Feature: endangered SpeCieS Conservation Status of imperiled north american Freshwater and diadromous Fishes

Feature: endangered SpeCieS Conservation Status of imperiled north american Freshwater and diadromous Fishes
Feature:
Endangered Species
Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes
Abstract: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and
diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the
last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133
genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations,
previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the
continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed
extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status;
only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species
are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare
fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management.
R. T. Bryant
Entosphenus tridentatus, Pacific lamprey, a
vulnerable parasitic species found in Canada,
the United States, and Mexico. The cyan colors
are artificial and result from light filtered by
colored glass in the observation window of the
Bonneville Dam fish ladder, Columbia River,
Oregon and Washington.
372
Howard L. Jelks,
Stephen J. Walsh,
Noel M. Burkhead,
Salvador Contreras-Balderas,
Edmundo Díaz-Pardo,
Dean A. Hendrickson,
John Lyons,
Nicholas E. Mandrak,
Frank McCormick,
Joseph S. Nelson,
Steven P. Platania,
Brady A. Porter,
Claude B. Renaud,
Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto,
Eric B. Taylor, and
Melvin L. Warren, Jr.
Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research
biologists with the U.S. Geological
Survey, Gainesville, Florida. Burkhead
is chair and Jelks and Walsh are
co-vice chairs of the American
Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species
Committee. They can be contacted at
[email protected], [email protected],
and [email protected]
Contreras-Balderas is a professor emeritus
at Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo
León, San Nicolás de los Garza,
Nuevo León, Mexico.
Díaz-Pardo is a member of the Facultad
de Ciencias Naturales-Biología,
Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro,
Querétaro, Mexico.
Hendrickson is a curator of ichthyology
at the Texas Natural Science Center,
University of Texas, Austin.
Lyons is a research scientist with the
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Monona.
Mandrak is a research scientist with the
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, Department
of Fisheries and Oceans, Burlington,
Ontario.
McCormick is a biologist with the
Environmental Sciences Research
Staff, U.S. Forest Service,
Washington, DC.
Nelson is a professor emeritus of
biological sciences, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Platania is an associate curator of
fishes, Museum of Southwestern
Biology, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque.
Porter is an assistant professor in
the Bayer School of Natural and
Environmental Sciences, Duquesne
University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Renaud is a research scientist with the
Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa,
Ontario.
Schmitter-Soto is a curator of fishes, El
Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Chetumal,
Quintana Roo, Mexico.
Taylor is a professor and associate director
of the University of British Columbia
Biodiversity Research Centre,
Vancouver, British Columbia.
Warren is a research biologist with the
Southern Research Station, U.S.
Forest Service, Oxford, Mississippi.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Conservación de peces amenazados,
diádromos y de agua dulce, en Norteamérica
Este trabajo constituye la tercera compilación de peces de diádromos y de agua dulce en peligro y extintos (i.e. en peligro,
amenazados y vulnerables) en Norteamérica, preparada por el Comité de Especies Amenazadas de la Sociedad Americana de
Pesquerías. Desde que se hizo la última revisión en 1989, las amenazas a los peces de aguas continentales se han incrementado de
manera importante. La presente lista incluye 700 taxa vivientes pertenecientes a 133 géneros y 36 familias, un incremento del
92% con respecto a las 364 especies listadas en 1989. Este aumento refleja la adición tanto de distintas poblaciones de peces que
previamente no habían sido reconocidas en peligro, como de taxa recientemente descritos o redescubiertos. Aproximadamente
39% de los peces descritos de agua dulce están amenazados. Existen 230 especies vulnerables, 190 amenazadas, 280 en peligro
y 61 presumiblemente extintas o extirpadas del medio natural. De aquellas consideradas como amenazadas en 1989, la mayoría
(89%) mantienen el mismo estado de conservación, o peor; solo 6% han mejorado su situación y 5% han sido sacadas de la lista
por varias razones. La degradación del hábitat y la introducción de especies foráneas se identifican como las principales amenazas
para las especies enlistadas, muchas de las cuales están restringidas a pequeñas áreas. Documentar la diversidad y el estado de los
peces raros es un paso indispensable en la identificación e implementación de acciones para su protección y manejo.
Introduction
North America is considered to have
the greatest temperate freshwater biodiversity on Earth (Abell et al. 2000). This
diversity is represented by large numbers of aquatic invertebrates (primarily
insects, crustaceans, and mollusks) and
fishes on the continent (Page and Burr
1991; Abell et al. 2000; Lundberg et al.
2000). The continent also has some of
the most threatened aquatic ecosystems
in the world, largely due to a multitude of
human activities that have altered natural
landscapes and native biotas (Allan and
Flecker 1993; Ricciardi and Rasmussen
1999). The greatest threats to freshwater
ecosystems globally are: anthropogenic
activities that cause habitat degradation,
fragmentation, and loss; flow modifications; translocation of species outside of
their native ranges; over-exploitation; and
pollution (Dudgeon et al. 2006; Helfman
2007). Documenting regional biodiversity and understanding historical, current,
and impending threats to freshwater eco-
systems are necessary for protecting and
recovering species, distinct populations,
and natural communities.
Given that rivers and lakes comprise only
0.009% of the Earth’s water, it is remarkable
that about 12,000 described fish species
(43% of total fish biodiversity) dwell in this
limited freshwater resource (Nelson 2006;
Helfman 2007). Unfortunately, freshwater
habitats are among the most threatened ecosystems throughout the world, making fishes
and other aquatic organisms important sentinels of degraded ecological conditions (Leidy
and Moyle 1998). Aquatic systems receive
the cumulative impacts of changes in their
watersheds, whether beneficial or harmful.
Humans appropriate freshwater globally for
direct consumption, crop irrigation, waste
disposal, and other purposes. The direct and
indirect competition with humans for limited freshwater resources is largely why fishes
and other aquatic organisms are among the
most imperiled faunas on Earth (Leidy and
Moyle 1998; Duncan and Lockwood 2001).
For over 25 years, the American Fisheries
Society Endangered Species Committee
(hereafter AFS-ESC or committee) has
reported the status of the imperiled freshwater biota of North America. The first
comprehensive list of imperiled fishes of the
continent was provided by Deacon et al.
(1979), followed 10 years later with a reassessment by Williams et al. (1989). In the
same issue of Fisheries, Miller et al. (1989)
reviewed the extinct fishes of North America;
taxa from both of these lists were combined
for comparative analyses presented here.
The lists provided by Deacon et al. (1979)
and Williams et al. (1989) are hereafter
referred to as the 1979 and 1989 AFS lists.
A similar assessment of fishes of the southern United States was compiled by Warren
et al. (2000). In addition to these summaries
of imperiled freshwater fishes, subcommittees of the AFS-ESC provided reviews of
the freshwater crayfish and mussel faunas of
Canada and the United States (Taylor et al.
1996, 2007; Williams et al. 1993), and the
first list of aquatic snails is in preparation.
The AFS has also produced a summary of atrisk stocks or distinct population segments
of marine, estuarine, and diadromous fishes
J. M. Artigas Azas
A. Kiel
Cattle access to streams degrades aquatic habitats by causing nutrient
enrichment, sedimentation, and loss of riparian cover; Clear Creek, Iowa.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
This spring in Cuatro Ciénegas, Coahuila, Mexico, is an aquatic oasis; 13
imperiled taxa are endemic to the complex of springs found here.
373
(Musick et al. 2000) which overlaps this list
for 11 diadromous taxa.
The principal objective of these AFS lists
is to provide a comprehensive evaluation
of the conservation status of aquatic organisms, based on the best available evidence
compiled by the scientific community, so
that conservation initiatives and priorities
can be established. These lists are intended
to supplement, not supplant, similar lists
developed by government agencies and
other organizations. This study provides an
updated assessment of the conservation status of imperiled freshwater and diadromous
fishes of North America, accounting for
taxonomic and nomenclatural changes, new
discoveries, and revised information regarding distributions and abundances of at-risk
species and infraspecific taxa. A degree of
subjectivity is inherent in developing conservation lists. Data are imperfect regarding taxonomy, distribution, abundance, and threats.
Quantitative abundance data are lacking for
most species, even for populations of popular
game species. Recognizing these limitations,
the AFS-ESC compiled a comprehensive list
of fishes in North America that are in need
of conservation efforts.
Methods
Opinions vary regarding the appropriate
taxonomic level to include in conservation
lists. Some suggest that conservation lists
are of limited use for analyzing imperilment
trends due to taxonomic inflation associated with the application of different species
concepts and recognition of different scales
of biodiversity (Isaac et al. 2004). Others
believe that inclusion of infraspecific taxa,
evolutionarily significant units, distinct population segments, and subspecies is impor-
tant to conserving biodiversity (Vogler and
DeSalle 1994; Waples 1998; Musick et al.
2000; Haig et al. 2006). While appreciating
the myriad of historical and current issues
revolving around various species concepts
and hierarchical scales of biodiversity, the
AFS-ESC adopted an inclusive approach to
listing all taxa in need of conservation.
Geographic scope
All continental freshwater and diadromous fishes in Canada, the United States,
and Mexico were considered for inclusion
on this list. Fishes from islands off the west
coasts of Alaska and Canada were included
since their faunas were derived from the
North American continental or nearshore
areas. Freshwater fishes of Hawaii listed by
Deacon et al. (1979) and Williams et al.
(1989) are excluded from the current list
because of their extralimital distribution
from the continental fauna. Fishes from a
small area of Quintana Roo and Campeche,
Mexico are also excluded, as they belong in a
mostly Central American ecoreigon.
In collaboration with the World Wildlife
Fund, the AFS-ESC developed a map of
freshwater ecoregions that combines spatial and faunistic information derived from
Maxwell et al. (1995), Abell et al. (2000,
2008), Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC 2007), Atlas of Canada
(2003), and U.S. Geological Survey
Hydrologic Unit Code maps (Watermolen
2002). Eighty ecoregions were identified
based on physiography and faunal assemblages of the Atlantic, Arctic, and Pacific
basins (Figure 1; Table 1). Each taxon on the
list was assigned to one or more ecoregions
that circumscribes its native distribution. A
variety of sources were used to obtain distributional information, most notably Lee et
al. (1980), Hocutt and Wiley (1986), Page
and Burr (1991), Behnke (2002), Miller et
al. (2005), numerous state and provincial
fish books for the United States and Canada,
and the primary literature, including original
taxonomic descriptions.
Status definitions
Except for the modifications described
below, the committee used the conservation
categories and listing criteria developed for
previous lists (Deacon et al. 1979; Williams
et al. 1989; Warren et al. 2000). We use
the term “taxon” to include named species, named subspecies, undescribed forms,
and distinct populations as characterized by
unique morphological, genetic, ecological,
or other attributes warranting taxonomic
recognition. Undescribed taxa are included,
based on the above diagnostic criteria in
combination with known geographic distributions and documentation deemed of
scientific merit, as evidenced from publication in peer-reviewed literature, conference
abstracts, unpublished theses or dissertations,
or information provided by recognized taxonomic experts. Although we did not independently evaluate the taxonomic validity of
undescribed taxa, the committee adopted a
conservative approach to recognize them on
the basis of prevailing evidence that suggests
these forms are sufficiently distinct to warrant conservation and management actions.
Status categories and abbreviations are as
follows (the term “imminent” is defined as
fewer than 50 years):
Endangered (E): a taxon that is in imminent danger of extinction throughout all or
extirpation from a significant portion of its
range.
Threatened (T): a taxon that is in
imminent danger of becoming endangered
Tennessee Valley Authority
S. J. Walsh
Little Colorado River at Salt Canyon, Arizona. The endemic fish fauna of the
Colorado River system represents a distinctive suite of large river desert fishes.
374
Norris Dam on the Clinch River, Tennessee, the first large dam built by the
Tennessee Valley Authority in 1936. Large dams fragment populations, impede
migration of fishes, and are points of introduction for many nonindigenous fishes.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Figure 1. North American freshwater ecoregions as modified from Maxwell et al. (1995), Abell et al. (2000, 2008), Commission for Environmental
Cooperation Watersheds (CEC 2007), and U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit Code maps. Numbers correspond to freshwater ecoregions in Table
1. Colors indicate the Atlantic (green), Arctic (blue), and Pacific (tan) bioregions.
Arctic
Ocean
70
74
3
74
74
1
74
74
74
74
2
73
72
75
Hudson
Bay
5
4
71
80
76
9
12
66
79
77
6
Pacific
Ocean
78
68
64
47
7
10
15
14
16
17
50
49
19
52
37
38
45
43
21
/
23
throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Vulnerable (V): a taxon that is in
imminent danger of becoming threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. This status is equivalent to “Special
Concern” as designated by Deacon et al.
(1979), Williams et al. (1989), and many
62
Atlantic
Ocean
60
61
Gulf of
Mexico
33
22
27
24 32
25 2631 30
1,800
58
59
46
41
42
34
57
44
40
35
55 56
51
36
20
1,200
63
54
39
0 300 600
67
48
18
11
65
8
53
13
69
29
28
2,400
Kilometers
governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations.
Extinct (X): a taxon of which no living individual has been documented in its
natural habitat for 50 or more years. Extinct
fishes were not included in Deacon et al.
(1979) or Williams et al. (1989), but the
AFS-ESC deemed it an important task to
report information about the demise of wild
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
populations. Two additional subcategories
of extinction were recognized for the purpose of tracking information on individual
taxa but were combined as extinct in our
analysis:
Possibly Extinct (Xp), a taxon that is
suspected to be extinct as indicated by more
than 20 but fewer than 50 years since individuals were observed in nature; and,
375
Table 1. Freshwater ecoregions of North America based on map (Figure 1) developed cooperatively by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered
Species Committee and the World Wildlife Fund.
Pacific Bioregion
Coastal Complex
1. Aleutian and Bering Coastal
2. Upper Yukon
3. Lower Yukon
4. North Pacific Coastal
5. North Pacific Islands
6. Columbia Glaciated
7. Columbia Unglaciated
8. Upper Snake
9. Pacific Mid-Coastal
10. Pacific Central Valley
11. California-Baja California
Atlantic Bioregion
Papaloapan/Yucatán Complex
27. Yucatán-Quintana Roo
28. Upper Usumacinta
29. Lower Usumacinta-Laguna de Términos
30. Grijalva
31. Coatzacoalcos
32. Papaloapan
Rio Grande/Bravo Complex
33. Pánuco
34. Llanos del Salado
35. Mayrán-Viesca
36. Upper Río Grande (Río Bravo del Norte)
37. Pecos
38. Guzmán-Samalayuca
39. Río Conchos
40. Río Salado
41. Cuatro Ciénegas
42. Río San Juan
43. Lower Río Grande (Río Bravo del Norte)
Great Basin Complex
12. Oregon Lakes
13. Lahontan
14. Bonneville
15. Death Valley
Colorado Complex
16. Vegas-Virgin
17. Colorado
18. Gila
Mississippi Complex
44. West Texas Gulf
45. East Texas Gulf
46. Sabine-Galveston
47. Upper Missouri
48. Middle Missouri
49. Southern Plains
50. Central Prairie
51. Ozark Highlands
52. Ouachita Highlands
53. Mississippi
54. Ohio
55. Cumberland
Sierra Madre Occidental Complex
19. Sonoran
20. Sinaloan Coastal
21. Santiago
22. Lerma-Chapala
23. Ameca-Manantlán
24. Balsas
25. Sierra Madre del Sur
26. Tehuantepec
Threatened
Endangered
Extinct
Delisted
300
280
Number of Taxa
230
200
190
147
96
77
103
78
61
50
45
40
16
0
1979
376
St. Lawrence Complex
67. Great Lakes
68. Upper St. Lawrence
69. Lower St. Lawrence
Arctic Bioregion
Arctic Complex
70. Arctic Coastal
71. Upper Mackenzie
72. Lower Mackenzie
73. Central Arctic
74. Arctic Islands
Extirpated in Nature (Xn), where all
populations of a taxon are presumed to have
perished in natural habitats, but reproducing individuals are currently maintained in
captivity. The latter case applies primarily
to several Mexican fishes that were endemic
to isolated springs that have dried, but live
stocks are currently kept in designated
aquaria (Contreras-Balderas et al. 2003).
Delisted (D): a taxon from previous AFS
lists that no longer merits listing due to abatement of threats, greater abundance or larger
range than previously documented, taxonomic invalidity, or extralimital distribution
from the North American continent.
Listing criteria
114
100
Atlantic Complex
61. Florida
62. South Atlantic
63. Chesapeake Bay
64. North Atlantic
65. Maritimes
66. Newfoundland-Anticosti
Hudson Bay Complex
75. Western Hudson Bay
76. Upper Saskatchewan
77. Middle Saskatchewan
78. English-Winnipeg Lakes
79. Southern Hudson Bay
80. Eastern Hudson Bay-Ungava
Figure 2. Numbers of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fish taxa in each
status category as listed previously by the AFS Endangered Species Committee in Deacon et al.
(1979), Williams et al. (1989), and this list (2008). Extinct taxa for each year are cumulative based
on estimated dates of extinction, whereas delisted taxa are the number of taxa excluded since the
previous list.
Vulnerable
56. Tennessee
57. Mississippi Embayment
58. Mobile Bay
59. Florida Gulf
60. Apalachicola
1989
2008
The categories of threats to taxa on the
list follow those used by Deacon et al. (1979)
and Williams et al. (1989) with minor modification. Listing criteria are as follows: (1)
present or threatened destruction, modification, or reduction of a taxon’s habitat or
range; (2) over-exploitation for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; intentional eradication with ichthyocides; or indirect impacts of fishing pressure
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
such as reduction or loss of host fish populations required by parasitic lampreys; (3)
disease or parasitism; (4) other natural or
anthropogenic factors that affect a taxon’s
existence, including impacts of nonindigenous organisms, hybridization, competition, and/or predation; and (5) a narrowly
restricted range. Threats as defined in (1)
include not only physical habitat loss but
also perturbations caused by factors such as
sedimentation, chemical pollution, dewatering, and anthropogenic modifications to natural channels or flow regimes. Impacts from
intentional poisoning and indirect fishing
pressure in (2) were added from previous lists
to address a small number of taxa that were
not affected by the other forms of fishery utilization listed under this criterion. Parasitism
was added to (3) as an emerging threat, primarily associated with whirling disease (in
salmonids) and endoparasitic helminths (in
cyprinids and other fishes), to distinguish
from more generic pathogens.
Listing process
http://fisc.er.usgs.gov/afs/
Fish images are depicted in the traditional
head-left orientation despite original orientation for some photographs.
