noronha, 1968 (1), Dysdaemonia Hübner, [1819] (1), Titaea Hübner, [1823] (1), Paradaemonia Bouvier, 1925 (2), Rhescyntis Hübner, [1819] (1), Copiopteryx Duncan, 1841 (2). Cerato- campinae are listed in Adeloneivaia Travassos, 1940 (3), Adelowalkeria Travassos, 1941 (2), Almeidella Oiticica, 1946 (2), Cicia Oiticica, 1964 (2), Citheronia Hübner, [1819] (4), Citioica Travassos & Noronha, 1965 (1), Eacles Hübner, [1819] (4), Mielkesia Lemaire, 1988 (1), Neocarne- gia Draudt, 1930 (1), Oiticella Travassos & Noronha, 1965 (1), Othorene Boisduval, 1872 (2), Procitheronia Michener, 1949 (1), Psilopygida Michener, 1949 (2), Scolesa Michener, 1949 (3) and Syssphinx Hübner, [1819] (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Hawk Moths of North America Is Richly Illustrated with Larval Images and Contains an Abundance of Life History Information
    08 caterpillars EUSA/pp244-273 3/9/05 6:37 PM Page 244 244 TULIP-TREE MOTH CECROPIA MOTH 245 Callosamia angulifera Hyalophora cecropia RECOGNITION Frosted green with shiny yellow, orange, and blue knobs over top and sides of body. RECOGNITION Much like preceding but paler or Dorsal knobs on T2, T3, and A1 somewhat globular and waxier in color with pale stripe running below set with black spinules. Paired knobs on A2–A7 more spiracles on A1–A10 and black dots on abdomen cylindrical, yellow; knob over A8 unpaired and rounded. lacking contrasting pale rings. Yellow abdominal Larva to 10cm. Caterpillars of larch-feeding Columbia tubercle over A8 short, less than twice as high as broad. Silkmoth (Hyalophora columbia) have yellow-white to Larva to 6cm. Sweetbay Silkmoth (Callosamia securifera) yellow-pink instead of bright yellow knobs over dorsum similar in appearance but a specialist on sweet bay. Its of abdomen and knobs along sides tend to be more white than blue (as in Cecropia) and are yellow abdominal tubercle over A8 is nearly three times as set in black bases (see page 246). long as wide and the red knobs over thorax are cylindrical (see page 246). OCCURRENCE Urban and suburban yards and lots, orchards, fencerows, woodlands, OCCURRENCE Woodlands and forests from Michigan, southern Ontario, and and forests from Canada south to Florida and central Texas. One generation with mature Massachusetts to northern Florida and Mississippi. One principal generation northward; caterpillars from late June through August over most of range. two broods in South with mature caterpillars from early June onward.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Odonata of the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area
    2012. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 121(1):54–61 A SURVEY OF ODONATA OF THE PATOKA RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND MANAGEMENT AREA Donald L. Batema* and Amanda Bellian: Department of Chemistry, Environmental Studies Program, University of Evansville, 1800 Lincoln Avenue, Evansville, IN 47722 USA Lindsey Landowski: Mingo National Wildlife Refuge, Puxico, MO. 63960 USA ABSTRACT. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area (hereafter Patoka River Refuge or the Refuge) represents one of the largest intact bottomland hardwood forests in southern Indiana, with meandering oxbows, marshes, ponds, managed moist-soil units, and constructed wetlands that provide diverse and suitable habitat for wildlife. Refuge personnel strive to protect, restore, and manage this bottomland hardwood ecosystem and associated habitats for a variety of wildlife. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) lists many species of management priority (McCoy 2008), but Odonata are not included, even though they are known to occur on the Refuge. The absence of Odonata from the CCP is the result of lack of information about this ecologically important group of organisms. Therefore, we conducted a survey, from May to October 2009, to document their presence, with special attention being paid to rare, threatened, and endangered species. A total of 43 dragonfly and damselfly species were collected and identified. No threatened or endangered species were found on the Refuge, but three species were found that are considered imperiled in Indiana based on Nature Serve Ranks (Stein 2002). Additionally, 19 new odonate records were documented for Pike County, Indiana. The results of this survey will be used by Refuge personnel to assist in management decisions and to help establish priorities for the Patoka River Refuge activities and land acquisition goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies and Moths of San Bernardino County, California
