DOCSLIB.ORG

Fish Species of Special Concern in California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fish Species of Special Concern in California FISH SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA Second Edition by PETER B. MOYLE, RONALD M. YOSHIYAMA, JACK E. WILLIAMS, AND ERIC D. WIKRAMANAYAKE Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Biology University of California, Davis Davis, California 95616 The California Department of Fish and Game commissioned this study as part of the Inland Fisheries Division Endangered Species Project. Specific recommendations from this study and in this report are made as options by the authors for the Department to consider. These recommendations do not necessarily represent the findings, opinions or policies of the Department. Prepared for the State of California The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division Rancho Cordova Final Report for Contract No. 2128IF June 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE................................................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................... 4 KERN BROOK LAMPREY ................................................................................... 13 GOOSE LAKE LAMPREY. ................................................................................... 17 KLAMATH RIVER LAMPREY............................................................................ 20 RIVER LAMPREY ................................................................................................... 23 GREEN STURGEON .............................................................................................. 26 SPRING-RUN CHINOOK SALMON .............................................................. 36 SACRAMENTO RIVER LATE-FALL CHINOOK SALMON .................... 48 COHO SALMON........................................................................................................ 53 PINK SALMON ..................................................................................................... 60 CHUM SALMON.............................................................................................. 64 SUMMER STEELHEAD ....................................................................................... 95 SOUTHERN STEELHEAD .................................................................................. 79 EAGLE LAKE RAINBOW TROUT .................................................................... 85 KERN RIVER RAINBOW TROUT ................................................................... 91 VOLCANO CREEK GOLDEN TROUT .......................................................... 94 GOOSE LAKE REDBAND TROUT.. .................................................................. 98 MCCLOUD RIVER REDBAND TROUT .......................................................... 105 COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT. ..................................................................... 109 LONGFIN SMELT ................................................................................................ 114 EULACHON ............................................................................................................... 123 ii LAHONTAN LAKE TUI CHUB ..................................................................... 128 COWHEAD LAKE TUI CHUB ............................................................................. 132 EAGLE LAKE TUI CHUB .............................................................................. 136 GOOSE LAKE TUI CHUB ................................................................................. 139 HIGH ROCK SPRING TUI CHUB ................................................................. 143 BLUE CHUB ..................................................................................................... 147 ARROYO CHUB ................................................................................................... 150 CLEAR LAKE HITCH . .............................................................................................. 153 CALIFORNIA ROACH ............................................................................................ 158 SACRAMENTO SPLITTAIL ................................................................................. 164 HARDHEAD................................................................................................................. 171 AMARGOSA CANYON SPECKLED DACE ................................................... 175 SANTA ANA SPECKLED DACE ....................................................................... 179 OWENS SPECKLED DACE ................................................................................ 184 GOOSE LAKE SUCKER ............................................................................... 188 OWENS SUCKER ............................................................................................... 191 KLAMATH LARGESCALE SUCKER ............................................................... 194 MOUNTAIN SUCKER ............................................................................................. 197 SANTA ANA SUCKER ........................................................................................... 201 SARATOGA SPRINGS PUPFISH. ........................................................................ 206 AMARGOSA PUPFISH ............................................................................................... 211 SHOSHONE PUPFISH.................................................................................... 215 SALT CREEK PUPFISH. .................................................................................... 219 SHAY CREEK THREESPINE STICKLEBACK ............................................ 222 SACRAMENTO PERCH ..................................................................................... 227 iii RUSSIAN RIVER TULE PERCH......................................................................... 232 TIDEWATER GOBY............................................................................................... 235 BIGEYE MARBLED SCULPIN....................................................................... 240 RETICULATE SCULPIN.................................................................................... 