Results
Hawaiian gobies were omitted due to extracontinental distribution. Only 8 taxa from
the 1989 list were omitted due to improved
status (Table 2): the formerly endangered
Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarkii utah), threatened kiyi (Coregonus kiyi
kiyi), and special concern bloater (Coregonus
hoyi), Lahontan tui chub (Gila bicolor obesa),
Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus),
bigeye jumprock (Moxostoma ariommum),
Kanawha darter (Etheostoma kanawhae), and
redband darter (E. luteovinctum). Three taxa
on the 1979 list that were excluded from the
1989 list are reinstated here. The Waccamaw
darter (Etheostoma perlongum) was presumed
to be a synonym of the tesselated darter (E.
olmstedi) by Williams et al. (1989), but was
treated as a valid species by Nelson et al.
(2004). Spring cavefish (Forbesichthys agassizii) and Yazoo darter (Etheostoma raneyi),
believed sufficiently abundant to preclude
listing by Williams et al. (1989), have populations that are now categorized as threatened or vulnerable.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
377
S. Contreras-Balderas
The current compilation includes 700
taxa listed as vulnerable (230), threatened
(190), or endangered (280), plus 61 that are
presumed extinct or considered extirpated
from natural habitats
(Appendix 1; Figure
2). This represents a
92% increase over
the 364 taxa listed
in 1989 (Williams
et al. 1989) and a
179% increase from
the 251 taxa listed
in 1979 (Deacon et
al. 1979). The current list includes
representatives of
133 genera and 36
families. Seventythree imperiled taxa
were described since
1989, 18 of which
were reported as
undescribed on the
1989 list. Forty taxa
that appeared on the
1979 and 1989 lists
are omitted herein.
Thirteen were delisted in 1989 due to
taxonomic revision
or were more common or widespread
than indicated in
1979. In addition,
another 15 taxa
were removed here
due to synonymy Potosí Spring, Nuevo León, Mexico in 1972 (top) and 1995 (bottom).
or uncertain taxo- Water withdrawal resulted in the spring and its outflow drying in 1994,
resulting in the extinction of the Potosí and Catarina pupfishes; the latter
nomic status. Four survives in captivity.
S. Contreras-Balderas
The AFS-ESC lists published by Deacon
et al. (1979) and Williams et al. (1989), lists
of Mayden et al. (1992) and Warren et al.
(2000), and the national lists of Canada
(COSEWIC 2004; SARA 2004), Mexico
(SEMARNAT 2002), and the United States
(USFWS 2005, 2007) were used to develop
a preliminary draft of the present list. AFSESC members then added any taxa that they
believed merited consideration and provided
rationale for inclusion. Each taxon was
assigned current status, listing criteria, and
native ecoregion distribution based on the
best available data. Many state fish books,
journal articles, agency reports, and websites
were used to compile information on the
current status, distribution, and threats. Taxa
were independently assessed by AFS-ESC
members and external reviewers with appropriate geographic and taxonomic expertise.
Drafts of the list were reviewed repeatedly
until a final list was reached by consensus of
the committee. Nomenclature of nominal
species follows the joint AFS and American
Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
(ASIH) Committee on Names of Fishes
(Nelson et al. 2004, 2006) except where
there have been subsequent taxonomic or
nomenclatural changes (Eschmeyer 2008).
Infraspecific taxa were not included in
Nelson et al. (2004). However, as stated
above, one objective of this study is to provide
a comprehensive assessment of taxa that are
appropriate units for conservation and management, thus providing the rationale for
including subspecies and populations herein.
For undescribed taxa and populations, we
used vernacular names based on unpublished
sources or descriptive geographical features
to identify location (e.g, water body, valley,
municipality). Comments from the AFSESC and external reviewers were recorded
for each taxon. The list was maintained as a
spreadsheet for ease of sharing with the committee and reviewers. The complete list and
distributional maps are available online as a
searchable database at:
Table 2. Taxa or names delisted since the previous AFS list of endangered, threatened, and rare fishes (Williams et al. 1989) and the basis for
delisting. Status change indicates fishes that are more common or widespread than previously recognized. Taxonomic invalidity represents taxa that
are documented synonyms of other taxa or where taxonomic recognition is unwarranted based on available evidence. Extralimital species occur in the
circum-Hawaiian region.
Taxon
AFS Common NameStatusTaxonomicExtralimital
Change
Invalidity
Family CyprinidaeCarps and Minnows
Cyprinella formosa ssp. Cyprinella lutrensis santamariae
(Evermann and Goldsborough, 1902)
Gila bicolor obesa (Girard, 1856)
Notropis imeldae Cortés, 1968
Phenacobius teretulus Cope, 1867
sardina dorada
X
Lahontan tui chub
X
sardinita de Rίo Verde
X
Kanawha minnow
X
Family Catostomidae
Catostomus conchos Meek, 1902
Moxostoma ariommum Robins and Raney, 1956
Suckers
matalote del Conchos
X
bigeye jumprock
X
Family Characidae
Characins
Astyanax sp. cf. mexicanus Astyanax sp. cf. mexicanus sardina labiosa Chiapas
sardina labiosa Oaxaca
Family Heptapteridae
Rhamdia guatemalensis decolor Hubbs, 1936
Rhamdia guatemalensis stygaea Hubbs, 1936
Rhamdia sacrificii Barbour and Cole, 1906
Heptapterid Catfishes
juil descolorido
X
juil de Ojos Pequeños
X
juil de Los Sacrificios
X
sardinita hermosa de Santa Clara
X
X
X
Family Salmonidae
Salmonids
Coregonus alpenae (Koelz, 1924)1
longjaw cisco
X
Coregonus clupeaformis ssp. lake whitefish (Lake Simcoe population)
X
Coregonus hoyi (Milner, 1874)
bloater
X
Coregonus kiyi kiyi (Koelz, 1921)
kiyi
X
Coregonus sp.Opeongo whitefish
X
Oncorhynchus clarkii utah (Suckley, 1874)
Bonneville cutthroat trout
X
Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp.
Whitehorse cutthroat trout
X
Family BythitidaeViviparous Brotulas
Typhliasina sp. nueva dama ciega
X
Family Cyprinodontidae
Cyprinodon sp. Pupfishes
cachorrito de la Presita
X
Family Percidae
Perches
Etheostoma kanawhae (Raney, 1941)
Kanawha darter
X
Etheostoma luteovinctum Gilbert and Swain, 1887 redband darter
X
Family Eleotridae
Eleotris sandwicensis Vaillant and Sauvage, 1875
Sleepers
o’opu
X
Family GobiidaeGobies
Awaous guamensis (Eydoux and Souleyet, 1850)
o’opu nakea
Lentipes concolor (Gill, 1860)
o’opu alamo’o
Sicyopterus stimpsoni (Gill, 1860)
o’opu nopili
X
X
X
1
Designated as extinct in 1989 list but subsequently regarded as taxonomically invalid.
The 1979 and 1989 lists included named
species, undescribed species, named subspecies, and undescribed subspecies; the
present list is the first to include distinct
populations. Despite this addition, the list
comprises mostly described species (63%),
with undescribed species (7%), subspecies (13%), undescribed subspecies (5%),
378
and populations (12%) constituting the
remaining taxa. Some patterns were evident when the families with the greatest
number of taxa on the list were compared
by the taxonomic categories represented in
each (Table 3). Salmonids have more distinct population segments on this list than
any other family (56% of listed salmonids
are populations), and a large portion are
listed as nominal or undescribed subspecies (34%). In contrast, other families are
represented primarily by described species: poeciliids (86%), ictalurids (82%),
goodeids (79%), cyprinodontids (77%),
cyprinids (68%), percids (68%), and, catostomids (61%) (Table 3). The remaining 28
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Table 3. Numbers of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes presented by taxonomic category for the eight most taxonrich families and the combined remainder as listed in Appendix 1. Percentages in first column are of the total number of imperiled taxa.
FamilyTotal TaxaDescribed UndescribedDescribed Undescribed PopulationS
and PercentSpeciesSpeciesSubspeciesSubspecies
Cyprinidae
Percidae
Salmonidae
Goodeidae
Cyprinodontidae
Catostomidae
Poeciliidae
Ictaluridae
Other 28 Families
188 (24.7%)
111 (14.6%)
89 (11.7%)
48 (6.3%)
47 (6.2%)
46 (6.0%)
37 (4.9%)
33 (4.3%)
162 (21.3%)
128
75
7
38
36
28
32
27
107
7
7
2
0
1
6
4
2
26
27
4
25
10
9
7
0
0
14
25
0
5
0
1
2
0
0
4
1
25
50
0
0
3
1
4
11
Total
761 (100%)
478
55
96
38
94
Table 4. Number of described native North American freshwater and diadromous fish species recognized by the joint AFS/ASIH Committee
on Names of Fishes (updated from Nelson et al. 2004) in selected families, percent of described species imperiled as derived from Appendix 1,
and number in each conservation status category.
FamilyDescribed
Percent
SpeciesImperiled
Cyprinidae
Percidae
Poeciliidae
Catostomidae
Ictaluridae
Cichlidae
Goodeidae
Cyprinodontidae
Atherinopsidae
Salmonidae
Fundulidae
Cottidae
Centrarchidae
Petromyzontidae
Gobiidae
Clupeidae
Eleotridae
Acipenseridae
Other 19 Families
Total
VulnerableThreatenedEndangered
Species
Species
Species
Extinct Imperiled
Species1
Populations2
304
191
95
73
50
49
48
43
43
38
38
35
32
20
18
13
11
8
78
46%
44%
33%
49%
58%
24%
83%
88%
63%
61%
24%
34%
22%
50%
6%
8%
0%
88%
45%
49
25
8
11
10
6
8
1
7
3
4
5
4
3
0
0
0
2
13
20
27
7
7
7
2
3
3
6
2
1
2
1
4
0
1
0
0
7
47
21
12
7
9
2
22
23
11
1
3
1
0
2
1
0
0
4
7
11
1
3
2
1
0
4
8
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
10
1
9
2
2
3
3
0
16
0
3
2
1
0
0
0
1
8
1,187
46%
159
100
173
36
75
1 Extinct species category includes extinct (X), probably extinct (Xp), and extirpated from nature (Xn).
2 Imperiled populations category reflects the number of species with at least one imperiled undescribed taxon, subspecies, or population.
Table 5. Comparison of number of taxa imperiled in 1989 (Williams et al. 1989) plus 40 taxa considered extinct in 1989 (Miller et al. 1989)
with the current AFS list. Delisted category includes taxa omitted because of changes in abundance or known range size and does not include
taxa omitted because of taxonomic invalidity or extralimital distribution.
1989 Species of Concern
1989 Threatened
1989 Endangered
1989 Extinct
2008 Delisted
6
1
1
0
2008 Vulnerable
56
10
0
0
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
2008 Threatened 2008 Endangered
45
51
4
0
26
46
84
4
2008 Extinct
4
2
10
35
379
Figure 3. Number of imperiled (endangered, threatened, vulnerable, extinct) freshwater and diadromous North American fish taxa by ecoregions as
provided in Figure 1 and Table 1.
families have 66% of their combined taxa
represented solely by described species. Of
the 111 percids on the list, 22% are populations of 9 species of Etheostoma. Within
the Cyprinidae, the most species-rich freshwater family globally and on the North
American continent, the tui chub (Gila
bicolor) and the speckled dace (Rhinichthys
380
osculus) have, respectively, 20 and 15 listed
subspecies or populations.
The most widespread species, those
that occur in multiple ecoregions, are lake
sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens; 22 ecoregions), alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula;
17), paddlefish (Polyodon spathula; 15),
ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus;
14), blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus; 12),
and Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae; 12).
Eighty percent of listed taxa are confined
to a single ecoregion, while another 10%
are confined to 2 ecoregions. Many taxa
are present in only a small portion of an
ecoregion, in some instances confined to a
single or very few sites.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
R. T. Bryant
The joint AFS and ASIH Committee on Mexican universities and Chester Zoo in Ontario is presumed extinct (Miller et al.
Names of Fishes maintains a list of described England, and cachorrito de Charco Palma 1989; COSEWIC 2005).
North American fishes (updated from (Cyprinodon longidorsalis) and cachorrito de
The distribution map for North America
Nelson et al. 2004), which was provided to Charco Azul (Cyprinodon veronicae) have reveals three regions with especially large
the AFS-ESC to compare imperiled taxa captive populations in the United States and numbers of imperiled fishes (Figure 3)­: the
with nominal species by family. The propor- Mexico (Miller et al. 2005). The High Rock southeastern United States, with many
tion of species imperiled and their listing Springs tui chub (Gila bicolor ssp.), consid- imperiled minnows, ictalurid catfishes, and
status varied widely among families. Of the ered threatened in 1989, is now presumed to darters; the mid-Pacific coast, represented by
1,187 described, native freshwater and dia- be extinct following the detrimental impacts many imperiled lampreys, salmonids, stickdromous species on the common and scien- of introduced tilapia (Moyle 2002) and lebacks, and minnows; and the lower Rio
tific names list, 46% are imperiled or have at groundwater pumping (NatureServe 2007). Grande and coastal and endorheic basins
least 1 subspecies or population that is imper- Another threatened minnow, the Salado of Mexico, with many imperiled minnows,
iled (Table 4). The diverse Cyprinidae and shiner (Notropis saladonis), was not detected characids, goodeids, silversides, pupfishes,
Percidae have about 46% and 44% of their during collection efforts in 1988 or 1995 and and livebearers. The Tennessee River ecorespecies imperiled, respectively. Families with was regarded as extinct by 1997 (Miller et al. gion has the greatest number of imperiled
few, widespread species range from having a 2005).
fishes with 58 listed taxa. The Mobile (57
high level of imperilment—Acipenseridae
Only 26 (6%) taxa improved in status taxa), Lerma-Chapala (46), South Atlantic
(88%) and Polyodontidae (100%)—to those from 1989 to the present (T-V, E-V, E-T, X-E), (34), and Mississippi Embayment (34) ecorewith a relatively low level of imperilment— or were delisted due to greater abundance gions also have large numbers of listed fishes.
Lepisosteidae (17%) and Moronidae (25%). or larger range size than previously docu- By geographic scale, the smallest ecoreFamilies with obligate cave-dwelling species mented. Four taxa, thought to be extinct in gion, Cuatro Ciénegas, has 13 imperiled
like the Amblyopsidae (83%), Bythitidae 1989, are now listed as endangered based on taxa while the largest ecoregion, Southern
(100%), and Heptapteridae (67%) have discovery of extant populations: Miller Lake Hudson Bay, has only 2. Fifty-five percent of
high proportions of imperilment, and lamprey (Entosphenus minimus; Lorion et al. the taxa are confined to the United States,
additional cave-dwelling taxa are repre- 2000), Independence Valley tui chub (Gila 31% to Mexico, and 4% to Canada. Of all
sented within the Characidae (1 species), bicolor isolata; Rissler et al. 2000), carpita fishes on this list, only the Pacific lamprey
Ictaluridae (4 species), and Synbranchidae del Ameca (Notropis amecae; López-López (Entosphenus tridentatus) occurs in all three
(1 species). The following families with pre- and Paulo-Maya 2001), and tiro manchado countries.
dominately marine and brackish species have (Allotoca maculata; Domínguez-Domínguez
Analysis of the five listing criteria revealed
relatively low levels of imperilment in North et al. 2005). Bonneville cutthroat trout that habitat degradation (criterion 1, assigned
American freshwater habitats: Clupeidae (Oncorhynchus clarkii utah) was considered to 92% of taxa on the list) and restricted
(8%), Eleotridae (0%), and Gobiidae (6%). endangered in 1989 but is removed from this range (72%) were the primary factors associFamilies important to sport and commer- list due to discovery of stable populations ated with imperiled inland North American
cial fisheries but also including nongame and conservation actions on publicly-owned fishes; 38% of listed taxa had a combinaspecies varied in imperilment from 61% lands (U.S. Federal Register 66 [195]:51362- tion of those 2 factors as criteria for listing.
for Salmonidae to 22% for Centrarchidae. 53166). Kiyi, considered to be monotypic Over-exploitation was prevalent among the
Within the Salmonidae, Oncorhynchus and listed as threatened in 1989, is now acipenserids (100%), salmonids (81%), and
mykiss has at least 27 imperiled subspecies or recognized to consist of two subspecies. atherinopsids (67%) but also occurred in
populations.
Coregonus kiyi kiyi is common in deeper areas some ictalurids (12%), goodeids (12%), and
By comparing the imperiled status of 364 of Lake Superior and delisted here (Lyons et cyprinids (4%). Over-utilization has directly
taxa tallied by Williams et al. (1989) plus al. 2000); however, C. kiyi orientalis of Lake or indirectly affected 2 species of lampreys—
the 40 taxa considered extinct in
Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus
1989 (Miller et al. 1989) to the
tridentatus) is harvested for
current list, trends in overall confood and other uses, while the
servation status were apparent.
parasitic lamprea de Chapala
Taxa that did not change status
(Tetrapleurodon spadiceus) is
(X-X, E-E, T-T, SC-V) accounted
imperiled, in part, by virtue of
for 226 of the 404 (56%), and
its host fishes being overhartaxa that declined in status (SCvested (Lyons et al. 1994). Of
T, SC-E, SC-X, T-E, T-X, E-X)
the 123 taxa affected by overnumbered 134 (33%) (Table 5).
utilization, only 9 (7%) are
Four Mexican species that were
considered extinct. Nearly all
treated as species of concern in
trout and salmon on the list
1989 are now presumed to be
are considered to be susceptible
extinct or extirpated from nature.
to whirling disease (Nickum
The only known locality of charal
1999). The introduced Asian
de la Caldera (Chirostoma bartoni)
tapeworm Bothriocephalus acheiSedimentation, a pervasive form of aquatic habitat degradation
desiccated in 2006, tiro dorado throughout much of North America, here results from poorly regulated
lognathi has become established
(Skiffia francesae) has captive construction in the Nancy Creek system, a Chattahoochee River tributary
in the Rio Grande (Río Bravo
populations maintained in two in metropolitan Atlanta (1997).
del Norte), San Cristóbal de
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
381
Las Casas (Chiapas, Mexico), and other
drainages, where its low host specificity likely
will have an impact on minnows, suckers,
and other native fishes (Velázquez-Velázquez
and Schmitter-Soto 2004; Bean et al. 2007).
Criterion 4 was common to 39% of the
imperiled taxa, and most cases were due to
effects of nonindigenous organisms, including
hybridization. Competition, predation, and
hybridization with hatchery trout were identified as problems for many isolated and unique
genotypes of trout (Behnke 2002). Only 4%
of percids had the fourth criterion as a cause
of imperilment.
Numbers of listing criteria per taxon did
not correspond with level of imperilment.
Regardless of conservation status, most
taxa (72%) had two or three listing criteria.