    Heliothis ononis Flax Bollworm Moth Coptotriche aenea Blackberry Leafminer Argyresthia canadensis Apyrrothrix araxes Dull Firetip Phocides pigmalion Mangrove Skipper Phocides belus Belus Skipper Phocides palemon Guava Skipper Phocides urania Urania skipper Proteides mercurius Mercurial Skipper Epargyreus zestos Zestos Skipper Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus spanna Hispaniolan Silverdrop Epargyreus exadeus Broken Silverdrop Polygonus leo Hammock Skipper Polygonus savigny Manuel's Skipper Chioides albofasciatus White-striped Longtail Chioides zilpa Zilpa Longtail Chioides ixion Hispaniolan Longtail Aguna asander Gold-spotted Aguna Aguna claxon Emerald Aguna Aguna metophis Tailed Aguna Typhedanus undulatus Mottled Longtail Typhedanus ampyx Gold-tufted Skipper Polythrix octomaculata Eight-spotted Longtail Polythrix mexicanus Mexican Longtail Polythrix asine Asine Longtail Polythrix caunus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) Zestusa dorus Short-tailed Skipper Codatractus carlos Carlos' Mottled-Skipper Codatractus alcaeus White-crescent Longtail Codatractus yucatanus Yucatan Mottled-Skipper Codatractus arizonensis Arizona Skipper Codatractus valeriana Valeriana Skipper Urbanus proteus Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus viterboana Bluish Longtail Urbanus belli Double-striped Longtail Urbanus pronus Pronus Longtail Urbanus esmeraldus Esmeralda Longtail Urbanus evona Turquoise Longtail Urbanus dorantes Dorantes Longtail Urbanus teleus Teleus Longtail Urbanus tanna Tanna Longtail Urbanus simplicius Plain Longtail Urbanus procne Brown Longtail
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 1 Table 1. Current Taxonomic Keys and the Level of Taxonomy Routinely U
    Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Table 1. Current taxonomic keys and the level of taxonomy routinely used by the Ohio EPA in streams and rivers for various macroinvertebrate taxonomic classifications. Genera that are reasonably considered to be monotypic in Ohio are also listed. Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Species Pennak 1989, Thorp & Rogers 2016 Porifera If no gemmules are present identify to family (Spongillidae). Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Cnidaria monotypic genera: Cordylophora caspia and Craspedacusta sowerbii Platyhelminthes Class (Turbellaria) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nemertea Phylum (Nemertea) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Phylum (Nematomorpha) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nematomorpha Paragordius varius monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Ectoprocta monotypic genera: Cristatella mucedo, Hyalinella punctata, Lophopodella carteri, Paludicella articulata, Pectinatella magnifica, Pottsiella erecta Entoprocta Urnatella gracilis monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Polychaeta Class (Polychaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Annelida Oligochaeta Subclass (Oligochaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Hirudinida Species Klemm 1982, Klemm et al. 2015 Anostraca Species Thorp & Rogers 2016 Species (Lynceus Laevicaudata Thorp & Rogers 2016 brachyurus) Spinicaudata Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Williams 1972, Thorp & Rogers Isopoda Genus 2016 Holsinger 1972, Thorp & Rogers Amphipoda Genus 2016 Gammaridae: Gammarus Species Holsinger 1972 Crustacea monotypic genera: Apocorophium lacustre, Echinogammarus ischnus, Synurella dentata Species (Taphromysis Mysida Thorp & Rogers 2016 louisianae) Crocker & Barr 1968; Jezerinac 1993, 1995; Jezerinac & Thoma 1984; Taylor 2000; Thoma et al. Cambaridae Species 2005; Thoma & Stocker 2009; Crandall & De Grave 2017; Glon et al. 2018 Species (Palaemon Pennak 1989, Palaemonidae kadiakensis) Thorp & Rogers 2016 1 Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Informal grouping of the Arachnida Hydrachnidia Smith 2001 water mites Genus Morse et al.
    [Show full text]