243 LITERATURE CITED.............................................................................................. 246 iv INTRODUCTION The freshwater fish fauna of California is in serious trouble. Species, subspecies, salmon runs, and unique populations are on a fast track to extinction (Moyle and Williams 1989). The rapid rate of loss is of more than just local interest: 66 of the 116 native fish taxa are found only in California, and many of the remainder are shared with only a few other western states. In the event these fishes are lost from California, they will be globally extinct; there are no populations in some distant or remote location that can be used to resurrect the local populations. These fishes represent millions of years of evolutionary response to the fluctuating and often harsh aquatic environments of the state. As a result, there is extraordinary diversity of form and function among the native fishes. They are found in habitats ranging from tiny desert springs, to rivers that have huge fluctuations in flow, to high mountain streams, to shallow alkaline lakes, to salty estuaries. Although the native fishes are admirably suited for surviving the vagaries of nature, they have done poorly when forced to compete with humans for the waters that are their homes. Most streams have been dammed, diverted, turned inside out by mining, or altered by poor watershed management. Many lakes and marshes have been drained or filled in. Waters of all types have been polluted to one degree or another. Furthermore, numerous non-native fishes have been introduced that compete with or prey on the natives. In the first edition of this report (Moyle et al. 1989) we delineated the severity of the problem by documenting 52 species, subspecies, or salmon runs that required special protection or management to prevent their ultimate extinction. In addition to these 52 taxa, six forms already were extinct and 15 others had been formally listed as threatened or endangered by the state. In total, these 73 taxa represented 64 percent of the freshwater fish fauna of California. Unfortunately, in the short period since the first report, the situation has become substantially worse, in large part because prolonged drought accelerated the declines of many species. In the present report, we have added seven species accounts (green sturgeon1, longfin smelt, eulachon, chum salmon, Sacramento late-fall run chinook salmon, southern steelhead, and blue chub) and have removed three (Modoc brook lamprey, delta smelt, and winter-run chinook salmon). The lamprey was removed because we no longer regard it as a valid species, and the delta smelt and winter-run chinook were removed because they have been formally listed by the state as threatened or endangered species. Among the forms included in both editions, 19 have been downgraded to a worse category (e.g., from special concern to threatened or endangered) and only two (Gualala roach and Lahontan lake tui chub) have been upgraded. In this report, we treat 54 taxa (Table 1), of which 25 are recommended for threatened or endangered status in California and 27 others are regarded as needing special attention to prevent further declines. Two of the species are probably extinct in the state (pink salmon, High Rock Spring
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Technical Report
    Draft Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Technical Report Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation Prepared by: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2013 Contents Contents Chapter 1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Aquatic Habitat ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Fisheries Resources......................................................................................... 1-13 1.1.3 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ............................................................................ 1-48 Chapter 2 Impact Assessment .......................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3 References ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Printed Sources .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Personal Communications ....................................................................................... 3-14 Tables Table 1-1. Fish Species Known to Occur in Primary Study Area ............................................. 1-13 Table 1-2. Central Valley Fish Species Potentially Affected
    [Show full text]
  • Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan
    Summary Report Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................................5 STUDY APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................................7 CLIMATE IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS ...............................................................................11 COMPARISON OF PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS .................................................................21 PERFORMANCE OF POTENTIAL FUTURE WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS .................................................27 PORTFOLIO TRADEOFFS .......................................................................................................................................37 CVP IRP STUDY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................39 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FIGURES ......................................................................................41 Tables Table 1. Simulation Suites and Assumptions Inlcuded in Each Portfolio .............................................................27 Figures Figure 1a. Projected changes in Temperature in Ensemble-Informed Transient Climate Scenarios between 2012
    [Show full text]
  • The Fault Line Threatening Dams