Forty-three salmonids and 1 cyprinid had all
5 criteria, but only 10 of these taxa are listed
as endangered.
Discussion
Previous assessments within the last
30 years documented a substantial level of
imperilment of the North American freshwater ichthyofauna (Deacon et al. 1979;
Miller et al. 1989; Williams et al. 1989).
Our assessment reveals a dramatic increase
since 1989 in the number of imperiled
North American freshwater and diadromous
fishes. The pronounced increase primarily
results from the addition of taxa that became
imperiled since 1989, recent discoveries of
nominal and undescribed taxa regarded as
imperiled, newly added distinct populations,
and inclusion of extinct taxa.
Only 8 (2%) of the 364 taxa listed in
Williams et al. (1989) improved sufficiently
to be delisted (Table 2), whereas 333 taxa
(91%) on the 1989 list either remained at
the same status or declined to a more severe
at-risk category. Of the 411 taxa that are
new to the list (i.e., either unlisted in 1989
or listed as monotypic taxa but now considered to be polytypic), 242 (59%) are
described species, 58 of which were described
since 1989. Populations, undescribed species, and undescribed subspecies account
for 132 (32%) of the additions, with 37
(9%) described subspecies in the remainder.
Distinct populations and seasonal runs of
salmonids contribute 43 additions to the list;
the numbers of added populations and undescribed taxa of percids (27) and cyprinids
(16) are also considerable. We estimate that
approximately 39% of described fish species
in North America are imperiled (Table 4),
another 7% have imperiled subspecies or
382
populations, and 61 taxa are considered to
be extinct from wild habitats.
The increase of at-risk taxa is due, in
part, to recognition of finer scales of biodiversity and revised interpretations of species
concepts. Advances in evolutionary biology,
systematics, phylogeography, and conservation biology have profoundly increased our
understanding of the complexity of biodiversity (Hillis et al. 1996; Smith and Wayne
1996; Kocher and Stepien 1997). Moreover,
extensive debate exists in the scientific community as to which taxonomic entities are
appropriate units to target for conservation
(Mayden and Wood 1995; Mayden 1997;
Wheeler and Meier 2000). A detailed summary of these issues is beyond the purview of
this discussion. Some authors have suggested
that, at least for some groups, inflation of
species richness is due largely to elevation
of known infraspecific taxa, which therefore
devalues the use of species lists (Isaac et al.
2004). Others have challenged this assertion
and emphasize that species lists document
recent discoveries of taxa, recognition of finer
scales of biodiversity, and application of species concepts that reflect a rapidly changing
field of science (Knapp et al. 2004). Among
vertebrates, fishes have the most dynamic
taxonomy (Duncan and Lockwood 2001),
and Nelson (2006) concluded that the
annual net increase in newly described species of fishes exceeds the combined number
of new tetrapods. We recognize the importance of such debates regarding the utility
of taxonomic lists relative to issues in systematic biology as well as limitations of the
Linnaean system of biological nomenclature.
However, our inclusion of taxa is concordant
with that of the U.S. Endangered Species
Act of 1973, which encompasses species,
subspecies, and distinct populations. Taxa
are included on our list with full consideration of the relevancy of appropriate evolutionary units in the context of manageable
conservation units (Nielsen 1995; Grady
and Quattro 1999; Musick et al. 2000; Hey
et al. 2003).
Inclusion of infraspecific taxa on our
list is appropriate for several reasons. Most
government agencies and conservation
organizations recognize, list, and manage infraspecific taxa (Haig et al. 2006).
Subspecies, isolated populations, evolutionarily significant units, distinct population
segments, and other operational taxonomic
entities have inherent conservation value
and may provide distinctive genetic diversity important for management actions, such
as reintroductions. In addition, actions that
affect the conservation of aquatic resources
typically occur from local to watershed
scales, thus management of infraspecific taxa
is warranted to maximize the protection of
all elements of biodiversity.
Documenting the extinction of taxa is an
imprecise yet necessary exercise. As Harrison
and Stiassny (1999) stated, before a freshwater fish taxon can be realistically declared
extinct, sufficient and appropriate efforts to
detect it must be expended by knowledgeable biologists; failure to do so can result in
erroneous conclusions (de la Vega-Salazar et
al. 2003). We document 4 instances where
fishes thought to be extinct were rediscovered. Unfortunately, 21 additional taxa are
apparently extinct and another 5 taxa only
persist as captive populations.
North American fishes are affected
by threats represented by all listing criteria (Helfman 2007). Extensive changes
to aquatic habitats have the most severe
impacts on fishes with restricted ranges.
Even taxa with broad historical ranges can be
affected detrimentally by landscape-altering
factors, such as large water-control structures
that hinder migrations and change vast areas
of riverine habitats. Nonindigenous organisms may affect fishes through the direct or
indirect interactions of competition, predation, hybridization, vectors of disease and
parasites, and may even change the trophic
structure of aquatic systems. For example,
introduced grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon
idella) can act as vectors for tapeworms while
also modifying vegetated habitats enough
to have an impact on rare native fishes
(Cudmore and Mandrak 2004). Wilcove
et al. (1998) documented trends among
the imperiled fauna and flora in the United
States, and found that the most pervasive
threat was habitat destruction, affecting 85%
of the species that they examined, followed
by the impacts caused by nonindigenous
species, affecting 49% of native species.
Dextrase and Mandrak (2006) found that
habitat degradation or loss and alien species
were the greatest threats to freshwater fishes
across Canada. Similar factors were cited by
Contreras-Balderas et al. (2003) as the greatest threats to Mexican fishes. Most imperiled
fishes are threatened by multiple factors.
The distribution map of imperiled fishes
across North America (Figure 3) is similar to other efforts to map aquatic biodiversity and identify regional conservation
needs based on faunistic composition and
ecological threats (Warren and Burr 1994;
Master et al. 1998; Abell et al. 2000). The
southeastern United States and east-central
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Mexico are generally identified as regions of high overall biodiversity that are subjected to rapid environmental changes. However,
when terrestrial and aquatic taxa are considered together, Atlantic
and Pacific coastal areas and the Sonoran Desert are identified as
biological hotspots (Flather et al. 1998). Because the conservation
of aquatic resources requires different strategies than terrestrial systems, maps combining terrestrial and aquatic diversity may obscure
conditions and divert attention from critical areas.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Red Lists (e.g., IUCN 2006) are considered by many to be the
most objective and quantitative listings of imperiled fauna
and flora (Bruton 1995; Rodrigues et al. 2006; Helfman 2007).
NatureServe (2007) also maintains a list of fishes of the United
States and Canada and assigns conservation rankings that are
used by many resource managers. Compared to our AFS-ESC list,
the IUCN Red List contains fewer taxa, some of which also have
outdated nomenclature and taxonomy. At the species level, the
Red List has an overall imperilment rate of 21%, including 28
species listed as extinct and another 5 extinct from the wild (the
6 populations and 5 subspecies of North American freshwater
fishes that appear on the IUCN list were excluded from this analysis). Williams and Miller (1990) estimated that 292 (28%) of the
1,033 IUCN-listed freshwater fishes were imperiled or extinct at
that time. The number of imperiled North American freshwater
fishes recognized by IUCN has decreased over the last 18 years
and is unlikely to portray the actual trend. The AFS-ESC list was
generally concordant with information provided by NatureServe,
but accounts of several taxa in the latter also need taxonomic,
nomenclatural, or status updates (Appendix 1).
The time, expense, and effort required to accumulate the quantitative data necessary for IUCN assessments may delay inclusion
of many imperiled taxa. For this reason, Helfman (2007) stated the
need for both quantitative and qualitative lists. Ideally, population
viability analyses could be done for all imperiled species (Brook et al.
2000), but conservation efforts should not be delayed while awaiting more thorough assessments. This AFS-ESC list is intended to
prompt the status evaluation of more freshwater fishes, and to stimulate proactive measures for their conservation and management.
Conservation lists should not be static. Reassessments become
necessary as situations change for taxa and information regarding
taxonomy improves. A dynamic website at:
http://fisc.er.usgs.gov/afs/
has been developed to exchange data about the conservation
status, distribution, and threats of imperiled aquatic faunas, and
to improve the timeliness and relevance of AFS-ESC actions.
The website will also provide practical lists of imperiled taxa by
geographic and political boundaries and will serve as a forum to
share information about the endangered, threatened, and vulnerable freshwater fauna. The AFS-ESC list augments regional fish
conservation analyses, such as recent works on faunal homogenization (Rahel 2000; Scott and Helfman 2001; Taylor 2004),
where information on taxonomy and geographic distribution is
vital. Listing criteria used by AFS-ESC should be expanded in the
future to more completely describe threats to the aquatic fauna,
such as the effort by Contreras-Balderas et al. (2003) to more specifically identify causes of fish imperilment in Mexico.
During the compilation of this list, information gaps were apparent in the taxonomy, distribution, and/or threats for many taxa. There
are taxa on the list that need formal description and others that may
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Track
Track your
your fish
fish with
with the
the
most
most advanced
advanced acoustic
acoustic
tracking
tracking receiver
receiver
available
available today.
today.
VEMCO’s VR100 Acoustic
Tracking Receiver is the
ultimate fish tracking solution.
W
hether you are actively tracking large pelagic fish
or conducting presence/absence studies, the
VR100 will get the job done. The VR100 has a flexible
systems architecture with 8MB of non-volatile internal
memory, GPS positioning and precise timing, USB link
to PC or laptop, and field installable software upgrades.
Other features include:
 Simultaneous, multi-frequency reception and
detection tracking algorithms
 Wide dynamic range allowing multi-tag reception
without gain adjustment
 Splash proof case with marine grade connectors
 Operates with coded and continuous tags
(sold separately)
 Operation frequency 10-100kHz
VEMCO (a division of AMIRIX Systems Inc.)
Tel: 902-450-1700 Fax: 902-450-1704
www.vemco.com
Making Waves in
Acoustic Telemetry
383
be candidates for synonymization. Additional study of these fishes
by the scientific community, including the naming of undescribed
forms and publication of additional information about their biology,
distributions, and threats, will greatly facilitate conservation efforts.
Although more study is important to close information gaps, much
more emphasis on reducing impacts to these taxa and their ecosystems is warranted. Possingham et al. (2002) discussed the inappropriate uses of conservation lists; although lists have their limitations and
critics, they are important tools in the arsenal required for protecting
biodiversity in a rapidly changing world. Because North America
has a relatively well-studied freshwater fish fauna, this AFS-ESC list,
by incorporating the most up-to-date information on systematics
and conservation status, should serve as an essential document to
inform policymakers, identify research efforts, and guide monitoring
and recovery efforts for imperiled freshwater and diadromous fishes
throughout the continent.
Acknowledgments
This project could not have been completed without the valuable input of numerous individuals. We are especially grateful to the
following people who contributed information on taxonomy, status,
or provided other helpful assistance: R. A. Abell, B. W. Albanese,
H. L. Bart, Jr., D. Beard, R. J. Behnke, R. Blanton, S. Bostick, B.
M. Burr, B. Bush, R. S. Butler, R. R. Campbell, T. M. Cavender, G.
H. Clemmer, T. Contreras-MacBeath, R. Cutter, S. W. Dalton, R.
A. Daniels, J. E. Deacon, A. J. Dextrase, M. E. Eberle, H. EspinosaPérez, D. A. Etnier, L. T. Findley, B. L. Fluker, S. J. Fraley, B. J.
Freeman, M.C. Freeman, K. B. Gido, C. R. Gilbert, G. Hammerson,
K. E. Hartel, M. H. Hughes, L. G. Jelks, R. E. Jenkins, P. D. Johnson,
A. P. Kinziger, B. R. Kreiser, B. R. Kuhajda, E. Marsh-Matthews, N.
Mercado-Silva, E. S. Miskow, T. J. Near, D.A. Neely, J. L. Nielsen,
M. T. O’Connell, K. R. Piller, E. P. Pister, S. L. Powers, M. Pyron,
M. E. Raley, S.B. Reid, F.C. Rohde, S.T. Ross, G. Ruiz-Campos, C.F.
Saylor, P. W. Shute, C. E. Skelton, G. R. Smith, W. C. Starnes, C. A.
Taylor, M. Thieme, J. D. Williams, J. E. Williams, C. C. Wood, and
L. Zambrano. Constructive comments on a draft of the manuscript
were provided by G.S. Helfman, D.W Meadows, and an anonymous
reviewer. We appreciate the efforts of any other individuals who may
have been inadvertently omitted from these acknowledgments.
REFERENCES
Abell, R. A., D. M. Olsen, E. Dinerstein, P. T. Hurley, J. T. Diggs, W.
Eichbaum, S. Walters, W. Wettengel, T. Allnutt, C. J. Loucks, and
P. Hedao. 2000. Freshwater ecoregions of North America: a conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Abell, R., and 26 co-authors. 2008. Freshwater ecoregions of the world:
a new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. BioScience 58 (5):406-414.
Allan, J. D., and A. S. Flecker. 1993. Biodiversity conservation in running waters. BioScience 43(1):32-43.
Atlas of Canada. 2003. National scale frameworks hydrology—drainage
areas, Canada. Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Available at: www.geogratis.ca/geogratis/en/
option/select.do?id=27730.
Bean, M. G., A. Skerikova, T. H. Bonner, T. Scholz, and D. G.
Huffman. 2007. First record of Bothriocephalus acheilognathi in the Rio
Grande with comparative analysis of IITS2 and V4-18S rRNA gene
sequences. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 19:71-76.
384
Behnke, R. J. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. The Free Press,
New York.
Brook, B. W., J. J. O’Grady, A. P. Chapman, M. A. Burgman, H. Resit
Akçakaya, and R. Frankham. 2000. Predictive accuracy of population
viability analysis in conservation biology. Nature 404:385-387.
Bruton, M. N. 1995. Have fish had their chips? The dilemma of threatened fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 43:1-27.
CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation). 2007. Commission
for Environmental Cooperation Mapping: North American environmental issues. CEC, Montreal, Quebec. Available at: www.cec.org/
naatlas/watersheds.cfm.
Contreras-Balderas, S., P. Almada-Villela, M. L. Lozano-Vilano,
and M. E. García-Ramírez. 2003. Freshwater fish at risk or extinct
in México. A checklist and review. Reviews in Fish Biology and
Fisheries 12:241-251.
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada). 2004. Canadian species at risk. COSEWIC, Ottawa,
Ontario.
_____. 2005. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the
Lake Ontario kiyi Coregonus kiyi orientalis and Upper Great Lakes kiyi
Coregonus kiyi kiyi in Canada. COSEWIC, Ottawa, Ontario.
Cudmore, B., and N. E. Mandrak. 2004. Biological synopsis of grass carp
(Ctenopharyngodon idella). Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 2705.
de la Vega-Salazar, M. Y., E. Ávila-Luna, and C. Macías-García. 2003.
Ecological evaluation of local extinction: the case of two genera of
endemic Mexican fish, Zoogoneticus and Skiffia. Biodiversity and
Conservation 12:2043-2056.
Deacon, J. E., G. Kobetich, J. D. Williams, and S. Contreras. 1979.
Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of special concern: 1979. Fisheries 4(2):29-44.
Dextrase, A. J., and N. E. Mandrak. 2006. Impacts of alien invasive
species on freshwater fauna at risk in Canada. Biological Invasions
8(1):13-24.
Domínguez-Domínguez, O., N. Mercado-Silva, J. Lyons, and H. J.
Grier. 2005. The viviparous goodeid species. Pages 525-569 in M. C.
Uribe and H. J. Grier, eds. Viviparous fishes. New Life Publications,
Homestead, Florida.
Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z. Kawabata, D. J.
Knowler, C. L Lévêque, R. J. Naiman, A. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto,
M. L. J. Stiassny, and C. A. Sullivan. 2006. Freshwater biodiversity:
importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological
Reviews 81(2):163-182.
Duncan, J. R., and J. L. Lockwood. 2001. Extinction in a field of bullets: a search for causes in the decline of the world’s freshwater fishes.
Biological Conservation 102:97-105.
Eschmeyer, W. N. (editor). 2008. Catalog of fishes, volumes 1-3. California
Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California. Available at: www.
calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatsearch.html.
Flather, C. M., M. S. Knowles, and I. A. Kendall. 1998. Threatened
and endangered species geography: characteristics of hot spots in the
conterminous United States. BioScience 48(5):365-376.
Grady, J. M., and J. M. Quattro. 1999. Using character concordance
to define taxonomic and conservation units. Conservation Biology
13(5):1004-1007.
Haig, S. M., E. A. Beever, S. M. Chambers, H. M. Draheim, B. D.
Dugger, S. Dunham, E. Elliott-Smith, J. B. Fontaine, D. C. Kesler, B.
J. Knaus, I. F. Lopes, P. Loschl, T. D. Mullins, and L. M. Scheffield.
2006. Taxonomic considerations in listing subspecies under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 20(6):1844-1850.
Harrison, I. J., and M. L. J. Stiassny. 1999. The quiet crisis. A preliminary listing of the freshwater fishes of the world that are extinct or
“missing in action.” Pages 271-331 in R. MacPhee, ed. Extinctions in
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Near Time: causes, contexts, and consequences. Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers, New York.
Helfman, G. S. 2007. Fish conservation: a guide to understanding and
restoring global aquatic biodiversity and fishery resources. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Hey, J., R. S. Waples, M. L. Arnold, R. K. Butlin, and R. G. Harrison.
2003. Understanding and confronting species uncertainty in biology
and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(11):597-603.
Hillis, D. M., C. Moritz, and B. K. Mable (editors). 1996. Molecular
systematics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Hocutt, C. H., and E. O. Wiley (editors). 1986. The zoogeography of
North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York
Isaac, J. B., J. Mallet, and G. M. Mace. 2004. Taxonomic inflation: its
influence on macroecology and conservation. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 19(9):464-469.
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2006.
2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Cambridge, UK. Available
at www.iucnredlist.org.
Knapp, S., E. N. Lughadha, and A. Paton. 2004. Taxonomic inflation, species concepts and global species lists. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 20(1):7-8.
Kocher, T. D., and C. A. Stepien (editors). 1997. Molecular systematics
of fishes. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister,
and J. R. Stauffer (editors). 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Leidy, R. A., and P. B. Moyle. 1998. Conservation status of the world’s
fish fauna: an overview. Pages 187-227 in N P. L. Fiedler and P. M.
Kareiva, eds. Conservation biology: for the coming decade. Chapman
and Hall, New York.
López-López, E., and J. Paulo-Maya. 2001. Changes in the fish assemblages in the upper Río Ameca, Mexico. Journal Freshwater Ecology
16 (2):179-187.
Lorion, C. M., D. F. Markle, S. B. Reid, and M. F. Docker. 2000.
Redescription of the presumed-extinct Miller Lake lamprey, Lampetra
minima. Copeia 2000 (4):1019-1028.
Lundberg, J. G., M. Kottelat, G. R. Smith, M. L. J. Stiassny, and A.
C. Gill. 2000. So many fishes, so little time: an overview of recent
ichthyological discovery in continental waters. Annals of the Missouri
Botanical Garden 87:26-62.
Lyons, J., P. A. Cochran, and D. Fago. 2000. Wisconsin fishes 2000.
Status and distribution. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant, Madison.
Lyons, J., P. A. Cochran, O. J. Polaco, and E. Merino-Nambo.
1994. Distribution and abundance of the Mexican lampreys
(Petromyzontidae: Lampetra: subgenus Tetrapleurodon). Southwestern
Naturalist 39(2):105-113.
Master, L. L., S. R. Flack, and B. A. Stein. 1998. Rivers of life: critical watersheds for protecting freshwater biodiversity. The Nature
Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
Maxwell, J. R., C. J. Edwards, M. E. Jensen, S. J. Paustain, H. Parrott,
and D. M. Hill. 1995. A hierarchical framework of aquatic ecological units in North America (Nearctic). General Technical Report 176,
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, North Central Forest Experimental Station,
St. Paul, Minnesota.
Mayden, R. L. 1997. A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement
in the saga of the species problem. Pages 381-424 in M.F. Claridge,
H.A. Dawah, and M.R. Wilson, eds. Species: the units of biodiversity.
Chapman and Hall, London.
Mayden, R. L., B. M. Burr, L. M. Page, and R. R. Miller. 1992. The
native freshwater fishes of North America. Pages 827-863 in R. L.
Mayden, ed. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American
freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
VEMCO’s VR2W delivers
the best results in freshwater
and marine environments
Over 10,000 units deployed worldwide
provides opportunities for researchers
to collaborate and share data!
The VR2W Single Channel Receiver was designed using the same proven technology as the VR2. Affordable,
compact, easy to use, long-lasting and flexible, the VR2W
is ideal for any freshwater and marine research project. With
the VR2W, VEMCO has made the VR2 even better!
 Significantly faster upload
speed - retrieve data 20
times faster than the VR2
and from up to 7 receivers
simultaneously
 Increased data storage
capability enables users to
collect substantial amounts
of field data - 8 MBytes
(1-million detections), 4
times that of the VR2
 Field upgradable design
allows the VR2W to be
upgraded in the field
 All detections are retained in non-volatile memory so
data is saved even if the unit unexpectedly fails
 Fully compatible with various size coded transmitters
and sensor tags
The VR2W also uses enhanced PC Software. The new
VEMCO User Environment (VUE) PC Software for
initialization, configuration and data
upload from VEMCO receivers allows
users to combine data from multiple
receivers of varying types into a single
integrated database.
Contact us about affordable options for upgrading
your VR1s and VR2s to VR2W receivers.
VEMCO (a division of AMIRIX Systems Inc.)
Tel: 902-450-1700 Fax: 902-450-1704
www.vemco.com
Making Waves in
Acoustic Telemetry
385
Mayden, R. L. and R. M. Wood. 1995. Systematics, species concepts,
and the evolutionarily significant unit in biodiversity and conservation
biology. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:58-113.
Miller, R. R., J. D. Williams, and J. E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of
North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14(6):22-30,
32-38.
Miller, R. R., W. L. Minckley, and S. R. Norris. 2005. Freshwater fishes
of México. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Musick, J. A., M. M. Harbin, S. A. Berkeley, G. H. Burgess, A. M.
Eklund, L. Findley, R. G. Gilmore, J. T. Golden, D. S. Ha, G. R.
Huntsman, J. C. McGovern, S. J. Parker, S. G. Poss, E. Sala, T.
W. Schmidt, G. R. Sedberry, H. Weeks, and S. G. Wright. 2000.
Marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish stocks at risk of extinction in North America (exclusive of Pacific salmonids). Fisheries
25(11):6-30.
NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of
life [web application]. Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Available at: www.natureserve.org/explorer.
Nelson, J. S. 2006. Fishes of the world (4th edition). John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R.
Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific
names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Sixth
edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29.
Nelson, J. S., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N.
Lea, N. E. Mandrak, and J. D. Williams. 2006. Corrections to common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada,
and Mexico, sixth edition. Fisheries 31(3):138-140.
Nickum, D. 1999. Whirling disease in the United States. A summary of progress in research and management. Trout Unlimited,
Arlington, Virginia.
Nielsen, J. L. (editor). 1995. Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 17, Bethesda, Maryland.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater
fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston.
Possingham, H. P., S. J. Andelman, M. A. Burgman, R. A. Medellín,
L. L. Master, and D. A. Keith. 2002. Limits to the use of threatened
species lists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17(11):503-507.
Rahel, F. J. 2000. Homogenization of fish faunas across the United States.
Science 288(5467)854-856.
Ricciardi, A., and J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction rates of North
American freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 13(5):1220-1222.
Rissler, P. H., G. G. Scoppettone, S. S. Shea, and S. Byers. 2000. Using
GIS and GPS to map the seasonal distribution and relative density of
Independence Valley speckled dace and Independence Valley tui chub.
Desert Fishes Council 32nd Annual Meeting Abstracts, Death Valley
National Park, Nevada. Available at: www.desertfishes.org.
Rodrigues, A. S. L., J. D. Pilgrim, J. F. Lamoreux, M. Hoffmann, and T.
M. Brooks. 2006. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21(2):71-76.
SARA (Species At Risk Act). 2004. Schedule 1, list of wildlife species at
risk in Canada. Available at: www.sararegistry.gc.ca.
Scott, M. C., and G. S. Helfman. 2001. Native invasions, homogenization, and the mismeasure of integrity of fish assemblages. Fisheries
26(11):6-15.
SEMARNAT (Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales).
2002. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-ECOL-2001, Protección
ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestresCategorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión
o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. Gaceta Ecológica 62:68–240.
386
Available at: www.semarnat.gob.mx/leyesynormas/Normas%20
Oficiales%20Mexicanas%20vigentes/NOM-ECOL-059-2001.pdf.
Smith, T.B., and R.K. Wayne. 1996. Molecular genetic approaches in
conservation. Oxford University Press, New York.
Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G.
Eversole, P. Hamr, H. H. I. Hobbs, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skelton,
and R. F. Thoma. 2007. A reassessment of the conservation status of
crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased
awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389.
Taylor, C. A., M. L.Warren, Jr., J. F. Patrick, Jr., H. H. Hobbs
III, R. F. Jezerinac, W. L. Pflieger, and H. W. Robison. 1996.
Conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada.
Fisheries 21(4):25-38.
Taylor, E. B. 2004. An analysis of the homogenization and differentiation of Canadian freshwater fish faunas with an emphasis on British
Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
61:68-79.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Endangered
and threatened wildlife and plants. 50 CFR part 17. Available at: www.
fws.gov/endangered.
_____. 2007. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of
native species that are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened; annual notice of findings on resubmitted petitions; annual
description of progress on listing actions; proposed rule. 50 CFR part
17. Federal Register 72(234):69034-69106.
Vogler, A. P., and R. DeSalle. 1994. Diagnosing units of conservation
management. Conservation Biology 8 (2):354-363.
Velázquez-Velázquez, E., and J. J. Schmitter-Soto. 2004. Conservation
status of Profundulus hildebrandi Miller (Teleostei: Profundulidae) in
the face of urban growth in Chiapas, Mexico. Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14:201-209.
Waples, R. S. 1998. Evolutionarily significant units, distinct population
segments, and the endangered species act: Reply to Pennock and
Dimmick. Conservation Biology 12(3):718-721.
Warren, M. L., Jr., and B. M. Burr. 1994. Status of freshwater fishes
of the United States: overview of an imperiled fauna. Fisheries
19(1):6-18.
Warren, M. L., Jr., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart, Jr., R. C.
Cashner, D. A. Etnier, B. J. Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L. Mayden,
H. W. Robison, S. T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the
southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-29.
Watermolen, J. 2002. Hydrologic unit boundaries Map (scale, 1:2,000,000).
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Available at: http://water.
usgs.gov/GIS/dsdl/huc01_2m.e00.gz.
Wheeler, Q. D., and R. Meier (editors). 2000. Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: a debate. Columbia University Press, New York
Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos.
1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States.
BioScience 48(8):607-615.
Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, Jr., K. S. Cummings, J. S. Harris, and
R. J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the
United States and Canada. Fisheries 18 (9):6-22.
Williams, J. E., J. E. Johnson, D. A. Hendrickson, S. ContrerasBalderas, J. D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D. E. McAllister,
and J. E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14(6):2-20.
Williams, J. E., and R. R. Miller. 1990. Conservation status of the
North American fish fauna in fresh water. Journal of Fish Biology
37 (Supplement A):79-85.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Appendix 1. The 2008 AFS Endangered Species Committee list of imperiled freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America.
Taxon scientific name and authority are followed by AFS common name (in the language of the country where taxon is endemic);
status:
V =
T =
E =
X =
Xp = Xn = ▲ = ▼ = ♦ = ● =
blank= vulnerable,
threatened,
endangered,
extinct,
possibly extinct,
extirpated in nature,
status improved since 1989 listing,
status declined since 1989,
status same as 1989,
taxon was considered invalid in 1989;
taxon is new,
listing criteria:
1 = present or threatened destruction,
modification, or reduction of a taxon’s
habitat or range, 2 = over-exploitation for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes including intentional
eradication or indirect impacts of
fishing,
3 = disease or parasitism,
4 = other natural or anthropogenic
factors that affect a taxon’s existence,
Taxon
AFS Common Name
5
including impacts of nonindigenous
organisms, hybridization, competition,
and/or predation, and
= a narrowly restricted range;
NatureServe rank, see:
www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm;
and ecoregions where taxon exists or formerly existed.
These data are also available at
http://fisc.er.usgs.gov/afs/.
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Family Petromyzontidae
Lampreys
Entosphenus hubbsi Vladykov and Kott, 1976
Kern brook lamprey
T▼
1,2,4,5
G1G2
Entosphenus lethophagus (Hubbs, 1971)
Pit-Klamath brook lamprey
V
1,5
G3G4
Entosphenus macrostomus (Beamish, 1982)
Vancouver lamprey
T▼
5
G1
Entosphenus minimus (Bond and Kan, 1973)
Miller Lake lamprey E▲
1,2,5
G1
Entosphenus similis Vladykov and Kott, 1979
Klamath lamprey
T
1,5
G3G4Q
Entosphenus tridentatus (Gairdner, 1836)
Pacific lamprey
V
1,2
G5
Goose Lake population
T▼
1,5
G5T1
Lampetra ayresii (Günther, 1870)
river lamprey
V
1,4
G4
Lampetra richardsoni Vladykov and Follett, 1965
western brook lamprey
G4G5
Morrison Creek, Vancouver Island population
E
1,5
G4G5T1Q
Tetrapleurodon geminis Álvarez, 1964
lamprea de Jacona
T
1,5
Tetrapleurodon spadiceus (Bean, 1887)
lamprea de Chapala
E
1,2,5
Family Acipenseridae
Sturgeons
Acipenser brevirostrum Lesueur, 1818
shortnose sturgeon
E▼
1,2
G3
Acipenser fulvescens Rafinesque, 1817
lake sturgeon
V▲
1,2
G3G4
Acipenser medirostris Ayres, 1854
green sturgeon
V
1,2
G3
1,2
G3T2
Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Vladykov, 1955
Gulf sturgeon
T♦
1,2
G3T3
Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Mitchill, 1815
Atlantic sturgeon
V♦
Acipenser transmontanus Richardson, 1836
white sturgeon
E
1,2
G4
Scaphirhynchus albus (Forbes and Richardson, 1905)
pallid sturgeon
E♦
1,2,4
G2
Scaphirhynchus suttkusi Williams and Clemmer, 1991
Alabama sturgeon
E♦
1,2
G1
Family Polyodontidae
Paddlefish
1,2
G4
Polyodon spathula (Walbaum, 1792)
paddlefish
V♦
Family Lepisosteidae
Gars
Atractosteus spatula (Lacepède, 1803)
alligator gar
V
1,2
G3G4
10
9-10,12
5
9
9,12
1,4-11
12
4-5,7,9-10
5
22
21-22
61-64
47-48,50
58,64,6769, 71,75-80
1,4-7,9-11
43,57-61
61-64,66,68-69
4,6-10,12
47-48,50-51,
53,57
58
45-58,67
32-33,
43-46,49-59
Scaphirhynchus suttkusi, Alabama sturgeon. Photo: P. O'Neil.
Atractosteus spatula, alligator gar. Photo: R. M. Drenner.
Polyodon spathula, paddlefish. Photo: W. Roston.
Campostoma ornatum, Mexican stoneroller. Photo: J. M. Artigas Azas.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
387
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Family Clupeidae
Herrings
Alosa alabamae Jordan and Evermann, 1896
Alabama shad
T
1,2
G3
Dorosoma sp. cf. mexicana sardina de Catemaco
V
1,4
Family CyprinidaeCarps and Minnows
Agosia chrysogaster Girard, 1856
longfin dace
V
1
G4
Algansea aphanea Barbour and Miller, 1978
pupo del Ayutla
E
1,2,5
Algansea avia Barbour and Miller, 1978
pupo de Tepic
E
1,5
Algansea barbata Álvarez and Cortés, 1964
pupo del Lerma
E
1,5
Algansea lacustris Steindachner, 1895
acúmara
V
1,2,5
Algansea popoche (Jordan and Snyder, 1899)
popocha
E
1,2,5
Algansea tincella (Valenciennes, 1844)
pupo de valle
V
1
1,3,4
G3
Campostoma ornatum Girard, 1856
Mexican stoneroller
V♦
Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland, 1841)
redside dace
V
1,4
G3G4
Clinostomus funduloides ssp. smoky dace
V
1,5
G5T3Q
Cyprinella alvarezdelvillari Contreras-Balderas and Lozano-Vilano, 1994
carpita tepehuana
E▼
1,4,5
Cyprinella bocagrande (Chernoff and Miller, 1982)
carpita bocagrande
E▼
1,5
Cyprinella caerulea (Jordan, 1877)
blue shiner
E▼
1,4
G2
Cyprinella callitaenia (Bailey and Gibbs, 1956)
bluestripe shiner
V▲
1
G2G3
Cyprinella formosa (Girard, 1856)
beautiful shiner
T▼
1,4
G2
Cyprinella garmani (Jordan, 1885)
carpita jorobada
T
1,5
Cyprinella lepida Girard, 1856
plateau shiner
V
1,5
G1G2
Cyprinella lutrensis blairi (Hubbs, 1940)
Maravillas red shiner X
1,5
G5TX
Cyprinella ornata (Girard, 1856)
carpita adornada
V
1
1,5
Cyprinella panarcys (Hubbs and Miller, 1978)
carpita del Conchos
E♦
Cyprinella proserpina (Girard, 1856)
proserpine shiner
E▼
1,3,5
G3
Cyprinella rutila (Girard, 1856)
carpita regiomontana
E
1,5
Cyprinella xaenura (Jordan, 1877)
Altamaha shiner
V
1,5
G2G3
1,5
Cyprinella xanthicara (Minckley and Lytle, 1969)
carpita de Cuatro Ciénegas
E♦
Dionda diaboli Hubbs and Brown, 1957
Devils River minnow
E▼
1,3,5
G1
Dionda dichroma Hubbs and Miller, 1977
carpa bicolor
E▼
1,5
1,5
Dionda episcopa ssp. carpa obispa de Cuatro CiénegasE♦
1
Dionda episcopa ssp. carpa obispa del MezquitalE♦
Dionda episcopa ssp. carpa obispa del NazasE▼
1,4,5
1,5
Dionda mandibularis Contreras-Balderas and Verduzco-Martínez, 1977
carpa quijarona
E♦
1,5
Dionda melanops Girard, 1856
carpa manchada
E♦
Dionda rasconis (Jordan and Snyder, 1899)
carpa potosina
E
1,5
1,4,5
G1
Eremichthys acros Hubbs and Miller, 1948
desert dace
T♦
1
G2
Erimonax monachus (Cope, 1868)
spotfin chub
T♦
Erimystax cahni (Hubbs and Crowe, 1956)
slender chub
E▼
1,5
G1
Cyprinella caerulea, blue shiner. Photo: W. Roston.
Cyprinella panarcys, Conchos shiner. Photo: J. Tomelleri.
Cyprinella formosa, beautiful shiner. Photo: W. Roston.
Dionda diaboli, Devils River minnow. Photo: G. Sneegas.