    The Fault Line Threatening Dams The Fault Line Threatening Dams Deficient structures, earthquake risks raise possibility of potentially catastrophic flooding By Jim Carlton June 24, 2017 FREMONT, Calif.-The coastal mountains that frame this working-class city next to San Francisco Bay harbor a hidden menace: a reservoir 10 miles away that sits next to an active earthquake fault, which experts say could cause a dam break and flood thousands of homes. The potential threat is so severe, the owner of the Calaveras Reservoir decided to build a replacement dam. But seven years after that work began, the dam is unfinished and isn't expected to be complete until 2019 -- four years behind schedule. The issues hampering the Calaveras Reservoir project show how difficult it can be to repair or replace an old dam, which is of growing concern nationally. An estimated 27,380 dams, or 30% of the 90,580 listed in the latest 2016 National Inventory of Dams, are rated as posing a high or significant hazard. Of those, more than 2,170 are considered deficient and in need of upgrading, according to a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers. The inventory by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't break out which ones are deficient. But funding and inspection staffing are considered inadequate, the civil engineers' report said. An estimated $64 billion is needed to upgrade those dams, including $22 billion for those posing the highest hazard, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, a nonprofit group in Lexington, Ky. "It's a huge problem with limited resources," said Ivan Wong, a consulting seismologist from Walnut Creek, Calif., who works on dam projects nationally.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta Robusta): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project May 3, 2005 David E. Rees, Jonathan A. Ptacek, and William J. Miller Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive, Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-1275 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, and W.J. Miller. (2005, May 3). Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/roundtailchub.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank those people who promoted, assisted, and supported this species assessment for the Region 2 USDA Forest Service. Ryan Carr and Kellie Richardson conducted preliminary literature reviews and were valuable in the determination of important or usable literature. Laura Hillger provided assistance with report preparation and dissemination. Numerous individuals from Region 2 national forests were willing to discuss the status and management of this species. Thanks go to Greg Eaglin (Medicine Bow National Forest), Dave Gerhardt (San Juan National Forest), Kathy Foster (Routt National Forest), Clay Spease and Chris James (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest), Christine Hirsch (White River National Forest), as well as Gary Patton and Joy Bartlett from the Regional Office. Dan Brauh, Lory Martin, Tom Nesler, Kevin Rogers, and Allen Zincush, all of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, provided information on species distribution, management, and current regulations. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES David E. Rees studied fishery biology, aquatic ecology, and ecotoxicology at Colorado State University where he received his B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California
    Peer Reviewed Title: Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California: A Comparison to State and Regional Water Quality Policies Journal Issue: San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 13(4) Author: Schlegel, Brandon, California State University, Sacramento Domagalski, Joseph L., U.S Geological Survey, California Water Science Center Publication Date: 2015 Permalink: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4c37m6vz Keywords: Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrient transport, nutrient loads, agricultural drainage Local Identifier: jmie_sfews_29499 Abstract: doi: http://dx.doi.org/1015447/sfews.2015v13iss4art2 Non-point source (NPS) contaminant control strategies were initiated in California in the late 1980s under the authority of the State Porter–Cologne Act and eventually for the development of total maximum daily load (TMDL) plans, under the federal Clean Water Act. Most of the NPS TMDLs developed for California’s Central Valley (CV) region were related to pesticides, but not nutrients. Efforts to reduce pesticide loads and concentrations began in earnest around 1990. The NPS control strategies either encouraged or mandated the use of management practices (MPs). Although TMDLs were largely developed for pesticides, the resultant MPs might have affected the runoff of other potential contaminants (such as nutrients). This study evaluates the effect of agricultural NPS control strategies implemented in California’s CV before and between 1990 and 2013, on nutrients, by comparing trends in surface-water concentrations and loads. In general, use of MPs was encouraged during a “voluntary” period (1990 to 2004) and mandated during an “enforcement” period (2004 to 2013). Nutrient concentrations, loads, and trends were estimated by using a recently developed Weighted Regressions on Time, Discharge, and Season (WRTDS) model.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundulus Grandis): Subtitle Charles Alexander Brown Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2011 Developmental responses to abiotic conditions during aquatic and air incubatoin of the Gulf killifish (Fundulus grandis): subtitle Charles Alexander Brown Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Brown, Charles Alexander, "Developmental responses to abiotic conditions during aquatic and air incubatoin of the Gulf killifish (Fundulus grandis): subtitle" (2011). LSU Master's Theses. 2848. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/2848 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEVELOPMENTAL RESPONSES TO ABIOTIC CONDITIONS DURING AQUATIC AND AIR INCUBATION OF THE GULF KILLIFISH (FUNDULUS GRANDIS) A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in The School of Renewable Natural Resources By Charles A. Brown B.S., Augusta State University, 2008 May 2011 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Dr. Christopher Green for serving as my major advisor. His dedication to my improvement as a student and professional is greatly appreciated. I thank my committee members, Dr. C. Greg Lutz, Dr. Michael D. Kaller, Dr. D. Allen Rutherford, and Dr. Fernando Galvez for their assistance and patience with my project.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Teleostei: Cyprinidae), and Its Related Congeners in Sonora, Mexico