388
50-61
33
18-19
23
21
22
22
22
21-23,33
19-20,35,
38-39,43
53-54,63,67
56,62
35
38
58
60
20,38
35
44
43
21,35,39
39
37,43
40,42
62
41
43
33
41
21
35
33
40,42
33
13
56
56
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Erimystax harryi (Hubbs and Crowe, 1956)
Ozark chub
V
Evarra bustamantei Navarro, 1955
carpa xochimilca
X
Evarra eigenmanni Woolman, 1894
carpa verde
X
Evarra tlahuacensis Meek, 1902
carpa de Tláhuac
X
Gila alvordensis Hubbs and Miller, 1972
Alvord chub
V♦
Gila bicolor euchila Hubbs and Miller, 1972
Fish Creek Springs tui chub
E▼
Gila bicolor eurysoma Williams and Bond, 1981
Sheldon tui chub
E▼
Gila bicolor isolata Hubbs and Miller, 1972
Independence Valley tui chub
E▲
Gila bicolor mohavensis (Snyder, 1918)
Mohave tui chub
E♦
Gila bicolor newarkensis Hubbs and Miller, 1972
Newark Valley tui chub
T▼
Gila bicolor oregonensis (Snyder, 1908)
Oregon Lake tui chub
T▼
Gila bicolor snyderi Miller, 1973
Owens tui chub
E♦
Gila bicolor thalassina (Cope, 1883)
Goose Lake tui chub
T
Gila bicolor vaccaceps Bills and Bond, 1980
Cowhead Lake tui chub
E▼
Gila bicolor ssp. Big Smoky Valley tui chubE
Gila bicolor ssp. Catlow tui chub
V♦
Gila bicolor ssp. Charnock Springs tui chub
E
Gila bicolor ssp. Dixie Valley tui chub
E
Gila bicolor ssp. Duckwater Creek tui chubE
Gila bicolor ssp. High Rock Springs tui chub
X▼
Gila bicolor ssp. Hot Creek Valley tui chub
E
Gila bicolor ssp. Hutton Spring tui chubE▼
Gila bicolor ssp. Little Fish Lake Valley tui chubE
Gila bicolor ssp. Railroad Valley tui chub
T
Gila bicolor ssp. Summer Basin tui chubE♦
Gila boraxobius Williams and Bond, 1980
Borax Lake chub
E▼
Gila brevicauda Norris, Fischer and Minkley, 2003
carpa colicorta
V
Gila conspersa Garman, 1881
carpa de Mayrán
T
Gila crassicauda (Baird and Girard, 1854)
thicktail chub
X♦
Gila cypha Miller, 1946
humpback chub
E♦
Gila ditaenia Miller, 1945
Sonora chub
T▼
Gila elegans Baird and Girard, 1853
bonytail
E♦
Gila eremica DeMarais, 1991
carpa del desierto
T
Gila intermedia (Girard, 1856)
Gila chub
E▼
Gila minacae Meek, 1902
carpa cola redonda mexicana
T
Gila modesta (Garman, 1881)
carpa de Saltillo
E▼
Gila nigra Cope, 1875
headwater chub
E
Gila nigrescens (Girard, 1856)
Chihuahua chub
E▼
Gila orcuttii (Eigenmann and Eigenmann, 1890)
arroyo chub
V
Gila pandora (Cope, 1872)
Rio Grande chub
V
Gila purpurea (Girard, 1856)
Yaqui chub
E▼
1
G3G4Q
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,4,5
G2
1,4,5
G4T1Q
1,5
G4T1
1,4,5
G4T1Q
1,4,5
G4T1
1,5
G4T1Q
5
G4T2
1,4,5
G4T1
1,4,5
G4T2
1,5
G4T1
1,5
G4T1
1
G4T1
1,5
G4T1Q
1,5
G4T1Q
1,5
G4T1
1,4,5
G4TX
1,5
G4T1Q
1,5
G4T1
1,5
G4T1
1,5
G4T1Q
1,4,5
G4T1
1,5
G1
5
5
1,2,5
GX
1,3,4
G1
1,4,5
G2
1,3,4
G1
5
1,4
G2
1
1,4
1,2,3,4,5
G2Q
1,4
G1
1,4,5
G2
1,3,4
G3
1,4
G1
Hybopsis lineapunctata, lined chub. Photo: N. M. Burkhead.
Notropis chihuahua, Chihuahua shiner. Photo: J. Lyons.
Notropis ariommus, popeye shiner. Photo: N. M. Burkhead and R. E. Jenkins.
Notropis topeka, Topeka shiner. Photo: G. Sneegas.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
51
22
22
22
12
13
12-13
13
15
13
12
15
12
12
13
12-13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
12
12
19
35
10
17
19
17-18
19
18
19
42
18
38
11
36,37
19,38
389
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Gila robusta Baird and Girard, 1853
roundtail chub
V
1,3
G3
Gila robusta jordani Tanner, 1950
Pahranagat roundtail chub
E♦
1,4,5
G3T1
Gila seminuda Cope and Yarrow, 1875
Virgin chub
E♦
1,4,5
G1
Gila sp. carpa de IturbideE▼
3,5
Gila sp. carpa delgada de Parras
Xp▼
1,4,5
Gila sp. carpa gorda de Parras
Xp▼
1,4,5
Hemitremia flammea (Jordan and Gilbert, 1878)
flame chub
V♦
1
G3
Hybognathus amarus (Girard, 1856)
Rio Grande silvery minnow
E▼
1,3,4
G1
Hybognathus argyritis Girard, 1856
western silvery minnow
V
1
G4
Hybognathus placitus Girard, 1856
plains minnow
V
1
G4
Hybopsis amnis (Hubbs and Greene, 1951)
pallid shiner
V
1
G4
Hybopsis lineapunctata Clemmer and Suttkus, 1971
lined chub
V
1
G3G4
Iotichthys phlegethontis (Cope, 1874)
least chub
E♦
1,4
G1
Lavinia exilicauda chi Hopkirk, 1974
Clear Lake hitch
V
1,2,4,5
G5T2
Lavinia symmetricus mitrulus Snyder, 1913
pit roach
V
1,4,5
G5T2
Lavinia symmetricus ssp. Red Hills roach
V
1,5
G5T1
1,4
G1
Lepidomeda albivallis Miller and Hubbs, 1960
White River spinedace
E♦
Lepidomeda aliciae (Jouy 1881)
southern leatherside chub
V
1,4
G2
Lepidomeda altivelis Miller and Hubbs, 1960
Pahranagat spinedace X
1,5
GX
Lepidomeda copei (Jordan and Gilbert 1881)
northern leatherside chub
E
4
G1G2
Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis Miller and Hubbs, 1960
Virgin River spinedace
T♦
1,4
G1G2T1
1,4,5
G1G2T1
Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis Miller and Hubbs, 1960
Big Spring spinedace
E♦
Lepidomeda vittata Cope, 1874
Little Colorado spinedace
T♦
1
G1G2
Lythrurus snelsoni (Robison, 1985)
Ouachita shiner
V♦
1
G3
Macrhybopsis aestivalis (Girard, 1856)
speckled chub
T
1,3
G3G4
Macrhybopsis sp. cf. aestivalis Coosa chub
V
1
G3G4
Macrhybopsis sp. cf. aestivalis Florida chub
V
1
G3
Macrhybopsis australis (Hubbs and Ortenburger, 1929)
prairie chub
V
1
G2G3
Macrhybopsis gelida (Girard, 1856)
sturgeon chub
V♦
1
G3
Macrhybopsis meeki (Jordan and Evermann, 1896)
sicklefin chub
V▲
1
G3
Macrhybopsis tetranema (Gilbert, 1886)
peppered chub
E▼
1
G1
Meda fulgida Girard, 1856
spikedace
E▼
1,4
G2
Moapa coriacea Hubbs and Miller, 1948
Moapa dace
E♦
1,3,4,5
G1
Notropis aguirrepequenoi Contreras-Balderas and Rivera-Teillery, 1973
carpita del Pilón
T▼
1,3,5
Notropis albizonatus Warren and Burr, 1994
palezone shiner
E▼
1,5
G1
Notropis amecae Chernoff and Miller, 1986
carpita del Ameca
E▲
1,5
Notropis anogenus Forbes, 1885
pugnose shiner
T
1
G3
Notropis ariommus (Cope, 1867)
popeye shiner
V
1,5
G3
Notropis aulidion Chernoff and Miller, 1986
carpita de Durango
Xp
1,4,5
Notropis bifrenatus (Cope, 1867)
bridle shiner
V
1
G3
Phoxinus cumberlandensis, blackside dace. Photo: R. T. Bryant.
Phoxinus sp. cf. saylori, Clinch dace. Photo: C. E. Skelton.
Phoxinus saylori, laurel dace. Photo: C. E. Williams.
Pteronotropis hubbsi, blue head shiner. Photo: W. Roston.
390
17
16
16
43
35
35
55-56,58
36-37,43
47-48,50,53,57
45,47-48,
50-53,57
44-46,50-57
58
14
10
10
10
16
14
16
8,14
16
16
16
52
36,43
58
59
49
47-48,50,53,57
47-48,50,53,57
49
18
16
43
55-56
23
48,53-54,67-68
54-56
35
62-64,67-68
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Notropis boucardi (Günther, 1868)
carpita del Balsas
T
1,4
Notropis braytoni Jordan and Evermann, 1896
Tamaulipas shiner
T
1,3
G4
Notropis buccula Cross, 1953
smalleye shiner
T▼
1
G2Q
Notropis cahabae Mayden and Kuhajda, 1989
Cahaba shiner
E♦
1,5
G2
Notropis calabazas Lyons and Mercado-Silva, 2004
carpita del Calabazas
E
5
Notropis calientis Jordan and Snyder, 1899
carpita amarilla
V
1
Notropis chalybaeus (Cope, 1867)
ironcolor shiner
V
1
G4
Notropis chihuahua Woolman, 1892
Chihuahua shiner
T
1,3,5
G3
Notropis cumingii (Günther, 1868)
carpita del Atoyac
E
1,5
Notropis girardi Hubbs and Ortenburger, 1929
Arkansas River shiner
E
1
G2
Notropis hypsilepis Suttkus and Raney, 1955
highscale shiner
V
1
G3
Notropis jemezanus (Cope, 1875)
Rio Grande shiner
E▼
1,3
G3
Notropis mekistocholas Snelson, 1971
Cape Fear shiner
E♦
1,5
G1
Notropis melanostomus Bortone, 1989
blackmouth shiner
T♦
1,5
G2
Notropis moralesi de Buen, 1955
carpita del Tepelmeme
T▼
1,5
Notropis orca Woolman, 1894
phantom shiner
Xp
1
GXQ
Notropis ortenburgeri Hubbs, 1927
Kiamichi shiner
V
1
G3
Notropis oxyrhynchus Hubbs and Bonham, 1951
sharpnose shiner
T▼
1
G3
Notropis ozarcanus Meek, 1891
Ozark shiner
V
1
G3
Notropis perpallidus Hubbs and Black, 1940
peppered shiner
V♦
1
G3
Notropis rupestris Page, 1987
bedrock shiner
V
5
G2
Notropis saladonis Hubbs and Hubbs, 1958
carpita del Salado
Xp▼
1,5
Notropis sallaei (Günther, 1868)
carpita azteca
V
1
Notropis semperasper Gilbert, 1961
roughhead shiner
V♦
1,5
G2G3
Notropis simus pecosensis Gilbert and Chernoff, 1982
Pecos bluntnose shiner
E♦
1,3,4,5
G2T2
Notropis simus simus (Cope, 1875)
Rio Grande bluntnose shiner Xp
1,5
G2TX
Notropis suttkusi Humphries and Cashner, 1994
rocky shiner
V
1,5
G3
Notropis topeka (Gilbert, 1884)
Topeka shiner
E
1,4
G3
Oregonichthys crameri (Snyder, 1908)
Oregon chub
E▼
1,4,5
G2
Oregonichthys kalawatseti Markle, Pearsons and Bills, 1991
Umpqua chub
V
4,5
G2G3
Phoxinus cumberlandensis Starnes and Starnes, 1978
blackside dace
T▲
1,5
G2
Phoxinus erythrogaster (Rafinesque, 1820)
southern redbelly dace
upper Arkansas River populations
V
1,5
Phoxinus saylori Skelton, 2001
laurel dace
E
1,5
G1
Phoxinus sp. cf. saylori Clinch dace
E
1,5
G1
Phoxinus tennesseensis Starnes and Jenkins, 1988
Tennessee dace
V♦
1,5
G3
Pimephales tenellus parviceps (Hubbs and Black, 1947)
eastern slim minnow
V
1
G4T2T3
1,3,4
G1
Plagopterus argentissimus Cope, 1874
woundfin
E♦
Pogonichthys ciscoides Hopkirk, 1974
Clear Lake splittail
Xp
1,4,5
GXQ
Pogonichthys macrolepidotus (Ayres, 1854)
splittail
V♦
1,2,4
G2
Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis, Ash Meadows speckled dace. Photo: W. Roston.
Moxostoma austrinum, Mexican redhorse. Photo: J. Lyons.
Rhinichthys osculus thermalis, Kendall Warm Springs dace. Photo: W. Roston.
Moxostoma congestum, gray redhorse. Photo: G. Sneegas.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
24
37,39,43
45
58
33
21-22,33
44-46,50,
52-53,57-64
39,43
25
49-50,52
60,62
36-37,39,43
62
57,59
24-25,32
36,43
49,51-52
45
51
52
55
43
22,24,33
62
37
36
52
48-50,53
7
9
55
49
56
56
56
51-53,57
16-18
10
10
391
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Pteronotropis euryzonus (Suttkus, 1955)
broadstripe shiner
V
Pteronotropis hubbsi (Bailey and Robison, 1978)
bluehead shiner
V
Pteronotropis merlini (Suttkus and Mettee, 2001)
orangetail shiner
V
Pteronotropis sp. cf. metallicus Alafia River sailfin shiner
T
Pteronotropis stonei (Fowler 1921)
lowland shiner
V
Pteronotropis welaka (Evermann and Kendall, 1898)
bluenose shiner
V
Ptychocheilus lucius Girard, 1856
Colorado pikeminnow
E♦
Relictus solitarius Hubbs and Miller, 1972
relict dace
V♦
Rhinichthys cataractae smithi Nichols, 1916 Banff longnose dace
X
Rhinichthys cataractae ssp. Millicoma longnose dace
V
Rhinichthys cataractae ssp. Nooksack daceE▼
Rhinichthys cobitis (Girard, 1856)
loach minnow
T♦
Rhinichthys deaconi Miller, 1984
Las Vegas dace
X
Rhinichthys evermanni Snyder, 1908
Umpqua dace
V
Rhinichthys osculus lariversi Lugaski, 1972
Big Smoky Valley speckled dace E
Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus Hubbs and Miller, 1972
Independence Valley speckled daceE♦
Rhinichthys osculus moapae Williams, 1978
Moapa speckled dace
T♦
Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis Gilbert, 1893
Ash Meadows speckled dace
E♦
Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus Hubbs and Miller, 1972
Clover Valley speckled dace
E♦
Rhinichthys osculus reliquus Hubbs and Miller, 1972
Grass Valley speckled dace
X
Rhinichthys osculus thermalis (Hubbs and Kuhne, 1937)
Kendall Warm Springs dace
E▼
Rhinichthys osculus velifer Gilbert, 1893
Pahranagat speckled dace
E
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Amargosa Canyon speckled dace T▼
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Amargosa River speckled dace T▼
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Foskett speckled dace
T♦
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Long Valley speckled daceE
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Owens speckled dace
T♦
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Preston speckled dace
V♦
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Santa Ana speckled dace
T♦
Rhinichthys umatilla (Gilbert and Evermann, 1894)
Umatilla dace
V
Semotilus lumbee Snelson and Suttkus, 1978
sandhills chub
V♦
Stypodon signifer Garman, 1881
carpa de Parras
X
Yuriria chapalae (Jordan and Snyder, 1899)
carpa de Chapala
E
Family Catostomidae
Suckers
Catostomus bernardini Girard, 1856
Yaqui sucker
V♦
Catostomus cahita Siebert and Minckley, 1986
matalote cahita
T♦
Catostomus catostomus lacustris Bajkov, 1927
Jasper longnose sucker
T▼
Catostomus sp. cf. catostomus Salish suckerE♦
Catostomus clarkii Baird and Girard, 1854
desert sucker
V
Catostomus clarkii intermedius (Tanner, 1942)
White River desert sucker
E♦
1
G3
1
G3
1,5
GNR
1,4,5
1
G5
1
G3G4
1,3,4
G1
1,4,5
G2G3
1,4,5
G5TXQ
1,5
G5T2
1,5
G3
1,4
G2
1,5
GX
1,5
G3
1,4,5
G5T1
1,4,5
G5T1
1,3,4
G5T1
1,4,5
G5T1
1,4,5
G5T1
1,4,5
G5T1
3,5
G5TX
1,5
G5T1Q
1,5
G5T1
1,5
1,5
G5T1
1,4,5
1,4,5
G5T1T2Q
1,3,4,5
1,4,5
G5T1
1
G4
1
G3
1,5
1,4,5
60
52,57
59
61
62
57-61
17-18
13
76
9
4
18
16
9
13
13
17
13
13
13
17
16
15
15
12
15
15
17
11
6
62
35
22
1,4
G4
19,38-39
1,4,5
19,38
2,5
71
1,5
G1
4
1,2,4
G3G4
18
1,4,5
G3G4T1T2Q16
Moxostoma lacerum, harelip sucker (extinct). Photo: D. Neely.
Ameiurus platycephalus, flat bullhead. Photo: N. M. Burkhead.
Moxostoma sp. cf. macrolepidotum, sicklefin redhorse. Photo: S. J. Fraley.
Ameiurus serracanthus, spotted bullhead. Photo: N. M. Burkhead.
392
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Catostomus clarkii utahensis (Tanner, 1932)
Virgin River desert sucker
T
1,4,5
Catostomus clarkii ssp.
Meadow Valley desert sucker
T
1,4,5
G3G4T2
Catostomus discobolus jarrovii (Cope, 1874)
Zuni bluehead sucker
E▼
1,2,4,5
G4T1
Catostomus insignis Baird and Girard, 1854
Sonora sucker
V
1,4
G3
Catostomus sp. cf. latipinnis
Little Colorado River sucker
V
1,4,5
G2
Catostomus leopoldi Siebert and Minckley, 1986
matalote del Bavispe
T▼
1,4,5
Catostomus microps Rutter, 1908
Modoc sucker
E♦
1,4
G2
Catostomus nebuliferus Garman, 1881
matalote del Nazas
T
1,5
Catostomus occidentalis lacusanserinus Fowler, 1913
Goose Lake sucker
V♦
1
G5T2T3Q
Catostomus plebeius Baird and Girard, 1854
Rio Grande sucker
V
1
G3G4
1,4,5
G5T2Q
Catostomus rimiculus ssp. Jenny Creek sucker
V♦
Catostomus santaanae (Snyder, 1908)
Santa Ana sucker
T▼
1,4,5
G1
Catostomus snyderi Gilbert, 1898
Klamath largescale sucker
T
1,4,5
G3
Catostomus utawana Mather, 1886
summer sucker
T
5
Catostomus warnerensis Snyder, 1908
Warner sucker
E♦
1,4,5
G1
Catostomus wigginsi Herre and Brock, 1936
matalote ópata
T▼
1,5
Catostomus sp. Wall Canyon suckerE▼
1,5
G1
Chasmistes brevirostris Cope, 1879
shortnose sucker
E♦
1,2,4,5
G1
Chasmistes cujus Cope, 1883
cui-ui
E♦
1
G1
Chasmistes liorus liorus Miller and Smith, 1981
June sucker (extinct subspecies) X
1,4
G1T1
1,4
Chasmistes liorus mictus Miller and Smith, 1981
June sucker
E♦
Chasmistes muriei Miller and Smith, 1981
Snake River sucker
X
1,4
GX
1,4
G3G4
Cycleptus elongatus (Lesueur, 1817)
blue sucker
V♦
Cycleptus sp. cf. elongatus Rio Grande blue sucker
T
1,4
Cycleptus meridionalis Burr and Mayden, 1999
southeastern blue sucker
V
1
G3G4
Deltistes luxatus (Cope, 1879)
Lost River sucker
E♦
1,2,4,5
G1
Ictiobus labiosus (Meek, 1904)
matalote bocón
V
1,5
Moxostoma austrinum Bean, 1880
matalote chuime
V
1
G3
Moxostoma congestum (Baird and Girard, 1854)
gray redhorse
T▼
1
G4
Moxostoma sp. cf. erythrurum Carolina redhorse
E
1
G1G2Q
Moxostoma hubbsi Legendre, 1952
copper redhorse (chevalier cuivré) E▼
1
G1
Moxostoma lacerum (Jordan and Brayton, 1877)
harelip sucker
X
1
GX
Moxostoma sp. cf. macrolepidotum sicklefin redhorse
T
1,5
G2Q
Moxostoma robustum (Cope, 1870)
robust redhorse
G1
Pee Dee River populationE▼
1,5
Altamaha River population
E
1,5
Savannah River population
E
1,5
Moxostoma valenciennesi Jordan, 1885
greater redhorse
V
1
G4
Thoburnia atripinnis (Bailey, 1959)
blackfin sucker
V♦
1,5
G2
16
16
17
17-18
17
38
10,12
35
12
20,36,38-39
9
11
9
68
12
19
13
9
13
14
14
8
44-48,50-51,
53-57
39-40,43
57-58
9
33
20-23,39,43
36-37,43-45
62
68
51,53-56,67
56
62
62
62
53-54,67-68,78
54
Ictalurus lupus, headwater catfish. Photo: G. Sneegas.
Noturus stanauli, pygmy madtom. Photo: J. R. Shute.
Noturus baileyi, smoky madtom. Photo: J. R. Shute.
Coregonus huntsmani, Atlantic whitefish. Photo: K. Bentham. Courtesy:
Bluenose Coastal Action Foundation.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
393
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Thoburnia hamiltoni Raney and Lachner, 1946
Xyrauchen texanus (Abbott, 1860)
Family Characidae
Astyanax altior Hubbs, 1936
Astyanax jordani (Hubbs and Innes, 1936)
Astyanax mexicanus ssp. Bramocharax caballeroi Contreras-Balderas and Rivera-Teillery, 1985
Bramocharax sp. Family Ariidae
Potamarius nelsoni (Evermann and Goldsborough, 1902)
Potamarius usumacintae Betancur-R. and Willink, 2007
Family Heptapteridae
Rhamdia sp. cf. guatemalensis Rhamdia laluchensis Weber, Allegrucci and Sbordoni, 2003
Rhamdia macuspanensis Weber and Wilkins, 1998
Rhamdia reddelli Miller, 1984
Rhamdia zongolicensis Wilkens, 1993
Rhamdia sp. Family Lacantuniidae
Lacantunia enigmatica Rodiles-Hernández, Hendrickson and Lundberg, 2005
Family Ictaluridae
Ameiurus brunneus Jordan, 1877
Ameiurus platycephalus (Girard, 1859)
Ameiurus serracanthus (Yerger and Relyea, 1968)
Ictalurus australis (Meek, 1904)
Ictalurus balsanus (Jordan and Snyder, 1899)
Ictalurus dugesii (Bean, 1880)
Ictalurus lupus (Girard, 1858)
Ictalurus sp. cf. lupus Ictalurus mexicanus (Meek, 1904)
Ictalurus pricei (Rutter, 1896)
Noturus baileyi Taylor, 1969
Noturus crypticus Burr, Eisenhour and Grady, 2005
Noturus fasciatus Burr, Eisenhour and Grady, 2005
Noturus flavater Taylor, 1969
Noturus flavipinnis Taylor, 1969
Noturus furiosus Jordan and Meek, 1889
Noturus gilberti Jordan and Evermann, 1889
Noturus gladiator Thomas and Burr, 2004
Noturus lachneri Taylor, 1969
rustyside sucker
V♦
razorback sucker
E♦
Characins
sardinita yucateca
V
sardinita ciega
V♦
sardinita de Cuatro CiénegasE▼
pepesca de Catemaco
V
pepesca lacandona
T
Sea Catfishes
bagre lacandón
V
bagre del Usumacinta
V
Heptapterid Catfishes
chipo de Catemaco
V
juil de La Lucha
T
juil ciego olmeca
T
juil ciego
T♦
juil ciego de Zongolica
T
juil de Catemaco
V
Lacantuniid Catfishes
bagre de Chiapas
T
North American Catfishes
snail bullhead
V
flat bullhead
V
spotted bullhead
V
bagre del Pánuco
T▼
bagre del Balsas
V
bagre del Lerma
V
headwater catfish
T▼
bagre de Cuatro Ciénegas
T▼
bagre del Verde
V♦
Yaqui catfish
E▼
smoky madtom
E♦
Chucky madtom
E
saddled madtom
V
checkered madtom
V
yellowfin madtom
E▼
Carolina madtom
T▼
orangefin madtom
T♦
piebald madtom
V
Ouachita madtom
T♦
1,5
1,2,4
G3
G1
62
17-18
5
4,5
1,4
5
5
27
33
41
32
28
1,5
1,5
28-29
28-29
1,5
5
1,5
5
1,5
1,5
32
30
29
32
32
32
1,5
28
1,4
G4
1
G5
1,4
G3
1,2,5
1,2,4
1,2
1,4
G3
1,5
1,2,4
1,4
G2
1,5
G1
1,5
G1
1,5
G2
1
G3G4
1,5
G1
1,5
G2
1,5
G2
1,5
1,5
G2
58,60-62
62
60-61
33
24
21-23
37,40,43-45
41
33
19,38
56
56
56
51
56
62
62
57
52
Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias, greenback cutthroat trout. Photo: W. Roston.
Oncorhynchus mykiss stonei, McCloud River redband trout. Photo: W. Roston.
Oncorhynchus clarkii utah, Bonneville cutthroat trout. Photo: W. Roston.
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp., trucha del Conchos. Illustration: J. Tomelleri.
394
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Noturus sp. cf. leptacanthus broadtail madtom
V♦
1,5
G2
Noturus munitus Suttkus and Taylor, 1965
frecklebelly madtom
G3
Cahaba River population
V▲
1,5
Coosa River population
E
1,5
Pearl River population
V
1,5
Tombigbee River population
E
1,5
1
G2
Noturus placidus Taylor, 1969
Neosho madtom
T♦
Noturus stanauli Etnier and Jenkins, 1980
pygmy madtom
E♦
1,5
G1
Noturus stigmosus Taylor, 1969
northern madtom
V
1
G3
Noturus taylori Douglas, 1972
Caddo madtom
T♦
1,5
G1
Noturus trautmani Taylor, 1969
Scioto madtom
X▼
1,5
GH
Prietella lundbergi Walsh and Gilbert, 1995
bagre ciego duende
E
1
1,5
Prietella phreatophila Carranza, 1954
bagre ciego de Múzquiz
E♦
Satan eurystomus Hubbs and Bailey, 1947
widemouth blindcat
E▼
1,5
G1G2
Trogloglanis pattersoni Eigenmann, 1919
toothless blindcat
E▼
1,5
G1G2
Family Osmeridae
Smelts
1,4,5
G1
Hypomesus transpacificus McAllister, 1963
delta smelt
T♦
Osmerus mordax (Mitchill, 1814)
rainbow smelt
Lake Utopia, New Brunswick dwarf population
T▼
5
GNRTNR
Family Salmonidae
Salmonids
Coregonus huntsmani Scott, 1987
Atlantic whitefish
E♦
1,2,5
G1
2,4
GX
Coregonus johannae (Wagner, 1910)
deepwater cisco
X♦
Coregonus kiyi orientalis (Koelz, 1929)
Lake Ontario kiyi
Xp
1,2,4
G3TX
Coregonus nigripinnis nigripinnis (Milner, 1874)
blackfin cisco
Xp♦
2,4
G1Q
Coregonus nigripinnis regalis (Koelz, 1929)
Nipigon blackfin cisco
T
2,4
G4G5
Coregonus reighardi reighardi (Koelz, 1924)
shortnose cisco
Xp▼
1,2,4
GH
Coregonus zenithicus (Jordan and Evermann, 1909)
shortjaw cisco
T▲
1,2,4
G3
Coregonus sp. spring cisco
V
2
G5T3T5Q
Coregonus sp. Squanga whitefish
V▲
1,5
GNR
Oncorhynchus chrysogaster (Needham and Gard, 1964)
trucha dorada mexicana
T▼
1,2,3,4,5
G1G3
Oncorhynchus clarkii alvordensis Hubbs, 2002
Alvord cutthroat trout
Xp♦
1,2,4,5
G4TX
Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri (Jordan and Gilbert, 1883)
Yellowstone cutthroat trout
T
1,2,3,4,5
G4T2
Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii (Richardson, 1836)
coastal cutthroat trout
V
1,3,4
G4T4
Crescent Lake, Washington population
T
3,4,5
Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi (Gill and Jordan, 1878)
Lahontan cutthroat trout
T♦
1,3,4
G4T3
Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi (Girard, 1856)
westslope cutthroat trout
T
1,3,4
G4T3
Oncorhynchus clarkii macdonaldi (Jordan and Evermann, 1890)
yellowfin cutthroat trout
X
4,5
G4TX
1,3,4
G4T3
Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus (Cope, 1872)
Colorado River cutthroat trout V♦
Oncorhynchus clarkii seleniris (Snyder, 1933)
Paiute cutthroat trout
E▼
1,3,4,5
G4T1T2
Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias (Cope, 1871)
greenback cutthroat trout
T♦
1,3,4
G4T2T3
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp., truchas de los ríos Piaxtla, San Lorenzo y Presidio.
Illustration: J. Tomelleri.
Amblyopsis spelaea, northern cavefish. Photo: W. Roston.
Oncorhynchus nerka, sockeye salmon. Photo: W. Roston.
Typhlichthys subterraneus, southern cavefish. Photo: W. Roston.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
62
58
58
57
58
50
56
54,67
52
54
33
43
45
45
10
64
65
67
67
67
67
67
67,71-73,77-79
68
2,4
20
12
8,47
4-5,7,9
4
13
6-7,47,76
49
17
13
48-49
395
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis (Girard, 1856)
Rio Grande cutthroat trout
T▼
Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp. Humboldt cutthroat trout
T▼
Oncorhynchus gilae apache (Miller, 1972)
Apache trout
T♦
Oncorhynchus gilae gilae (Miller, 1950)
Gila trout
E▼
Oncorhynchus keta (Walbaum, 1792)
chum salmon
Columbia River population
T
Hood Canal summer populations; Olympic Peninsula rivers to Dungess Bay
T
Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum, 1792)
Coho salmon
central California coastal population, Humboldt to Santa Cruz counties
E
interior Fraser River population
E
lower Columbia River population
T
Oregon coastal populations
T
Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia populations
V
southern Oregon/northern California coastal populations
T
Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita (Evermann, 1906)
South Fork Kern River golden trout T♦
Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum (Snyder, 1917)
Eagle Lake rainbow trout
T▼
Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdnerii (Suckley, 1859)
redband steelhead trout
Owyhee uplands populations
V♦
Oncorhynchus mykiss gilberti (Jordan, 1894)
Kern River rainbow trout
T▼
Oncorhynchus mykiss nelsoni (Evermann, 1908)
trucha de San Pedro Mártir
V♦
Oncorhynchus mykiss newberrii (Girard, 1859)
redband trout
Catlow Valley populations
V♦
Goose Lake populations
V♦
Harney-Malhuer Lake populations
V
Warner Valley populations
V♦
Oncorhynchus mykiss stonei (Jordan, 1894)
McCloud River redband trout
V♦
Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei (Evermann, 1906)
Little Kern River golden trout
E
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. truchas de los ríos
Acaponeta y Baluarte
T
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. trucha del Conchos
T
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. truchas de los ríos Piaxtla,
San Lorenzo y Presidio
T
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. truchas de los ríos Yaqui,
Mayo y Guzmán
T▼
Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792)
rainbow trout (steelhead)
northern California coastal populations
T
central California coastal populations
T
California Central Valley populations
T
south-central California coastal populations
T
southern California populations
E
1,3,4
G4T3
1,3,4,5
1,3,4,5
G3T3
1,3,4,5
G3T1
36-37,49
13
18
18
1,2
1,2
G5T2Q
G5T2Q
7
4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
G4T2T3Q
G4TNR
G4T2Q
G4T2Q
G4T3Q
G4T2Q
G5T1
G5T1Q
9
4
7
9
4
9
10
13
1,2,3,4
G5T4
1,2,3,4,5
G5T1Q
1,3,4,5
7
10
11
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
12
12
12
12
10
10
G5T1Q
G5T2Q
G5T3Q
G5T2Q
G5T1T2Q
G5T2Q
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
20
39
1,2,3,4,5
20
1,2,3,4,5
19,38
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
9
9-10
10
10
11
G5T2Q
G5T2Q
G5T2Q
G5T2Q
G5T2Q
Chirostoma lucius, charal de la laguna. Photo: J. Lyons.
Allodontichthys hubbs, mexcalpique de Tuxpan. Photo: J. Lyons.
Kryptolebias marmoratus, mangrove rivulus. Illustration: E. S. Damstra.
Allodontichthys polylepis, mexcalpique escamitas. Photo: J. Lyons.
396
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
lower Columbia River populations
T
1,2,3,4,5
G5T2Q
middle Columbia River populations
T
1,2,3,4,5
G5T2Q
upper Columbia River populations
E
1,2,3,4,5
G5T2Q
Snake River basin populations
T
1,2,3,4,5
G5T2T3Q
upper Willamette River populations
T
1,2,3,4,5
G5T2Q
Oregon coastal populations
V
1,2,3,4,5
G5T2T3Q
Puget Sound populations
T
1,2,3,4,5
G5TNR
Oncorhynchus nerka (Walbaum, 1792) sockeye salmon
Cultus Lake population
E
1,2,3,4,5
G5T1Q
Ozette Lake and tributaries population
T
1,2,3,4,5
G5T2Q
Sakinaw Lake population
E
1,2,3,4,5
G5T1Q
Snake River, Idaho population
E
1,2,3,4,5
G5T1Q
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum, 1792)
Chinook salmon
California Central Valley spring run populations
T
1,2,3,4,5
G5T1T2Q
California Central Valley fall and late fall run populations
V
1,2,3,4,5
G5T2T3Q
California coastal populations
T
1,2,3,4,5
G5T2Q
lower Columbia River populations
T
1,2,3,4,5
G5T2Q
upper Columbia River spring run populations
E
1,2,3,4,5
G5T1Q
Puget Sound populations
T
1,2,3,4
G5T2Q
Sacramento River winter run population
E
1,2,3,4,5
G5T1Q
Snake River spring run populations
T
1,2,3,4
G5T1Q
Snake River fall run populations
T
1,2,3,4
G5T1Q
upper Willamette River spring run populations
T
1,2,3,4,5
G5T2Q
Prosopium abyssicola (Snyder, 1919)
Bear Lake whitefish
V
1,2,3,4,5
G1
Prosopium gemmifer (Snyder, 1919)
Bonneville cisco
V
1,2,3,4,5
G3
Prosopium spilonotus (Snyder, 1919)
Bonneville whitefish
V
1,2,3,4,5
G3
Salmo salar Linnaeus, 1758
Atlantic salmon
Bay of Fundy population
E
1,2,3,4
G5TNR
Great Lakes population
X
1,2
GNRTNR
Gulf of Maine population
E
1,2,3,4
G5T1Q
Salvelinus alpinus oquassa (Girard, 1854)
blueback trout
T♦
1,3,4
G5T2Q
Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley, 1859)
bull trout
G3
coastal populations
V♦
1,2,3,4
G3T2Q
Snake River populations
T
1,2,3,4
G3T2Q
upper Columbia River populations
T
1,2,3,4
G3T2Q
Salvelinus fontinalis agassizii (Garman 1885)
silver trout
X
1,2,4,5
GXQ
Salvelinus fontinalis timagamiensis Henn and Rinckenbach, 1925
Aurora trout
E♦
1,2,3,4,5
G5T1Q
Salvelinus malma (Walbaum, 1792)
Dolly Varden
G5
Cook Inlet to Puget Sound populations
V
1,2
Salvelinus malma anaktuvukensis Morrow, 1973
Angayukaksurak char
V♦
1,2,5
Allodontichthys zonistius, mexcalpique de Colima. Photo: J. Lyons.
Allotoca goslinei, tiro listado. Photo: J. Lyons.
Allotoca dugesii, tiro chato. Photo: J. Lyons.
Xenotoca eiseni, mexcalpique cola roja. Photo: J. Lyons.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
7
6-7
6
7-8
7
9
4
4
4
4
7
10
10
9-10
7
6
4
10
7-8
7-8
7
14
14
14
64-65
67
64-65
64
4,7,9
8
6
64
68
4-5
70
397
Taxon
AFS Common Name
Thymallus arcticus (Pallas, 1776)
Arctic grayling
Montana stream populations
Great Lakes populations
Family UmbridaeMudminnows
Novumbra hubbsi Schultz, 1929
Olympic mudminnow
Family AmblyopsidaeCavefishes
Amblyopsis rosae (Eigenmann, 1898)
Ozark cavefish
Amblyopsis spelaea DeKay, 1842
northern cavefish
Forbesichthys agassizii (Putnam, 1872)
spring cavefish
Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni Cooper and Kuehne, 1974
Alabama cavefish
Typhlichthys subterraneus Girard, 1859
southern cavefish
Family BythitidaeViviparous Brotulas
Typhliasina pearsei (Hubbs, 1938)
dama blanca ciega
Family Atherinopsidae
Silversides
Atherinella ammophila Chernoff and Miller, 1984
plateadito de La Palma
Atherinella callida Chernoff, 1986
plateadito del Refugio Atherinella lisa (Meek, 1904)
plateadito del Hule Atherinella marvelae (Chernoff and Miller, 1982)
plateadito de Eyipantla
Atherinella schultzi (Álvarez and Carranza, 1952)
plateadito de Chimalapa
Chirostoma aculeatum Barbour, 1973
charal cuchillo
Chirostoma arge (Jordan and Snyder, 1899)
charal del Verde
Chirostoma bartoni Jordan and Evermann, 1896
charal de La Caldera
Chirostoma charari (de Buen, 1945)
charal tarasco
Chirostoma contrerasi Barbour, 2002
charal de Ajijic
Chirostoma estor Jordan, 1880
pescado blanco
Chirostoma grandocule (Steindachner, 1894)
charal del lago
Chirostoma humboldtianum (Valenciennes, 1835)
charal de Xochimilco
Chirostoma labarcae Meek, 1902
charal de La Barca
Chirostoma lucius Boulenger, 1900
charal de la laguna
Chirostoma melanoccus Álvarez, 1963
charal de San Juanico
Chirostoma patzcuaro Meek, 1902
charal pinto
Chirostoma promelas Jordan and Snyder, 1899
charal boca negra
Chirostoma riojai Solórzano and López, 1966
charal de Santiago
Chirostoma sphyraena Boulenger, 1900
charal barracuda
Menidia colei Hubbs, 1936
plateadito de Progreso
Menidia conchorum Hildebrand and Ginsburg, 1927
key silverside
Menidia extensa Hubbs and Raney, 1946
Waccamaw silverside
Poblana alchichica de Buen, 1945
charal de Alchichica
Poblana ferdebueni Solórzano and López, 1965
charal de Almoloya
Poblana letholepis Álvarez, 1950
charal de La Preciosa
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
T▼
X
1,2,3,4,5
G5T1Q
1,4
47
67
V♦
1,4,5
G3
4
T♦
T♦
V▼
E♦
V
1,4,5
1,5
1
1
1
G3
G4
G4G5
G1
G4
50-51
54
53-56
56,58
50,54-56,58
E♦
1,5
27
E
Xp
E
V
V
E
E
Xp▼
Xp
E
V
V
V
V
E
E
T
E
E
E
V
T♦
T♦
T♦
E
T♦
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1
1,5
1,4,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,2,4,5
1,5
1,2,4
1,5
1,2,4,5
1,5
1,2,5
1,2,5
1,5
1,2,4,5
1,5
1
G3Q
1,5
G1
1,2,5
1,4,5
1,2,5
32
32
32
32
29-31
22
21-22
22
22
22
22
22
21-23
22
22
22
22
21-22
22
22
27
61
62
22
22
22
Zoogoneticus quitzeoensis, picote (female). Photo: J. Lyons.