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 87 (2016) 390–398 www.ib.unam.mx/revista/ Taxonomy and systematics Morphometric and meristic characterization of the endemic Desert chub Gila eremica (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), and its related congeners in Sonora, Mexico Caracterización morfométrica y merística de la carpa del desierto endémica Gila eremica (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) y sus congéneres relacionados en Sonora, México a b c Carlos A. Ballesteros-Córdova , Gorgonio Ruiz-Campos , Lloyd T. Findley , a a a,∗ José M. Grijalva-Chon , Luis E. Gutiérrez-Millán , Alejandro Varela-Romero a Departamento de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas, Universidad de Sonora, Luis Donaldo Colosio s/n, entre Sahuaripa y Reforma, Col. Centro, 83000 Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico b Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, P.O. Box 233, 22800 Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico c Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, A.C./Unidad Guaymas, Carretera al Varadero Nacional km 6.6, Col. Las Playitas, 85480 Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico Received 29 July 2015; accepted 24 November 2015 Available online 16 May 2016 Abstract The Desert chub, Gila eremica DeMarais, 1991 is a freshwater fish endemic to Northwest Mexico, being described from the Sonora, Matape and Yaqui River basins in Sonora, Mexico. The recent discovery of 2 isolated small populations from the known distribution for this taxon makes necessary an evaluation to determine their specific taxonomical identities (herein designated as G. cf. eremica). Thirty-three morphometric and 6 meristic characters were evaluated in 219 specimens of several populations of the genus Gila in Sonora, including all the known populations of G.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Butte Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive River Management Plan Environmental Assessment
    Black Butte Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive River Management Plan Environmental Assessment Recreation & Visual Resource Report Prepared by: Shannon Pozas For: Covelo Ranger District Mendocino National Forest Service 1 August 2017 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Purpose and Need................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Overview of Issues & Issue Indicators ................................................................................... 4 1.4 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Mendocino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan – LRMP .............................. 5 1.6 Forest Niche ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Black Butte River and Cold Creek Segments .......................................................................... 6 2.2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ...................................................................... 6 2.3 Visual Quality Objectives ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eel River Cooperative Cyanotoxin Analysis Summary 2013-2017
    Eel River Cooperative Cyanotoxin Analysis Summary 2013-2017 By: Eli Asarian and Patrick Higgins Edited by: Diane Higgins Performed for: The Eel River Recovery Project August 2018 Business Sponsors of ERRP Cyanotoxin Analysis Thanks to Individual Crowdfunding Donors and Those Who Contributed Off-line to Support ERRP Cyanotoxin Work: Barbara & David Sopjes Dr. Andrew Stubblefield Mary Power Ree Slocum Bill Dietrich Ben Middlemiss Dean & Sharon Edell Judy Schriebman Jack Crider Daron Pedroja Tim Talbert Gil Anda Ken Miller Will Parrish Dani Walthall Chris McBride Zane and Amanda Ruddy Christina Tran Brett Lovelace Sarah Ottley Ken Vance-Borland Karen & Scott Welsh Thomas Daugherty Pureum Kim Keith Bouma-Gregson Alex Christie Lee McClellan Matthew Amberg Charlie Liphart Eric Damon Walters April Mason Amy Collette Jason Hartwick Marissa Adams Kristin McDonald John Filce Carl Zichella Robert Leher Thanks also to experiment.com, our crowdfunding host that raises funds for scientific research throughout the World: https://experiment.com/projects/when-does-the-eel-river-turn-toxic- patterns-in-cyanotoxin-occurrence-2013-2016. This study was postponed a year so we could collect 2017 cyanotoxin data. Thanks for your patience. Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Background
    [Show full text]
  • LATE MIOCENE FISHES of the CACHE VALLEY MEMBER, SALT LAKE FORMATION, UTAH and IDAHO By
    LATE MIOCENE FISHES OF THE CACHE VALLEY MEMBER, SALT LAKE FORMATION, UTAH AND IDAHO by PATRICK H. MCCLELLAN AND GERALD R. SMITH MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 208 Ann Arbor, December 17, 2020 ISSN 0076-8405 P U B L I C A T I O N S O F T H E MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NO. 208 GERALD SMITH, Editor The publications of the Museum of Zoology, The University of Michigan, consist primarily of two series—the Miscellaneous Publications and the Occasional Papers. Both series were founded by Dr. Bryant Walker, Mr. Bradshaw H. Swales, and Dr. W. W. Newcomb. Occasionally the Museum publishes contributions outside of these series. Beginning in 1990 these are titled Special Publications and Circulars and each is sequentially numbered. All submitted manuscripts to any of the Museum’s publications receive external peer review. The Occasional Papers, begun in 1913, serve as a medium for original studies based principally upon the collections in the Museum. They are issued separately. When a sufficient number of pages has been printed to make a volume, a title page, table of contents, and an index are supplied to libraries and individuals on the mailing list for the series. The Miscellaneous Publications, initiated in 1916, include monographic studies, papers on field and museum techniques, and other contributions not within the scope of the Occasional Papers, and are published separately. Each number has a title page and, when necessary, a table of contents. A complete list of publications on Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians, Fishes, I nsects, Mollusks, and other topics is available.
    [Show full text]