Fundulus waccamensis, Waccamaw killifish. Photo: F. Rohde.
Zoogoneticus quitzeoensis, picote (male). Photo: J. Lyons.
Cyprinodon elegans, Comanche Springs pupfish. Photo: G. Sneegas.
398
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Poblana squamata Álvarez, 1950
Family Rivulidae
Kryptolebias marmoratus (Poey, 1880)
Millerichthys robustus (Miller and Hubbs, 1974)
Family Profundulidae
Profundulus hildebrandi Miller, 1950
Family Goodeidae
Allodontichthys hubbsi Miller and Uyeno, 1980
Allodontichthys polylepis Rauchenberger, 1988
Allodontichthys tamazulae Turner, 1946
Allodontichthys zonistius (Hubbs, 1932)
Allotoca catarinae (de Buen, 1942)
Allotoca diazi (Meek, 1902)
Allotoca dugesii (Bean, 1887)
Allotoca goslinei Smith and Miller, 1987
Allotoca maculata Smith and Miller, 1980
Allotoca meeki (Álvarez, 1959)
Allotoca regalis (Álvarez, 1959)
Allotoca zacapuensis Meyer, Radda and Domínguez, 2001
Ameca splendens Miller and Fitzsimons, 1971
Ataeniobius toweri (Meek, 1904)
Chapalichthys encaustus (Jordan and Snyder, 1899)
Chapalichthys pardalis Álvarez, 1963
Chapalichthys peraticus Álvarez, 1963
Characodon audax Smith and Miller, 1986
Characodon garmani Jordan and Evermann, 1898
Characodon lateralis Günther, 1866
Crenichthys baileyi albivallis Williams and Wilde, 1981
Crenichthys baileyi baileyi (Gilbert, 1893)
Crenichthys baileyi grandis Williams and Wilde, 1981
Crenichthys baileyi moapae Williams and Wilde, 1981
Crenichthys baileyi thermophilus Williams and Wilde, 1981
Crenichthys nevadae Hubbs, 1932
Empetrichthys latos latos Miller, 1948
Empetrichthys latos concavus Miller, 1948
Empetrichthys latos pahrump Miller, 1948
Empetrichthys merriami Gilbert, 1893
Girardinichthys ireneae Radda and Meyer, 2003
Girardinichthys turneri (de Buen, 1940)
Girardinichthys viviparus (Bustamante, 1837)
charal de Quechulac
New World Rivulines
mangrove rivulus
almirante mexicano
Escamudos
escamudo de San Cristóbal
Goodeids
mexcalpique de Tuxpan
mexcalpique escamitas
mexcalpique de Tamazula
mexcalpique de Colima
tiro Catarina
chorumo
tiro chato
tiro listado
tiro manchado
tiro de Zirahuén
chorumo del Balsas
tiro de Zacapu
mexcalpique mariposa
mexcalpique cola azul
pintito de Ocotlán
pintito de Tocumbo
pintito de San Juanico
mexcalpique del Toboso mexcalpique de Parras
mexcalpique arcoiris
Preston White River springfish
White River springfish
Hiko White River springfish
Moapa White River springfish
Mormon White River springfish
Railroad Valley springfish
Pahrump poolfish
Raycraft Ranch poolfish
Pahrump Ranch poolfish
Ash Meadows poolfish
mexcalpique de Zacapu
mexcalpique michoacano
mexcalpique
T♦
1,2,5
22
V♦
E♦
1
1,5
27,61
31-32
E
1,5
28
E
E
V
V
V
E
E
E
E▲
E
E
E
E♦
E♦
V
E
E
E▼
X
E♦
E♦
E♦
E♦
T♦
E▼
T♦
E♦
X
X
X
E
Xp▼
E♦
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,4,5
1,5
1,4,5
1,5
1,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,5
1,4,5
1,5
1,4,5
G2T1
1,3,4
G2T1
1,4
G2T1
1,4
G2T2
1,4,5
G2T1
1,4,5
G2
1,4,5
G1T1
1,5
G1TX
1,5
G1TX
1,4,5
GX
1,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
23
23
23
23
24
22
21-22
23
21,23
22
24
22
23
33
22
24
24
21
35
21
16
16
16
16
16
13
15
15
15
15
22
22
22
G3
Poecilia chica, topote del Purificación. Photo: J. Lyons.
Cottus paulus, pygmy sculpin. Photo: N. M. Burkhead.
Poeciliopsis turneri, guatopote de La Huerta. Photo: J. Lyons.
Enneacanthus chaetodon, blackbanded sunfish. Photo: N. M. Burkhead and R.
E. Jenkins. Courtesy: Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
399
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Goodea gracilis Hubbs and Turner, 1939
tiro oscuro
V♦
Ilyodon cortesae Paulo-Maya and Trujillo-Jiménez, 2000
mexcalpique pecoso
V
Ilyodon whitei (Meek, 1904)
mexcalpique cola partida
V
Skiffia bilineata (Bean, 1887)
tiro de dos rayas
E
Skiffia francesae Kingston, 1978
tiro dorado
Xn▼
Skiffia lermae Meek, 1902
tiro olivo
E
Skiffia multipunctata (Pellegrin, 1901)
tiro pintado
E
Xenoophorus captivus captivus (Hubbs, 1924)
mexcalpique viejo
E▼
Xenoophorus captivus erro (Hubbs, 1924)
mexcalpique aislado del Santa MaríaE
Xenoophorus captivus exsul (Hubbs, 1924)
mexcalpique aislado del Pánuco E
Xenotaenia resolanae Turner, 1946
mexcalpique leopardo
V
Xenotoca eiseni (Rutter, 1896)
mexcalpique cola roja
E
Xenotoca melanosoma Fitzsimons, 1972
mexcalpique negro
T
Zoogoneticus quitzeoensis (Bean, 1898)
picote
T
Zoogoneticus tequila Webb and Miller, 1998
picote Tequila
E
Family FundulidaeTopminnows
Fundulus albolineatus Gilbert, 1891
whiteline topminnow
X
Fundulus bifax Cashner and Rogers, 1988
stippled studfish
V
Fundulus euryzonus Suttkus and Cashner, 1981
broadstripe topminnow
V
Fundulus grandissimus Hubbs, 1936
sardinilla gigante
V
Fundulus julisia Williams and Etnier, 1982
Barrens topminnow
E▼
Fundulus lima Vaillant, 1894
sardinilla peninsular
E▼
Fundulus persimilis Miller, 1955
sardinilla yucateca
V
Fundulus waccamensis Hubbs and Raney, 1946
Waccamaw killifish
T♦
Lucania interioris Hubbs and Miller, 1965
sardinilla de Cuatro Ciénegas
E♦
Family Cyprinodontidae
Pupfishes
Cualac tessellatus Miller, 1956
cachorrito de La Media Luna
E♦
Cyprinodon albivelis Minckley and Miller, 2002
cachorrito aletas blancas
E
Cyprinodon alvarezi Miller, 1976
cachorrito de Potosí
Xn▼
Cyprinodon arcuatus Minckley and Miller, 2002
Santa Cruz pupfish
Xp
Cyprinodon atrorus Miller, 1968
cachorrito del bolsón
E
Cyprinodon beltrani Álvarez, 1949
cachorrito lodero
V▲
Cyprinodon bifasciatus Miller, 1968
cachorrito de Cuatro Ciénegas E▼
Cyprinodon bobmilleri Lozano-Vilano and Contreras-Balderas, 1999
cachorrito de San Ignacio
E
Cyprinodon bovinus Baird and Girard, 1853
Leon Springs pupfish
E♦
Cyprinodon ceciliae Lozano-Vilano and Contreras-Balderas, 1993
cachorrito de La Presita
X
Cyprinodon diabolis Wales, 1930
Devils Hole pupfish
E▼
Cyprinodon elegans Baird and Girard, 1853
Comanche Springs pupfish
E♦
Cyprinodon eremus Miller and Fuiman, 1987
Sonoyta pupfish
E♦
Cyprinodon esconditus Strecker, 2002
cachorrito escondido
E
1,5
5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,2,5
1,5
1,2,5
1,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,4,5
33
24
24
22
23
22
21-22
34
34
34
23
21,23
21-23
21-23
23
1,5
GX
1
G2G3
1
G2
1,5
1,5
G1
1,4,5
1,5
1,5
G1
1,5
56
58
57
27,29
55-56
11
27
62
41
1,4,5
1,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
GX
1,4,5
4,5
1,4,5
1,5
1,4,5
G1
1,5
1,5
G1
1,4,5
G1
1,4,5
G1
4,5
33
38
42
18
40-41
27
41
43
37
42
15
37
19
27
Micropterus cataractae, shoal bass. Photo: N. M. Burkhead.
Etheostoma brevirostrum, holiday darter (Amicalola Creek population). Photo:
N. M. Burkhead.
Micropterus treculii, Guadalupe bass. Photo: G. Sneegas.
Etheostoma lepidum, greenthroat darter. Photo: W. Roston.
400
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Cyprinodon eximius Girard, 1859
Conchos pupfish
T
Cyprinodon eximius ssp. Devils River pupfish
T♦
Cyprinodon fontinalis Smith and Miller, 1980
cachorrito de Carbonera
E
Cyprinodon inmemoriam Lozano-Vilano and Contreras-Balderas, 1993
cachorrito de La Trinidad
X
Cyprinodon labiosus Humphries and Miller, 1981
cachorrito cangrejero
E▼
Cyprinodon latifasciatus Garman, 1881
cachorrito de Parras
X
Cyprinodon longidorsalis Lozano-Vilano and Contreras-Balderas, 1993
cachorrito de Charco Palma
Xn▼
Cyprinodon macrolepis Miller, 1976
cachorrito escamudo
E
Cyprinodon macularius Baird and Girard, 1853
desert pupfish
E♦
Cyprinodon maya Humphries and Miller, 1981
cachorrito gigante
E▼
Cyprinodon meeki Miller, 1976
cachorrito del Mezquital
E♦
Cyprinodon nazas Miller, 1976
cachorrito del Nazas
T♦
Cyprinodon nevadensis amargosae Miller, 1948
Amargosa River pupfish
V♦
Cyprinodon nevadensis calidae Miller, 1948
Tecopa pupfish
X
Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes Miller, 1948
Ash Meadows pupfish
E▼
Cyprinodon nevadensis nevadensis Eigenmann and Eigenmann, 1889
Saratoga Springs pupfish
T▼
Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis Miller, 1948
Warm Springs pupfish
E♦
Cyprinodon nevadensis shoshone Miller, 1948
Shoshone pupfish
E♦
Cyprinodon pachycephalus Minckley and Minckley, 1986
cachorrito cabezón
E♦
Cyprinodon pecosensis Echelle and Echelle, 1978
Pecos pupfish
E▼
Cyprinodon pisteri Miller and Minckley, 2002
cachorrito de Palomas
E♦
Cyprinodon radiosus Miller, 1948
Owens pupfish
E♦
Cyprinodon salinus milleri LaBounty and Deacon, 1972
Cottonball Marsh pupfish
T▼
Cyprinodon salinus salinus Miller, 1943
Salt Creek pupfish
V♦
Cyprinodon salvadori Lozano-Vilano, 2002
cachorrito de Bocochi
E♦
Cyprinodon simus Humphries and Miller, 1981
cachorrito boxeador
E▼
Cyprinodon suavium Strecker, 2005
cachorrito besucón
E
Cyprinodon tularosa Miller and Echelle, 1975
White Sands pupfish
T▼
Cyprinodon variegatus hubbsi Carr, 1936
Lake Eustis pupfish
V
Cyprinodon verecundus Humphries, 1984
cachorrito aletón
E▼
Cyprinodon veronicae Lozano-Vilano and Contreras-Balderas, 1993
cachorrito de Charco Azul
Xn▼
Cyprinodon sp. cachorrito de Villa López
V♦
Megupsilon aporus Miller and Walters, 1972
cachorrito enano de Potosí
Xn▼
Family Poeciliidae
Livebearers
Gambusia alvarezi Hubbs and Springer, 1957
guayacón de San Gregorio
E♦
Gambusia amistadensis Peden, 1973
Amistad gambusia
X♦
Gambusia clarkhubbsi Garrett and Edwards, 2003
San Felipe gambusia
E
Gambusia eurystoma Miller, 1975
guayacón del Azufre
V♦
Gambusia gaigei Hubbs, 1929
Big Bend gambusia
E♦
Gambusia sp. cf. gaigei guayacón de San DiegoE
1
G3G4
1,5
1,4,5
1,5
4,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,3,4
G1
4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
G2T1
1,4,5
G2TX
1,4,5
G2T2
1,5
G2T1
1,4,5
G2T1
1,4,5
G2T1
1,5
1,4
G1
1,4
1,4,5
G1
5
G1QT1
5
G1QT1
1,5
4,5
4,5
5
G1
1,5
G5T2Q
4,5
1,5
1,5
1,4,5
39,43
43
38
42
27
35
42
39
17-19
27
21
35
15
15
15
15
15
15
39
37
38
15
15
15
38
27
27
36
61
27
42
35
42
1,5
1,4,5
GX
1,5
G1
1,5
1,4,5
G1
1,5
39
43
46
30
43
43
Etheostoma nianguae, Niangua darter. Photo: W. Roston.
Etheostoma scotti, Cherokee darter (lower Etowah River population). Photo: N.
M. Burkhead.
Etheostoma nuchale, watercress darter (Roebuck Spring population). Photo: W.
Roston.
Etheostoma tippecanoe, Tippecanoe darter. Photo: W. Roston.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
401
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Gambusia georgei Hubbs and Peden, 1969
San Marcos gambusia
Xp♦
1,5
GX
Gambusia heterochir Hubbs, 1957
Clear Creek gambusia
E▼
4,5
G1
Gambusia hurtadoi Hubbs and Springer, 1957
guayacón de Hacienda de DoloresE▼
1,5
Gambusia sp. cf. hurtadoi guayacón de Villa LópezE▼
1,4,5
Gambusia krumholzi Minckley, 1963
guayacón del Nava
V
1,5
Gambusia longispinis Minckley, 1962
guayacón de Cuatro Ciénegas E▼
1,5
Gambusia nobilis (Baird and Girard, 1853)
Pecos gambusia
E▼
1,4
G2
Gambusia senilis Girard, 1859
blotched gambusia
T▼
1,4
G3G4
Gambusia sp. cf. senilis guayacón manchado de San DiegoE▼
1,5
Gambusia speciosa Girard, 1859
Tex-Mex gambusia
T
1,4
G3Q
Heterandria jonesii (Günther, 1874)
guatopote listado
V
1,5
Heterandria sp. cf. jonesii guatopote de Catemaco
V
1,4,5
Poecilia catemaconis Miller, 1975
topote de Catemaco
V
1,2,5
Poecilia chica Miller, 1975
topote del Purificación
V
1,5
Poecilia latipunctata Meek, 1904
topote del Tamesí
E▼
1,5
Poecilia sulphuraria (Álvarez, 1948)
topote de Teapa
T▼
1,5
Poecilia velifera (Regan, 1914)
topote aleta grande
V
1,5
Poeciliopsis catemaco Miller, 1975
guatopote blanco
V
2,4,5
Poeciliopsis latidens (Garman, 1895)
guatopote del Fuerte
T
1
Poeciliopsis occidentalis (Baird and Girard, 1853)
Gila topminnow G3
Gila River populationsE▼
1,4
G3T3
Poeciliopsis sonoriensis (Girard, 1859)
Sonora topminnow
T♦
1,4,5
G3T3
Poeciliopsis turneri Miller, 1975
guatopote de La Huerta
V
1,5
Priapella bonita (Meek, 1904)
guayacón bonito
X▼
1,4,5
Priapella compressa Álvarez, 1948
guayacón de Palenque
T
5
Priapella olmecae Meyer and Espinosa-Pérez, 1990
guayacón olmeca
T
5
Xiphophorus clemenciae Álvarez, 1959
espada de Clemencia
T▼
1,5
1,4,5
Xiphophorus couchianus (Girard, 1859)
plati de Monterrey
E♦
Xiphophorus gordoni Miller and Minckley, 1963
plati de Cuatro Ciénegas
E♦
1,4,5
Xiphophorus kallmani Meyer and Schartl, 2003
espada de Catemaco
V
4,5
Xiphophorus meyeri Schartl and Schröder, 1988
espada de Múzquiz
E♦
1,4,5
Xiphophorus milleri Rosen, 1960
plati de Catemaco
E
1,4,5
Family Gasterosteidae
Sticklebacks
1,4,5
G5T1Q
Gasterosteus aculeatus santaeannae Regan, 1909
Santa Ana stickleback
E♦
Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni Girard, 1854
unarmored threespine stickleback E♦
1,4,5
G5T1
Gasterosteus sp. cf. aculeatus Charlotte unarmoured stickleback V♦
5
G5TNR
Gasterosteus sp. cf. aculeatus Enos Lake benthic sticklebackE
1,4,5
G1
Gasterosteus sp. cf. aculeatus Enos Lake limnetic sticklebackE▼
1,4,5
G1
Gasterosteus sp. cf. aculeatus giant stickleback
V▲
1,5
G1
Gasterosteus sp. cf. aculeatus Hadley Lake benthic stickleback Xp
4,5
GX
Percina cymatotaenia, bluestripe darter. Photo: W. Roston.
Percina sp., Halloween darter. Photo: N. M. Burkhead.
Percina bimaculata, Chesapeake logperch. Photo: T. Near.
Percina uranidea, stargazing darter. Photo: W. Roston.
402
44
45
39
39
43
41
37
39,43
43
37,40,42-44
24,32
32
32
23
33
30
27,29
32
20-21
18
19
23
32
30-31
32
31-32
42
41
32
40
32
11
11
5
5
5
5
5
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Gasterosteus sp. cf. aculeatus Hadley Lake limnetic stickleback Xp
Gasterosteus sp. cf. aculeatus Paxton Lake benthic sticklebackE
Gasterosteus sp. cf. aculeatus Paxton Lake limnetic sticklebackE
Gasterosteus sp. cf. aculeatus Vananda Creek benthic sticklebackE
Gasterosteus sp. cf. aculeatus Vananda Creek limnetic sticklebackE
Gasterosteus sp. cf. aculeatus Misty Lake lentic sticklebackE
Gasterosteus sp. cf. aculeatus Misty Lake lotic sticklebackE
Gasterosteus aculeatus ssp. espinocho de Baja California
T
Family Syngnathidae
Pipefishes and Seahorses
Microphis brachyurus lineatus (Kaup, 1856)
opossum pipefish
V
Family Synbranchidae
Swamp Eels
Ophisternon infernale (Hubbs, 1938)
anguila ciega yucateca
E♦
Family Cottidae
Sculpins
Cottus asperrimus Rutter, 1908
rough sculpin
V♦
Cottus sp. cf. bairdii Clinch River sculpin
V
Cottus sp. cf. bairdii Holston River sculpin
V
Cottus bendirei (Bean, 1881)
Malheur sculpin
V♦
Cottus sp. cf. carolinae bluestone sculpin
T
Cottus sp. cf. carolinae eyelash sculpin
T
Cottus sp. cf. carolinae fringehead sculpin
T
Cottus sp. cf. carolinae grotto sculpin
V
Cottus sp. cf. cognatus checkered sculpin
V
Cottus echinatus Bailey and Bond, 1963
Utah Lake sculpin
X♦
Cottus extensus Bailey and Bond, 1963
Bear Lake sculpin
V
Cottus greenei (Gilbert and Culver, 1898)
Shoshone sculpin
T♦
Cottus klamathensis macrops Gilbert, 1898
bigeye marbled sculpin
V
Cottus leiopomus Gilbert and Evermann, 1894
Wood River sculpin
T▼
Cottus marginatus (Bean, 1881)
margined sculpin
V
Cottus paulus Williams, 2000
pygmy sculpin
E♦
Cottus tenuis (Evermann and Meek, 1898)
slender sculpin
V♦
Cottus sp. Cultus Lake pygmy sculpin
T
Cottus sp. White River sculpin
E
Family MoronidaeTemperate Basses
Morone saxatilis (Walbaum, 1792)
striped bass
Bay of Fundy population
T
Gulf of Mexico populations
V
Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population
T
St. Lawrence Estuary population
Xp
Family Centrarchidae
Sunfishes
Ambloplites cavifrons Cope, 1868
Roanoke bass
V♦
Archoplites interruptus (Girard, 1854)
Sacramento perch
T
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
4,5
GX
4,5
G1
4,5
G1
1,4,5
G1
1,4,5
G1
1,5
GNR
1,5
GNR
1,5
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
11
G4G5T4T5 57-59,61-62
1,5
27
1,4,5
G2
1,5
G1G2
1,5
G2
1,5
G4Q
1,5
G2
1,5
1,5
1,5
G1G2Q
1,4,5
G4Q
1,5
GX
1,4,5
G1
1,5
G2
1,4,5
G4T3
1,5
G2
1,5
G3
1,5
G1
1,4,5
G3
4,5
G1
1,5
G1
10
56
56
7,12
54
50
50
53
63
14
14
8
10
8
7
58
9
4
16
1
G5TNR
1,4
1
G5TNR
1
G5TNR
64-65
57-61
64-65,69
64,68-69
1,4
1,4
62
10
G3
G3
403
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Enneacanthus chaetodon (Baird, 1855)
blackbanded sunfish
V
1
G4
Lepomis megalotis ssp. mojarra gigante de Cuatro CiénegasV♦
1,4,5
Micropterus cataractae Williams and Burgess, 1999
shoal bass
V♦
1,4
G3
Micropterus salmoides ssp. lobina negra de Cuatro Ciénegas T▼
1,4,5
Micropterus treculii (Vaillant and Bocourt, 1874)
Guadalupe bass
V♦
1,4
G3
Family Percidae
Perches
Ammocrypta clara Jordan and Meek, 1885
western sand darter
V
1
G3
Ammocrypta pellucida (Agassiz, 1863)
eastern sand darter
V▲
1
G3
Crystallaria asprella (Jordan, 1878)
crystal darter
V♦
1
G3
Crystallaria cincotta Welsh and Wood, 2008
diamond darter
E
1,5
1,5
G3
Etheostoma acuticeps Bailey, 1959
sharphead darter
V♦
Etheostoma aquali Williams and Etnier, 1978
coppercheek darter
V▲
1,5
G2G3
Etheostoma australe Jordan, 1889
perca del Conchos
E♦
1,5
Etheostoma bellator Suttkus and Bailey, 1993
Warrior darter
V
1,5
G2
Etheostoma sp. cf. bellator Locust Fork darter
E
1,5
GNR
Etheostoma sp. cf. bellator Sipsey darter
T
1,5
G2
Etheostoma blennius sequatchiense Burr, 1979
Sequatchie darter
V
1,5
G4T3
Etheostoma boschungi Wall and Williams, 1974
slackwater darter
E▼
1,5
G1
Etheostoma brevirostrum Suttkus and Etnier, 1991
holiday darter
G2
Amicalola Creek population
E
1,5
Conasauga River population
E
1,5
Coosawattee River population
E
1,5
Etowah River mainstem population
E
1,5
Shoal Creek populationE▼
1,5
Etheostoma cervus Powers and Mayden, 2003
Chickasaw darter
V
1,5
G2G3
Etheostoma chermocki Boschung, Mayden and Tomelleri, 1992
vermilion darter
E
1,5
G1
Etheostoma chienense Page and Ceas, 1992
relict darter
E
1,5
G1
Etheostoma chuckwachatte Mayden and Wood, 1993
lipstick darter
V
1
G2G3
Etheostoma cinereum Storer, 1845
ashy darter
G2G3
Duck River populations
V
1,5
lower Tennessee River populationsE▼
1,5
upper Cumberland River populations
V
1,5
upper Tennessee River populations
E
1,5
Etheostoma collis (Hubbs and Cannon, 1935)
Carolina darter
V
1
G3
Etheostoma corona Page and Ceas, 1992
crown darter
T
1,5
G3
Etheostoma cragini Gilbert, 1885
Arkansas darter
T▼
1
G3G4
Etheostoma denoncourti Stauffer and van Snik, 1997
golden darter
V
1,5
G2
1
G1G2
Etheostoma ditrema Ramsey and Suttkus, 1965
coldwater darter
T♦
middle Coosa River populations
T
1,5
Etheostoma etowahae Wood and Mayden, 1993
Etowah darter
E
1,5
G1
61-63
41
60
41
44-45
46,51-57,67
54,67-68
50-55,57-59
54
56
56
39
58
58
58
56
56
58
58
58
58
58
57
58
57
58
55
56
55
56
62
56
49-50
56
58
58
58
Percina kusha, bridled darter. Photo: N. M. Burkhead.
Elassoma boehlkei, Carolina pygmy sunfish. Photo: F. Rohde.
Elassoma okatie, bluebarred pygmy sunfish. Photo: F. Rohde.
Herichthys bartoni, mojarra caracolera. Photo: J. M. Artigas Azas.
404
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Etheostoma fonticola (Jordan and Gilbert, 1886)
fountain darter
E♦
1,3,4,5
G1
Etheostoma forbesi Page and Ceas, 1992
Barrens darter
T
1,5
G1G2
Etheostoma grahami (Girard, 1859)
Rio Grande darter
T▼
1
G3
Etheostoma gutselli (Hildebrand, 1932)
Tuckasegee darter
V
1,5
G4
Etheostoma lepidum (Baird and Girard, 1853)
greenthroat darter
T
1
G3G4
Etheostoma lugoi Norris and Minckley, 1997
perca de toba
E♦
1,3,4,5
Etheostoma maculatum Kirtland, 1840
spotted darter
T▼
1
G2
Etheostoma mariae (Fowler, 1947)
pinewoods darter
V♦
1,5
G3
Etheostoma microlepidum Raney and Zorach, 1967
smallscale darter
V
1,5
G2G3
Etheostoma moorei Raney and Suttkus, 1964
yellowcheek darter
T♦
1,5
G1
Turkey Fork populationE
1,5
Etheostoma neopterum Howell and Dingerkus, 1978
lollypop darter
V
1,5
G3
Etheostoma nianguae Gilbert and Meek, 1887
Niangua darter
T♦
1,5
G2
Etheostoma nuchale Howell and Caldwell, 1965
watercress darter
G1
Glen and Thomas springs populationE♦
1,5
Roebuck Spring population
E
1,5
Halls Creek population
E
1,5
Etheostoma okaloosae (Fowler, 1941)
Okaloosa darter
T♦
1,5
G1
Etheostoma olivaceum Braasch and Page, 1979
sooty darter
V
1,5
G3
Etheostoma osburni (Hubbs and Trautman, 1932)
candy darter
V♦
1,5
G3
Etheostoma pallididorsum Distler and Metcalf, 1962
paleback darter
T♦
1,5
G2
Etheostoma percnurum Jenkins, 1994
duskytail darter
G1
Copper Creek populationE▼
1,5
Big South Fork populationE
1,5
Citico Creek population
E
1,5
Little River population
E
1,5
Etheostoma perlongum (Hubbs and Raney, 1946)
Waccamaw darter
T● 5
G1Q
Etheostoma phytophilum Bart and Taylor, 1999
rush darter
G1
Cove Spring population
E
1,5
Sipsey Fork population
E
1,5
Turkey Creek population
E
1,4,5
Etheostoma pottsii (Girard, 1859)
perca mexicana
T♦
1,4
Etheostoma pseudovulatum Page and Ceas, 1992
egg-mimic darter
T
1,5
G1
1,5
G2G3
Etheostoma pyrrhogaster Bailey and Etnier, 1988
firebelly darter
V♦
Etheostoma raneyi Suttkus and Bart, 1994
Yazoo darter
V▼
1,5
G2
Tallahatchie population
T
1,5
Etheostoma rubrum Raney and Suttkus, 1966
bayou darter
E▼
1,5
G1
Etheostoma rufilineatum (Cope, 1870)
redline darter
Clarks River population
V
1,5
Hiwassee River population
V
1,5
Toccoa River population
V
1,5
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
45
55
37,40,42-43
56
37,44
41
54
62
55
51
51
56
50
58
58
58
59
55
54
52
56
55
56
56
62
58
58
58
20,35,39
56
57
57
57
57
56
56
56
405
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Etheostoma sagitta sagitta Cumberland arrow darter
V
1
G3G4T3T4
Etheostoma sagitta spilotum Gilbert, 1887
Kentucky arrow darter
V
1
G3G4T3T4
Etheostoma scotti Bauer, Etnier and Burkhead, 1995
Cherokee darter
G2
lower Etowah River population
E
1,5
middle Etowah River population
E
1,5
upper Etowah River populationE♦
1,5
Etheostoma segrex Norris and Minckley, 1997
perca del Salado
E
1,5
Etheostoma sellare (Radcliffe and Welsh, 1913)
Maryland darter
Xp▼
1,5
GH
Etheostoma sp. cf. stigmaeum beaded darter
V
1,5
Etheostoma sp. cf. stigmaeum bluemask darterE▼
1,5
G1
Etheostoma striatulum Page and Braasch, 1977
striated darter
T▼
1,5
G1
Etheostoma susanae (Jordan and Swain, 1883)
Cumberland darter
T♦
1,5
G1G2
Etheostoma tecumsehi Ceas and Page, 1997
Shawnee darter
T
1,5
G1
Etheostoma tippecanoe Jordan and Evermann, 1890
Tippecanoe darter
V
1
G3G4
Etheostoma trisella Bailey and Richards, 1963
trispot darter
E▼
1,5
G1
1,5
G2
Etheostoma tuscumbia Gilbert and Swain, 1887
Tuscumbia darter
T♦
Etheostoma vulneratum (Cope, 1870)
wounded darter
V
1
G3
Etheostoma wapiti Etnier and Williams, 1989
boulder darter
E▼
1,5
G1
Etheostoma sp. cf. zonistium blueface darter
T
1,5
G1G2
Percina antesella Williams and Etnier, 1977
amber darter
E♦
1,5
G1G2
Percina aurolineata Suttkus and Ramsey, 1967
goldline darter
T♦
1,5
G2
Percina aurora Suttkus and Thompson, 1994
pearl darter
E▼
1,5
G1
Percina austroperca Thompson, 1995
southern logperch
V
1,5
G3
Percina bimaculata (Haldeman, 1844)
Chesapeake logperch
E
1
Percina brevicauda Suttkus and Bart, 1994
coal darter
T♦
1,5
G2
Percina burtoni Fowler, 1945
blotchside logperch
T▼
1
G2G3
Percina cymatotaenia (Gilbert and Meek, 1887)
bluestripe darter
T▼
1,5
G2
Percina jenkinsi Thompson, 1985
Conasauga logperch
E♦
1,5
G1
Percina kusha Williams and Burkhead, 2007
bridled darter
E
1,5
Percina lenticula Richards and Knapp, 1964
freckled darter
T♦
1
G2
Percina macrocephala (Cope, 1867)
longhead darter
V▲
1
G3
Percina nasuta (Bailey, 1941)
longnose darter
T♦
1
G3
Percina sp. cf. nasuta Ouachita longnose darter
T
1,5
G2?
1,5
G1
Percina pantherina (Moore and Reeves, 1955)
leopard darter
T♦
Percina rex (Jordan and Evermann, 1889)
Roanoke logperch
E♦
1,5
G1G2
Percina sipsi Williams and Neely, 2007
bankhead darter
E▼
1,5
G3
Percina smithvanizi Williams and Walsh, 2007
muscadine darter
V
1,5
G2G3
Percina squamata (Gilbert and Swain, 1887)
olive darter
V
1
G3
Percina tanasi Etnier, 1976
snail darter
T♦
1
G1Q
Percina uranidea (Jordan and Gilbert, 1887)
stargazing darter
V♦
1
G1Q
Percina williamsi Page and Near, 2007
sickle darter
T
1
G2Q
Percina sp.
halloween darter
V
1
G2
Sander vitreus glaucus (Hubbs, 1926)
blue pike
X♦
1,2,4
G5TX
Family Elassomatidae
Pygmy Sunfishes
Elassoma alabamae Mayden, 1993
spring pygmy sunfish
E▼
1,5
G1
Elassoma boehlkei Rohde and Arndt, 1987
Carolina pygmy sunfish
G2
Santee River population
T▼
1,5
Waccamaw River population
T
1,5
Elassoma okatie Rohde and Arndt, 1987
bluebarred pygmy sunfish
G2G3
1,5
Edisto River population
V♦
New and Savannah rivers populations
V
1,5
Herichthys labridens, mojarra huasteca. Photo: J. M. Artigas Azas.
406
55
54
58
58
58
40
63
52
55
56
55
54
54-56
58
56
56
56
56,58
58
58
57
59
63
58
55-56
50
58
58
57-58
54-55
50-52
51
52
62
58
58
55-56
56
51-52,54,57
56
60
67
56
62
62
62
62
Herichthys minckleyi, mojarra de Cuatro Ciénegas. Photo: J. M. Artigas Azas.
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
Taxon
AFS Common Name
StatusCriteriaRankEcoregions
Family Cichlidae
Cichlids
Cichlasoma grammodes Taylor and Miller, 1980
mojarra del Chiapa de Corzo
V
Cichlasoma hartwegi Taylor and Miller, 1980
mojarra del Río Grande de ChiapaV
Cichlasoma istlanum (Jordan and Snyder, 1899)
mojarra del Balsas
V
Cichlasoma ufermanni (Allgayer, 2002)
mojarra del Usumacinta
V
Cichlasoma urophthalmus alborum Hubbs, 1936
mojarra de Montecristo
V
Cichlasoma urophthalmus amarum Hubbs, 1936
mojarra de Isla Mujeres
V
Cichlasoma urophthalmus cienagae Hubbs, 1936
mojarra de las ciénegas
V
Cichlasoma urophthalmus conchitae Hubbs, 1936
mojarra del Cenote Conchita
Xp
Cichlasoma urophthalmus ericymba Hubbs, 1938
mojarra de San Bulha
Xp▼
Cichlasoma urophthalmus mayorum Hubbs, 1936
mojarra de Chichén Itzá
T
Cichlasoma urophthalmus zebra Hubbs, 1936
mojarra del Cenote Xlaká
T
Cichlasoma sp. mojarra caracolera de La Media LunaE♦
Herichthys bartoni (Bean, 1892)
mojarra caracolera
T▲
Herichthys labridens (Pellegrin, 1903)
mojarra huasteca
T▲
Herichthys minckleyi (Kornfield and Taylor, 1983)
mojarra de Cuatro Ciénegas
E♦
Herichthys steindachneri (Jordan and Snyder, 1899)
mojarra del Ojo Frío
E
Rocio gemmata Contreras-Balderas and Schmitter-Soto, 2007
mojarra de Leona Vicario
V
Rocio ocotal Schmitter-Soto, 2007
mojarra del Ocotal
T
Thorichthys callolepis (Regan, 1904)
mojarra de San Domingo
V
Thorichthys socolofi (Miller and Taylor, 1984)
mojarra del Misalá
V
Family Embiotocidae
Surfperches
Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Hopkirk, 1974
Russian River tule perch
V♦
Family GobiesocidaeClingfishes
Gobiesox fluviatilis Briggs and Miller, 1960
cucharita de río
V
Gobiesox juniperoserrai Espinosa-Pérez and Castro-Aguirre, 1996
cucharita peninsular
E
Gobiesox mexicanus Briggs and Miller, 1960
cucharita mexicana
V
Family GobiidaeGobies
Eucyclogobius newberryi (Girard, 1856)
tidewater goby
E▼
Fisheries • vol 33 no 8 • august 2008 • www.fisheries.org
4,5
4,5
1,4
5
5
5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,5
5
5
5
1,5
30
30
23-25
28
29
27
27
27
27
27
27
33
33
33
41
33
27
28
31
30
1,4
10
G5T2
1
1,5
1
20-21
11
23-25
1
9-11
G3
407
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement