88
038

THREATENED WILDLIFE
OF THE UNITED STATES

Q32

Compiled by

Office of Endangered Species and International Activities

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

U.S. Department of the Interior

RESOURCE PUBLICATION 114. March 1973
(Revised Resource Publication 34)

Published by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

Printed at the U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C., March 1973

For sale by the Superintendent ot Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

THREATENED WILDLIFE OF THE UNITED STATES

Introduction

General

This publication presents data on the status of species or subspecies of vertebrates whose
existence is threatened in the United States, the District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Information is not yet available for American Samoa and
Guam. Two previous editions of this publication, entitled Rare and Endangered Fish and
Wildlife of the United States, differ from this third edition by substituting the designation,
"threatened," for the designation, "rare," or "endangered," in the data pages. This change
was made primarily to emphasize that the animals covered by data pages in this publication
do not comprise the official list of "Endangered" species. The latter is found in the U.S.
Department of the Interior's list of endangered native fish and wildlife, published in the
Federal Register. As did previous editions, this edition summarizes our knowledge of the
status of native vertebrates. It is intended to be a reference for compiling the official List
of Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife, as a means to stimulate interest, to impart know-
ledge, and to solicit information about threatened wildlife. It is likely that all pertinent
data are not included, and anyone who has additional information is encouraged to contact
the Office of Endangered Species, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, see Appendix A.

Only those animals determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be threatened with
extinction and named on the list which is published and amended periodically in the
Federal Register, are eligible for the benefits provided by the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C. 668aa) . Appendix C of this publication contains the
list as of the press date of this publication.

Only threatened vertebrates are included in this publication; mollusks and crustaceans
will be included in future editions. Within each of the five major Classes of vertebrates
(fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals), families, genera and species are
arranged in phylogenetic order. This means that the most primitive or generalized forms
are considered first, followed by increasingly more advanced or complex types within
each Class. This type of arrangement is recognized by scientists throughout the world.

In addition to the Federal program for endangered native fish and wildlife, many states
are adopting programs designed to prevent the extirpation of native wildlife found within
their borders . Information on animals considered endangered within the states may be
obtained, where available, by writing the appropriate state conservation agencies. Addresses
of those agencies are listed in Appendix B . A State-by-State listing of species endangered
nationwide is also included.

Acknowledgments

This publication is the result of a great deal of cooperation and effort by many persons and
agencies. Clinton H. Lostetter, Rare and Endangered Species Coordinator, Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon, coordinated the updating of the data pages. Dr. John
W. Aldrich, Staff Specialist with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, assisted with
the bird and mammal sheets. Dr. James A. Peters, (deceased) formerly of the Smithsonian

111

Institution's Division of Reptiles carried much of the burden of assembling the reptile and
amphibian sections . Dr. Robert R. Miller, Curator of Fishes , Museum of Zoology , University
of Michigan, Dr. Edward C. Kinney, and Mr. Stephen H. Taub of the Division of Fishery
Services, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, were largely responsible for the section
on fishes. Howard R. Leach, Wildlife Management Branch, California Department of Fish
and Game, Sacramento, California, and others of that agency reviewed and constructively
commented on the data pages pertaining to California. Data were gleaned from the published
and unpublished work of many other scientists and agencies which are too numerous to be
acknowledged individually.

Federal Acts

Perhaps more confusion exists about the kind of protection an endangered species receives
than about any other aspect of the program . Neither the Endangered Species Protection Act
of 1966 (80 Stat. 926) nor its amended version, the Endangered Species Conservation Act of
1969, provides a Federal prohibition against the taking or possession of native endangered
fish and wildlife. Federal protection is afforded to migratory birds through the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-711); to eagles through the Bald Eagle Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 668-668d): and to marine mammals through the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (P.L. 92-522). Resident wildlife such as quail and pheasants, terrestrial
mammals, fishes, amphibians and reptiles may be under State jurisdiction but do not have
Federal protection except as provided on some Federal lands. Under the Lacey Act, as
amended (18 U.S.C. 42-44) the Federal Government can become involved if an animal
(endangered or not) is taken in violation of State law, and then moved across State or
international boundaries .

Formal involvement by the Federal Government in endangered species conservation began
with the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. That law acknowledged a national
responsibility to act on behalf of native species of wildlife which were "threatened with
extinction. " It required the Secretary of the Interior to judge what was endangered and
publish in the Federal Register lists of such animals by scientific and common name. He
then was authorized to:

1. Conduct research on such animals.

2. Use limited amounts of money ($750,000 per area, $2.5 million per year
for a total of $15 million) from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to
acquire habitat for them.

The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 was signed into law on December 5, 1969.
This amendment to the 1966 Act broadened the scope of the effort to conserve endangered
species. Among other things it:

1. Broadened the coverage of the Act to include all vertebrates, mollusks

and crustaceans .

2. Permitted the consideration of subspecies as well as species (a subspecies
is a recognizable race or variant within a species) .

IV

3. Authorized the acquisition of water as well as land for endangered species.

4. Increased the amounts available from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund to $2.5 million per area and $5 million per year. The $15 million
overall ceiling was retained.

5. Provided significant authority for the conservation of endangered foreign
wildlife . Further details on this aspect of the program are available from
the Office of Endangered Species of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife .

Criteria for Determining an "endangered species"

Confusion still exists among laymen and scientist alike as to what constitutes an endangered
species. As noted above, the list of animals published and periodically revised in the
Federal Register is the United States Government's "official" list of endangered species and
identifies those animals which are eligible for Federal benefits afforded an endangered
species .

The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 does not set forth specific criteria for
determining which species are "threatened with extinction." Instead, it directs the
Secretary of the Interior to seek the council of specialists and agencies with expertise on
the subject, and to rely upon their combined judgment. The wording of the Act is as
follows:

"(C) A species of native fish and wildlife shall be regarded as threatened
with extinction whenever the Secretary of the Interior finds, after consultation
with the affected States, that its existence is endangered because its habitat is
threatened with destruction, drastic modification, or severe curtailment, or
because of overexploitation, disease, predation, or because of other factors,
and that its survival requires assistance. In addition to consulting with the
States, the Secretary shall, from time to time, seek the advice and recommendations
of interested persons and organizations, including, but not limited to, ornithologists,
ichthyologists, ecologists, herpetologists , and mammalogists . He shall publish
in the Federal Register the names of the species of native fish and wildlife found
to be threatened with extinction in accordance with this paragraph."

Thus, actual numbers of an animal is only one criterion used to determine whether or not
it is "threatened with extinction . " Critically low or declining populations may be sufficient
reason for determining a species or subspecies to be endangered, but some which still
exist in large numbers — such as the brown pelican, the sperm whale, or the Arctic
peregrine falcon--may face serious threats such as environmental degradation, over-
exploitation, etc. , that could bring about their extirpation in the foreseeable future. When
their continued existence is in peril, they may legitimately be considered as endangered
species under the Act.

The earlier versions of this publication mentioned a "Rare and Endangered Species
Committee" which compiled the United States List of Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife.
With the increasing concern for such animals, the Federal Government shifted its emphasis

toward a restoration program for endangered species , and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife's Office of Endangered Species was delegated the task of providing coordination
for endangered species programs, including compilation of lists. All candidate endangered
species are critically evaluated by this Office, which works in close cooperation with the
States , scientists , and specialists .

Anyone who has information indicating that a vertebrate, mollusk, or crustacean may be
threatened with extinction is encouraged to submit that information to the Office of Endangered
Species . Usually such nominations fall into one of three general categories .

1. Species which obviously are not threatened: Many nominations of species
are received which are based on emotion alone, without adequate supporting
data.

2. Obvious candidates: In some instances, complete, factual data are submitted
which leave no doubt that an animal is indeed "threatened with extinction. "
In such cases the mechanics for placing the animal on the list are immediately
initiated .

3. Questionable cases: The vast majority of nominations fall into this category.
Substantial information is submitted which appears to indicate that an animal
may be threatened. In such cases, the information is routed to specialists
for their review and comment. When reviews have been completed, a final
judgment on the endangered status of the animal is made by the Office of
Endangered Species. If the animal is determined to be endangered, the
Secretary of the Interior is advised to propose it as an endangered species
in the Federal Register . A minimum of thirty (30) days is then allowed for

all interested parties to further comment on the proposal before a final decision
is made to list the animal as endangered.

The removal of an animal from the list of endangered native fish and wildlife
is accomplished in essentially the same manner as an addition. The list is
subject to continual review, and data which may clarify the status of any
animal on the list or which may be a candidate for the list are welcomed by
the Office of Endangered Species .

THE PROGRAM OF THE OFFICE OF ENDANGERED SPECIES

History of the Program

The U.S. Department of the Interior has devoted effort to the preservation of threatened
species for many years through protection on National Wildlife Refuges and National Parks .
Environmental protection under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661) and
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321) has helped preserve habitat of endangered species
as well as other wildlife . This has been insufficient for some species .

A more formal endangered species program in the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
began in 1966 when a special research program for endangered species was begun. Centered
at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, the program had two thrusts; to learn how to

propagate certain species in captivity and to seek, through field studies, key factors that
threatened the existence of certain species. Captive propagation can be an aid in bolstering
some seriously threatened wild populations .

Over 35 endangered species occur on National Wildlife Refuges at sometime during the year.
Management on many of these refuges focuses on endangered species such as the whooping
crane at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge . Since enactment of the Endangered Species
Preservation Act of 1966 which authorized use of land and water conservation funds for
the acquisition of endangered species habitat, refuge lands have been purchased speci-
fically for endangered species .

As a result of the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, a list of foreign endangered
species was developed and importation controls for such species were emphasized. Agents
were added to the staff of the Bureau's Division of Law Enforcement to inspect shipments of
wildlife arriving at ports of importation.

In Fiscal Year 1973, new emphasis was placed on endangered species. New funds were
appropriated for management of endangered species and efforts were initiated to draw
attention and provide input by outside sources . The professional staff of the Office of
Endangered Species and International Activities was increased from 2 to 8. A new species
by species approach to management was adopted.

Recovery plan concept

The needs of many endangered species are greater than any one agency or level of
government can supply. Broad public support of the program is required. States are
intimately involved because of the habitat they control, the legal responsibilities they have
for resident wildlife, and biological skills possessed by professional ecologists they employ.
Most Federal agencies have contributions to make, particularly land managing agencies
such as the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, National Park Service, and military installations under the Department of Defense.
Also involved are agencies charged with the protection of environments such as the
President's Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, or those affecting the
environment such as the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Tennessee Valley
Authority, and Atomic Energy Commission. A successful endangered species program
must be coordinated among all such agencies at all levels of government. Private organi-
zations and groups serve not only to provide leadership but also to supply expertise and
funding for various projects .

The guide for coordination of activities pertaining to endangered species among these
agencies will become the recovery plan. Such a plan will identify restoration problems
for each species and will detail step by step solutions. Also, the plan will show the order
in which actions are to be undertaken and who is assigned to carry them out. In this
manner, roles to be played by various State and Federal agencies and private groups can
be specifically identified. Costs to accomplish various objectives will be estimated. The
recovery plan will demonstrate the perspective involved for each action proposed. Plans
will also serve to identify the most urgently needed research needs . Their ultimate purpose
is to encourage participation by all organizations that can play a part in the survival of the

species . The first plans are now being developed with the cooperation of agencies and
individuals that have expertise or a key role in the recovery of a given species .

Species and subspecies priorities

A priority system is being developed for determining which species should receive
necessary shares of the program's limited resources. It is not likely that sufficient
resources in manpower and funds for all needs of all species will be immediately available.
Adding species to the endangered species list and development of recovery plans for them
will help provide protection of existing habitats regardless of the priority of that species .
But where more manpower and funds are needed, priorities will come into play to help
assure that resources expended by various agencies and groups are sufficiently con-
centrated species-wise to assure desired results.

CONTENTS

Page

THREATENED WILDLIFE OF THE UNITED STATES

Introduction iii

General iii

Acknowledgements iii

Federal Acts iv

Criteria for determining an "endangered species".. v

The Program of the Office of Endangered Species vi

History of the program vi

Recovery plan concept vii

Species and subspecies priorities viii

EXTINCT OR PRESUMED-EXTINCT WILDLIFE 1

Fishes 1

Birds 1

Mammals ^

^ THREATENED FISHES OF THE UNITED STATES 5

SJ^ Shortnose sturgeon 6

Lake sturgeon 7

Longj aw cisco 9

Deepwater cisco 1 1

Blackf in cisco 12

Arctic grayling 1^

Lahontan cutthroat trout 16

Paiute cutthroat trout 18

Greenback cutthroat trout 19

Rio Grande cutthroat trout 20

Humboldt cutthroat trout 21

Little Kern golden trout 22

Gila trout 23

Arizona (Apache) trout 24

Sunapee trout 25

Blueback trout 26

Olympic mudminnow 27

Desert dace 28

Humpback chub 29

Pahranagat bony tail 30

Mohave chub 31

Little Colorado spinedace 32

Moapa dace 33

Woundf in 34

Colorado squawf ish 35

Kendall Warm Springs dace 36

IX

THREATENED FISHES OF THE UNITED STATES— continued

White River (Mountain) sucker 37

Modoc sucker 38

Cui-ui 39

Ozark cavef ish 40

Devil's Hole pupfish 41

Comanche Springs pupfish 42

Tecopa pupfish 43

Nevada pupfish 44

Warm Springs pupfish 45

Owens pupfish 46

Pahrump killif ish 47

Big Bend gambusia 48

Clear Creek gambusia 49

Pecos gambusia 50

San Marcos gambusia 51

Gila topminnow 52

Unarmored threespine stickleback 53

Roanoke bass 54

Suwannee bass 56

Sharphead darter 57

Fountain darter 58

Niangua darter 59

Watercress darter 60

Okaloosa darter 61

Maryland darter 63

Trispot darter 64

Tuscumbia darter 65

Blue pike 66

Pygmy sculpin 68

Peripheral fishes 69

Status-undetermined fishes 70

IH THREATENED REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF THE UNITED STATES 73

Santa Cruz long-toed salamander 74

Desert slender salamander 75

Tehachapi slender salamander 76

Limestone salamander 77

Shasta salamander 78

Jemez Mountain salamander 80

Texas blind salamander 81

Black toad , Inyo County toad 82

Vegas Val ley Leopard frog 84

Hous ton toad 85

Pine Barrens tree frog 86

American crocodile 87

American alligator 88

THREATENED REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF THE UNITED STATES—continued

Bog turtle 90

Green turtle 91

St . Croix ground lizard 93

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard 94

Puerto Rican boa (Culebra Grande) 96

San Francisco garter snake 97

Status-undetermined reptiles and amphibians 98

qo THREATENED BIRDS OF THE UNITED STATES 99

Newell ' s Manx shearwater 100

Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel (uau) 101

Eastern brown pelican 102

California brown pelican lOA

Florida great white heron 106

Hawaiian goose (nene) 108

Aleutian Canada goose 109

Tule white-fronted goose Ill

Lay san duck 113

Hawaiian duck (koloa) 114

Mexican duck 116

California condor 118

Florida Everglade kite (Florida snail kite) 120

Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk 122

Hawaiian hawk (io) 123

Southern bald eagle 124

Prairie falcon 126

American peregrine falcon 127

Arctic peregrine falcon 129

Northern greater prairie chicken 131

Attwater's greater prairie chicken.. 133

Lesser prairie chicken 134

Masked bobwhite 136

Whooping crane 138

Florida sandhill crane 140

Mississippi sandhill crane 141

California clapper rail 142

Light-footed clapper rail 144

Yuma clapper rail 145

California black rail 146

Hawaiian gallinule (alae ula) 147

Hawaiian coot (alae keokeo) 148

Eskimo curlew 149

Hawaiian stilt (aeo) Ibl

XI

THREATENED BIRDS OF THE UNITED STATES—continued

California least tern 153

Puerto Rlcan plain pigeon 155

Puerto Rican parrot 156

Newton's Puerto Rican screech owl 158

Spotted owl 159

Puerto Rican whip-poor-will 161

Red-cockaded woodpecker 162

American ivory-billed woodpecker 164

Hawaiian crow (alala) 166

Small Kauai thrush (puaiohi) 167

Large Kauai thrush (Kauai omao) 168

Molokai thrush (olomau) 170

Nihoa millerbird 171

Kauai oo (oo aa) 172

Bachman's warbler 173

Golden-cheeked warbler 174

Kir tland ' s warbler 175

Elfin Woods warbler 177

Crested honeycreeper (akohekohe) 178

Kauai akialoa 179

Kauai nukupuu 180

Maui nukupuu 181

Akiapolaau 183

Hawaii akepa (akepa) 184

Maui akepa (akepuie) 185

Oahu creeper (alauwahio) 186

Molokai creeper (kakawahie) 187

Maui parrotbill 188

Ou 189

Laysan finch 190

Nihoa finch 191

Palila 192

Wallowa gray-crowned rosy finch 193

Ipswich sparrow 194

Dusky seaside sparrow 195

Cape Sable sparrow 197

Peripheral birds 198

Status-undetermined birds 203

tfM THREATENED MAMMALS OF THE UNITED STATES 207

General references - mammals 208

Indiana bat 209

Ozark big-eared bat 211

Virginia big-eared bat 212

Hawaiian hoary bat 214

Spotted bat 215

Utah prairie dog 217

Kaibab squirrel 218

THREATENED MAMMALS OF THE UNITED STATES— continued

Delmarva Peninsula (Bryant) fox squirrel 220

Everglades fox squirrel 222

Morro Bay kangaroo rat 224

Salt-Marsh harvest mouse 226

Key Largo wood rat 228

Block Island meadow vole 230

Beach meadow vole 231

Whales 232

Sperm whale or Cachalot 232

Gray whale 232

Blue whale 233

Finback whale 233

Sei whale 233

Humpback whale 233

Right whale 233

Bowhead whale 23A

Northern Rocky Mountain wolf 235

Eastern timber wolf 237

Mexican wolf 239

Red wolf 241

San Joaquin kit fox 243

Glacier bear 244

Grizzly bear 245

Black-footed ferret 247

Southern sea otter 249

Florida panther 251

Eastern cougar 253

Ribbon seal 255

Caribbean monk seal 256

Hawaiian monk seal 257

Guadalupe fur seal 259

Florida manatee or Florida sea cow 261

Tule elk or Dwarf elk 263

Key deer 265

Columbian white-tailed deer 266

Sonoran pronghorn 267

California bighorn 268

Peninsular bighorn 270

Peripheral mammals 272

Status-undetermined mammals 273

APPENDIXES

A. Addresses, Office of Endangered Species and

Regional Offices 275

B. State Conservation Agency addresses; State-by-

State listing of endangered species 278

C. Nationwide list of endangered species 287

Xlll

EXTINCT OR PRESUMED EXTINCT WILDLIFE

EXTINCT FISHES

San Gorgonio Trout, Salmo evermanni ■ Santa Ana River in California . Extinct about 1935 .

Pahranagat Spinedace, Lepidomeda altivelis . Outflow of Ash Spring and chain of lakes in
the Pahranagat Valley in Nevada. Extinct between 1938 and 1959.

Big Spring Spinedace, Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis . Spring-fed marsh, Lincoln
County, Nevada. Extinct between 1938 and 1959.

Harelip Sucker, Lagochila lacera. Found in a few clear streams of the upper Mississippi
Valley; Scioto River in Ohio, Tennessee River in Georgia, and the White River in
Arkansas; also in the Lake Erie drainage, Blanchard and Auglaize Rivers in north-
western Ohio. Not seen since 1900.

Leon Springs Pupfish, Cyprinodon bovinus . Leon Springs, Pecos County, Texas. Not
seen since 1938 .

Ash Meadows Springfish, Empetrichthys merriami . Isolated waters of Death Valley in
southern Nevada . Not seen since 1942 .

EXTINCT BIRDS

Labrador Duck, Camptorhynchus labradorium. Northeastern North America . Extinct
about 1875. Reason unknown .

Heath Hen, Tympanuchus cupido cupido. Eastern United States . Extinct in 1932.
Reasons- -overhunting and loss of habitat.

Laysan Rail, Porzanula palmeri . Laysan Island, Hawaii. Extinct on Laysan Island in

1926. Extinct in 1944 on Eastern Island, Midway Atoll where transplanted previously
from Laysan. Reasons — loss of habitat (rabbits eating vegetation): predation by rats
on Midway .

Sandwich Rail (Moho) , Pennula sandwichensis . Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Extinct about 1893.
Reasons --probably predation by introduced rats and mongooses.

Great Auk, Pinguinus impennis. North Atlantic Ocean . Extinct about 1844. Reason —
overhunting .

Passenger Pigeon, Ectopistes migratorius . North American . Extinct in 1914. Reasons —
overhunting and loss of habitat.

Culebra Puerto Rican Parrot, Amazona vitata gracilipes . Culebra Island, Puerto Rico.
Extinct about 1899. Reason- -unknown.

Mauge's Parakeet, Aratinga chloroptera maugei ■ Puerto Rico. Extinct about 1892.
Reason--destruction of forest habitat.

Carolina Parakeet, Conuropsis carolinensis carolinensis . Southeastern United States .
Extinct about 1920. Reasons--overhunting and loss of forest habitat.

Louisiana Parakeet, Conuropsis carolinensis ludoviciana. South central United States.
Extinct about 1912. Reasons--overhunting and loss of forest habitat.

Oahu Thrush, Phaeornis obscurus oahensis. Oahu Island, Hawaii. Extinct after 1825 .
Reasons--alteration of environment by modern man, probably avian disease from
introduced birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes . Predation by introduced rats
and cats hypothetical .

Lanai Thrush, Phaeornis obscurus lanaiensis. Lanai Island, Hawaii. Extinct in 1931 .
Reasons--alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease from
introduced birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes . Predation by introduced
rats, cats, and mongooses hypothetical.

Molokai Thrush, Phaeornis obscurus rutha. Molokai Island, Hawaii. Extinct in 1936 .
Reasons — alteration of environment by modern man, probable avain disease from
introduced birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes . Predation by introduced
rats , cats , and mongooses hypothetical .

Laysan Millerbird, Acrocephalus familiaris familiaris . Laysan Island, Hawaii. Extinct
between 1904 and 1923. Reason--loss of habitat due to introduced rabbits eating
vegetation.

Kioea, Chaetoptila angustipluma. Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Extinct after 1859. Reasons —
alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease from introduced
birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes . Predation by introduced rats and cats
hypothetical .

OahuOo, Moho apicalis . Oahu Island, Hawaii. Extinct about 1837 . Reasons — alteration
of environment by modern man, probable avian disease from introduced birds and
spread by introduced mosquitoes, killing by native plume hunters. Predation by
introduced rats and cats hypothetical.

Molokai Oo, Moho bishopi . Molokai Island, Hawaii. Extinct in 1915 . Reasons — alteration
of environment by modern man, probable avian disease from introduced birds and
spread by introduced mosquitoes, killing by native plume hunters. Predation by
introduced rats , cats , and mongooses hypothetical .

Hawaii Oo , Moho nobilis . Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Extinct in 1934. Reasons--alteration of
environment by modern man, probable avian disease from introduced birds and spread
by introduced mosquitoes, killing by native plume hunters. Predation by introduced
rats, cats, and mongooses hypothetical.

Laysan Apapane , Himatione sanguinea freethii. Laysan Island, Hawaii. Extinct soon
after 1923. Reason--destruction of the vegetation by introduced rabbits.

Hawaii Mamo, Drepanis pacifica. Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Extinct about 1898 . Reasons —
alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease from introduced
birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes, killing by native plume hunters. Predation
by introduced rats, cats, and mongooses hypothetical.

Perkins' Mamo or Black Mamo, Drepanis funerea. Molakai Island, Hawaii. Extinct about
1907. Reasons — alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease
from introduced birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes . Predation by introduced
rats , cats , and mongooses hypothetical .

OahuAkialoa, Hemignathus obscurus lichtensteinii . Oahu Island, Hawaii. Extinct after
1837. Reasons--alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease
from introduced birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes . Predation by introduced
rats and cats hypothetical .

Lanai Akialoa , Hemignathus obscurus lanaiensis . Lanai Island, Hawaii. Extinct about
1894. Reasons--alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease
from introduced birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes . Predation by introduced
rats , cats , and mongooses hypothetical .

Hawaii Akialoa , Hemignathus obscurus obscurus. Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Extinct in 1895 .
Reasons — alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease from
introduced birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes. Predation by introduced rats,
cats, and mongooses hypothetical.

Oahu Nukupuu, Hemignathus lucidus lucidus . Oahu Island, Hawaii. Extinct about 1860 .
Reasons — alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease from
introduced birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes. Predation by introduced
rats and cats hypothetical .

Oahu Akepa, Loxops coccinea rufa . Oahu Island, Hawaii. Extinct 1895. Reasons--

alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease from introduced birds
and spread by introduced mosquitoes. Predation by introduced rats, cats, and
mongooses hypothetical .

Greater Amakihi (Green Solitaire), Loxops sagittirostris . Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Extinct
in 1900. Reasons — alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease
from introduced birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes . Predation by introduced
rats, cats, and mongooses hypothetical.

Lanai Alauwahio , Loxops maculata montana . Lanai Island, Hawaii. Extinct in 1937 .
Reason — destruction of habitat.

Ula-ai-hawane , Ciridops anna. Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Extinct about 1892 . Reasons--
alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease from introduced
birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes. Predation by introduced rats, cats, and
mongooses hypothetical .

Greater Koafinch (Hopue), Psittirostra palmeri . Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Extinct about
1896. Reasons — alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease
from introduced birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes . Predation by introduced
rats, cats, and mongooses hypothetical.

Lesser or Yellow-headed Koafinch, Psittirostra flaviceps . Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Extinct
about 1891. Reasons--alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian
disease from introduced birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes . Predation by
introduced rats, cats, and mongooses hypothetical.

Grosbeakfinch or Konafinch, Psittirostra kona . Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Extinct in 1894.
Reasons--alteration of environment by modern man, probable avian disease from
introduced birds and spread by introduced mosquitoes. Predation by introduced rats,
cats , and mongooses hypothetical .

EXTINCT MAMMALS

Gull Island Vole, Microtus nesophilus . Gull Island, Long Island Sound, New York.
Extinct in 1898.

Amargosa Meadow Vole, Microtus californicus scirpensis . California. Extinct in 1917.

Plains Wolf, Canis lupus nubilus . Great Plains . Extinct in 1926.

Sea Mink, Mustela macrodon. New England coast. Extinct in 1890.

Eastern Cougar, FeliStkoncolor cougu^r . EasternrUfnlted Stateg-^^'Tlfe.gaj^ded as extirpated ^
in U.S.,/ir^^:899; mj^ bg^r^establiphed^^j?<jfri Can^ian j^eficts .

Steller's Sea Cow, Hydrodamalis stelleri. North Pacific, Bering Sea. Extinct in 1768.

Eastern Elk, Cervus canadensis canadensis . United States east of Great Plains.
Extinct in 1880.

Merriam Elk, Cervus merriami . Arizona. Extinct in 1900 .

Badlands Bighorn, Ovis canadensis auduboni . North and South Dakota. Extinct in 1910.

Threatened
FISHES
of the United States

Arranged, one sheet for each species or subspecies, taxonomi-
cally by families and alphabetically by genera and species from
"A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United
States , " American Fisheries Society Special Publication No . 6 ,
September 1970.

6,

SHORTNOSE STURGEON Acipenser brevirostrum (Lesueur, 1818)

Order: ACIPENSERIFORMES Family: ACIPENSERIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small species of sturgeon (seldom exceeding three
feet in length) , mouth wide (its width over 62 percent of interorbital width) , viscera
blackish, adults with short snout, scutes prominent, one row of preanal scutes.

Present distribution: All recent U.S. records are from the Hudson River except one
Florida specimen.

Former distribution: Atlantic seaboard rivers from New Brunswick to Florida, including
the Hudson, Delaware, Potomac, Connecticut, Salmon Creek (North Carolina) and St. Johns
River watershed (Florida) . There have been a few records in salt water (New Jersey) .

Status: In peril. The species is gone in most of the rivers of its former range. Is
probably not as yet extinct.

Estimated numbers: There are no recent records .

Fecundity: The spawning habits have not been well studied. In the Hudson River
spawning fish have been taken in late April.

Reasons for decline: Pollution is probably the major factor . Overfishing has also
been likely since this species has been intensively fished on spawning areas, also
has been taken in shad gill nets over a wide area of the Hudson and other rivers .

Protective measures already taken: Other than some routine regulations such as
20-inch size limit, no protective measures seem to have been taken.

Measures proposed: A survey of the current status of the species would be basic to
the development of a plan. Locating the spawning areas Vi'ould be a key point to the
development of effective protection.

Number in captivity: No data , probably none .

Culture potential in captivity: Probably not possible to culture in captivity . It might
be possible to propagate from fertilized eggs obtained from wild specimens .

Remarks: Data submitted by the New York Conservation Department, Division of Fish
and Game .

References:

Jordan, D.S. and B. W. Evermann. 1902. American food and game fish.

Doubleday, Page & Co. , N.Y. , 572.
Vladykov, V. D. and J. R. Greeley. Order Acipenseroidei in fishes of the

western north Atlantic, Memoir Sears Foundation for Marine Research 1(3),
1963:24-60.

LAKE STURGEON Acipenser fulvescens (Rafinesque. 1817)

Order: ACIPENSERIFORMES Family: ACIPENSERIDAE

Significance: Once a very abundant species in the shallow waters of the Great Lakes .
Records are incomplete but a commercial catch of over 8.5 million pounds was recorded
in 1885 . It is rare in either commercial or sport fisheries in recent years .

Distinguishing characteristic: Largest fish of the Great Lakes, sometimes exceeding
7 feet and 300 pounds . The sturgeon is sometimes called a living fossil as they are
still much like their ancestors of the upper Cretaceous period that were abundant
over 100 million years ago.

Present distribution: Throughout most of its former range in greatly reduced numbers .

Former distribution: Once abundant in the Great Lake drainage; in the Red River,
Saskatchewan River and southern Hudson Bay tributaries of Canada; and west of the
Appalachian Mountains to the Tennessee River of Alabama, to Missouri, to eastern
Nebraska, to northern Kansas.

Status: Very uncommon.

Estimated numbers: U.S. Annual catch from Great Lakes varies from 1,000 to 3,000
pounds .

Fecundity: Sturgeon spawn in shallow waters of lakes and streams . The number of eggs
varies greatly with the size of the fish--egg counts range from 49,835 to 667,472 for fish
from 11 to 112 pounds, respectively. Sturgeon reach maturity at about 20 years and
females do not spawn every year.

Reasons for decline: Although early fishermen took large numbers of sturgeon for sale,
great numbers were also caught and destroyed because they damaged gear fished for
other species. They were easy to catch, and as a consequence of their slow growth and
late maturity they were reduced to insignificance.

Protective measures already taken: Lake sturgeon are completely protected in some
areas and partly protected in others by size limits that permit them to reach maturity.
Their numbers seem to have increased under protection.

Measures proposed: The protection of lake sturgeon should be reviewed periodically
to make certain that it is adequate in various sections of its range, and should be
uniform in the same waters where more than one regulatory agency is involved.

Number in captivity: No data .

Culture potential in captivity: Have been hatched and raised for a short period in
hatcheries .

Remarks: Data submitted by Dr. Stanford H. Smith, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Refer

Harkness, W. J. K. and J. R. Dymond . 1961. The lake sturgeon. Ontario

Dept. of Lands and Forests, Fish and Wildlife Branch. Toronto. 121 p.

Jordan, D.S. and B. W. Evermann. 1902. American food and game fishes.
Doubleday , Page 8. Co., N.Y., 572p.

LONGJAW CISCO Coregonus alpenae (Koelz, 1924)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

Significance: A major constituent of the commercial chub catch of Lakes Michigan and
Huron until the 1950's.

Distinguishing characteristics: Although on an average it is a medium size cisco,
some grew to very large size (15 inches and 2 pounds) equal to the largest ciscoes
of the Great Lakes. It is distinguished from other ciscoes by its pale color, relatively
short fins , and intermediate number of gill rakers .

Present distribution: Greatly reduced numbers throughout Lakes Michigan and Huron,
and a very small population in the small deep hole in eastern Lake Erie that was still
present as late as 1948.

Former distribution: Very abundant throughout the deeper areas of Lakes Michigan
and Huron, but most common at intermediate depths (20 to 60 fathoms) .

Status: Seriously depleted. Only seven have been taken during intensive studies of
southern Lake Michigan in 1962-64.

Estimated numbers: No data .

Fecundity: Spawn in moderately deep areas in late November .

Reasons for decline: Recent decline has resulted from sea lamprey predation and
intensive commercial fishery for large ciscoes , and increased competition from the
small bloater (Coregonus hoyi) and alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) in Lakes Michigan
and Huron. The low number in Lake Erie is due to very limited favorable environment
which has become increasingly unfavorable in recent years.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: The species might be preserved by collecting eggs from spawning
fish (if they can be found) and planting the young in remote, deepwater lakes.

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Ciscoes are very delicate and difficult to rear in
captivity but they have not reproduced in captivity.

Remarks: Data submitted by Dr. Stanford H. Smith, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.

References:

Hile , R. and H. J. Buettner . 1955. Commercial fishery for chubs (ciscoes) in
Lake Michigan through 1953. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv . , Spec. Sci.

Kept. --Fish. (163): 49.
Koelz, W. 1929. Coregonid fishes of the Great Lakes . Bull . U .S . Bur . Fish . ,

43, 1927:297-643.
Scott, W. B. and S. H. Smith. 1962. The occurrence of the longjaw cisco,

Leucichthys alpenae , in Lake Erie. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, 19(6): 1013-1023 .
Smith, S. H. 1964. Status of the deepwater cisco population of Lake Michigan.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc . , 93(2): 155-163 .

10

DEEPWATER CISCO Coregonus johannae (Wagner, 1910)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

Significance: The deepwater cisco is one of the two most important species in the early
chub fishery of the Great Lakes .

Distinguishing characteristics: Second largest of the ciscoes of the Great Lakes
distinguished by its very pale coloration and fewer gill rakers than other ciscoes .

Present distribution: Unknown if extant .

Former distribution: Once abundant in deeper waters of Lakes Michigan and Huron.

Status : At least seriously depleted, although probably extinct.

Estimated numbers: Last specimen reported in Lake Michigan in 1951 . None seen
subsequently in fishery surveys of Lakes Michigan and Huron.

Fecundity: Spawned in deeper waters in late summer.

Reasons for decline: The decline in the early 1900 's was probably due to intensive
commercial fishery . Recent decline and disappearance due to sea lamprey predation and
continued heavy fishing for larger ciscoes during the 1940's and 1950's.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: If a relict stock is found, they might be transferred to a remote lake.

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Data submitted by Dr. Stanford H. Smith, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Ann Arbor, Michigan. Dr. Stanford Smith, BCF, in his letter of July 31, 1967, said,
"The last record of a deepwater cisco was in 1951." Dr. R. R. Miller reported on
October 3, 1968, that the deepwater cisco is extinct.

References:

Hile, R. and H.J. Buettner . 1955. Commercial fishery for chubs (ciscoes) in

Lake Michigan through 1953. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv . , Spec. Sci. Rept.-

Fish. (163)? 49.
Koelz, W. 1929. Coregonid fishes of the Great Lakes, Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish.

43, 1927:297-643.
Smith, S. H. 1964. Status of the deepwater cisco population of Lake Michigan.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc . , 93(2): 155-163.

11

BLACKFIN CISCO Coregonus n . nigripinnis (Gill, 1872)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

Significance: The blackfin cisco is the largest cisco of the Great Lakes, and was a very
important commercial species in the early fishery.

Distinguishing characteristics: Distinguished by its large size and deep body, the very
dark coloration of the fins and back, and high number of gill rakers.

Present distribution: Unknown if extant in Lakes Michigan and Huron, the only lakes
where the typical blackfin cisco was found . Subspecies of uncertain relationship under
present taxonomic concepts have been reported from Lake Ontario (C_. n_. prognathus ,
considered since the early 1900's) and Lakes Superior (C. n. cyanopterus) and Nipigon
(C. n . prognathus) in greatly reduced numbers . The blackfin cisco has been reported
from lakes of Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, but their relation to the blackfin of
the Great Lakes is uncertain.

Former distribution: The typical blackfin (C^. n . nigripinnis) was only found in the
deepest waters of Lakes Michigan and Huron.

Status: At least seriously depleted, although probably extinct. Last specimen taken in
Lake Michigan in 1955. None seen subsequently in fishery surveys of Lakes Michigan and
Huron .

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Fecundity: Believed to have spawned in deeper waters in midwinter. Matured at a
greater age and size than other ciscoes .

Reasons for decline: The decline in the early 1900's was probably due to intensive
commercial fishery . Present decline and disappearance due to sea lamprey predation and
continued heavy fishing for larger ciscoes during the 1940's and 1950's.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: If a relict stock is found, they might be transferred to a remote lake.

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Data submitted by Dr. Stanford H. Smith, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Ann Arbor, Michigan. Dr. Stanford Smith has stated that "... .the last record of the
blackfin cisco was in 1955."

References:

Hile, R. and H.J. Buettner. 1955. Commercial fishery for chubs (ciscoes) in

Lake Michigan through 1953. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv . , Spec. Sci.

Rept.— Fish. (163): 49.
Koelz, W. 1929. Coregonid fishes of the Great Lakes. Bull . U .S . Bur . Fish .

43, 1927:297-643.

12

Scott, W. B. 1960. Summaries of research information on shortjaw cisco,

shortnose cisco, and blackfin cisco. Research Branch, Ont. Dept. Lands
and Forest. Research Information Paper (Fisheries) (9): 24.

Smith, S. H. 1964. Status of the deepwater cisco population of Lake Michigan.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc . , 93 (2): 155-163.

1^

ARCTIC GRAYLING Thymallus arcticus (Pallas, 1776)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

The grayling, now considered one species, was formerly in a separate family, the
THYMALLIDAE, and contained three species:

Thymallus signifer Richardson, 1823, Arctic grayling
Thymallus tricolor Cope, 1865, Michigan grayling (extinct)
Thymallus montanus Milner, 1874, Montana grayling

The Arctic grayling is neither rare nor endangered in Alaska

The paper is primarily concerned with the Montana form of the grayling and the following
remarks apply to the Montana form .

Distinguishing characteristics: Huge dorsal fin, particularly in the spawning male,
which is bluish-green with bright pink or red spots. The back is olive, shading into
a light purple on the sides and a bluish-white on the belly. Sides of body above pectorals
with irregular black spots . With adipose fin and large scales . Usual weight in Montana
is less than a pound .

Present distribution: Relict and transplanted populations exist in 20 lakes and 25 streams
in Montana, however substantial populations occur in only a few of these; 20 lakes in Utah;
3 lakes in Wyoming; 2 lakes in Washington, 1 lake in Colorado; and in Glacier and
Yellowstone National Parks .

Former distribution: The Arctic grayling was common in the Missouri River drainage
above Great Falls, mostly in Montana. The Michigan form was found in the upper part
of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan and the Otter River drainage in the Upper Peninsula.

Status: Very uncommon.

Estimated numbers: No data .

Fecundity: Grebe Lake, Yellowstone National Park--average 1,650 eggs per adult female;
Rogers Lake, Montana--range 1,000 to 15,000 eggs per female; averages 5,828 eggs per
female, 750-840 eggs per ounce and 2,737 eggs per female, 627 eggs per ounce.

Reasons for decline: Change of habitat resulting from timber removal; surface mining
and overgrazing; streams became warmer, gravel spawning areas became covered with silt
and sand . Beaver dams block spawning migrations . Water of some streams is used for
irrigation. Competition from other species, including brook trout, rainbow trout, and
suckers .

Protective measures already taken: Limited fishing permitted in grayling habitat on
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge . A counting weir was installed on Red Rock
Creek . Length of fishing season was reduced in other Montana waters . Hatchery
production varies considerably at State and National fish hatcheries. About a million fry,
10,000-20,000 fingerlings and 10,000-30,000 six-inch fish are reared annually.

14

Measures proposed: Protection of natural stream channels and bank cover; (Montana),
reduction in erosion from surface mining, grazing lands and roads; control of beaver
and removal of dams on spawning streams; control of water use for irrigation and
screening of irrigation diversion ditches; and experimental stocking in barren mountain
lakes. This species has been widely stocked with only very limited success.

Number in captivity: Not known .

Culture potential in captivity: Usually eggs and milt are taken from wild stock.

Remarks: None .

References:

Brown, C. J. D. 1938. Observations on the life-history and breeding habits of

the Montana grayling. Copeia, p. 132-136.
Kruse, T. E. 1959. Grayling of Grebe Lake, Yellowstone National Park,

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. Fishery Bull. 149.
Milner, J. W. 1874. Notes on the grayling of North America Report of the

Commissioner for 1872 and 1873, U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries

p. 729-742.
Nelson, P. H. 1954. Life history and management of the American grayling

(Thymallus signifer tricolor) in Montana . Jour, of Wild. Mgt., Vol. 18,

p. 324-342.
Smith, H. M and W. C. Kendall. 1921. Fishes of Yellowstone National Park,

U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 904, 30 pp.
Vincent, R. E. 1962. Biogeographical and ecological factors contributing to

the decline of Arctic grayling, Thymallus arcticus Pallas, in Michigan

and Montana. Dissertation Ph .D . Univ. Michigan (typed) 169 pp.
. 1965. Bibliography of the Arctic grayling, Thymallus arcticus,

of North America. Cir . 213, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

15 pp.

15

LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT Salmo clarki henshawi (Gill ar a Jordan, 1878)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

Significance This subspecies is an important and beautiful sport fish, which reaches a
large size (10 to 15 pounds) and is adapted to the highly alkaline waters of a few ancient
lakes in the Lahontan Basin .

Distinguishing characteristics: Sports large, evenly distributed; gillbrakers 21-28; pyloric
caeca typically 40-50; has a dash of red between the lower jaw and the isthmus; reaches a
larger size than other cutthroats.

Present distribution: Pure populations are known to be in Independence Lake , California ,
Macklin Creek, California, and Summit Lake, Nevada, and a few tributaries in the
Lahontan Basin. Possible hybrids are present in Pyramid and Walker Lakes, Catnip
Reservoir, Truckee, Carson and Walker Rivers in Nevada, and Heenan Lake in California.

Former distribution: Lahontan Basin , California and Nevada .

Status: Scarce . The original populations are extinct in Pyramid Lake and Lake Tahoe .

Estimated numbers: Dr. Robert J. Behnke estimates that there are about 1,000 to 2,000 of
the pure strain in Summit and Independence Lakes and about 1,000 in tributary streams.
The possible hybrid strains are common in the waters mentioned above, except for Walker
Lake where they are nearly extinct .

Fecundity: Adult females from Catnip Reservoir on the Sheldon National Antelope Refuge
average about 2,500 eggs per fish; 230 to 315 eggs per ounce; about 1,200 eggs per pound
of female .

Reasons for decline: Damage to spawning beds resulting from forest removal, fires and
overgrazing; dams which block spawning runs; pollution; diversion of water for irrigation;
and hybridization and competition with rainbow trout and other cutthroats.

Protective measures already taken: Rainbow trout and Heenan Lake cutthroat are no
longer stocked in Independence Lake; Summit Lake was placed in a special protected
category by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife is constructing the Lahontan National Fish Hatchery (1970) for the primary purpose
of rearing this subspecies. The hatchery began production in 1966. When completed,
the hatchery will produce about 125,000 pounds of cutthroat trout annually.

Measures proposed: Improvements of the lower Truckee River to permit natural spawning
are under consideration. Withdrawal of Macklin Creek into public ownership is also being
considered.

Number in captivity: About 2 million eggs are taken annually from wild fish. This results
in a million or so fry and several hundred thousand fingerlings.

16

Culture potential in captivity: The Lahontan cutthroat trout is difficult to rear . Until
disease-free brood stock are obtained, it is necessary to take eggs from wild fish.

References:

Fisk, L. 1972. Status of certain depleted inland fishes. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game,

Inland Fish Admin. Dept. No. 72-1: 13 p.
La Rivers, I. 1962. Fishes and fisheries of Nevada. Nevada State Fish and Game

Commission, 782 p.
Trelease, T. J. 1969. The death of a lake . The rebirth of a lake . Nevada

Outdoors and Wildlife Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, p. 4-14.

17

PAIUTE CUTTHROAT TROUT Salmo clarki seleniris (Snyder. 1933)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Highly colored, typically with orange-red dash on
dentary, few spots, ventral area clear white. Except for ventral surface, coloration
somewhat similar to golden trout.

Present distribution: Very limited- -Silver King Creek and its tributaries, Alpine
County, Cottonwood Creek, and Inyo County, California; Delaney Creek, Yosemite
National Park, California.

Former distribution: Alpine County, California, east of the Sierra Divide, in high
mountains .

Status: Greatly depleted and in peril .

Estimated numbers: 500 adults.

Fecundity: Not known.

Reasons for decline: Overfishing, hybridization with rainbow trout, and limited range.

Protective measures already taken: A few successful transplants have been made by
California Department of Fish and Game; hybrids were removed from Silver King Creek in
1965 and pure stock were introduced. Silver King Creek, Delaney Creek, and North Fork
of Cottonwood Creek closed to angling .

Measures proposed: A survey of the current status of the species and the development
of a plan for preservation, including establishment of pure populations.

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: No data .

Remarks: Data submitted by the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture and
Dr. Robert J. Behnke , Colorado Cooperative Fishery Unit, Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife .

References:

Anonymous. 1965. Preserving the Paiute. Outdoor California, Vol. 26, No. 3,

p. 3-4.
Fish, L. 1972. Status of certain depleted inland fishes. California Department of

Fish and Game, Inland Fish . Admin. Dept., No. 72-1: 13 p.
Snyder, J. O. 1934. A new California trout. Calif. Fish and Game 20(2): 105-112.
Wales, J. H. 1957. Trout of California . Department of Fish and Game,

Sacramento, California, 56 p.

18

GREENBACK CUTTHROAT TROUT Salmo clarki stomias (Cope, 1871)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

Significance: Original native cutthroat trout in Eastern Slope streams in the South Platte
River, Colorado.

Distinguishing characteristics: A small trout, rarely exceeding a pound in weight, general
color, green, dark to almost black dorsally, spots large and sparse, fin reddish, prominent
red throat; vertebrae 59-61; scales 180-215 in lateral series, 40-50 above lateral line;
pyloric caeca 30-40.,

Present distribution: Blackhollow Creek, Cache la Poudre River drainage and possibly
a few isolated streams in Boulder and Larimer Counties, Colorado.

Former distribution: Arkansas and Platte drainages, Colorado and Wyoming.

Status: In peril .

Estimated numbers: Only 10 pure specimens known, September 1968.

Fecundity: No data, probably similar to other cutthroats.

Reasons for decline: Deterioration of habitat due to man's activities, competition from
stocked trout, hybridization.

Protective measures already taken: Reclamation and restocking of certain waters in
Rocky Mountain National Park .

Measures proposed: Stocking in reclaimed suitable waters, barrier dams to isolate
populations, angling restrictions on certain streams, including Blackhollow Creek.

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Poor. Eggs can be taken from wild fish.

Remarks: Data submitted by the Colorado Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, by
Dr. Robert E. Vincent, and Dr. Robert J. Behnke, Colorado Cooperative Fishery Unit,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife .

References:

Dieffenbach, W. H. 1964. Taxonomy and selected life history of cutthroat trout
in the South Platte River Drainage, Colorado. Thesis, M.S., Colorado
State University, 45 p.

. 1966 . Taxonomy of the cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki Richardson)

of the South Platte Drainage, Colorado. Copeia, No. 3, p. 414-424.

Jordan, D. S. 1891. Report of explorations in Colorado and Utah during the
summer of 1889, with an account of the fishes found in each of the river
basins examined. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm . , Vol. 9, p. 1-40.

19

RIO GRANDE CUTTHROAT TROUT Salmo clarki virginalis (Girard, 1856)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

Significance: Original native cutthroat trout in the Rio Grande drainage in Colorado.

Distinguishing characteristics: A large trout, reaches 24 to 30 inches in length,
vertebrae 60-63; scales 145-175 in lateral series, 35-40 above lateral line.

Present distribution: Headwater streams on Trinchera Ranch, tributaries to Rio Grands,
Costilla County, Colorado; also, a few streams in Sandoval and Taos Counties in northern
New Mexico .

Former distribution: Headwaters of the upper Rio Grande drainage .

Status: Scarce .

Estimated numbers: No data.

Fecundity: Probably similar to other cutthroats .

Reasons for decline: Pollution, water diversion for irrigation, hybridization with
introduced species, competition with introduced trouts .

Protective measures already taken: Brood stock were collected by the Colorado Game,
Fish and Parks Department for propagation purposes; one stream in New Mexico is
closed to fishing and a barrier was installed.

Measures proposed: Introduction in a new lake; culture for stocking suitable waters
in the Rio Grande basin.

Number in captivity: No data .

Breeding potential in captivity: No data .

Remarks: Data submitted by Drs . R. E. Vincent and R.J. Behnke, Colorado Cooperative
Fishery Unit, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Region 3, U.S. Forest Service.

References:

Green, W. S. , Jr. 1937. Colorado trout. Colorado Museum of Natural History

Popular Series No. 2, 48 p .
Jordan, D. S. and B. W. Evermann. 1902. American food and game fish.

Doubleday, Page & Co., N.Y. 572 p.

20

HUMBOLDT CUTTHROAT TROUT Salmo clarki (subsp . )

Order: SALMONIFORNIES Family: SALMONIDAE

Significance: This hardy cutthroat trout has been able to thrive as pure populations
in waters which have been heavily stocked with Yellowstone cutthroat, rainbow, and
brook trouts .

Distinguishing characteristics: Spots medium-large, evenly distributed on body;
scales in lateral series typically 125-145; gillrakers 19-23.

Present distribution: In about 20-30 small, headwater tributaries in Humboldt River
drainage of Lahontan Basin, Nevada.

Former distribution: Probably throughout Humboldt River system .

Status: Very uncommon.

Estimated numbers: Populations vary according to size and conditions of streams from
only a few dozen in areas where total habitat is restricted to one or two spring fed
beaver ponds up to perhaps 1,000 individuals in the better streams. Most of these
streams probably have less than 100 adult trout because the habitat is severely limited
in this harsh, dry climate.

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Deterioration and destruction of habitat due to agricultural
practices and mining .

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: None .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Reference:

Behnke, R.J. 1960. Taxonomy of the cutthroat trout of the Great Basin.
M.S. Thesis, University of California, Department of Zoology.

21

LITTLE KERN GOLDEN TROUT Salmo aquabonita gilberti (Jordan, 1894)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Yellow-golden sides, often orange ventral region;
dorsal, anal and pelvic fins tipped with white or orange; scales in lateral series,
140-175, above lateral line 32-38; pyloric caeca, 30-45; vertebrae 60-63; gillrakers
19-22.

Present distribution: Little Kern River and tributaries above falls near confluence

with Doda Springs Creek and upper Coyote Creek, tributary to main Kern River, Sequoia

National Forest, California.

Former distribution: All of the originally inhabitated trout waters of the Kern River
basin, excluding the South Fork of the Kern.

Status: Scarce .

Estimated numbers: Perhaps a few thousand.

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Hybridization with hatchery rainbow trout.

Protective measures already taken: Introductions ceased in Little Kern basin;
Colorado Cooperative Fishery Unit Project funded by National Park Service for
study of the present trout populations of upper Kern basin — to be completed spring, 1969.

Measures proposed: Introductions into barren or reclaimed waters .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Data submitted by Dr. Robert J. Behnke, Colorado Cooperative Fishery Unit,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Reference:

Behnke, R. J. 1973. (Personal communications).

Schreck, C. B. 1969. Trouts of the upper Kern River Basin, California.

Thesis, M.S., Colorado State University.
and R.J. Behnke. 1971. Trouts of the Upper Kern River Basin,

California with reference to systematics and evolution of Western North American

Salmo . J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 28:987-998.

22

GILA TROUT Salmo gilae (Miller , 1950)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Extremely fine , profuse spotting on dorsal and
anal fins; large adipose fin; body deep golden yellow.

Present distribution: Restricted to Diamond, McKenna and Spruce Creeks in the
Black Range Primitive Area of the headwaters of the Gila River, Gila National Forest,
New Mexico .

Former distribution: Widespread in all suitable upper tributaries of the Gila and
San Francisco Rivers in New Mexico.

Status : Precarious condition .

Estimated numbers: 4, 300 in Diamond Creek .

Fecundity: 200 to 600 eggs per adult female.

Reasons for decline: Modification of habitat resulting from forest removal and the
introduction of exotic trout competitors .

Protective measures already taken: Streams are closed to fishing and to the introduction
of exotics; stream improvement devices were rebuilt; studies have been implemented.

Measures proposed: Introduction in a barren stream further north where water flows
are more stable; propagation and restocking in reclaimed streams near present habitat.

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: No data .

Remarks: Data submitted by Dr. Robert R. Miller, University of Michigan, and
Dr. Robert E. Vincent, Colorado State University.

References:

Miller, R. R. 1950. Notes on the cutthroat and rainbow trouts with the
description of a new species from the Gila River, New Mexico, Occ .
Pap . Mus . Zool . Univ . Mich . , No . 529 , 42 p .

Regan, D. M. 1964. Ecology of the Gila trout, Salmo gilae, in Main Diamond
Creek, New Mexico. Thesis, M.S. Colorado State University, 57 p.

23

ARIZONA (APACHE) TROUT Salmosp.

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Similar to Gila trout, Salmo gilae; differs in that
the Arizona trout has larger and fewer spots on the dorsal and anal fins, narrower
body width, smaller adipose fin and larger pectoral, pelvic, and dorsal fins.

Present distribution: Ord Creek and East Fork of White River, Christmas Tree and
Sun Moon Lakes; Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona.

Former distribution: Widespread in suitable upper tributaries of the White and
Black Rivers .

Status: Jeopardized. Presently restricted to two small streams and two small lakes.

Estimated numbers: No data .

Fecundity: 200 to 500 eggs per adult female.

Reasons for decline: Modification of habitat resulting from forest removal; introduction
of exotic trout competitors .

Protective measures already taken: Several streams in Arizona were stocked by the
State. Ord Creek and the upper East Fork of the White River are closed to fishing.
Barrier dams were constructed on both streams . The White Mountain Apache Tribe
constructed two lakes for this trout .

Measures proposed: Increased hatchery production. Restock in suitable reclaimed
waters .

Number in captivity: Several thousand at Arizona State hatchery.

Culture potential in captivity: Propagated in similar manner to the propagation of
rainbow and other trouts .

References:

Miller, R. R. 1950. Notes on the cutthroat and rainbow trouts with the

description of a new species from the Gila River, New Mexico. Occ . Pap.
Mus . Zool . Univ . Mich . . No . 529 , 42 p .
Regan, D. M. 1964. Comparison of morphometric measurements for Gila trout

and Ord Creek trout. Report (typed) Fed. Aid Project F-22-R, New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish, 20 p.

24

SUNAPEE TROUT Salvelinus aureolus (Bean. 1887)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Back brownish colored, without vermiculation; anal rays
usually eight.

Present distribution: Flood's Pond, Hancock County, Maine.

Former distribution: Irregularly in Lakes in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine.

Status: Very uncommon and restricted.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Fecundity: Similar to brook trout.

Reasons for decline: Extensive hybridization following introductions of other chars to
the native waters of these species .

Protective measures already taken: Flood's Pond is closed to fishing as a public water
supply. Introduction of other species to the pond is actively opposed.

Measures proposed: None .

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: No data .

Remarks: Attempts to propagate this species in other New England states have led to
extensive hybridization thus making it almost impossible to define the sunapee trout as
a taxon other than to refer to the Flood's Pond population. Apparently pure stocks of
this "species" cannot exist sympatrically with the lake trout, therefore artificial
propagation and distribution to preserve this species are not recommended.

Data submitted by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game, Division of
Fishery Research and Management.

References:

Everhart, W. H. 1958. Fishes of Maine . The Maine Department Inland Fisheries

and Game . Augusta.

and C. A. Waters. 1965. Life history of the blueback trout

(Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus (Linnaeus) in Maine. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc,

Vol. 94, No. 4, p. 393-397.
Jordan, D. S. and B. W. Evermann . 1902. American food and game fish.

Doubleday, Page & Co., N.Y. 572 p.
Kendall, W. C. 1914. Fishes and fishing in Sunapee Lake. Rpt. Comm . Fish. 1912,

Bur. Fish. Doc. No. 783, 96 p.

25

BLUEBACK TROUT Salvelinus alpinus oquassa (Girard, 1854)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family: SALMONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Back dark blue, without vermiculation; anal rays
usually nine or ten.

Present distribution: At least eight lakes in the head-waters of the St. John and
Penobscot Rivers, Northwestern Maine.

Status: Scarce. Exact taxonomic position of this fish is unresolved.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Fecundity: No data .

Reasons for decline: Unrestricted exploitation of the spawning runs in some localities.
Decline may also be related to increased populations of landlocked salmon in the
Rangeley Lakes .

Protective measures already taken: Restrictive creel limit, prevention of introduction
of undesirable competing species in waters inhabited by blueback trout.

Measures proposed: None .

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown. (Unsuccessful, 1963) .

Remarks: Existing populations are generally not very desirable from the angler's
viewpoint. Usually available for angling only in the spring and in the fall during
spawning season. Under present conditions, the only danger to this species would
be the introduction of a more successful competitor. Data submitted by the Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Game, Division of Fishery Research and Management.

References:

Everhart, W. H. 1958. Fishes of Maine . The Maine Department of Inland

Fisheries and Game. Augusta.
and C. A. Waters. 1965. Life history of the blueback trout

(Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus (Linnaeus) in Maine, Trans. Am.

Fish. Soc, Vol. 94, No. 4, p. 393-397.
Jordan, D. S. and B. W. Evermann . 1902. American food and game fish.

Doubleday, Page & Co. , N.Y. 572 p.

26

OLYMPIC MUDMINNOW Novumbra hubbsi (Schultz, 1929)

Order: SALMONIFORMES Family; UMBRIDAE

Significance: This species is of interest to ichthyologists as it is a relict population
which is found only in three streams in the Olympic Peninsula in western Washington.
Except for the taxonomic description, very little is known about this small fish.

Distinguishing characteristics: A small fish, about li to 2^ inches long. Differs from
Umbra in having more than 47 scales along the lateral line and does not have a dark bar
at the base of the tail. Differs from the Alaskan blackfish, Dallia pectoralis in that the
caudal fin of the Olympic mudminnow is slightly concave whereas the caudal fin in
Dallia is rounded.

Present distribution: Chehalis River watershed, specifically from the Satsop River and
the Deschutes River in the Olympic Peninsula in western Washington.

Former distribution: According to Schultz (1929) this mudminnow is a representative
of an ancient fauna which extended across the North American continent prior to the
elevation of the Rocky Mountains. Fossil remains are found in the Eocene Green River
Shales of Wyoming .

Status: Greatly restricted habitat .

Estimated numbers: No data .

Fecundity: Not known .

Reasons for decline: Change in habitat during geological history.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Suitable habitat should be set aside as a sanctuary.

Number in captivity: No live specimens .

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Fitzgerald, J. W. 1957. Range extension for the western mudminnow,

Novumbra hubbsi Schultz . Copeia, p. 248.
Meldrim, J. W. 1968. The ecological zoogeography of the Olympic mudminnow

Novumbra hubbsi Schultz . Thesis, Ph.D., University of Washington , 157 p,
Schultz, L. P. 1929. Description of a new type of mudminnow from western

Washington with notes on related species. Publications in Fisheries,

University of Washington, Vol. 2, No. 6, p. 73-81.

27

DESERT DACE Eremichthys acros (Hubbs and Miller, 1948)

Order: CYPRINIFORMES Family: CYPRINIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A monotypic genus of small minnows with 5-4 teeth,
prominent horny sheaths on each jaw, and fine scales (70-80 in lateral line) that
bear radii on all fields .

Present distribution: Known only from Soldier Meadows west of the Black Rock Desert
in Humboldt County, Nevada.

Former distribution: Believed to be a relict form that is now restricted to warm-
spring habitats .

Status: Scarce. Dr. Robert R. Miller now believes this species exists in larger
numbers than previously known and its status should be considered less precarious
than previously thought, (pers . comm . Dr. Willis King).

Estimated numbers: At least 100,000 in 1965 (Dr. R. R. Miller).

Fecumdity: No data .

Reasons for decline: Habitat destruction by use of bulldozer in diverting water has
eliminated the species from some areas where it was formerly plentiful .

Protective measures already taken: None

Measures proposed: Set aside part of warm-spring habitat as a sanctuary or
wildlife monument.

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Like Moapa coriacea, this fish represents an endemic, relict genus of great
scientific interest. Data submitted by Dr. Robert R. Miller, University of Michigan.

References:

Hubbs, C. L. and R. R. Miller. 1948. Two new relict genera of cyprinid

fishes from Nevada . Occ. Pap. Mus . Zool . , Univ. Mich., No. 507, 30 p .
La Rivers, I. 1962. Fish and fisheries of Nevada. Nevada State Fish and Game

Commission, 782 p.

28

HUMPBACK CHUB Gila cypha (Miller, 1946)

Order: CYPRINIFORMES Family: CYPRINIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A strongly compressed Gila with the sides of the body
slightly convex and with a prominent abrupt hump over the occiput; body almost entirely
devoid of scales (except along lateral line) which have basal radii. Fins expansive,
flacate; snout fleshy; mouth inferior; eye very small .

Present distribution: Green and Colorado Rivers , from Grand Canyon area northward
to vicinity of Flaming Gorge Dam on Utah-Wyoming border.

Former distribution: Unknown .

Status: Occurs in such small numbers in widely separated places that it is considered
as probably in jeopardy.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Unknown .

Protective measures already taken: Research studies are now attempting to determine the
distribution, abundance, and ecology of this form and to determine its proper taxonomic status.

Measures proposed: Continuation of the above research studies .

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: This fish has been taken in very small numbers from widely separated points in
the Green and Colorado Rivers. The original specimens came from the Grand Canyon. Six
or seven additional specimens were taken from the Hideout Flat area of the Green River
near the Wyoming line (now inundated by Flaming Gorge Dam) . Additional fish have been
taken in the Lee's Ferry area of the Colorado River and in the Green River near the
confluence of the White and Duchesne Rivers. Data submitted by Dr . D. R. Franklin, Utah
Cooperative Fishery Unit, Utah State University.

References:

Miller, R. R. 1946. Gila cypha, a remarkable new species of cyprinid fish from
the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Jour. Wash. Acad. Sci . ,
Vol. 36, No. 12, p. 409-415.

. 1961 .Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest.
Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts, and Letters . 46(1960), p. 365-404.
Holden, P. B. 1970. Systematic studies of cyprinid genus Gila in the upper Colorado
River Basin. Copeia . No. 3, pp. 409-420.

29

PAHRANAGAT BONYTAIL Gila robusta jordani

Order: CYPRINIFORMES Family: CYPRINIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Similar to Gila robusta robusta but differs by being
less elongate, having more scales above, below and on the lateral line and in coloration.

Present distribution: Outflow of Crystal and Ash Spring, Pahranagat Valley,
Lincoln County, Nevada.

Former distribution: Throughout most of the streams in Pahranagat Valley .

Status: In jeopardy because of extreme localization.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Irrigation development and establishment of competitive and
predatory exotic species throughout the range of this species .

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Transplant the species into suitable habitat.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably poor .

Remarks: Collecting trips to Pahranagat Valley in 1967 and 1968 resulted in locating
very few of these fishes. La Rivers (1962) saw the species at Crystal Spring in 1948-49.
Tanner (1950) designated Crystal Spring the type locality. The fish currently appears
to be restricted to a small population living in a short section of stream above a main
irrigation ditch which accepts the combined outflow from Crystal and Ash Springs. It
has not been seen or taken in the outflow from Crystal Spring above the confluence with
Ash Spring waters. Submitted by Dr. James E. Deacon, Nevada Southern University,
Las Vegas, Nevada, September 8, 1968.

Reference:

Deacon, J. E. Unpublished data .

30

MOHAVE CHUB Gila (Siphateles) mohavensis (Snyder, 1918)

Order: CYPRINIFORMES Family: CYPRINIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A lacustrine-type chub with 18 to 29 (usually 21-27)
gill rakers, a moderately oblique mouth, and a slender pharyngeal arch.

Present distribution: A pure population is known only from Lake Tuendae, Zzyzx
Resort, 9 miles south of Baker, California. Similar chubs have been located in the
Owens River, but have not yet been identified (1970) .

Former distribution: Mohave River basin, California.

Status: Jeopardized .

Estimated numbers: Several thousand.

Fecundity: No data .

Reasons for decline: Introduction of exotic fish competitors, particularly, Gila orcutti,
the arroyo chub, with which the native species has hybridized.

Protective measures already taken: The California Department of Fish and Game has
introduced this species in 3 other areas (1969-1970) . The owner of the Resort is
sympathetic toward maintaining the species . Classed endangered and protected by
California law .

Measures proposed: Surveillance of transplant areas and additional transplants .

Number in captivity: None .

Ctilture potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Data provided by Dr. Robert R. Miller, University of Michigan and the
California Department of Fish and Game . Recommended as endangered by Desert
Fishes Council.

References:

Hubbs, C. L. and R. R. Miller. 1943. Mass hybridization between two genera

of cyprinid fishes in the Mohave Desert, California. Pap. Mich. Acad.

Sci., Arts, and Letters, 28. p. 343-378.
Miller, R. R. 1968. Records of some native freshwater fishes transplanted

into various waters of California, Baja, California, and Nevada. California

Fish and Game, Vol. 54, No. 3, p. 170-179.

31

LITTLE COLORADO SPINEDACE Lepidomeda vittata (Cope, 1874)

Order: CYPRINIFORMES Family: CYPRINIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A two to four-inch silvery minnow with the 2 anterior
dorsal rays spinelike, 8 anal rays, pharyngeal teeth in main row 4-4, and lateral-line
scales usually more than 90 .

Present distribution: Upper part of the Little Colorado River basin, eastern Arizona,

Former distribution: Similar to present, only more abundant and widespread.

Status: Very uncommon . Found only in a few streams .

Estimated numbers: No data.

Fecundity: Egg counts for 12 females ranged from 650 to 5,600 (2-4 inch fish) .

Reasons for decline: Reductions in stream flow, introduction of exotics, domestic
pollution, and chemical rehabilitation of habitat.

Protective measures already taken: U.S. Forest Service considers the possible effects
on habitat by any new projects in the area; a refuge was established on East Clear Creek.

Measures proposed: Prevent introductions of exotic fishes; restrict collecting; introduce
this species in another drainage.

Number in captivity; None .

Culture potential in captivity; Unknown .

References:

Miller, R. R. 1963. Distribution, variation, and ecology of Lepidomeda vittata,

a rare cyprinid fish endemic to eastern Arizona. Copeia, 1963, No. 1, p. 1-5.
Minckley, W. L. and L. H. Carufel . 1967. The Little Colorado River spinedace,

Lepidomeda vittata, in Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist, Vol. 12, No. 3,

p. 291-302.

32

MOAPA DACE Moapa coriacea (Hubbs and Miller, 1948)

Order: CYPRINIFORMES Family: CYPRINIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A monotypic genus with 5-4 dentition, hidden pre-
maxillary frenum, small (70-80) deeply embedded scales in leathery-textured skin, and
a prominent black spot at caudal base .

Present distribution: Restricted to warm springs and their outlets near source of
Moapa (Muddy) River, Clark County, Nevada.

Former distribution: Not known to be different from present .

Status: In peril .

Estimated numbers: 500 to 1,000.

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: The springs and headwaters of Moapa River are being altered for
various commercial domestic water uses; competition from exotic species; only one
population remains completely undisturbed.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Set aside Warm Springs Ranch as a wildlife monument; prevent
habitat alteration by man .

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Not likely to reproduce well .

Remarks: This genus is known only from a very restricted area; it is a biological relict
threatened by exotic species (gambusia, bullfrogs) and a proposed irrigation and dam
project. Data submitted by Dr. Robert R. Miller, University of Michigan, and Dr. James E,
Deacon, Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas.

References:

Hubbs , C . L . and R . R . Miller . 1948 . Two new , relict genera of cyprinid fishes

from Nevada. Occ. Pap. Mus . Zool. Univ. of Mich., No. 507, 30 p .
La Rivers, I. 1962. Fish and fisheries of Nevada, Nevada State Fish and Game

Commission, 782 p.
Minckley, W. L. and J. E. Deacon. 1968. Southwestern fishes and the enigma of

"endangered fishes." Science 159 (3822) , p . 1424-1432 .

33

WOUNDFIN Plagopterus argentissimus (Cope, 1874)

Order: CYPRINIFORMES Family: CYPRINIDAE

Significance: This, the most specialized of the 3 genera of the Plagopterini , is
ecologically restricted to a swift-river habitat.

Distinguishing characteristics: A member of the specialized New World tribe Plagopterini
(with spinelike rays in dorsal and pelvic fins) that lacks scales, has the head and belly
flattened, is bright silvery, has a well developed barbel, has the intermandibular region
spongy , a long first dorsal spine , and a nearly horizontal mouth .

Present distribution: Now virtually restricted to the Virgin River below Hurricane, Utah.

Former distribution: The lower Colorado and Gila River basins in Arizona, Nevada and
Utah.

Status: Jeopardized.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Modification of habitat by man. The species is adapted to life in
sandy, swift, turbid rivers.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Research to determine habitat requirements so as to establish a
population elsewhere if the proposed dam above St. George, Utah, is funded. If the
dam is not built, establish the Virgin River below the narrows as a sanctuary.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: It is questionable whether the species can be cultured.

Remarks: Data provided by Dr. James E. Deacon, Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas,
and Dr. Robert R. Miller, University of Michigan.

References:

La Rivers, I. 1962. Fish and fisheries of Nevada . Nevada State Fish and Game

Commission, 782 p.
Miller, R. R. and C. L. Hubbs . 1960. The spiny-rayed cyprinid fishes

(Plagopterini) of the Colorado River system. Misc. Publ . Mus . Zool . Univ.

Mich., 115, 39 p.
Minckley, W. L. and J. E. Deacon. 1968. Southwestern fishes and the enigma of

"endangered species." Science, 159 (3822). p. 1424-1432.

34

COLORADO SQUAWFISH Ptychocheilus lucius (Girard, 1856)

Order: CYPRINIFORMES Family: CYPRINIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Body slender, dusky-greenish above, sides silvery,
belly yellowish to whitish; long, slender, depressed head, caudal peduncle stout, lateral
line decurved, eye small, pharyngeal teeth 2, 5-4, 2; dorsal and anal fin rays 9.

Present distribution: Middle and lower Green River, main Colorado River above Lake
Powell , and Salt River .

Former distribution: Widely distributed in the Colorado River and major tributaries .

Status: Seriously depleted .

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Fecundity: Natural reproduction is known to occur only in the Yampa River and the
Green River below the mouth of the Yampa down to the confluence of the Colorado River.

Reasons for decline: Modification of habitat by man through construction of large
reservoirs . The species will not reproduce in cold tailwaters below high dams nor in
reservoirs behind these dams. The species is adapted to life in turbid, swift, warm
rivers. Introduced fishes may have a decimating effect in waters not affected by dams.

Measures proposed: No water developments should be made on the Yampa River upstream
from Dinosaur National Monument which would lower the stream temperature to that below
the levels required for reproduction of the species . Studies on ecological and reproductive
requirements should be continued.

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: The very specialized ecological requirements for spawning and successful
natural reproduction are the major factors contributing to the reduction in numbers of
this species .

References:

Girard, C. 1856. Researches upon the cyprinoid fishes inhabiting the fresh waters of
the United States of America, west of the Mississippi Valley, from specimens
of the Smithsonian Institution. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Proc . 8 (1856), p. 165-213.

Miller, R. R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest.
Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts and Letters. Vol. 46, (1960), p. 365-404.

Vanicek, C. D. and R. H. Kramer. 1969. Life history of the Colorado squawfish,
Ptychocheilus lucius, and the Colorado Chub, Gila robusta, in the Green River
in Dinosaur National Monument, 1964-1966, Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc . Vol. 98.
No. 2. p. 193-208.

Vanicek, C. D., R. H. Kramer and the late D. R. Franklin. 1970. Distribution of

Green River fishes in Utah and Colorado following closure of Flaming Gowge Dam.
Southwest. Nat. Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 297-315.

35

KENDALL WARM SPRINGS DACE Rhinichthys osculus thermalis (Hubbs)

Order: CYPRINIFORMES Family: CYPRINIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Smaller and with fewer scales than Green River dace .
When breeding, the males are purplish, females greenish in color, 2-3 inches long.

Present distribution: This subspecies is apparently a result of geographical isolation.
It is found only in Kendall Warm Springs , tributary to the Green River in Wyoming and
near the site of the old Kendall R . S . , Bridger N .F .

Former distribution: Same as above .

Status: In peril because of comparatively small population, small area of habitat, and
easy access to it. Exact taxonomic position of this fish is unresolved.

Estimated numbers: Not known .

Breeding rate in the wild: Known to spawn from June to September .

Reasons for decline: Limited habitat and use by fishermen for bait.

Protective measures already taken: Unknown .

Measures proposed: Prohibit seining or otherwise taking fish from Kendall Warm Springs .

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Kendall Warm Springs should be set aside as a sanctuary much like the
Kirtland Warbler Area and reserved for the Kendall Warm Springs Dace . This is the only
place this subspecies exists . The stream in which it lives is made up of the flow from a
group of warm springs and is isolated from the Green River by a ten foot waterfall built
up by its own deposits . The stream has a depth of only one to two feet and a temperature
of 85 degrees F. The altitude is approximately 7,800 feet. There has been a proposal for
a B. of R. dam on the Green River which would inundate these springs. Should this
transpire, the existing population could only be preserved by transplanting to a suitable
site .

References:

Green, A. F. C. Personal records.

Simon, J. R. 1946. Wyoming fishes. Wyoming Game & Fish Department Bulletin
No. 4, 129 pp.

36

WHITE RIVER (MOUNTAIN) SUCKER Catostomus dark! intermedius (Tanner, 1942)

Order CYPRINIFORMES Family: CATOSTOMIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Less than 35 scales anterior to the dorsal fin; fontanelle
closed; notch at each corner of mouth; edge of jaw inside lower lip with a hard cartila-
ginous sheath; head long and slender, depth about 2/3 of the length; interorbital width
2.1 o^ Vngth; width of mouth contained four times in length of head; papillae in 4 rows
on upper lip and 8-9 rows on lower lip.

Present distribution: Remnant waters of the pluvial White River in White River Valley,
Nevada . §

Former distribution: Same as present .

Status: A matter of concern. Situation reported as improving (1972) .

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Decline not documented but suspected as a result of irrigation
alterations of streamflow and establishment of exotic fishes.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: None .

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Remnant waters still contain populations of this form . Former abundance cannot
be documented but the alterations of habitat and establishment of Cyprinus carpio, Lebistes
reticulatus and Gambusia affinis in waters occupied by Catostomus clarki intermedius
suggest that the latter species may not be as abundant as formerly. It can still be
collected with some effort in cooler springs and their outflows in White River Valley. Data
provided by Dr. James E. Deacon, Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas.

References:

La Rivers, 1. 1962. Fishes and fisheries of Nevada. Nevada State Fish and

Game Commission, 782 p.
Smith, G. 1966. Distribution and evolution of the North American Catostomid
fishes of the subgenus Pantosteus , genus Catostomus, Univ. Mich. Mus .
Zool. Misc. Publ. 129, 132 p.

37

MODOC SUCKER Catostomus microps (Rutter, 1908)

Order: CYPRINIFORMES Family: CATOSTOMIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small, dusky sucker with orange fins; D. 10 or 11,
the fin rounded; 73-91 scales in lateral line; eye small; posterior fontanelle of skull
of adult very narrow to closed.

Present distribution: Found in Rush Creek, a small tributary to Ash Creek, and in
Ash Creek, near Adin, Modoc County, California; in the Pit River drainage of the
Sacramento River basin .

Former distribution: Not known to be different from present distribution.

Status: Scarce but more fish found and distributed more widely than previously realized.
Collected (May 10, 1968) by California Department of Fish and Game to determine whether
the species still survives (it had been reported to be extinct). Its survival not threatened.
Habitat reasonably secured and recent observations indicate wider distribution than
formerly known (pers . comm. L. Fisk) .

Estimated numbers: Fair numbers .

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: No definite data on former decline, but probably habitat alteration.

Protective measures already taken: Fully protected under California Fish and Game
code. Portions of known habitat on Forest Service land.

Measures proposed: Set aside a section of Rush Creek as a natural area .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: This species is believed to be a disjunct, southern relict related to the
longnose sucker, Catostomus catostomus . It is sympatric with the Sacramento sucker,
Catostomus occidentalis (J. K. Winther, pers. comm., 1967). Data provided by
Dr. Robert R. Miller, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Collected in Rush Creek
in 1969, 1970 and 1971. Discovered in Ash Creek in 1971.

Reference:

Fisk, L. 1972. Status of certain depleted inland fishes . California Department of

Fish and Game, Inland Fish Admin. Dept. , No. 72-1: 13 p.
Rutter, C. 1908. The fishes of the Sacramento/San Joaquin basin, with a

study of their distribution and variation. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish., 27 (1907):

103-152, figs. 1-4, pi. 6.

38

CUI-UI Chasmistes cujus (Cope, 1883)

Order: CYPRINIFORMES Family: CATOSTOMIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A large, heavy-bodied sucker, commonly reaches 6
pounds in weight, with subterminal mouth, thin non-papillose lips, oblique lower jaw,
and fewer than 70 scales in the lateral line .

Present distribution: Pyramid Lake, Washoe County, Nevada.

Former distribution: Pyramid and Winnemucca Lakes and the lower part of Truckee
River, Nevada.

Status: Seriously depleted. The relict lake suckers of the genus Chasmistes (3 recognized
living species) are either extinct or threatened. This one has the best chance for survival.
It is of both economic (to the Indians) and biological importance.

Fecundity: Not known. Eggs are small and numerous.

Reasons for decline: Declining flow in lower Truckee River due to dams and irrigation.

Protective measures already taken: Catch limits have been imposed on non-Indians .
Plans have been suggested for spawning habitat restoration.

Measures proposed: Restoration of spawning access and habitat . Increased effort at
artificial propagation and stocking of young in Pyramid Lake and, if possible, in some
other suitable lake .

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Has not been reared in captivity beyond the yolk-sac
stage.

Remarks: This is a relict genus with 3 recognized living species inhabiting western
lakes . It was more widespread and speciose in the Plio-Pleistocene epochs . Data
submitted by Dr. Robert R. Miller, University of Michigan and by the Nevada Fish
and Game Department.

References:

Johnson, V. K. 1958. Pyramid Lake . Fisheries Management Report . Nevada

Fish and Game Commission, Dingell Johnson Project FAF-4R, 47 p. ,

17 graphs, 3 maps, 3 tables.
La Rivers, I. 1962. Fish and fisheries of Nevada. Nevada State Fish and Game

Comm. , 782 p .
Miller, R. R. 1965. Quaternary freshwater fishes of North America. In press

in INQUA volume to be distributed in August at Boulder, Colorado.

, and G. R. Smith. 1967. New fossil fishes from Plio-Pleistocene

Lake, Idaho. Occ . Pap. Mus . Zool . Univ. Mich., No. 654, 24 p.
Snyder, J. O. 1917. The fishes of the Lahontan system of Nevada and northeastern

California. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish., 35 (1915-16): 31-86. figs. 1-9, pis. 3-4,

1 map .

39

OZARK CAVEFISH Amblyopsis rosae (Eigenmann, 1899)

Order: PERCOPSIFORMES Family: AMBLYOPSIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Postcleithrum absent, sensory papillae in 2 or 3 rows
on upper and lower half of caudal fin, pelvic fins absent.

Present distribution: Known only from a few caves and wells in southwestern Missouri
and northwestern Arkansas .

Former distribution: About the same as present.

Status: In need of careful watching .

Estimated numbers: Cave populations range from 20 to 100 .

Fecundity: About 20 eggs per female . Only 20 percent of the population breeds each
year.

Reasons for decline: No data . There is a danger of overcollecting .

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Acquisition of certain caves and restriction of collection.

Number in captivity: Dr. T. L. Poulson has a few at Yale University.

Culture potential in captivity: No data.

Remarks: This species lives in underground water and moves from one spring or cave
pool to another by underground water passages common in the Ozarks. Data submitted
by the Missouri Conservation Commission.

References:

Poulson, T. L. 1963. Cave adaptation in amblyopsid fishes. Amer. Midi. Nat.,

Vol. 70, No. 2, p. 257-290.
Woods, L. P. and R. F. Inger . 1957. The cave, spring and swamp fishes of the

family Amblyopsidae of central and eastern United States. Amer. Midi. Nat.

Vol. 58. No. 1, p. 232-256.

40

DEVILS HOLE PUPFISH Cyprinodon diabolis (Wales, 1932)

Order: ATHERINIFORMES Family: CYPRINODONTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small size (generally less than 25 mm. S.L.), no pelvic
fins, caudal fin convex, no vertical bars in females.

Present distribution: Restricted to a single, spring-fed pool in Ash Meadows,
Nye County, Nevada, east of Death Valley California.

Former distribution: Likely a Pliocene relict .

Status: Jeopardized.

Estimated numbers: 300 to 800; at times as few as 125 breeding adults .

Fecundity: Good if undisturbed .

Reasons for decline: Decline of water level in Devils Hole . This is possibly due to
removal of water from the aquifer for irrigation.

Protective measures already taken: 40 acres set aside in 1952 as a detached section of
Death Valley National Monument. In 1967, a new fence was added. In 1970, an artificial
spawning platform was added. Electric lights were installed over the platform.

Measures proposed: Continued surveillance by National Park Service personnel.
Attempt to establish this pupfish in other suitable habitats.

Number in captivity: Alan McCrady, Sacramento, California, has a few which he is
rearing in aquaria .

Culture potential in captivity: Good, but temperature must be kept around 90 degrees F.
and heavy algae growths must be maintained .

Remarks: Any species as restricted in distribution and number as is this one must be
considered to be threatened. Since its legal protection, its existence has at times been
more precarious than heretofore. Data submitted by Dr. Robert R. Miller, University
of Michigan, and by Dr. John P. Harville, San Jose State College.

References:

Cry California. 1970. Special report on the pupfish of the Death Valley region.

Jour, of California Tomorrow, Vol. 5, No. 2, spring 1970, San Francisco, 26 p.
Miller , R . R . 1948 . The cyprinodont fishes of the Death Valley system of eastern

California and southwestern Nevada. Misc. Publ. Mus . Zool . Univ. Mich.,

68, 155 p.

. 1961 . Speciation rates in some freshwater fishes of western North

America. In: Vertebrate Speciation , W . Frank Blair , Ed . Univ . Texas Press ,

1961, p. 537-560.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1970. A task force report on let's save the desert

pupfish . Washington , D . C . , 8 p .

41

COMANCHE SPRINGS PUPFISH Cyprinodon elegans (Baird and Girard, 1853)

Order: ATHERINIFORMES Family: CYPRINODONTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Slender body, crossbars absent on sides.

Present distribution: Outflow (irrigation ditches) of Phantom Lake Spring, near
Toyahvale , Texas .

Former distribution: Large springs at Fort Stockton, Phantom Lake (now dry) and
adjoining springs .

Status: Precarious condition. Numbers greatly diminished in past 20 years.

Estimated numbers: Not available .

Fecundity: Excellent when undisturbed .

Reasons for decline: Use of fish toxins, introduction of aggressive competitors, and
lowering of water table.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Set aside a suitable area in present range as sanctuary.

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown, but other species of this genus have been
reared with success.

Remarks: This endemic Texan species was very abundant in its native springs in 1938.
Since about 1950 it has been increasingly threatened by man's activities until its total
population is only a fraction of what it was . Data submitted by Dr. Robert R. Miller,
University of Michigan.

References:

Miller, R. R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American southwest.

Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts, and Letters, 46 (I960): 365-404, fig. 1.
Moore, G. A. 1957. Fishes. In_: Vertebrates of the United States . McGrawHill,

Inc. p. 157.

42

TECOPA PUPFISH Cyprinodon nevadensis calidae (Miller, 1948)

Order: ATHERINIFORMES Family: CYPRINODONTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A large-scaled form of the Cyprinodon nevadensis with
narrower interorbital , more posteriorly placed pelvic fins, and a wider body.

Present distribution: A reservoir and small nearby creek flowing from a dug well at
Jeds Motel, Tecopa Hot Springs, about 7 miles south of Shoshone, Inyo County, California.

Former distribution: Outflows of North and South Tecopa Hot Springs, Inyo County,
California, in the Amargosa River basin.

Status: This subspecies was believed to be virtually extinct in 1966, since in January
only 2 individuals were noted in the outflows of the 2 hot springs. Since then, 2 additional
populations were discovered.

Estimated numbers: Insufficient data .

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Introduction of the mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis (a known
predator), ditching of spring outflows, and probably water contamination.

Protective measures already taken: Classed as endangered by State of California; fully
protected by State law .

Measures proposed: Locate whatever surviving populations may exist and establish refuges .
Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown, but other subspecies of Cyprinodon
nevadensis have been reared.

Remarks: The very restricted (and now mostly artificial) habitat of this subspecies
means that it will have to be monitored if it is to survive. Data provided by Dr. James E.
Deacon, Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas, and Dr. Robert R. Miller, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Recommended as endangered by Desert Fishes Council.

Reference:

Miller, R. R. 1948. The cyprinodont fishes of the Death Valley system of eastern
California and southwestern Nevada. Misc. Publ . Mus. Zool . Univ. Mich., 68:
1-155, figs. 1-5. maps 1-3, pis. 1-15.

43

NEVADA PUPFISH Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes (Miller, 1948)

Order: ATHERINIFORMES Family: CYPRINODONTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Scale and fin ray counts lower than average for the species
has a reduced size, a short, deep and slab-sided body with a greatly arched and rather
compressed predorsal profile, and a very long head and opercle.

Present distribution: Confined to the warm springs of Ash Meadows in the southeastern
section of the Amargosa Desert, Nye County, Nevada.

Former distribution: Included at least one spring in Ash Meadows , from which this
subspecies is now gone .

Status: Of concern because of limited distribution and specialized habitat.

Estimated numbers: 50 to 2,000 in each of ten springs in Ash Meadows.

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Introduction of crayfish , black mollies (Poecilia latipinna) ,
mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) , largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) , and
bullfrogs; ditching of spring outflows, drainage of marshes.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Establish Jackrabbit Spring and Mexican Spring as natural area
withdrawals by the Bureau of Land Management. Construct barriers to upstream
dispersal of introduced fishes in the outflows of these springs and attempt to remove exotics
presently established in them. Fence the area to prevent further introductions. Establish
a research program that will develop information on the ecology of the species, as well
as maintain constant surveillance on the effectiveness of the refugia.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Good .

Remarks: Data provided by Dr. James E. Deacon, Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas.

References:

Miller, R. R. 1948. The cyprinodont fishes of the Death Valley system of eastern

California and southwestern Nevada. Misc. Publ . Mus . Zool . Univ. Mich.,

68:1-155, figs. 1-5, maps 1-3, pis. 1-15.
Minckley, W. L. and J. E. Deason. 1968. Southwestern fishes and the enigma of

"endangered species." Science, Vol. 159, No. 3810, p. 1424-1432.

44

WARM SPRING PUPFISH Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis (Miller, 1948)

Order: ATHERINIFORMES Family: CYPRINODONTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A subspecies of Cyprinodon nevadensis characterized
principally by an increased number of pectoral fin rays, usually 17.

Present distribution: School (formerly Lovell's) Spring and Scruggs Springs in the
northern part of Ash Meadows, Nye County, Nevada.

Former distribution: Not known to be different from present distribution ,

Status: Jeopardized because of its very restricted distribution and encroachment of
exotic fishes .

Estimated numbers: Insufficient data .

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Introduction of the predatory fish Gambusia affinis; disturbance
of habitat by man.

Protective measures already taken: School Spring, which is administered by the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, was improved and fenced in
1969. In 1970, a well was drilled to serve as an additional water supply during periods
of low spring water flow .

Measures proposed: Continued surveillance and investigation of suitable transplant
sites .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: This subspecies was previously known only from School Spring; the additional
population, taken about i mile away at Scruggs Springs, was discovered in June 1966.

Reference:

Miller, R. R. 1948. The cyprinodont fishes of the Death Valley system of eastern
California and southwestern Nevada. Misc. Publ. Mus . Zool . Univ. Mich.,
68:1-155, figs. 1-5, maps 1-3. pis. 1-15.

45

OWENS PUPFISH Cyprinodon radiosus (Miller, 1948)

Order: ATHERINIFORMES Family: CYPRINODONTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A pupfish with dorsal fin far forward, first dorsal ray
thickened, a terminal black band on caudal fin of male, and 7 pelvic rays.

Present distribution: Confined to several small areas in Fish Slough, Owens Valley,
California, and to a small pond north of Big Pine, Owens Valley, California.

Former distribution: Owens Valley from the vicinity of Lone Pine, Inyo County, north
to Fish Slough, Mono County, California.

Status: Thought to have been extinct since 1939, but rediscovered at one locality in
July 1964.

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Introduction of exotics; habitat alteration .

Protective measures already taken: A population was reestablished in the California
Owens Valley Native Fish Sanctuary in 1970. Rehabilitation of the marsh by building
water control structures and removing exotic fish. Classed as endangered by State of
California and fully protected under State law .

Measures proposed: Continued surveillance . Establish additional populations in refuges
on BLM land in Fish Slough and at Warm Springs south of Bishop, California.

Number in captivity: A few at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Culture potential in captivity: Fair .

Remarks: This species, thought to have been extinct for the past 20 years or so, still
survives but urgently needs protection if it is to persist. It is one of the most distinctive
(in breeding coloration, especially) of the species of Cyprinodon . Data submitted by
Dr. Robert R. Miller, University of Michigan and Edwin P. Pister, California Department
of Fish and Game , Bishop .

References:

Miller, R. R. 1948. The cyprinodont fishes of the Death Valley system of eastern

California and southwestern Nevada. Misc. Publ . Mus. Zool . Univ. Mich.,

No. 68:1-155, figs. 1-5, pis. 1-15, maps 1-3.
. 1961 Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest.

Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci . , Arts, and Letters, 46 (1960): 365-404, fig. 1.
and E. P. Pister. 1971. Management of the Owens pupfish, Cyprinodon

radiosus , in Mono County, California. Trans. Amer. Fish-Soc. 100(3): 502-509.
Pister, E. P. 1970. The rare and endangered fishes of the Death Valley system —
a summary of the proceedings of a symposium relating to their protection and
preservation. California Department of Fish and Game (Mimeo), 23 p.

46

PAHRUMP KILLIFISH Empetrichthys latos (Miller, 1948)

Order: ATHERINIFORMES Family: CYPRINODONTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A cyprinodontid without pelvic fins , with a compara-
tively broad mouth , usually 31 or 32 scales in the lateral series , and with conical lower
pharyngeal teeth.

Present distribution: A spring-fed pool on Manse Ranch, Pahrump Valley, Nye County,
Nevada .

Former distribution: Three isolated springs (each with an endemic subspecies) in
Pahrump Valley.

Status: Seriously threatened with extinction .

Estimated numbers: About 100 breeding adults . The total population was about 1,300
in July 1967.

Fecundity: Good, when undisturbed.

Reasons for decline: Introduction of goldfish; modification of habitat (removal of
vegetation; filling or drying of 2 springs) .

Protective measures already taken: Owner of ranch is interested in conserving this
species and is cooperating to keep the spring in natural condition; stock is being
cultured. In 1970, a transplant was made to a spring on the lower Colorado River.

Measures proposed: Set aside other suitable habitats as refuges ,

Number in captivity: Perhaps 100 at Arizona State University.

Culture potential in captivity: Good.

Remarks: Empetrichthys, a genus known only from 2 desert valleys east of Death Valley ,
is now threatened with extermination, since one of the species is apparently already
extinct and the other one is almost gone. Data submitted by Dr. Robert R. Miller,
University of Michigan.

Reference:

Miller , R . R . 1948 . The cyprinodont fishes of the Death Valley system of eastern
California and southwestern Nevada. Misc. Publ. Mus . Zool. Univ. Mich.,
No. 68. 155 p.

47

BIG BEND GAMBUSIA Gambusia gaigei (Hubbs, 1929)

Order: ATHERINIFORMES Family: POECILIIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A tiny gambusia . Color pattern includes much orange
and yellow pigments, especially on dorsal and anal fins. Few dark crescent-shaped
marks on sides; marks never extend below lower edge of pectoral fin. Eight or nine
dorsal fin rays .

Present distribution: Entire populations are confined to 2 pools in Big Bend National
Park , Texas .

Former distribution: Initially collected in 1928 from Boquillas Spring, Texas. Later,
the spring dried up and the type population became extinct. Discovered in 1954 in
Graham Ranch Warm Springs. Apparently never widespread.

Status: In jeopardy .

Estimated numbers: About 1,000.

Fecundity: About 20 per brood.

Reasons for decline: Competition with Gambusia affinis; reduction in water supply.
(Type locality dried up) .

Protective measures already taken: In 1956, Graham Spring was chemically treated to
eliminate G. affinis . Fifteen G. gaigei were transplanted to 3 ponds within the park but
none survived. Four specimens were held over the winter at University of Texas, Austin.
Two males and 1 female were returned to pools at Graham Ranch area in March 1957. From
the 3 survivors the population grew in numbers . G . affinis again infested the pools and
threatened the G . gaigei . Live specimens were kept at University of Texas and University
of Michigan. When a new pool was developed at Graham Ranch, these specimens were
introduced and now the population seems established. Specimens have been planted in
Croton Springs within the park to further insure survival of the species .

Measures proposed: Continued surveillance of habitats to provide protection of water
supply and against competition with G . affinis .

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Can be reared successfully in captivity.

Remarks: The story of the efforts which have been made to insure the survival of this
species is unique . At one time the entire population of this species was reduced to 3
individuals . Data submitted by the National Park Service .

References:

Hubbs , C . L . 1929 . Studies of the fishes of the order Cyprinodontes . VIII .

Gambusia gaigei, a new species from the Rio Grande. Occas . Pap. Mus . Zool .

Univ. of Mich., No. 198, lip.
Hubbs, C. and H . J. Brodrick . 1963. Current abundance of Gambusia gaigei,

and endangered fish species. The Southwestern Naturalist, Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 46-48.

48

CLEAR CREEK GAMBUSIA Gambusia heterochir (Hubbs, 1957)

Order: ATHERINIFORMES Family: POECILIIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Pectoral fin of male with deep indentation; no yellow
pigment in dorsal or anal fins; dusky lateral stripe indistinct; "elbow" of gonopod very
large .

Present distribution: Headwaters of Clear Creek, 10.4 miles west of Menard, Menard
County , Texas .

Former distribution: Probably somewhat greater than present .

Status: In peril . Threatened by competition with Gambusia affinis and proposed
construction of a dam, thereby altering its restricted habitat.

Estimated numbers: Fewer than 1,000 .

Fecundity: Adequate when undisturbed .

Reasons for decline: See Status , above .

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Set aside extreme headwaters of Clear Creek as a wildlife sanctuary.

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Satisfactory .

Remarks: The existence of this very localized endemic is not only threatened by its
very restricted distribution and the proposed dam but also by possible genetic swamping
with G. affinis , with which it hybridizes. Data submitted by Dr. Robert R. Miller,
University of Michigan.

References:

Hubbs, C. 1957. Gambusia heterochir, a new poeciliid fish from Texas, with

and account of its hybridization with G. affinis . Tulane Stud. Zool . , Vol. 5,
No. 1, p. 1-16.

. 1959 . Population analysis of a hybrid swarm between Gambusia

affinis and G . heterochir . Evolution, Vol. 13, No. 2, p. 236-246.

49

PECOS GAMBUSIA Gambusia nobilis (Baird and Girard, 1853)

Order: ATHERINIFORMES Family; POECILIIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A member of the nobilis species group distinguished by
having a large elbow on gonopodial ray 4a and this ray equal to or exceeding ray 4p;
lateral body stripe threadlike; caudal fin with dark margin; orominent dark margins on
scale pockets; predorsal streak strong .

Present distribution: Now limited to spring-fed ditches about Toyahvale and to a spring
near Fort Stockton, both in Texas .

Former distribution: Springs and spring-fed ditches of the Pecos River drainage in
southwestern Texas and eastern New Mexico .

Status: Now extinct at the two localities (Leon and Comanche Springs, Texas) from
which it was described, and greatly depleted elsewhere.

Estimated numbers: Not available .

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Introduction of Gambusia affinis and other exotic predators;
desiccation of habitat (e.g., Comanche Spring ) .

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Designate the cave source of Phantom Lake Spring and a suitable
length of its outflow as a wildlife monument; remove exotic species and erect barriers
against their re-entry.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: This species is now common only in the outlet ditch of Phantom Lake Spring
near Toyahvale, Texas. Data provided by Dr. Clark Hubbs, University of Texas, Austin.

Reference:

Hubbs, C. and V . G. Springer. 1957. A revision of the Gambusia nobilis species
group, with description of three new species, and notes on their variation,
ecology, and evolution . Texas Jour. Sci., Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 279-327.

50

SAN MARCOS GAMBUSIA Gambusia georgei (Hubbs and Peden. 1969)

Order: ATHERINIFORMES Family: POECILIIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A pale Gambusia with the dorsal fin orange, followed by
a dark margin, as the most pronounced colors.

Present distribution: San Marcos River within 1 kilometer of U.S . Interstate 35 bridge
(both sides) .

Former distribution: Probably the same as at present.

Status: Occurs only in the river where the water is quiet and the aquatic vegetation is
minimal. Its presence is governed by the frequency of this environment.

Estimated numbers: Fewer than 1,000 .

Fecundity: Approximately 25 young per female per month.

Reasons for decline: Unknown because of lack of history .

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Maintenance of this segment of the stream in its natural condition .

Number in captivity: Approximately 100 .

Breeding potential in captivity: Approximately 30 young per female per month.

Remarks: Data provided by Dr. Clark Hubbs, University of Texas, Austin.

Reference:

Hubbs, C. and A. E. Peden. 1969. Gambusia sp ■ nov. from San Marcos, Texas.
Copeia, 1969, p. 357-364.

\

51

GILA TOPMINNOW Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis (Baird & Girard, 1854)

Order: ATHERINIFORMES Family: POECILIIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Size and appearance of Gambusia affinis but no lateral
streak on side, nuptial males jet black, gonopodium long and folded into a closed tube.

Present distribution: In U.S. known only from a spring area in Santa Cruz County and
a spring on the San Carlos Indian Reservation, Arizona.

Former distribution: Once common in the middle and lower Gila River basin of Arizona
and adjacent Sonora, Mexico.

Status: Seriously threatened with extinction. May be extinct in Mexico .

Estimated numbers: Local populations are large, but undergo marked seasonal
fluctuations .

Fecundity: Excellent where undisturbed.

Reasons for decline: Introduction of exotics , especially the competitive predator
Gambusia affinis; habitat destruction .

Protective measures already taken: Present owner of Monkey Spring is sympathetic with
need to protect this species . The San Carlos Apache tribal officials are interested in
the preservation of this subspecies .

Measures proposed: Set aside spring habitat on W . W . Kolbe Ranch (near Sonoita) as
wildlife monument.

Number in captivity: 40 to 200 at Arizona State University, Tempe.

Culture potential in captivity: Not good in indoor aquaria; good in outdoor ponds .

Remarks: The original distribution of this species in the Gila River basin of Arizona
has been drastically curtailed since 1926 by destruction of habitat, drying up of marshy
pools, and introduction of exotics--especially Gambusia affinis . It is the only represen-
tative of the genus Poeciliopsis in the United States . This species is represented by
P. o. sonoriensis in Mexico .

References:

Miller, R. R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest.

Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci . , Arts, and Letters , No. 46, (1960), p. 365-404.
and C. H. Lowe. 1964. An annotated check list of the fishes of

Arizona. In^: The Vertebrates of Arizona, C. H. Lowe, ed. Univ. Ariz. Press,

Tucson, p. 133-151.
Minckley, W. L. and J . E. Deacon. 1968. Southwestern fishes and the enigma of

"endangered species." Science, Vol. 159, No. 3822, p. 1424-1432.

52

UNARMORED THREESPINE STICKLEBACK Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni (Girard, 1854
Order: GASTEROSTEIFORMES Family: GASTEROSTEIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A threespine stickleback which usually lacks lateral
plates and averages fewer than 1 plate in a random sample of 10 specimens; dorsal spines
weak; pectoral and caudal fins rounded.

Present distribution: Now native only in the headwaters of the Santa Clara River in
Soledad Canyon, Los Angeles County, and presumably in the Santa Maria River drainage
in San Luis Obispo County, California; established by introduction in the upper part of
the Mohave River , California .

Former distribution: Once abundant in the rivers that cross the Los Angeles Plain
(Los Angeles, San Gabriel, Santa Ana and connecting streams) upper Santa Clara River,
and tributaries of the Santa Maria River basin. Became extinct on the Los Angeles Plain
between 1942 and 1961.

Status: Jeopardized because of very restricted distribution and the likely contamination
of stocks established in Mohave River by genetic hybrids.

Estimated numbers: No definite data.

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Introduction of the exotic predator, Gambusia affinis , and other
alien species; destruction and desiccation of habitat.

Protective measures already taken: Classed endangered and protected under California
State law .

Measures proposed: Protection in the headwaters of the Santa Clara River .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown, but the species has been successfully reared.

Remarks: Data provided by Dr. Robert R. Miller, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

References:

Miller, R. R. 1960. The type locality of Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni and
its significance in'the taxonomy of California sticklebacks. Copeia, 1960,
No. 4, p. 348-350.

. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest.
Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts, and Letters , No. 46, (1960), p. 365-404.

and C . L. Hubbs . 1969. Systematics of Gasterosteus aculeatus, with

particular reference to intergradation and introgression along the Pacific Coast
of North America: a commentary on a recent contribution. Copeia, No. 1,
(1969). p. 51-69.

53

ROANOKE BASS Ambloplites cavifrons (Cope, 1869)

Order: PERCIFORMES Family: CENTRARCHIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Similar to the rock bass, A. rupestria, except cheeks
naked or with minute scales, generally with 1 or 2 more soft rays in the dorsal and anal
fins, and with distinct dark longitudinal stripes on the body.

Present distribution: Upper Tar and Neuse River watersheds in North Carolina and
possibly in the upper Roanoke River and some streams of Piedmont area, Virginia.

Former distribution: Probably similar to the present .

Status: Scarce .

Estimated numbers: Unknown, 48 were taken during a 2-year study in North Carolina.
Several hundred offspring of wild fish are being reared (1969) in North Carolina State
hatcheries .

Fecundity: About 26 eggs per gram of body weight; number of eggs from 4 fish varied
from 3,475 to 9,600.

Reasons for decline: Roanoke bass habitat is in swift water in and near rocky rapids .
Much of this type of habitat is now inundated by reservoirs and some is covered by silt.

Protective measures already taken: During the past 3 years (1968-1970), North Carolina
has been studying the biology of this species . Efforts are being made to establish Fishing
Creek as a wild and scenic river.

Measures proposed: Continued studies; improvement of soil conservation practices; and
protection of habitat from destruction by impoundments .

Number in captivity: See estimated numbers .

Culture potential in captivity: Good. In North Carolina successful spawning has
occurred in hatchery ponds. Brood fish are timid and are easily disturbed.

Remarks: Data provided by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the
Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries Commission, and Dr. Robert R. Miller, University
of Michigan.

References:

Cope, E. D. 1869. On the distribution of freshwater fishes in the Allegheny

Region of southwestern Virginia. Journal, Academy of Natural Sciences of

Philadelphia, 2nd ser . , Vol. 6, part 3, art. 5, p. 207-247.
Smith, W. B. 1968. Ecology of the Roanoke bass in North Carolina. Final Report,

Job 11-A, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-16-R, North Carolina Wildlife

Resources Commission (Mimeo), 3 p.
. 1969. The biology of the Roanoke bass . Study 2 . Annual Progress

54

Report, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-19, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (Mimeo), 12 p.

55

SUWANNEE BASS Micropterus notius (Bailey and Hubbs, 1949)

Order: PERCIFORMES Family: CENTRARCHIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A black bass with large scales, blue underparts
anteriorly, pigmentation similar to a largemouth bass, but other characters similar to
a spotted bass .

Present distribution: Ichtucknee Springs, Columbia County, and adjacent springs in
northern Florida and Ochlocknee River , Florida .

Former distribution: The same .

Status: Range very restricted.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: No data that this species has declined.

Protective measures already taken: The State of Florida has acquired Ichtucknee
Springs.

Measures proposed: Establishment of this species in other suitable waters .

Number in captivity: A few young and adults are maintained in experimental ponds at
Auburn University, Alabama.

Culture potential in captivity: Suwannee bass spawned in the Auburn University ponds
during the spring of 1970.

Remarks: Spraying of herbicides or insecticides might easily eliminate a species so
restricted geographically as this appears to be. Data submitted by Dr. Robert R. Miller,
University of Michigan, Florida Division of Game and Fresh Water Fish, and the Alabama
Cooperative Fishery Unit, Auburn University.

Reference:

Bailey, R. M. and C. L. Hubbs. 1949. The black basses (Micropterus) of Florida,
with description of a new species. Occ . Pap. Mus . Zool . Univ. Mich.,
No. 516, 40 p.
Ramsey, J. S. 1973. (Personal communication - letter to Stephen H. Taub dated
January 24, 1973).

56

SHARPHEAD DARTER Etheostoma acuticeps (Bailey, 1959)

Order: PERCIFORMES Family: PERCIDAE

Significance: This species is of interest to ichthyologists as only six specimens have
ever been collected.

Distinguishing characteristics: This species has an extremely sharply pointed snout
and head and a short deep body. The head and nape are scaleless, blue-green and pale
green fins , and dark horizontal bands between the scale rows .

Present distribution: The known specimens were collected in 1947 and 1949 in the South
Fork of the Holston River, altitude about 1,490 feet, approximately one-half mile above
the South Holston Dam (during construction, hence prior to impoundment), seven miles
southeast of Bristol, Sullivan County, Tennessee.

Former distribution: Unknown .

Status: Extremely jeopardized and probably extinct.

Estimated numbers: Unknown. None taken since 1949 .

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Flooding of the habitat by the impoundment of the river behind
the South Holston Dam.

Measures proposed: Continued search for the species elsewhere.

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Data submitted by Dr. William J. Richards, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Washington, D.C. Dr. R. R. Miller reports (1967) species extinct.

Reference:

Baily, R. M. 1959. Etheostoma acuticeps, a new darter from the Tennessee

River system, with remarks on the subgenus Nothonotus, Occ . Pap. Mus . Zool .
Univ. Mich. (603) pp. 1-11.

57

FOUNTAIN DARTER Etheostoma fonticola (Jordan and Gilbert, 1886)

Order: PERCIFORMES Family: PERCIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small dark darter, usually with only one anal spine;
back with about 8 indistinct saddles; midsides with a series of short horizontal lines.

Present distribution: Confined to Comal and San Marcos Springs and their outflows in
Hays and Comal Counties , Texas .

Former distribution: Not known to be different from present distribution.

Status: In a precarious condition because of restricted distribution and habitat
modification.

Estimated numbers: 1,000.

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Channelization of the outlet of San Marcos Spring.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Protection of habitat in the outflow of San Marcos Spring,

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Data provided by Dr. Clark Hubbs, University of Texas, Austin.

Reference:

Hubbs, C. 1957. Distributional patterns of Texas freshwater fishes . S.W. Nat., 2
(2-3):89-104, figs. 1-2.

58

NIANGUA DARTER Etheostoma nianguae (Gilbert and Meek, 1887)

Order: PERCIFORMES Family: PERCIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Palatine teeth present, spinous dorsal fin with orange
or red marginal or submarginal band, lateral line almost complete, scales 74-80 along
body, with 2 discrete, jet-black spots on the base of the caudal fin.

Present distribution: Big Tavern Creek, Niangua River and the Maries River of the
Osage River drainage in Missouri.

Former distribution: Same as present.

Status: Very uncommon.

Estimated numbers: Probably less than 1,000 .

Fecundity: No data .

Reasons for decline: Habitat reduced by construction of the Lake of the Ozarks .

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Surveillance of plans for reservoir construction and restriction
of pesticide spraying near present habitat.

Number in captivity: No data.

Remarks: Data submitted by the Missouri Conservation Commission.

Reference:

Gilbert, C. H. 1888. Descriptions of new and little known etheostomids .
Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus . 1887, Vol. 10, p. 47-64.

59

WATERCRESS DARTER Etheostoma nuchale (Howell and Caldwell, 1965)

Order: PERCIFORMES Family: PERCIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small, robust darter species, the largest known just
over 2 inches in total length. Breeding males with red-orange and blue fins and red-
orange on lower part of body. Lateral-line scales 35 to 42; lateral line incomplete,
12 to 24 pored scales .

Present distribution: Known only from Glen Spring at Bessemer, Jefferson County,
Alabama, along county highway 20 (Black Warrior River drainage) .

Former distribution: Probably was present in an adjacent spring destroyed by highway
construction .

Status: Jeopardized. Proposed widening of Highway 20 would destroy habitat. Lowering
trend in water table may dry spring in a severe drought year.

Estimated numbers: Probably less than 400 .

Fecundity: Adequate if undisturbed. Breeding probably occurs continuously from
March through July.

Reason for decline: Alteration of springs for public or industrial use .

Protective measures already taken: Owner of spring property apprised of uniqueness
of form, sympathetic to protection. An attempt at introduction was made in a more
protected spring in the vicinity.

Measures proposed: Determine willingness of Jefferson County highway officials to
conserve Glen Spring. Further attempt at introduction in nearby suitable habitat.

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Observations of living specimens suggest high dependence on association with
watercress, Nasturtium officionale. Submitted by Dr . John S . Ramsey, Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, Auburn University, Alabama, with recent information provided
by Dr . W . Mike Howell .

Reference:

Howell, W. M. and R. D. Caldwell. 1965. Etheostoma (Oligocephalus) nuchale,
a new darter from a limestone spring in Alabama . Tulane Stud . Zool . ,
Vol. 12, No. 4, p. 101-108.

60

OKALOOSA DARTER Etheostoma okaloosae (Fowler, 1941)

Order: PERCIFORMES Family: PERCIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small, medium to dark brown darter lacking breeding
tubercles. Lateral line moderately complete and slightly arched. A dark humeral spot
present. Lacking conspicuous red spots characteristic of the other member of the sub-
genus Villora, Etheostoma edwini.

Present distribution: Five small streams which originate on Eglin Air Force Base

and empty into the northwest corner of Choctawhatchee Bay, Okaloosa County, Florida.

Former distribution: Same as above, but apparently occurred at more sites on the
five creeks .

Status: Deteriorating from habitat destruction and possible competition from
Etheostoma edwini .

Fecundity: Unknown .

Estimated numbers: Probably less than 1, 500 .

Reasons for decline: Road construction and siltation from forest clearing are destroying
the habitat in one stream. Another has a dam built on it which has apparently eliminated
the population above it. A dam had been proposed for a third stream, one of the two
largest in the range.

Protective measures already taken: Recognized as an endangered species by State of
Florida .

Measures proposed: Halt further dam construction and siltation .

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Little known except mature adults placed in aquaria
spawned .

Remarks: The streams in which Etheostoma okaloosae is found are very close to or in
the city limits of two moderate size towns; therefore, in addition to dam and road con-
struction, pollution may be exerting some stress on present population. A study is
being made at the present time to determine these effects . Data submitted by Maurice F .
Mettee , University of Alabama .

References:

Collette, B. B. and R. W. Yerger. 1962. The American percid fishes of the

subgenus Villora. Tulane Studies in Zoology, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 213-230.
Fowler, H. W. 1941. A collection of freshwater fishes obtained in Florida,

1939-40, by Francis Harper. Proc . Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Vol. 92,

p. 227-244.

61

Mettee, M. F. 1970. A survey of the fishes of the Choctawhatchee Bay drainage
in Alabama and Florida. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Alabama.
102 p.

62

MARYLAND DARTER Etheostoma sellare (Radcliffe and Welsh, 1912)

Order: PERCIFORMES Family: PERCIDAE

Significance: This species is of interest to ichthyologists as only a few specimens
have been collected and it is known to live only in 1 or 2 small Maryland streams .

Distinguishing characteristics: A small fish of from 1 to 2 inches in total length.
Reddish-brown with 4 black saddle markings and a black spot behind the eye .
Moderately pointed snout, separate gill membranes, no scales on the belly, breast,
cheek and nape .

Present distribution: Found in Swan Creek, a small stream from 3 to 15 feet wide,
near Havre de Grace, Maryland and another nearby stream.

Former distribution: Not known .

Status : Precarious condition. Two specimens were collected in 1912, 1 was taken
in 1962, and a few were collected in 1964.

Estimated numbers: Not known .

Fecundity: Not known.

Reasons for decline: There are no data to support a statement that they have declined.

Protective measures already taken: Biologists have been requested not to disturb the
habitat .

Measures proposed: The habitat should not be disturbed.

Number in captivity: None. There are 2 preserved specimens in the U.S. National
Museum and 1 in the Cornell University fish collection.

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: The present known habitat is near an area of commercial and residential
development .

References:

Knapp, L. S., W. J. Richards, R. V. Miller, andN. R. Foster. 1963. Rediscovery

of the percid fish Etheostoma sellare (Radcliffe and Welsh) . Copeia, p. 455.
Radcliffe, L. and W. W. Welsh. 1914. Description of a new darter from Maryland.

Bull. U.S. Bur. Fisheries, Vol. 32, p. 29-32.

63

TRISPOT DARTER Etheostoma trisella (Bailey and Richards, 1963)

Order: PERCIFORMES Family: PERCIDAE

Significance: This species is of interest to ichthyologists as one specimen was collected
in 1947, one in 1954, and several hundred were found in 1969.

Distinguishing characteristics: The lone specimen taken in 1947 was U inches long and
had three very distinct saddles or spots on its back . It is one of the few darters with
only one anal spine .

Present distribution: In a few streams in the Coosa River drainage on the Talladega
(Alabama) and Chattahoochee (Georgia) National Forests .

Former distribution: Unknown .

Status: Scarce .

Estimated numbers: Several hundred.

Fecundity: Not known .

Reasons for decline: Some of the habitat was flooded by Weiss Lake, a 45-square-mile
impoundment formed behind Weiss Dam, which is operated by the Alabama Power Company.

Protective measures already taken: Collection of specimens has been restricted.

Measures proposed: Preservation of the national forest streams .

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Data submitted by Dr. William J. Richards, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Washington, D.C. and Dr. John S. Ramsey, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Auburn University, Alabama.

References:

Bailey, R. M. and W . J. Richards. 1963. Status of Poecilichthys hopkinsi Fowler
and Etheostoma trisella, new species, percid fishes from Alabama, Georgia,
and South Carolina. Occ . Pap. Mus . Zool . Univ. Mich. (630), p. 1-21.
Gilbert, C. H. 1888. Description of new and little known etheostomids . Proc .
U.S. Nat. Mus. (1887), Vol. 10, p. 47-64.

. 1891. Report of exploration made in Alabama during 1889, with
notes on the fishes of the Tennessee, Alabama, and Escambia Rivers. Bull.
U.S. Fish Comm. (1889), p. 143-159.

64

TUSCUMBIA DARTER Etheostoma tuscumbia (Gilbert and Swain, 1887)

Order: PERCIFORMES Family: PERCIDAE

Significance: This species is of interest to ichthyologists since it only lives in springs
along the Tennessee River.

Distinguishing characteristics: This species is quite small, 1 to 2 inches long, and
dull brown in color . The head is scaly and it generally has only 1 anal spine and an
incomplete supratemporal canal .

Present distribution: In 6 springs along the southern bend of the Tennessee River in
Alabama .

Former distribution: Along the Tennessee River Valley in Alabama and Tennessee.

Status: Vulnerable .

Estimated numbers: Unknown. 138 specimens were collected from springs in Alabama
during 1963-1967.

Fecundity: Unknown .

Reason for decline: Flooding of its habitat by the impoundment of the Tennessee River
and destruction of aquatic vegetation in springs .

Measures proposed: Preserve present habitat .

Number in captivity: None .

Culture potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Data submitted by Dr . William J . Richards , Bureau of Commercial Fisheries ,
Washington, D.C. and James G. Armstrong III, Jackson, Wyoming.

References:

Armstrong, J. G. 1967. A study of the spring dwelling fishes of the southern

bend of the Tennessee River . Thesis , M.S., Univ . Ala . , 60 p .
Bailey, R. M. and W . J. Richards. 1963. Status of Poecilichthys hopkinsi Fowler

and Etheostoma trisella, new species, percid fishes from Alabama, Georgia,

and South Carolina. Occ . Pap. Mus . Zool . Univ. Mich. (630), p. 1-21.
Gilbert, C.H. 1888. Descriptions of new and little known etheostomids . Proc .

U.S. Nat. Mus. (1887), Vol. 10, p. 47-64.

. 1891. Report of the exploration made in Alabama during 1889, with

notes on the fishes of the Tennessee, Alabama and Escambia Rivers. Bull.

U.S. FishComm. (1889), p. 143-159.

65

BLUE PIKE Stizostedion vitreum glaucum (Hubbs , 1926)

Order: PERCIFORMES Family: PERCIDAE

Significance: The blue pike was one of the more important commercial species of Lake
Erie where the annual catch frequently exceeded 20 million pounds and was 19.7 million
pounds in 1955 before its recent decline and near disappearance. It was also prominent
in the commercial fishery in Lake Ontario but the annual catch never exceeded 500,000
pounds .

Distinguishing characteristics: Pelvic fins whitish blue and body bluish gray . Otherwise
much like the yellow pike or walleye but with the eyes larger and closer together and
without brassy or yellow mottlings .

Present distribution: Very uncommon in the deeper and cooler areas of Lake Erie and
possibly Lake Ontario.

Former distribution: The same .

Status: Threatened. Although a few hundred pounds of blue pike have been listed in
the catch of commercial fishermen in recent years, biologists have found that these
were mostly small yellow pike .

Estimated numbers: Very few.

Fecundity: Spawned in moderately deep areas in early summer.

Reasons for decline: The physical, chemical, and biological environment in Lakes Erie
and Ontario have deteriorated measurably in recent years creating conditions that seem
to be unfavorable for survival of eggs and young . Severe oxygen depletion in the blue
pike spawning area in central Lake Erie shortly after the spawning period is an obvious
contributing factor.

Protective measures already taken: In 1969, a pair of Lake Erie Stizostedion, believed to
be blue pike, were spawned at the Pennsylvania Fish Commission's Lines ville Fish Culture
Station. About 9,000 of the fry were transferred to the Gavins Point National Fish Hatchery
at Yankton, South Dakota. Some of the fingerlings were stocked in an isolated lake in
northern Minnesota."

Measures proposed: Additional spawning stock should be obtained for culture.

Number in captivity: Some at Linesville Fish Culture Station, Pennsylvania, and
Gavins Point National Fish Hatchery, South Dakota.

Culture potential in captivity: Good .

Remarks: Data submitted by Dr. Stanford H. Smith, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Ann Arbor, Michigan and Region 3, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Twin Cities,
Minnesota.

66

References:

Hubbs , C. L. and K. F. Lagler. 1964. Fishes of the Great Lakes region.

University of Michigan Press , 213 p .
Miller (re Applegate) says none taken since 1964.
Trautman, M. B. 1957. The fishes of Ohio . Ohio State University Press, 683 p .

67

PYGMY SCULPIN Cottus pygmaeus (Williams, 1968)

Order: PERCIFORMES Family: COTTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A dark-colored sculpin attaining a maximum total length
of 1 3/4 inches. Spinous and soft dorsal fin portions broadly joined. Lateral line
incomplete with 20 to 24 pores .

Present distribution: Known only from Coldwater Spring and effluent 5.7 miles west
of Anniston, Calhoun County, Alabama (Coosa River drainage).

Former distribution: Probably occurred farther downstream in Coldwater Creek,
limited presently to above confluence with polluted tributary about 500 feet below
spring .

Status: Vulnerable . Could be exterminated if habitat altered through further impound-
ment or vegetation control measures .

Estimated numbers: About 1 , 000 .

Fecundity: Breeds at least from May through September, probably spawns all year.
Total ovarian eggs number 30 to 43.

Reasons for decline: Pollution in Coldwater Creek .

Protective measures already taken: Coldwater Spring is the municipal water supply for
Anniston, Alabama, and is fenced against intruders.

Measures proposed: Advise Anniston water supply officials of uniqueness of the
species . Determine vulnerability to vegetation control measures . Monitor water supply
development plans for Coldwater spring.

Number in captivity: None at present .

Culture potential in captivity: Difficult to maintain. Twenty specimens were kept for
several months in a constant-temperature stream aquarium at Auburn University . They
could not be trained to accept any but living food. Spawning occurred, but the eggs were
infertile. All succumbed apparently to changing water quality.

Remarks: Aquatic vegetation control and enclosure or further impoundment are the chief
threats to well-being. Israeli carp introduced to browse on vegetation appear to have
left the spring . Growing demand for water in Anniston already uses about half of
average spring flow . Data supplied by Dr . John S . Ramsey .

Reference:

Williams, J. D, 1968. A new species of sculpin, Cottus pygmaeus, from a spring
in the Alabama River basin. Copeia, 1968 (2): 334-342.

68

PERIPHERAL FISHES

A peripheral species or subspecies is one whose occurrence in the United States is at
the edge of its natural range and which is threatened with extinction within the
United States although not in its range as a whole . Special attention is necessary to
assure retention in our Nation's fauna.

Mexi :an StoneroUer, Campostoma ornatum

Big Bend region of Rio Grande in Texas and in limited range in Arizona;

comn on in Mexico .

Suggested by National Park Service.

Sonora Chub , Gila ditaenia

Rio de la Concepcion in Mexico; Sycamore Canyon, Coronado National Forest,

in southern Arizona.

Suggested by Dr. Loye Miller, University of California.

Chihuahua Shiner , Notropis chihuahua

Rio Grand drainage in Texas and Mexico .
Suggested by National Park Service.

Rio Grande Darter, Etheostoma grahami

Tributaries of the Rio Grande in Mexico and Texas .
Suggested by Dr. Clark Hubbs, University of Texas.

69

STATUS-UNDETERMINED FISHES

A status-undetermined species or subspecies is one that has been suggested as possibly
threatened with extinction, but about which there is not enough information to determine
its status. More information is needed.

Pallid Sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus
Mississippi Valley.
Suggested by Dr. Frank B. Cross, University of Kansas.

Shortnose Cisco, Coregonus reighardi

Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and Lake Ontario.
Suggested by New York Conservation Department.

Colorado Cutthroat Trout , Sal mo clarki pleuriticus
Headwaters of the Colorado River .
Suggested by Dr. Harold K. Hagen, Colorado State Univ. & Utah Dept. of Fish & Game.

Montana Westslope Cutthroat Trout, Salmo clarki subspecies
Flathead River Drainage, Montana.

Utah Cutthroat Trout , Salmo clarki Utah

Utah, west of Wasatch Mountains, and White Pine County in Nevada.
Suggested by Utah Department of Fish and Game.

Yellowfin Cutthroat Trout, Salmo clarki macdonaldi
Twin Lakes , Colorado .

Alvord Basin Cutthroat Trout, Salmo clarki subsp .

Willow Creek drainage, Alvord Basin, Harvey County, Oregon.

Suggested by Dr. Robert J. Behnke, Bur. Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, Colo. State Univ.

Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout , Salmo gairdneri aquilarum

Eagle Lake and other waters in Lassen and Modoc Counties, California.
Suggested by California Department of Fish and Game.

Yaqui Chub, Gila purpurea

San Bernardino Creek of Yaqui River in Arizona.
Suggested by J. Clark Salyer II.

White River Spinedace, Lepidomeda albivallis. Miller and Hubbs, 1960.
White River in White Pine and Nye Counties , Nevada .
Suggested by Dr. James E. Deacon, Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Spikedace, Meda fulgida

Salt, upper Gila and San Pedro Rivers, also Arivaipa Creek (New Mexico).
Suggested by W. L. Minckley .

70

Kanawha Minnow , Phenacobius teretulus

Kanawha River in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina.

Suggested by Dr. Edward C. Kinney, Bureau Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, Wash. , D.C.

Lost River Sucker, Catostomus luxatus

Klamath Lakes in Oregon and California.

Suggested by California Department of Fish and Game.

Shortnose Sucker, Chasmistes brevirostes. Cope, 1879.

COPCO reservoir (Klamath River and upper Lost River, above Clear Lake, Calif.) .
Suggested by Dr . R. R. Miller, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

June Sucker , Chasmistes liorus .
Utah Lake, Utah.

Rustyside Sucker, Moxostoma hamiltoni .
Roanoke River in Virginia.
Suggested by Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries.

Humpback Sucker, Xyrauchen texanus .

Colorado System in Arizona and California.

Suggested by California Department of Fish and Game and

Dr. Harold K. Hagen, Colorado State University.

Widemouth Blindcat, Satan eurystomus

Artesian wells at San Antonio, Texas.

Suggested by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Toothless Blindcat, Trogloglanis pattersoni
Artesian wells at San Antonio, Texas.
Suggested by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Shoshone Pupfish, Cyprinodon nevadensis shoshone

Found only in a few springs near Shoshone, California.

This subspecies may be extinct . Further studies are being made to determine its status .

Waccamaw Killifish, Fundulus waccamensis
Lake Waccamaw in North Carolina .
Suggested by Dr. Frank J. Schwartz, University of Maryland.

Waccamaw Silverside , Menidia extensa
Lake Waccamaw in North Carolina .
Suggested by Dr. Frank J. Schwartz, University of Maryland.

Sacramento Perch, ArchopJites interruptus

Lakes in California, Nebraska, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah.

Suggested by California Department of Fish and Game and J. Clark Salyer II.

71

Guadalupe Bass , Micropterus treculi

Colorado River, San Marcos River, and Guadalupe River, and western tributaries

of the Brazos River in Texas .

Suggested by Dr. Clark Hubbs , University of Texas.

Blenny Darter , Etheostoma blennius

Tennessee River System in Tennessee and Alabama.

Tuckasegee Darter, Etheostoma gutselli

Tennessee River System in Tennessee and North Carolina.

Waccamaw Darter, Etheostoma perlongum
Lake Waccamaw in North Carolina.
Suggested by Dr. Frank J. Swartz, University of Maryland.

Backwater Darter, Etheostoma zoniferum

Catoma and Big Swamp Creeks near Montgomery, Alabama.

Tangerine Darter, Percina aurantiaca

Tennessee River System in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Suggested by Dr. William J. Richards, U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.

Freckled Darter, Percina lenticula

Alabama River System in Alabama and Georgia.

Suggested by Dr. William J. Richards, U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.

Sharpnose Darter, Percina oxyrhyncha

Mountain streams of Kanawha River drainage in Virginia.

Leopard Darter, Percina pantherina

Little River System in Oklahoma and Arkansas .

Suggested by Dr. William J. Richards, U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.

Olive Darter , Percina squamata

Tennessee River System in Tennessee and North Carolina.

Tidewater Goby, Eucyclogobious newberryi
Corte Madera Creek in California .
Suggested by California Department of Fish and Game.

Rough Sculpin, Cottus asperrimus

Few tributaries of Pit River in Shasta and Modoc Counties, California.
Suggested by California Department of Fish and Game.

72

Threatened

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

of the United States

Specie^^<5?' subspecies of reptile^-afiH) ampjiibfa^s th^are
ievj,An.Aun)her eir so^thr^twied by present cirkAxtnsiARCesA
ye inutenger of-eTctinction .

Arranged , one sheet for each species or subspecies , in
systematic order .

73

SANTA CRUZ LONG-TOED SALAMANDER Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum (Russell

and Anderson)
Order: CAUDATA Family: AMBYSTOMIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A long-toed ambystomid salamander, black above with
metallic orange or gold spots down the middle of the back; belly sooty.

Present distribution: Known from only two localities in Santa Cruz County California:
Valencia Lagoon near Aptos, and Ellicott Pond 4-miles west of Watson ville.

Former distribution: Same .

Status: On the verge of total extermination. Listed as endangered by California Dept. of
Fish and Game. In 1969 construction of a four-lane highway, associated excavation, and
construction of a "Borrow Ditch" at Valencia Lagoon drastically reduced the size of this
breeding area. Proposed trailer park threatens Ellicott Pond.

Estimated numbers: At Ellicott Pond, 6 , 000 to 8 , 000; at Valencia, unknown.

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: A post-pluvial remnant, threatened by subdivision and other land
developments .

Protective measures already taken: At Valencia, California, Department of Highways has
constructed a salamander pond (250 x 50 feet) to restore part of disturbed habitat. Fully
protected by California law.

Measures proposed: Establishment of a wildlife refuge or ecological reserve at Valencia
Lagoon and Ellicott Pond including sufficient adjacent land to protect upland habitat. Both
are also waterfowl habitat.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Successful courtship and insemination has occurred. It
may be possible to rear the animals in captivity.

Remarks: Submitted by Robert Stebbins .

References:

Bury, R. B. 1972. Status report on California's threatened amphibians and reptiles.

Inland Fisheries Administrative Report 72-2. California Dept. of Fish & Game.
and S. B. Ruth. 1972. Santa Cruz long-toed salamander: Survival

in doubt. Herpetol . Rev. 4(l):20-22.
Leach, H. R. and L. D. Fisk . 1972. At the crossroads — a report on California's

endangered and rare fish and wildlife. California Dept. of Fish & Game.
Lostetter , C. Report of field trip to area of species occurrence, October 27, 1969.
Marlow, R. W. (Pers . Comm . , 1972).

Russell, R. W. and J. D. Anderson. 1956. Herpetologica, Vol. 12, pp. 137-140.
Ruth, S. B. (Pers. Comm., 1972).
Wallow, R. W. and S. B. Ruth. 1972. Administrative Reports . Calif. Dept.

Fish & Game .

74

DESERT SLENDER SALAMANDER Batrachoseps aridus (Brame)

Order: CAUDATA Family: PLETHODONTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small, slim land salamander, differing from all other
members of its genus by its distinctive ventral coloration consisting of blackish maroon on
belly and throat area which is sharply contrasted with the flesh-colored ventral side of the
tail (from original description) .

Present distribution: Known only from about an acre of land in the immediate vicinity of the
type locality, which is in Hidden Palm Canyon, a branch of Deep Canyon, at the northwest
end of the Santa Rosa Mountains, Riverside County, California. They live under limestone
sheeting on north and west facing walls of the canyon in summer and can also be found under
rock talus during rest of year .

Former distribution; Since the species is very recently described there is no information
about its earlier distribution.

Status: In peril. Listed as endangered by California Dept. of Fish and Game.

Estimated numbers: Brame (1970) estimates the total population at fewer than 500.

Breeding rate in wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: No demonstrable decline has as yet taken place. The restriction in
habitat to the limestone sheeting and the talus slopes makes the species particularly vulnerable
to over-collecting by zoologists. Destruction of the limestone cover would result in extinction
of the species .

Protective measures taken: Fully protected under California law .

Protective measures proposed: The California Department of Game and Fish is
attempting to acquire the type locality for an ecological reserve. Dr. Lloyd Tevis, the
University of California, has recommended the locality be listed on the inventory of
places in the low desert which need to be preserved, as prepared by the California
Natural Areas Coordinating Council.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown, probably slight or none.

References:

Bury, R. B. 1972. Status report on California's threatened amphibians and reptiles.

Inland Fisheries Administrative Report 72-2. California Dept. of Fish & Game.
Brame, A. H. 1970. Contributions in science, Los Angeles County Museum, No. 13.

. 1970. Pasadena, California (pers . comm.).

Leach, H. R. and L. D. Fisk . 1972. At the crossroads--a report on California's

endangered and rare fish and wildlife. California Dept. of Fish and Game.
Tevis, L. 1970. Deep Canyon Desert Research Center , California (pers. comm.).

75

TEHACHAPI SLENDER SALAMANDER Batrachoseps stebbinsi (Brame and Murray)

Order: CAUDATA Family: PLETHODONTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: An elongate, slim bodied land salamander, about 55 mm.
in body length, with long limbs, large feet, and extensive webbing between toes; dorsal
color consists of dark red, brick red, light or dark brown, or light beige patches and
blotches, sometimes forming an indistinct band (from original description, published in 1968),

Present distribution: Known from a few localities in Kern County, California, including
the type locality: 10.8 miles east of Caliente Store on Caliente Creek Road, Piute Mountains;
from 6.3 miles southeast of Keene Post Office on Highway 58, Tehachapi Mountains; and
from several localities along the Caliente Creek Road (Brame, 1971) . Found under large
rocks and logs (Brame and Murray, 1968).

Former distribution: Since the species is very recently described, there is no information
about its earlier distribution.

Status: Very uncommon . California Fish and Game Department lists as rare .

Estimated numbers: Only about 75 specimens have ever been seen. Brame (in litt. , 1970)
estimates the total population at fewer than 3,000.

Breeding rate in wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: No demonstrable decline has as yet taken place. In a species with
such narrow tolerance limits in its habitat, any decline could be disastrous.

Protective measures taken: Protected by California law .

Protective measures proposed: Establish ecological reserves to protect critical areas.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Brame, A. H. , and K. F. Murray. 1968. Bulletin of the Los Angeles County

Museum of Natural History, Science: No. 4.
Brame, A. H. 1970, 1971. Pasadena, California (pers . comms . ) .
Bury, R. B. 1972. Status report on California's threatened amphibians and reptiles.

Inland Fisheries Administrative Report 72-2. California Dept. of Fish & Game.
Leach, H. R. and L. D. Fisk. 1972. At the crossroads--a report on California's

endangered and rare fish and wildlife. California Dept. of Fish & Game.

76

LIMESTONE SALAMANDER Hydromantes brunus (Gorman)

Order: CAUDATA Family: PLETHODONTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A lungless , terrestrial salamander; uniformly brown
above and pale below; underside of tail yellowish (Stebbins, 1966) .

Present distribution: Vicinity of Briceburg, Mariposa County, California, at confluence
of Bear Creek and Merced River and along tributaries of Bear Creek, at altitudes of
1,200 to 2,500 feet. Recently located about 15 miles south of Briceburg (R. Bruce Bury,
Pers. Comm. , 1972).

Former distribution: Probably same as at present .

Status: Exists only in several small populations , and will be in peril if limestone in
area is quarried. Listed as rare by California Dept. of Fish & Game.

Estimated numbers: Currently known only from several localities within range given
above, with probably not many more than 50 adult individuals in any single population
(Stebbins, 1967).

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Not currently on decline, but the species is found in a region
which might become a commercial source of limestone, and its habitat is solely that of
crevices in limestone sliffs and ledges and in limestone talus . Highway construction
could threaten some populations .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by California law .

Measures proposed: Establishment of protected areas within range of species where
quarrying would not be permitted; avoidance of undue disturbance of habitat. Establish
ecological reserve proposed by California Dept. of Fish & Game.

Number in captivity: Probably none.

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably none; the species must be protected in its
native habitat.

References:

Bury, R. B. 1972. Status report on California's threatened amphibians and reptiles.

Inland Fisheries Administrative Report 72-2. California Dept. of Fish & Game.
Gorman, J. 1954. Herpetologica, Vol. 10, pp. 153-158.
. 1964. Hydromantes brunus , H. platycephalus , and H. shastae .

Catalogue of American amphibian reptiles, 11.1 - 11.2.
Leach, H. R. and L. D. Fisk. 1972. At the crossroads — a report on California's

endangered and rare fish and wildlife. California Dept. of Fish & Game. „
Stebbins, R. C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America,

pp. 534-535.

77

SHASTA SALAMANDER Hydromantes shastae (Gorman and Camp)

Order: CAUDATA Family: PLETHODONTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A cave associated salamander with webbed toes,
relatively long limbs, and a somewhat flattened body; color above is gray-green, tan or
reddish with white or silvery flecks on a dark gray venter; adults are 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 inches
in snout-vent length.

Present distribution: Known only from four areas in the limestone region north of Lake
Shasta in north-central California; near McCloud River U.S. F.S. Station, southwest
tip of McCloud limestone formation. Low Pass Creek, and Brock Mountain (see map in
Bury et al, 1969).

Former distribution: Probably the same as at present.

Status : Scarce at known localities .

Estimated numbers: Total number unknown, but fewer than 150 specimens have been
collected.

Breeding rate in the wild: Gorman reported two clutches of nine eggs each that were
found in caves on Brock Mountain; the species probably breeds yearly, with egg
deposition in early fall .

Reasons for decline: The species is found in very few places , all of which are threatened
by possible exploitation of limestone outcrops for commercial utilization . It is also in
danger through decimation of the populations by both amateur and professional biologists,
due to its rarity .

Protective measures already taken: All known localities are within the Shasta-Trinity
National Forest Recreation Area, where logging and mining operations are regulated.
Protected by California State law .

Measures proposed: The establishment of a wildlife monument or wildlife refuge for the
McCloud and Gray Rocks limestone area, which includes all of the populations of the
salamander, would not only protect this species, but also provide protection for a variety
of plants and animals endemic to these Triassic and Permian limestone habitats.

Number in captivity: Very few , if any .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: The Shasta salamander was earlier proposed for consideration by Dr. Frederick
Gehlbach and by Dr. Robert C. Stebbins , but it was placed as a status undetermined
species until additional information became available . Detailed information submitted
by R. B. Bury.

78

References:

Bury, R. B., G. M. Fellers, and S . B. Ruth. 1969. Journal Herpetology,

Vol. 3, pp. 157-161.
Gorman, J. and C. L. Camp. 1953. Copeia. pp. 39-43.
Gorman, J. 1956. Herpetologica . pp. 249-259.
Stebbins, R. C. 1966. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians,

Houghton Mifflin Co .

79

JEMEZ MOUNTAIN SALAMANDER Plethodon neomexicanus (Stebbins and Reimer)

Order: CAUDATA Family: PLETHODONTIDAE

Distinggibhing characteristics: A slender, elongate, terrestrial salamander, with 19
costal grooves and a single phalanx in the fifth hind toe; brownish dorsally, with golden
flecking, light ventrally.

Present distribution: Known only from a very small area in the Jemez Mountains,
New Mexico. It has been collected at a total of seven places (Reagan, 1972) .

Former distribution: Within historical times, probably about as at present, but certainly
more widely spread during Pleistocene.

Status: Very uncommon.

Estimated numbers: Probably several thousand individuals. It can be collected
comparatively easily in suitable habitat.

Breeding rate in the wild: Clutch size is 5 to 12 (Reagan, 1972). Eggs are deposited
underground among rocks (Reagan, 1972).

Reasons for decline: Probably no decline in historical time; the retreat of the
Arcto-Tertiary forest in the Pleistocene resulted in the isolation of the species in the
Jemez Mountains (Blair, 1958).

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: The salamander lives on land under the control of either the U.S.
Forest Service or the Baca Land and Cattle Corporation. Both should be encouraged to
remain aware of this diminutive inhabitant of their property. A Research Natural Area
should be established on Federal land to protect parts of its habitat. Many specimens are
now available in collections , and collectors should leave it alone .

Number in captivity: None , insofar as known .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably none .

Remarks: The species was first suggested by H.J. McKirdy, and listed as "status
unknown" in earlier Red Books. Douglas Reagan has provided sufficient documentation
to permit identification of its status .

References:

Blair, W. F. 1958. In Hubbs . C. Zoogeography. AAAS Publ . 51 .

Highton, R. 1962. Florida State Museum . Bull. Vol. 6.

Reagan, D. P. 1972. Ecology and distribution of the Jemez Mountains salamander,

Plethodon neomexicana. Copeia, 1972(3): 486-492 .
Stebbins, R. C. andW. J. Riemer . 1950. Copeia.

80

TEXAS BLIND SALAMANDER Typhlomolge rathbuni (stejneger)

Order: CAUDATA Family: PLETHODONTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A blind, white salamander, with long slender legs,
a flattened snout, and permanent external gills.

Present distribution: Known only from deep wells and underground streams in caves of
Hays County, Texas. Not known from Kendall and Comal Counties, Texas, although
previously noted in literature (FRG) .

Former distribution: Same .

Status: Considered to be headed for extinction in earlier editions of the Red Book, but
now protected by the Nature Conservancy and the Texas Herpetological Society and
prospects for its survival have improved .

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown , probably each female produces only a very few
eggs.

Reasons for decline: Capping of wells, draining of underground water sources; heavy
overcollection of a very restricted population by professional and amateur biologists and
by professional dealers in rare animals .

Protective measures already taken: The Nature Conservancy, acting in concert with
the Texas Herpetological Society, and the American Society of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists has bought Ezell's Cave, the type locality of the species. A caretaker
now lives on the property, and steps have been taken to restore the habitat by replenish-
ment of the guano base of the food web within the cave. Further information is available
from the Texas Chapter, Nature Conservancy, 909 Reliance Life Building, Dallas, Texas
75201.

Measures proposed: Should be declared a protected animal by the State of Texas.

Number in captivity: Practically none . Does not do well in captivity without special
attention .

Breeding potential in captivity: None .

Remarks: Mitchell and Redell (1965) indicate that this species should be placed in the
genus Eurycea . Their arguments are not conclusive, and the monotypic genus
Typhlomolge is retained here.

References:

Bishop. 1943. Handbook of salamanders .

Fritz, E. C. 1968. (pers . comm . ) .

Gehlbach, F. Baylor Univ., Waco, Texas (pers. comm.).

Mitchell and Redell. 1965. Texas Jour. Sci., 17.

81

BLACK TOAD, INYO COUNTY TOAD Bufo exsul (Myers)

Order: SALIENTIA Family; BUFONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A very small toad, adults about 2 inches long. Heavily
mottled with black on olive to whitish, sometimes almost solid black above, heavily
spotted and blotched with black below; skin smooth between warts .

Present distribution: Two populations, at Buckhorn Springs and Antelope Springs, in
the Deep Springs Valley, and isolated desert basin between the White and Inyo Mountains
adjacent to the Death Valley system, Inyo County, California. The species has been trans-
planted several times to springs in the area where it was not previously found (Schuierer,
1962) . Success of such transplants has not been verified.

Former distribution: Same .

Status : Listed as rare by California Department of Fish and Game . A very restricted form
with narrow habitat requirements . Earlier reports of habitat destruction through irrigation
practices were not verified by R. R. Miller, who in 1967 found the site was relatively un-
changed after a period of 25 years. The population at Buckhorn Springs appears to be
stable and maintaining itself (Schuierer, 1972).

Estimated numbers: Probably a breeding population of 10,000 adults (Schuierer, 1961),
although Myers (1942) thought the population might be as small as 700. Miller (1967) found
the toad to be abundant in springs, irrigation ditches, and ponds on June 27, 1967, so it
appears to be holding its own.

Breeding rate in the wild: Once a year; each female produces about 120 to 150 eggs per
season (Savage and Schuierer, 1961), which is probably barely enough to maintain population.

Reasons for decline: Irrigation practices in area. "The annual recanalization of the water
courses for irrigation has notable effect on the population. When stream modification occurred
after oviposition, the marsh area dried before metamorphosis." (Schuierer, 1961).

Protective measiires already taken: Springs are located on property owned by Deep Springs
College, and access is restricted by the college administrators (the College has adopted this
toad as its mascot) . Fully protected by California law.

Measures proposed: Establishment of wildlife monument in breeding area of species;
acquisition of private lands and establishment of Deep Springs Zoological Reserve proposed
by the State. Active surveillance of population over period of several years to determine highs
and lows in numbers of individuals; investigation of long-term success of known trans-
plantations .

Number in captivity: Unknown, but certainly few. Occasionally collected for research
purposes, and can be maintained in laboratories.

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably fairly good; most species of toads can be induced
to breed in captivity, and tadpoles will metamorphose. Perhaps one or two breeding
colonies should be established to maintain the species until the area is clearly preserved.

82

Remarks: This toad is considered to be a subspecies of Bufo boreas by some authors.

References:

Bury, R. B. 1972. Status report on California's threatened amphibians and reptiles.

Inland Fisheries Administrative Report 72-2 . California Dept. of Fish and Game.
Leach, H. R. and L. D. Fisk. 1972. At the crossroads — a report on California's

endangered and rare fish and wildlife. California Dept. of Fish and Game.
Miller, R. R. 1967. (pers . comm. ) .

Myers, G. S. 1942. Occ . Pap. Univ. Mich. Mus . Zool . No. 460.
Pister, P. 1971. Survival in the desert . D.F.G. Helps college to perpetuate the

rare black toad. Outdoor California, 32 (1-2): 16.
Savage, J. and F . W. Schuierer . 1961. Bull. S. Calif. Acad. Sci., 60.
Schuierer, F. W. 1961. Herpetologica, 17.

. 1962. Herpetologica, 18.

. 1972. The status of the endangered species Bufo exsul Myers,

Deep Springs Valley, Inyo County, California. Herpetological Review,

4(2): 81-82.

83

VEGAS VALLEY LEOPARD FROG Rana pipiens fisheri (Stejneger)

Order: SALIENTIA Family: RANIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A medium-sized frog, resembling the common leopard
frog, but without a white line on the upper jaw; dorsum unspotted or with numerous
small spots; yellow on under parts.

Present distribution: Unknown .

Former distribution: Vicinity of Las Vegas, Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada, where
it was restricted to springs and seepage areas .

Status: This subspecies is extremely uncommon and perhaps is the only amphibian to
have become extinct in historic times in the United States . The attention focused on the
subspecies by its listing in the Red Book has produced no evidence of its survival.

Estimated numbers: No information available; probably none .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Capping of springs and other measures involving water control
have largely eliminated the habitat of this species . Introduced species in surviving
habitat also contribute to elimination, since the introduced bullfrog feeds on smaller
frogs, and the introduced trout eat the larvae. The last known specimens to be collected
were taken in 1942.

Protective measures already taken: The State of Nevada prohibits the capture, removal,
or destruction of the subspecies at any time by any means, except under special permit.

Measures proposed: A careful search for any remaining populations should be made.
If they are present, an area should be set aside for their protection.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably moderately good.

References:

Stebbins , R. C. 1951. Amphibians of western North America, Univ. of Calif .

Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Wright, A. H. and A. A. 1949. Handbook of frogs and toads. Comstock

Publishing Company, Inc., Ithaca, N.Y.

84

HOUSTON TOAD Bufo houstonensis (Sanders)

Order: SALIENTIA Family: BUFONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small toad similar in appearance to the American
toad, but with large postorbital crests which are heavier than the interorbital crest;
and with tendency toward an obliquely striped pattern dorsally . (Sanders, 1963) .

Present distribution: Nine known , isolated localities , in south-central Texas , several
of which probably no longer support a population.

Former distribution: Probably as for present distribution , although possibly larger
and more continuous than now .

Status: Practically extinct.

Estimated numbers: Numbered in the dozens at most localities, but in greater numbers
in Bastrop area, where the species is found in Bastrop and Buescher State Parks and in
adjoining areas .

Breeding rate in the wild: Probably very low . Some evidence indicates that the
species often misses several breeding seasons in a row due to decreased rainfall in
the spring (Brown, 1967).

Reasons for decline: The species is closely associated with loblolly pine areas , and
destruction of the habitat through lumbering and road construction has eliminated
suitable habitat . The populations within the city limits of Houston are apparently all
gone as a consequence of city growth. In addition, the species is being swamped out
genetically as a consequence of interspecies hybridization with two other toad species.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Protection of habitat where possible, particularly in those State
parks where the species occurs .

Number in captivity: Few , if any .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably fairly good, since toad eggs can be fertilized
and brought to maturity in the laboratory. A breeding population could be established
in Texas , with the crop released in those years when the toads are unable to reproduce .

References:

Brown, L. 1967. Doctoral Thesis, University of Texas .
Sanders, O. 1953. Herpetologica, 9.

85

PINE BARRENS TREE FROG Hyla andersoni (Baird)

Order: SALIENTIA Family: HYLIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small frog with expanded toe disks; lavender stripes
bordered by white on a green ground color.

Present distribution: Pine barrens area of southern New Jersey; Cumberland, Sampson,
Richmond, Moore and Bladen Counties in North Carolina; may also occur in Georgia.

Former distribution: Same .

Status: A very uncommon species probably approaching the precarious stage .

Estimated numbers: No information available .

Breeding rate in the wild: Once a year, with eggs deposited in late spring. Tadpoles
reach maturity in the same year .

Reasons for decline: The areas in southern New Jersey inhabited by this frog are
undergoing rapid development for housing and industry . Manipulation of lake levels
for recreation purposes makes the habitat unsuitable for the species. If plans for
utilization of a large part of the pine barrens for a jet airport are completed, there will
be practically no habitat left for this frog at all .

Protective measures taken to date: None .

Measures proposed: The establishment of a Wildlife Monument in the pine barrens of
New Jersey would benefit not only this species of amphibian, but also several other
amphibians and reptiles feeling the encroachment of civilization on the east coast.

Number in captivity: Probably very few , and those only by private collectors . The
species is very difficult to maintain in captivity.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown, but probably almost nil.

References:

Bullard, A.J. 1965. Herpetologica, 21:154-155.

Conant, R. (pers . comm.).

Noble. G. K. andR. C. 1923. Zoologica, 2.

86

AMERICAN CROCODILE Crocodylus acutus (Cuvier)

Order: CROCODILIA Family: CROCODYLIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Huge, rough-backed reptile with a sharp, pointed snout,
snout width much less than width of head between eyes; 4th tooth in lower jaw exposed,
does not fit into notch in upper jaw when mouth is closed.

Present distribution: South Florida and Florida Keys; Hispaniola, Jamaica, Cuba;
Pacific Coast from Sinaloa to Ecuador; Atlantic coasts from Yucatan to Columbia. Much
reduced in Florida to limited sections of southernmost areas and keys .

Former distribution: Same, except more widespread in Florida.

Status: In jeopardy in the United States, and perhaps throughout its range. According
to Carr, declining slowly in Florida. In protected areas, probably slowly increasing.
It is regarded as in peril throughout its range in the lUCN Red Book, Vol. 3, 1968.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Breeding rate in the wild: Once a year; 20 to 60 eggs per female.

Reasons for decline: Killed for skins; destruction of habitat; frequent hatching failures
(WBR); sometimes killed as nuisance on docks and boat basins (WBR) .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by law in Everglades since 1950, both
Federal and State Regulations (Oliver, 1955, p. 58). The Everglades National Park
provides an essential sanctuary. Legally protected in Mexico, Columbia, and Peru,
although enforcement is lax. A sanctuary exists in Cuba.

Measures proposed: A thorough life history and populational study is needed to give
information on which protection can be based.

Number in captivity: Most zoos and aquaria have specimens from Tropical America;
North American specimens make up the majority of specimens displayed at Everglades
Wonder Gardens .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably good, if suitable material and space are
provided (WBR) .

References:

lUCN Red Data Book. 'l968. Vol. 3, Code No.: R/14 CROCO/INT.

Moore, J. 1940. The crocodile in Everglades National Park of Florida, Univ. of

Florida Publ.
Oliver, J. 1955. Natural history of North American amphibians and reptiles.
Robertson, W. B. (pers . comm . ) .

87

AMERICAN ALLIGATOR Alligator mississippiensis (Daudin)

Order: CROCODILIA Family: CROCODYLIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Huge, roughbacked reptile with a broad rounded snout;
fourth tooth on lower jaw fits into notch in upper jaw .

Present distribution: On Atlantic coastal plain from Tyrrel County, North Carolma, to
Corpus Christi, Texas; north in Mississippi drainage to Arkansas and southeastern
Oklahoma .

Former distribution: As above, but to Rio Grande in Texas.

Status : Jeopardized by heavy poaching , which has been reduced by increased State
enforcement and new Federal laws . Efforts to reopen seasons and to permit sale of
hides are underway in several States .

Estimated numbers: The 1970 Censuses of alligators receiving Federal protection either
in wildlife refuges or the Everglades National Park show the following: South Carolina,
1,030; Florida, 36,740; Georgia, 9,650; Mississippi, 165; Louisiana, 4,460; Texas, 120;
for a total of 52,165 alligators.

Breeding rate in the wild: Once a year; 15 to 85 eggs per nesting female.

Reasons for decline: Heavy poaching by collectors of commercial skins; destruction of
habitat; young heavily subject to predator and human pressure.

Protective measures already taken: Federal law prohibits shipment of alligators, their
hides, and hide products across State lines. Protected by law in every State where
found except Texas; in Texas six counties have established protective legislation.
Florida spends about $300,000 a year on alligator law enforcement; Louisiana now spends
$100,000 a year for enforcement, research, and sanctuary care (Alligator Council, 1968).
The city of New York and the State of California have passed regulations prohibiting
trade in alligator skins .

Measures proposed: The American Alligator Council, made up of individuals interested
in the protection and survival of the alligator, indicated in 1968 the following measures
as desirable: (1) Elimination of markets for alligator hides, (2) provision of additional
funds for law enforcement, (3) increase in education of public concerning problem,
(5) establishment of central clearing house for information on alligators, (6) increase
in basic research on biology of species, and (7) strengthened legislation on local and
national levels.

Number in captivity: Probably thousands. The alligator farm in BuenaPark, California,
alone, probably has several thousand. There are 35 registered alligator farmers in
Louisiana; Florida has many so-called "farms." These farms are usually only holding
pens for animals captured in the wild, and the alligator is not yet truly farmed in the
sense of breeding, hatching, and raising individuals to a size suitable for sale or
skinning . The latter may soon be achieved in refuge areas where successful cropping
of wild populations will soon be appropriate, both for restocking depleted areas and for
skins .

88

Breeding potential in captivity: Possibly good. Several groups , particularly in
Florida, are studying the possibilities of farming, but no concrete results have been
announced as yet.

References:

Oliver, J. 1955. Natural history of North American amphibians and reptiles.
Proc. of the American Alligator Council, 1968-69. pp. 1-24.

89

BOG TURTLE Clemmys muhlenbergi (Schoepff)

Order: CHELONIA Family: TESTUDINIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A comparatively small turtle, with a large orange or
yellow patch on the side of the head; no scattered yellow spots on shell.

Present distribution: Isolated colonies from Connecticut to southwestern North
Carolina, restricted to freshwater marshes, meadows, and bogs.

Former distribution: Same as present, but colonies less isolated prior to extensive
drainage and cultivation of swampy and boggy land.

Status: Very uncommon in most localities .

Estimated numbers: 500 colonies .

Breeding rate in the wild: One a year; the number of eggs per female is probably not
more than 3 to 5 (Barton and Price) .

Reasons for decline: Extensive destruction of habitat for cultivation and building
construction; collected for sale in pet trade where they command a high price due to
their rarity .

Protective measures already taken: Now protected by law in New York State under
small game section offish and game laws. The law, passed in 1968, makes it illegal
to collect, own, or sell the species in the State, and offenders have been arrested.
Pennsylvania has protective laws for the species. It is fully protected in Maryland.

Measures proposed: A wildlife monument in southeastern Pennsylvania conserving an
area of suitable habitat has been proposed by A.J. Barton. Stop commercial trade in
turtles . Protect the species from threatened land change . Acquire most important
colonies and place under Federal protection.

Numbers in captivity: Comparatively few, although traffic through pet dealers
continues . East coast zoos have seen a steady decline in the numbers brought in by
interested persons .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unlikely to represent a practical method for maintaining
the species, although there are recoids of reproduction and successful hatching of
eggs in captivity. Members of several herpetological scoieties are attempting to hatch
eggs, and at least one individual, Kenneth Nemuras, has returned hatchlings to the
original habitat.

References:

Barton, A. J. (pers. comm . , 1971).

. , and J . W. Price. 1955. Copeia.

Conant, R. (pers. comm.).
Weaver, J. (pers. comm. 1972).

90

GREEN TURTLE Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus)

Order: CHELONIA Family: CHELONIIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Abutting, non-overlapping shields on carapace; four
pairs of lateral shields in shell; one pair of prefrontals on head; very large size;
paddlelike feet.

Present distribution: Tropical oceans. Wanders up United States coasts during summer.
Throughout Hawaiian archipelago .

Former distribution: Same; but once used Florida beaches as nesting sites.

Status : Practically extirpated as a breeding entity in the fauna of the mainland U.S.

Still common as a breeding entity on Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Regarded

as a "depleted" species in lUCN Red Data Book, Vol. 3, 1968.

Estimated numbers; In waters off mainland U.S. , probably very few. Common in
Hawaiian Islands, World-wide, still fairly common in some areas, but seriously decimated
in others where they were once abundant.

Breeding rate in the wild: Reaches breeding age about sixth year. Probably nests once
every three years . Average 100 eggs per female . May have several successive nests in
one year .

Reasons for decline: Both animal and eggs widely used for food; eggs and young subject
to very heavy predation. Subject to intense harvesting pressure in some parts of world.
Overutilization in others . Now also being taken in Hawaii for its shell as trophy or curio
item for tourists .

Protective measures already taken: Molestation of nesting sea turtles and their eggs is
prohibited in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii. Hatchlings
are flown from Caribbean beaches to Florida for release . Similar release techniques are
employed in Buck Island Reef National Monument, Virgin Islands, and Virgin Islands
National Park. Resiilts in the form of return of released hatchlings not verified as yet.
Protected by law, closed seasons, limited harvests, restricted licenses, and other means
in many parts of its range . Entry to Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge by permit
only. Life history and ecological research by refuge personnel in progress. Cooperative
University of Hawaii and U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife experimental rearing
project in progress at University of Hawaii.

Measures proposed: Continued research and protection . Better enforcement of existing
regulations; Extension of laws to areas not currently covered. Closure of waters at
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to txortle taking. Need research, including actual harvests,
in main Hawaiian Islands . Close surveillance of fishing activities in future as such activities
may increase around French Frigate Shoals .

Number in captivity: Practically every saltwater aquarium and a few zoos have them,
often as many as 5 to 10 .

91

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown; no opportunity to lay eggs .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports .

Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports .

Carr, A. , and R. Ingle. 1959. The green turtle in Florida. Bull., Marine Sci.

Gulf and Carib . . 9(3). pp. 315-320.
Hendrickson, J. R. The Green sea turtle in Malaya and Sarawak. Proc . Zool. Soc.

London, Vol. 130, Part 4, pp. 455-535. June, 1958.
lUCN Red Data Book . 1968. Vol. 3. Code No.: R/7/CHELO./MYD .

92

ST. CROIX GROUND LIZARD Ameiva polops (Cope)

Order: SQUAMATA Family: TEIIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A swift-moving, long-headed ground lizard; not
shiny; longitudinally striped.

Present distribution: The beach at Frederiksted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands;
Protestant and Green Cays, off the coast of St. Croix; 16 specimens introduced on
Buck Island off northeastern corner of St. Croix by R. Ruibal and R. Philobosian
in 1968.

Former distribution: Throughout St. Croix and on Buck Island.

Status: Scarce.

Estimated numbers: About 30 sur\dve at Frederiksted, about 50 on Protestant Cay, and
perhaps 100 on Green Cay. Introduced population on Buck Island still surviving and
increasing in numbers, in September 1970 (R . Ruibal, pers. comm . ) . A relatively large
population is reportedly present on Sandy Point at the western end of St. Croix.

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown; Ameiva usually lay a small clutch of 2 to 8 eggs,
but the frequency is not known.

Reasons for decline: A victim of mongoose predation and commercial development of
areas where found.

Protective measures already taken: None intentionally; however, the sidewalks and
other concrete pads poured along the Frederiksted beach have provided an area for the
lizards to tunnel under that is impervious to mongooses . The National Park Service is
attempting to eliminate the mongoose from Buck Island.

Measures proposed: The use of pesticides on the lawn and cultivated plants along the
Frederiksted beach should be discouraged. The species should perhaps be reintroduced
to Christiansted.

Number in captivity: None known.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Lazell, J. D., Jr. Massachusetts Audubon Society 01773.
Ruibal, R. (pers. comm., 1969).
Seaman, G. St. Croix (pers. comm.).

Underwood, G. 1962. Reptiles of the eastern Caribbean. Caribbean Affairs
(New Series) 1:192 pp.

93

BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD Crotaphytus silus (Stejneger)

Order: SQUAMATA Family: IGUANIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A robust lizard with long tail, relatively large head,
rather distinct from neck and a blunt snout; dorsal scales granular; above light to
dark gray with large dusky spots with whitish crossbars; throat spotted.

Present distribution: The San Joaquin Valley of central California, the adjacent
Carrizo Plains, southward over the Temblor and Caliente Ranges into the Lower Cuyama
Valley (mapped in Montanucci, 1970, p. 116). Total area estimated at 600 square miles
(Sheppard, 1970) . A locally distributed species absent from many parts of this area
(Wilbur , pars . comm . ) .

Former distribution: Approximately as above .

Status: Apparently seriously depleted, but see below in "estimated numbers." Listed as
endangered by California Department of Fish and Game .

Estimated numbers: Although earlier indications were that the species was "on the verge
of total extermination, " Sheppard, on the basis of a study made of a population in Kern
County, California, estimated a population of 100 per square mile. However, population
varies with habitat types and much of prime habitat has been destroyed.

Breeding rate in the wild: Two to seven (average four) eggs laid in June.

Reasons for decline: Subdivisions, water control, and spread of agriculture is eliminating
populations very rapidly and up-to-date information is difficult to obtain. Completion of the
California Aqueduct will furnish water to permit agricultural development throughout the
San Joaquin Valley .

Protective measures already taken: Habitat preserved on both Kern and Pixley National
Wildlife Refuges; fully protected in California as an endangered species. Inventory initiated
by California Department of Fish and Game.

Measures proposed: Establishment of a national wildlife monument to preserve a sample
of the original fauna and flora of the San Joaquin Valley.

Number in captivity: Few .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably slight.

References:

Bury, R. B. 1972. Status report on California's threatened amphibians and reptiles.

Inland Fisheries Report 72-2. Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game.
Leach, H. R. and L. D. Fisk . 1972. At the crossroads--a report on California's

rare and endangered wildlife. Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game.
Montanucci, R. R. 1965. Observations on the San Joaquin leopard lizard,

Crotophytus wislizenii silus Stejneges. Herpetologica 21(4): 270-283 .
. 1970. Copeia, 104-123.

94

Sheppard, J. 1970. June 8, Mimeo Report on Crotaphytus silus .

Smith, H. M. 1946. Handbook of lizards . Comstock Publishing Co., Ithaca, N. Y,

Stebbins, R. C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America.

McGraw Hill Book Co . , Inc .
Wilbur, S. (pers. comm., 1970).

95

PUERTO RICAN BOA (CULEBRA GRANDE) Epicrates inornatus (Reinhardt)

Order: SQUAMATA Family: BOIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A somber grey to brown boa, reaching at least 6 feet.
Top of head with small scales instead of large plates .

Present distribution: Puerto Rico; a single recent record from St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands; reported from Tortola in the British Virgin Islands.

Former distribution: Unknown, but probably found on most of the larger islands of the
Puerto Rico Bank .

Status ; Very uncommon throughout range .

Estimated numbers: Probably fewer than 200 in Puerto Rico; isolated individuals may
occur elsewhere, as the one found during destruction of a wall on St. Thomas.

Breeding rate in wild: Nothing specific known; 8 to 30 young, born alive, are usual
for this genus, presumably born once a year.

Reasons for decline: Usually said to be mongoose predation, but unclear owing to
survival with mongooses where known to occur and the abundance of several closely
allied species of the same genus on the mongoose-infested island of Hispaniola. People
usually kill every one they see, and automobiles kill a few every year in Puerto Rico.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Meastires proposed: Legal protection in all U.S. sections of the Puerto Rico Bank.

Numbers in captivity; None known.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Submitted by James D. Lazell.

References:

Seaman, G. St. Croix, Virgin Islands (pers . comm.).

Stejneger, L. 1904. The herpetology of Porto Rico . U .S . Nat . Mus .: 549-724.
Underwood, G. 1962. Reptiles of the eastern Caribbean . Caribbean Affairs
(New Series) 1:192 pp.

96

SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis sirtalis tetra taenia (Cope)

Order: SQUAMATA Family: COLUBRIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: One of the most beautiful serpents in North America;
dorsal scales keeled; wide dorsal stripe of greenish yellow edged with black, bordered
on each side by a broad red stripe followed by a black one; belly greenish blue; top of
head red.

Present distribution: Scattered colonies in the vicinity of reservoirs in the San
Francisco area.

Former distribution: Western part of San Francisco peninsula from about San Francisco
County line south along crest of hills, at least to Crystal Lake and along coast to
Point Ano Nuevo, San Mateo County, California.

Status: Very scarce and in peril. Listed as endangered by California Dept. of Fish & Game.

Estimated numbers: Probably no more than a few hundred (Bruce Bury, pers . comm. ,
1972).

Breeding rate in the wild: Probably once a year. Broods of large size.

Reasons for decline: Housing developments and control of waterflow entailing removal
of vegetation, both of which destroy habitat.

Protective measures already taken: Fully protected in California as an endangered
species .

Measures proposed: Retain bordering and emergent vegetation in reservoir areas .
Tules and other growth should be allowed to persist in brackish and fresh-water inlet
areas bordering on the sea. Such growth occurs in and around the Sharp Park Golf
Linds, where they may still occur. A refuge is suggested for the Crystal Lake region.

Number in captivity: Few .

Breeding potential in captivity: California biologists have one pair and the young have
been released back to native areas.

Remarks: Submitted by Robert Stebbins .

References:

Bury, R. B. 1972. Status Report on California's threatened amphibians and

reptiles. Calif. Inland Fisheries Adm . Report No. 72-2.
Fox, W. 1951. The status of the gartersnake, Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia .

Copeia, 1951(4): 257-267.
Leach, H. R. and L. D. Fisk. 1972. At the crossroads — a report on California's

endangered and rare fish and wildlife. California Dept. of Fish and Game.
Wright, A. H. and A. A. Wright. 1957. Handbook of snakes of the United States

and Canada. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, N.Y.

97

STATUS-UNDETERMINED REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

A status-undetermined species or subspecies is one that has been suggested as possibly
threatened with extinction, but about which there is not enough information to determine
its status. More information is needed.

Georgia Blind Salamander, Haideotriton wallacei
Suggested by R. H. Stroud.

Larch Mountain Salamander, Plethodon larselli
Suggested by Robert Stebbins .

Cheat Mountain Salamander, Plethodon nettingi

Suggested by Edward P. Cliff and by A . W. Greeley

Amarosa Toad, Bufo boreas nelsoni
Suggested by Robert C. Stebbins.

Puerto Rican Toad, Bufo lemur
Suggested by C . B. Kepler.

Illinois Chorus Frog, Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis
Suggested by Thomas S. Baskett.

Southern Rubber Boa, Charona bottae umbratica
Suggested by Glenn R. Stewart.

Key Blacksnake, Coluber constrictor haasti
Suggested by Craig Phillips.

Eastern Foxsnake , Elapse volpina gloyoll
Suggested by Ray Pawley .

Lake Erie Water Snake, Natrix sipedon insularum
Suggested by Frederick R. Gehlbach.

Giant Garter Snake , Thamnophis elegans gigas

Suggested by Robert C. Stebbins and Glenn R. Stewart.

Two-Striped Garter Snake, Thamnophis couchi hammondi
Suggested by Robert C. Stebbins and Glenn R. Stewart.

Arizona Ridge-Nosed Rattlesnake, Crotalus willardi willardi
Suggested by Steve Galizoli and Frederick R. Gehlbach

Black Legless Lizard, Anniella pulchra nigra
Suggested by Robert C. Stebbins.

Gila Monster, Heloderma suspectum

Suggested by Adrey E. Borell and Frank Richardson.

San Diego Horned Toad, Phrynosoma coronatum blaineville
Suggested by Glenn R. Stewart.

98

Threatened

BIRDS

of the United States

Arranged, one sheet for each species or subspecies, in
systematic order .

99

NEWELL' S MANX SHEARWATER (AO) Puffinus puffinus newelli (Henshaw)

Order: PROCELLARIIFORMES Family: PROCELLARIIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small shearwater (12-15 in.) glossy black above,
pure white below.

Present distribution: Breeds on Kauai and probably other high Hawaiian Islands.
Observed at sea in central Pacific Ocean. Road killed specimens found each year on Oahu.

Former distribution: Probably bred on all of the main Hawaiian Islands .

Status: Vulnerable because of very restricted breeding area. Known to breed only on
mountain ridges of Kauai, Hawaii, but no evidence that it is seriously depleted at present.

Estimated numbers: Unknown, but probably a breeding population in the low thousands.
About 500 estimated on one known breeding area in Makeleha Mountains, Kauai in 1967.

Breeding rate in the wild: One egg annually . Nesting success unknown .

Reasons for decline: Not known to be declining on Kauai. Reasons on other islands
unknown. Possibly exterminated as nester on other islands by mongooses, pigs, dogs, rats,
and other predators . Attraction to lights causes considerable mortality from collisions with
cars and lighted towers .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by Federal and State law . Surveys and
research studies in progress . Known nesting areas delineated and information furnished
public agencies and private owners of land on which they are located.

Measures proposed: Continue exclusion of mongooses from Kauai. Preservation of natural
environment including establishment of needed refuges and sanctuaries. Control predators
where needed. Control of feral grazing animals. Intensify ecological and life history
research.

Number in captivity: None known .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative reports .

King, W. B. , and P. J. Gould. 1967. The status of Newell' s race of the Manx

shearwater. The Living Bird, 6:163-186.
Richardson, F. 1955. Reappearance of Newell's shearwater in Hawaii. Auk 72:412.
, and J. Bowles. 1964. A survey of the birds of Kauai, Hawaii.

Bernice P. Bishop Mus . Bull. 227:19.
Sincock, J. L. and G. E. Swedberg. 1969. Rediscovery of the nesting grounds of

Newell's Manx Shearwater (Puffinus puffinus newelli), with initial observations.

Condor, 71:69-71.
Warner, R. E. 1968. The role of introduced diseases in the extinction of the

endemic Hawaiian avifauna . Condor, 70:101-120.

100

HA WATIAN DARK-RUMPED PETREL (UAU) Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis (Ridgway'

Order PROCELLARIIFORMES Family: PROCELLARIIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A large petrel , dark above with white face; white below .
Underwing white with some black feathers .

Presei.1 distribution: Haleakala Crater on Maui and flanks of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa
on H; waii .

Foremer distribution: Formerly nested at high elevations on all of the main Hawaiian
Islands .

Status: Low numbers . Few observed at sea compared with related species .

Estimated numbers: Probably about 800 adults nesting in Haleakala National Park, Maui.
No estimate for Hawaii, but very small numbers.

Breeding rate in the wild: One egg per year . Nesting success unknown.

Reasons for decline: Evidence that black rats are primary cause of chick mortality at
Haleakala. At lower elevations mosquito-borne avian malaria and predation by mongooses
may be limiting factors (Warner 1968 and Tomich 1969). Formerly collected for human
consumption by early Hawaiians .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State and Federal law. Predator control
has been practiced on Maui recently. The breeding grounds of the main population lies
within National Park boundaries .

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment including establishment of
needed refuges. Control predators where needed. Intensify ecological and life history
research.

Number in captivity: None known.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife . Administrative Reports .

Hawaii Division of Fish and Game. Administrative Reports.

King, W. B. 1970. (in lit.).

Larson, V. W. , unpub .- ms . "The dark-rumped petrel in Haleakala Crater,

Maui, 21 pp. 1967 report to National Park Service.
Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii. Charles E. Tuttle Co., Rutland, Vermont,

and Tokyo, Japan. 192 pp.
Richardson F. and D. Woodside . 1954. Rediscovery of the nesting of the dark-rumped

petrel in the Hawaiian Islands . Condor, 56:323-327.
Tomich, P. Q. 1969. Mammals in Hawaii, a synopsis and notational bibliography.

Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Warner, R. E. 1968. The role of introduced diseases in the extinction of the endemic

Hawaiian avifauna . Condor, 70:101-120.

101

EASTERN BROWN PELICAN Pelecanus occidentalis carolinensis (Gmelin)

Order: PELECANIFORMES Family: PELECANIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A large dark gray-brown water bird with white about the
head and neck in the adults. Immatures are gray -brown above and on neck, with white
underparts . Flies with its head hunched back on its shoulders and its large pouched bill
resting on its breast . It feeds by plunging head first into the water to capture fish .

Present distribution: Breeds on the Atlantic Coast, North Carolina to Florida, Gulf Coast
of Florida, remanent breeding population on south coast of Texas and northern coast of
Mexico, Central and South America to Venezuela and Pacific Coast from Guatemala to
Panama, also Bahamas and Cuba. Winters more extensively on waters surrounding breeding
areas .

Former distribution: Same as above, except formerly was common breeding bird on the
coast of Louisiana where it is now extirpated, and more common on the coast of Texas
and northeastern coast of Mexico .

Status : North Gulf Coast population extirpated from Mississippi Delta to Aransas Bay .
Atlantic Coast population has greatly reduced reproduction resulting from thinning and
collapsing of eggshells . This condition is most acute at northern end of range and decreases
southward in eastern United States . Condition in extensive breeding range south of the
border largely unknown but indication of eggshell thinning in Panama.

Estimated numbers: 8,500 breeding pairs in the United States. No estimate south of
border .

Breeding rate in the wild: Usually 3 eggs, 1 to 3 young per nest. High mortality rate
among preflight young .

Reasons for decline: Almost certainly caused by collapse of thin-shelled eggs or other
impairment of reproductive success . Thin eggshells have been shown to be associated
with excessive amounts of DDE in the food fishes, the contents of pelican eggs, and the
tissues of these birds . Dieldrin is also probably associated with lack of reproductive
success .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by most States . Many colonies protected
by Federal and State refuges or the National Audubon Society sanctuaries. State, Federal,
and private cooperative research has been directed toward analysis of the thin eggshell
condition .

Measures proposed: Continue present research on effects of environmental pollution and
of the life history and ecology of this species, but keep visits to nests to a minimum.
Encourage strict regulation of use of persistent chemical pesticides and the discharge
of wastes from plants which manufacture these products .

Number in captivity: Several hundred.

102

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Anderson, D. W. and J.J. Hickey . 1970. Oological data on egg and breeding

characteristics of brown pelicans . Wilson Bull. 82:14-28.
Blus, L.J. 1970. Measurements of brown pelican eggshells from Florida and

South Carolina . BioScience 20: 867-869 .
, R. G. Heath, G. D. Gish, A. A. Belisle. and R. M. Prouty. 1971.

Eggshell thinning in the brown pelican: implication of DDE. BioScience

21(24): 1213-1215.
National Audubon Society . 1968. Brown pelican newsletter no . 1 .
National Audubon Society . 1969 . Brown pelican newsletter no . 2 .
Palmer, R. S. 1962. Handbook of North American birds . Vol. 1, Loons through

flamingos. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.
Risebrough, R. W., J. Davis, and D. W. Anderson. 1970. Effects of various

chlorinated hydrocarbons . pp. 40-53. In J . W. Gillett (ed. ) . The biological

impact of pesticides in the environment. Environ. Hlth. Sci. Series No. 1,

Oregon State Univ.

103

CALIFORNIA BROWN PELICAN Pelecanus occidentalis californicus (Ridgway)

Order: PELECANIFORMES Family: PELECANIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A large, dark gray-brown water bird with bare skin pouch
on underside of long bill. Much white on head and neck of adults. Immatures have dark
heads. Soaring flight with head folded back, bill resting on chest. Differs from eastern
brown pelican in larger size and in having brown color of back of neck darker, almost
black, and skin sac under bill reddish instead of greenish during the breeding season.

Present distribution: Breeds locally on islands along the Pacific Coast from Anacapa
Island, Ventura County, California; Los Coronados, San Martin, and San Benito Islands
off the coast of Baja California; islands in the Gulf of California; and south to Tres Marias
Islands off Nayarit. Postbreeding movement of birds northward along the Pacific Coast
in late summer and fall .

Former distribution: Same. Historically nested on Santa Cruz, San Miguel Islands,
Santa Barbara County and Monterey County, California.

Status: Much reduced from former numbers in breeding colonies and as non-breeding birds
off the coasts of California and Baja California. Reproduction on Anacapa Island, California,
and Los Coronados and San Martin Islands, Baja California, was almost entirely unsuccessful
from 1969 to 1972. Reproduction on San Benito Island, Baja California, 400 miles south of
United States border, and remote islands in the Gulf of California varies. Success on
islands farther south is more satisfactory .

Estimated numbers: Declining about 1,000 to 1,500 adults local to California in 1972.
Declining 14 to 18 percent per year in California. Minimum population for Mexico and
California over 100,000.

Breeding rate in the wild: Two or three eggs per set.

Reasons for decline: Poor reproductive success due to collapsed eggs because of thin
shells, suspected to result from food contamination with DDE and/or other pollutants.
Tourist disturbance to some Mexican colonies .

Protective measures already taken: State, Federal, and private cooperative research has
been directed toward analysis of the thin eggshell condition and resulting reproductive
success. Waste discharges from plants being corrected. Population surveys being made
by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Measures proposed: Continue present research of effects of environmental pollution and
life history and reproductive biology, but keep visits to nests to a minimum. Encourage
strict regulation of use of persistent chemical pesticides and the discharge of wastes from
plants which manufacture these products . Encourage sanctuary status for nesting colonies .

Number in captivity: Unknown ,

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably slight .

104

References:

Anderson, D. W. and J.J. Hickey. 1970. Oological data on egg and breeding

characteristics of brown pelicans . Wilson Bull. 82:14-28.
, J. O. Keith, R. E. White, K. A. King and L. R. Deweese. 1972.

Field ecology investigations of two effects of selected pesticides on wildlife

populations and brown pelicans--status of P. o. californicus . U.S. Bureau

of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Denver Wildlife Research Center Administrative

Reports .
Blus, L. J. , R. G. Heath, C. D. Gesh, A. A. Belisle, and R. M. Prouty . 1971.

Eggshell thinning in the brown pelican: implication of DDE. Bio-Science

21(24):1213-1215.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Administrative Reports.
Cress, F . 1970. Reproductive status of the California brown pelican in 1970

with notes on breeding biology and natural history.
Keith, J. O. 1969. Administrative report to Denver Wildlife Research Center,

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

and L. A. Woods, Jr. 1970. Reproductive failure in brown pelicans

on the Pacific Coast. Trans. 35th N. A. Wildlife Conf.
Leach, H. R. and L. O. Fisk. 1972. At the crossroads— a report on California's

endangered and rare fish and wildlife. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game.
National Audubon Society. 1968. Brown pelican newsletter No. 1.
National Audubon Society . 1969 . Brown pelican newsletter No . 2 .
Risebrough, R. W. 1969. Thin eggshells causing reproductive failure of brown

pelicans. Unpublished report. Institute of Marine Resources, University of

California, Berkeley.

, J . Davis , and D . W . Anderson . 1970 . Effects of various chlorinated

hydrocarbons . Pp. 40-53. In J . W . Gillett (ed. ) .
Schreiber, R. W. and R. L. DeLong . 1969. Brown pelican status in California.

Audubon Field Notes 23: 57-59.

and R. W. Risebrough. 1972. Studies of the brown pelican . I.

Status of brown pelican populations in the United States. Wilson Bull. 84:119-135.
Sibley, F. 1969. Administrative report to Patuxent Wildlife Research Center ,

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife .

105

FLORIDA GREAT WHITE HERON Ardea o . occidentalis Audubon

Order: CICONIIFORMES Family: ARDEIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: The largest heron native to the United States; pure
white with yellow beak and yellowish legs .

Present distribution: Breeds in Florida Keys, Florida Bay, and southern peninsular
Florida north to southern Biscayne Bay (Arsenicker Keys) on the Atlantic Coast and to
Cape Romano on the Gulf Coast. Disperses regularly (mostly immature birds) to the
interior of extreme southern mainland Florida (Tamiami Trail), to Dry Tortugas, and
on both coasts to Tampa Bay and Cape Kennedy. Wandering birds occasionally found
farther north along both Florida coasts , and more rarely in adjacent States . Another
race of this species occurs elsewhere in the Caribbean region.

Former distribution: Same. Old reports of breeding north to Tampa Bay probably
unreliable .

Status: Total population very small although common within its range, which is very
restricted. Subject to extreme reduction by hurricanes; 22 known to have perished
as a result of Hurricane Betsy in 1965.

Estimated numbers: Based on recent aerial counts, 2,000 adults - of which about
1,500 in Everglades National Park, 400 in National Wildlife Refuges of Lower Florida
Keys, and 100 in Florida Keys aside from above, and scattered along coast of
southern Florida .

Breeding rate in the wild: 2-5 (usually 2 or 3) young per year.

Reasons for decline: Illegal hunting (formerly) and mortality caused by hurricanes.
P.educed to about 150 after September 1935 hurricane. Everglades National Park
(Florida Bay) population suffered adult mortality of about 359 (40 percent) from
Hurricane Donna of September 1960. This loss was regained by 1963. Damage to the
habitat by hurricanes is apparently of little importance.

Protective measures already taken: Everglades National Park and the Great White
Heron, Key Deer and Key West National Wildlife Refuges protect virtually the entire
range . Protected by Florida State law . Studies intended to clarify the relationship
between this species and the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) and to ascertain the
amount of movement and interchange between the Lower Keys and Florida Bay populations
are in progress . The former should give an estimate of the likelihood of loss of the
Great White Heron by interbreeding with Great Blues. The latter should permit better
understanding of repopulation after extirpation by hurricanes in a portion of the range
which seems likely to be a recurring factor in the history of the species .

Measures proposed: Continued strict law enforcement to prevent shooting . Maintain
habitat in its natural state, particularly those Keys used for nesting. Regulate use of
mosquito control poisons in feeding areas .

106

Number in captivity: None known.
Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .
References:

Holt, E.G. 1928. The status of the great white heron and Wurdemann's heron.

Scientific Pub . of Cleveland Mus . Nat. Hist. 1(1): 1-35.
Meyerriecks, A.J. 1960. Comparative breeding behavior of four species of

North American herons . Publications of Nuttall Ornithological Club, No . 2 .
Robertson, W. B., Jr. Park Biologist, Everglades National Park,

P.O. Box 279, Homestead, Florida.
Stieglitz, W. Biologist, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Delray Beach, Florida.

107

HAWAIIAN GOOSE (NENE) Branta sandvicensis (Vigors)

Order: ANSERIFORMES Family: ANATIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A heavily barred, gray-brown goose with black face,
buff neck with deep furrows in plumage, black bill. Feet only partly webbed.

Present distribution: Lava flows between 5,000 and 8,000 feet on the slopes of Mauna Loa,
and Hualalai, Island of Hawaii. Reintroduction efforts on Maui in Haleakala Crater began
in 1962. Nesting occurring but results uncertain.

Former distribution: Over a much more extensive area of the island of Hawaii,
Hawaiian Islands . Possibly island of Maui .

Status: Still very uncommon and localized. Prospect for survival better than in 1949
when restoration program started.

Estimated numbers: Reduced from estimated 25,000 in latter part of 1800' s to possibly
less than 50. Less than 1,000 estimated in the wild in 1972.

Breeding rate in the wild: Two to five eggs per year.

Reasons for decline: Former hunting, predation by introduced mammals, such as dogs,
pigs and mongooses , destruction of food and cover by grazing animals .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by Federal and State law . Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has annual contract of $25,000 with Hawaii Division of Fish
and Game to continue propagation program . The Division is continuing ecological
investigations. Four refuges totaling over 50,000 acres of private land have been
established in Hawaii through temporary cooperative agreements with landowners and
Division of Fish and Game . As of July 1972, releases of captive-reared stock totaled 816
on Hawaii, 297 on Maui. Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific values.

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment including establishment of
needed permanent refuges. Control of predators, feral grazing animals and domestic
stock. Continue captive propagation program. Continue reintroduction into former range.
Introduction into new range . Intensify ecological and life history research of the species .

Number in captivity: Several hundred in zoos and private and government aviaries in
the United States and Europe .

Breeding potential in captivity: Good.

References;

Anonymous. 1963. A return of the nene to Hawaii . Nature 200: 945-946 .

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife administrative reports .

Elder, W. H. , and D. H. Woodside. 1958. Biology and management of the Hawaiian

goose. Trans. 23rd N. A. Wildlife Conf. pp. 198-215.
Hawaii Division of Fish and Game administrative reports.
Scott, P. Severn Wildfowl Trust, Slimbridge, England.

108

ALEUTIAN CANADA GOOSE Branta canadensis leucopareia (Brandt)

Order: ANSERIFORMES Family; ANATIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A very small race of the Canada goose, only slightly larger
than the tiny cackling Canada goose . Plumage relatively dark brown above and dark gray
below like neighboring races. Has the broadest white band at the base of the black neck,
and when viewed from above, the most pointed bill of any race of Canada goose.

Present distribution: As far as known, confined in nesting season to Buldir Island,
Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Winter range probably same as formerly. Seen at Sendai City,
Northern Japan, November 1962 (Y . Yamashina) . Possible sight records on Grizzly Island,
Suisun Bay, California, December 1964 (J. W. Aldrich) , Willamette Valley near Corvallis ,
Oregon, in May 1968 ( D. B. Marshall), and near Willows, California, December 21, 1969
(Ben Towers) . Specimen, now in National Museum, taken mid-November 1971, at Willapa
Bay, Washington ( J . W . Aldrich and D. B. Marshall).

Former distribution: Bred on many of the Aleutian Islands, including Amchitka, Agattu,
Attu, Semichi, Atka, Unalaska, Amlia, Adak , Kanaga, Tanaga, Kiska, and Buldir. Migrated
to California and Japan.

Status: Wild population very small, confined, as far as known, to one breeding island.

Estimated numbers: About 250 to 300 individuals.

Breeding rate in the wild: Average clutch about 6 eggs in captivity, 4 or 5 young each
year in the wild .

Reasons for decline: Presumed to be chiefly predation by introduced Arctic foxes on
their breeding grounds, with introduced rats also a possible contributing factor. Neither
foxes nor rats were introduced on Buldir Island because of its relative inaccessibility,
and this is presumed to have been the reason for survival of the goose breeding population.

Protective measures already taken: Arctic foxes have been eliminated from two islands
on which it formerly nested, Amchitka and Agattu. Sixteen goslings were captured on
Buldir Island in 1963. From their descendants, reared at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
75 birds of three age classes were reintroduced to Amchitka Island in spring of 1971. There
have been no confirmed recoveries to date from this release. In 1972, 22 additional goslings
were taken from Buldir Island to bolster captive stock.

Measures proposed: Continue to rear captive birds properly conditioned for release into
the wild. The captive-reared birds will be used to restock former breeding islands as
soon as they have been rid of foxes .

Number in captivity: 104 at Patuxent and 32 on loan to zoos and other selected cooperators .

Breeding potential in captivity: Excellent.

109

References:

Jones, R. D., Jr. 1963. Buldir Island, site of a remnant breeding population

of Aleutian Canada geese. Wildfowl Trust 14th Annual Report 1961-62.
Kenyon, K. Administrative Report, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,

San Point Naval Station, Seattle, Washington.
Marshall, D. B. 1968. Endangered plants and animals of Oregon, Part III, Birds,

Extension Division, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon.
Towers, B. (Inlitt. 1970).
Yamashina, Y. (inlitt. 1964).

110

TULE WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE Anser albifrons gambelli (Hartlaub)

Order: ANSERIFORMES Family: ANATIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A medium-sized gray-brown goose with pink bill, orange
or yellow feet and white patch on front of face . Variable amount of black spotting on the
underparts. Immatures are dusky, without the distinctive marks of adults except the
orange or yellow feet. Differs from other races of North American white-fronted geese by
larger size and darker coloration.

Present distribution: Two populations, one migrating into the Pacific states and the other
through the Great Plains. Breeding area for Pacific birds is unknown, but they winter in
Central California. Migrants recorded in western Oregon and as far south as northwestern
Mexico. Great Plains population migrates through Saskatchewan south to Texas and
Louisiana . Breeding population for this group discovered by Bob Elgas and Jack Kiracope
in northern Yukon Territory, Canada.

Former distribution: Nothing further known beyond that for present distribution .

Status: Difficult to determine exact status because of difficulty of distinguishing from other
forms of white-fronted geese. Identified each year at hunter checking stations in California.
No information on number taken in Great Plains migration route, although measurements of
birds banded in Saskatchewan indicate that they are relatively scarce migrants compared
with the Pacific white-fronted goose, (Anser albifrons frontalis) .

Estimated numbers: Evidently only a small fraction of the approximately 200,000 white-
fronted geese in North America.

Breeding rate in the wild: 5 or 6 eggs per year.

Reasons for decline: Not known to have declined but relatively tame nature, as compared
with other geese, makes the tule more vulnerable to shooting.

Protective measures already taken: Studies of distribution and abundance have been
conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Canadian Wildlife
Service, and Bob Elgas of Big Timber, Montana. Captive propagation is underway by the
Bureau and Elgas . The expedition by Elgas and Kiracofe to northern Yukon Territory
where a breeding population was located was supported by the World Wildlife Fund.

Measures proposed: Continue study of only known breeding population in northern Yukon
Territory. Survey adjoining areas to locate other colonies. Continue to develop capture
techniques in California, and devise telemetry technique to enable tracking of Pacific
population to their nesting area, which is unknown. Preserve study specimens of breeding
birds to determine range of variation of this subspecies, so it can be identified in migration
more certainly. Eggs should be taken from the breeding areas and adults from wintering
areas for captive rearing of stock for liberation into the wild, and learning more about the
biology of this goose .

Ill

Number in captivity: Several pair in possession of Bob Elgas at Big Timber, Montana,
and Patuxent Wildlife Research Center propagation station of the U.S. Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife at Laurel, Maryland.

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably good.

References:

Delacour, J. 1954. Waterfowl of the world. Vol . 1: 108-109.

Elgas, B. 1970. Breeding populations of white-fronted geese in northwestern

Canada. Wilson Bull . 82: 420-426 .
Moffitt, J. 1926. Notes on white-fronted and tule geese in central California.

Condor 28:241-243.
Swarth, H. S. and H. C. Bryant. 1917. A study of the races of white-fronted

goose (Anser albifrons) occurring in California . Univ . California . Pubs . in

Zool. 17:209-222.
Wilbur, S. R. 1966a. The tule white-fronted goose, a summary of our present

knowledge. Paper presented at Cooper Ornithological Society Meeting, San

Francisco State College, April 9, 1966.
. 1966b. Characteristics of the tule white-fronted goose (Anser

albifrons gambelli) on the California wintering grounds. Progress Report 1,

U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Sacramento Nat. Wildlife Refuge,

California. 10 pp. typed.

112

LAYSAN DUCK Anas laysanensis (Rothschild)

Order: ANSERIFORMES Family: ANATIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Teal-sized, dull brownish duck. Similar to the
Hawaiian duck but darker, particularly on head of male and with varying amounts of
white around eye and on throat.

Present distribution: Resident on Laysan Island (1,117 acres), Hawaiian Islands National
Wildlife Refuge in Northwestern Hawaiian Islands .

Former distribution: Same as present.

Status: Currently small and fluctuating population. Subject to sudden destruction and
extinction if vegetation feeders such as rabbits or goats, or predators such as rats, cats,
or dogs should arrive on the island. Accidental introduction of pest insects or plants
could adversely alter ecology of the island.

Estimated numbers: Almost exterminated by 1923 when only 7 were recorded. Since

1964 population has fluctuated between 75 (1970) to 475 (1964) . Estimated 175 in September,

1972.

Breeding rate in the wild: About 3 to 4 young . Brood success unknown .

Reasons for decline: Almost became extinct in early part of the century because of
destruction of vegetation by feral rabbits introduced by man. Increased when rabbits
were eliminated and vegetation grew back. Reasons for current fluctuations unknown.

Protective measures already taken: Island now posted with refuge warning signs .
Protected by Federal and State law . Entry to island restricted and by permit only . Status
of refuge and entry by permit requirement information is on official nautical charts of area
and in U.S. Coast Pilot . A considerable number are in aviaries in the United States and
Europe and are available for stocking purposes if needed. Prevent introduction of harmful
insects, plants, and animals. Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific values.
Patrol of refuge .

Measures proposed: Continued publicity concerning refuge status and unauthorized
landings prohibited by law . Establishment of populations on other Pacific islands . Captive
rearing program to include conditioning birds for release into the wild for establishing
new populations . Intensify life history studies especially breeding habits and mortality
factors .

Number in captivity: There are over 150 in zoos and private aviaries in the United States
and Europe including a few breeding birds at the Pohakuloa State Game Farm, Hawaii.

Breeding potential in captivity: Very good .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports .
Warner, R. E. 1963. Recent history and ecology of the Laysan duck.
Condor 65: 2-23.

113

HAWAIIAN DUCK (KOLOA) Anas wyvilliana (Sclater)

Order: ANSERIFORMES Family: ANATIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small, teal-sized duck, streaked brown and buff.
Color similar to a Mexican duck in male, but with somewhat paler body and darker head.
Female similar in color to a female mallard.

Present distribution: Resident on island of Kauai, Hawaii, where it inhabits coastal
lagoons, marshes and mountain streams. Reintroduced experimentally on Oahu and
Hawaii .

Former distribution: Resident on the main islands of the Hawaiian group except Lanai
and Kahoolawe .

Status: Much reduced from former numbers .

Estimated numbers: State Division of Fish and Game personnel estimate 3,000.
(Swedberg 1967) .

Breeding rate in the wild: Clutch size averages 7.8 eggs.

Reasons for decline: Changes in agricultural practices (great decline in taro and rice
acreages) and destruction of other wetlands, indiscriminate shooting. Predation by
mongooses, (except Kauai) rats, cats, dogs, and pigs, particularly on nests.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by Federal and State law . Not hunted
since 1930. Introduction of mongoose on Kauai prevented. Hawaii Division of Fish and
Game has completed a special study of their ecology and conducted a propagation program
with funds from the World Wildlife Fund. Many in aviaries in the United States and Europe
are available for stocking purposes. In 1968, 32 were liberated in Kawainui Swamp,
Oahu and 52 in Kohala Mountains, Hawaii. Some breeding by latter birds has occurred.
Critical habitats identified , reasons for decline detailed and action program recommended
in booklet published jointly by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Hawaii Division
of Fish and Game. Acquisition of key area at Hanalei as a national wildlife refuge.
Negotiations in progress for other key areas on Kauai .

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment including establishment of
needed refuges. Control predators where needed. Reintroduction into former range.
Increase law enforcement effort. Continue ecological and life history research. Surveillance
for chemical contamination and other such environmental pollution.

Number in captivity: Low hundreds distributed a;nong various zoos and aviaries .

Breeding potential in captivity: Good .

References:

Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports.

Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii . Charles E. TuttleCo., Rutland, Vermont,
and Tokyo, Japan.

114

Swartz , C . W . , and E . R . Schwartz . A reconnaissance of the game birds of Hawaii .

Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry, Territory of Hawaii, 168 pp.
Swedberg, G. E. 1967. The Koloa. Hawaii Division of Fish and Game, 56 pp.
Takata, M. Division of Fish and Game, Department of Land and Natural Resources,

Honolulu, Hawaii. 96813 (in lit. 1965).

115

MEXICAN DUCK Anas diazi (Ridgway)

Order: ANSERIFORMES Family: ANATIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A large dabbling duck, most closely resembling the
black duck but lighter colored and with white-bordered speculum like a female mallard.

Present distribution: Extremely localized in southeastern Arizona, southern New Mexico
and central western Texas, south in Mexican Highlands to Puebla and Michoacan.

Former distribution: Same , and farther north in the Rio Grande Valley to northern
New Mexico .

Status: Extremely vulnerable although it still has a fairly large population in Mexico.

Estimated numbers: Possibly 500 in the United States; 14,760 in Mexico according to
"Winter Surveys January 1970" in Mexico Winter Waterfowl Survey of Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife .

Breeding rate in the wild: Five to seven young .

Reasons for decline: Drainage of wetlands. Also hybridization with the common mallard
(Anas platyrhynchos) is taking place with the southward spread of this species. This
may be a result of changing remaining wetlands to a condition more suitable to the mallard
than to the Mexican duck.

Protective measures already taken: The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife are developing habitat on refuges and conducting
captive propagation. From progeny obtained by captive rearing, breeding pairs have
been distributed to New Mexico State game farms, refuges, zoos, and private propagators.
Restocking of former breeding areas has begun. Penned flock of brood stock established
at Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in 1965. Habitat is being restored at
San Simon Cienega by Bureau of Land Management.

Measures proposed: Research to determine if there is a specific type of habitat required
by Mexican ducks, distinct from that required by mallards, which may separate the
forms reproductively . Reestablishment and protection of suitable habitat in the former
breeding areas; restocking suitable habitat with pure strain birds reared in captivity.

Number in captivity: Present number unknown. Mostly in possession of private
propagators .

Breeding potential in captivity: Good .

References:

Aldrich, J. W. and K. P. Baer. 1970. Status and speciation in the Mexican duck

(Anas diazi), Wilson Bulletin, 82:63-73.
Huey, W. S. 1960. Restoration of the New Mexican duck. December job completion
report. Federal Aid Project No. W-91-R-3, Job No. 9. New Mexico Department
of Game and Fish. 10 pp.

. 1963. New Mexican duck's return. New Mexico Wildlife 8(2): 18-19.

116

Johnsgard, P. A. 1961. Evolutionary relationships among the North American

mallards. Auk 78: 3-43.
Leopold, S. 1959. Wildlife of Mexico, the game birds and mammals . University

of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 568 p.
Levy, S. H. 1964. What has happened to the Mexican duck . Audubon Field

Notes 18: 558-559.
Lindsey, A. A. 1946. The nesting of the New Mexican duck. Auk Vol. 63,

pp. 483-492.
Morse. W. B. 1963. The New Mexico duck - Bill Huey's birds . American Forests,

Dec. 1963. 26-27, 54-55.
Phillips, J. C. 1923. A natural history of the ducks. Vol. 2, Houghton Mifflin
Co., Cambridge, Mass. p. 56.

117

CALIFORNIA CONDOR Gymnogyps californianus (Shaw)

Order: FALCONIFORMES Family: CATHARTIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: North American's largest soaring land bird. Weighs 20
to 25 pounds and has a wing spread of 9 to 94 feet. It has dark brown plumage with a
large white patch under each wing and a bare orange head in the adult. The young birds
have dark heads . There are light and dark phases of immature plumage the correlation
of which is not understood .

Present distribution: Southern coast ranges from Santa Clara County south to the
Transverse Mountains and north in the Sierra Nevada foothills to Fresno County. There
may be a small population in Baja California (Wilbur) .

Former distribution: In historical times, from the Columbia River in Oregon, south
to northern Baja California, east to southwest Utah and Arizona. Prehistoric remains
east to Texas .

Status: Of special concern because of very small population and greatly restricted
breeding range .

Estimated numbers: Annual survey reported minimum counts ranging from high of 53
birds in 1969 to a low of 28 in 1970. Total population estimated at 50 to 60.

Breeding rate in the wild: Usually only one young every other year. If unsuccessful
one year renesting usually occurs the next year. One pair nested 4 successive years
(1966-69), producing one young each year. Approximately two young reach flying
stage each year . Only two nest sites were known to be used and only one produced
young in 1969.

Reasons for decline: Disturbance by man, including habit modification and shooting.
Some have been killed after eating strychnine bait or strychnine poisoned animals.
Possible shortage of food near nesting sites during breeding period.

Protective measures already taken: Taking and possession prohibited by Federal and
State law with penalties up to a year in jail or $1,000 fine or both. Use of poison prohibited
on Federal lands within the range of the condor. Two sanctuaries established by the U.S.
Forest Service to protect major nesting areas . Development of a condor management plan
for the Los Padres National Forest by a full-time condor biologist. An annual condor
survey conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game. Appointment of a condor
naturalist by the National Audubon Society. Five-year research study by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service . Experiments with propagation of related South American condor are
in progress at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center near Laurel, Maryland. Refusal of
oil drilling rights in condor breeding area by Department of the Interior in 1971. Restricted
air traffic above condor sanctuaries . Firearms closures and protection of nest sites by
U.S. Forest Service in key condor areas under their control. California Department of
Fish and Game have developed operational management plan.

118

Measures proposed: Constant cooperation of State and Federal Government and private
conservation agencies in law enforcement, public education, land management, and
research studies. Purchase of private lands within the Sespe Condor Sanctuary and
purchase or lease of important feeding areas subject to destruction. Determine the
possible benefits of supplemental feeding either in restricting wandering or providing
food during critical periods .

Number in captivity: One in the Los Angeles Zoo not on display. Brought to the zoo
as a fledgling in February 1967 after being deserted by its parents.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown, but based on experience with South American
condors, thought to be good. Two unmated female California condors at the National Zoo,
Washington, D.C. , during several decades laid about two dozen eggs.

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife . 1969. Sespe Creek Project, California,

a detailed report on fish and wildlife resources. Prepared in Regional Office,

Bur. Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 39 pp.
Carrier, W. D. el al . 1972. California condor survey 1971. Calif. Fish & Game

58(4): 327-328.
Clement, R. C. 1969. The status of the California condor. Nat. Geog . Soc .

Research Reports, 1964 Projects: 163-169.
Koford, C. B. 1953. The California condor. National Audubon Society Research

Report No . 4 , 154 pp .
Leach, H. R. and L. O. Fisk. 1972. At the crossroads — a report on California's

endangered and rare fish and wildlife. The Resources Agency, Calif. Dept.

of Fish & Game .
Mallette, R. D. 1971. Results of the California condor baiting effort, 1967-1969.

Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game Adm . Report No . 71-6.
. el al. 1970. California condor surveys, 1969. Calif. Fish & Game

56(3):199-202.
. elal. 1972. California condor survey , 1970 . Calif . Fish & Game

58(1): 67-68.
Miller, A. H. , 1. McMillan, and E. McMillan. 1965. The current status and welfare

of the California condor. National Audubon Society Research Report No. 6, 61 pp .
Sibley, F. C. 1969. Effects of the Sespe Creek Project on the California Condor.

Unpublished Report in Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife .
, R. D. Mallette, J. C. Borneman, and R. S. Dalen. 1968. Third

Cooperative survey of the California condor. Calif. Fish & Game 54(4): 297-303.
, R. D. Mallette, J. C. Borneman, and R. S. Dalen. 1969. California

condor surveys 1968. Calif. Fish & Game 55(4): 298-306 .
Wilbur, S. R. Administrative reports in Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

. Causes for decline of the California condor. (Condor--In Press 1972),

119

FLORIDA EVERGLADE KITE Rosthrhamus sociabilis plumbeus (Ridgway)

(FLORIDA SNAIL KITE)

Order: FALCONIFORMES Family: ACCEPITRIDAE

Distinguishing cgaracteristics: Very similar to marsh hawk but without wavering
tilting flight. Adult male slate gray with black head and wing tips, white patch at
base of square tail and light gray tail tip; legs and eyes red; bill extremely
hooked. Female and immature heavily streaked with dark lines on buffy body, a white
line over eye and a white tail patch. Distinguished from the Mexican form of the same
species by smaller size and from the Cuban race by smaller bill.

Present distribution: Fresh water marshes of southern Florida; from Lake Okeechobee
south through the three Conservation Areas and into the northern part of the Everglades
National Park . Conservation Area 1 is the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge .

Former distribution: Locally in fresh-water marshes in all of peninsular Florida.

Status: Jeopardized because of the very small population and increasingly limited
amount of fresh marsh with sufficient water to insure an adequate supply of snails
on which it depends for food .

Estimated numbers; Approximately 120 in 1969. Larger number than in previous
years probably due to more complete coverage .

Breeding rate in the wild: Normally lays 2 to 3 eggs a year in nest on low tree or
bush in fresh marsh. In 1968, 17 young were fledged from 7 of 9 known nests which
is 2.4 young per successful nest. Of the two unsuccessful nests, one was destroyed
by a marsh fire and the eggs did not hatch in the other nest that was located near a
heavily used airboat trail.

Reasons for decline: Original population severely reduced by shooting along with
other hawks, by duck hunters, together with declining habitat. Some shooting still
continues and may be an important mortality factor. Drainage of marshes for agri-
culture and residential use is definitely a serious hazard. Drought and fire have
combined with drainage of marsh habitat to reduce populations of the single species
of large snail, Pomacea paludosa Say, on which the kites depend for food.

Protective measures already taken: Educational programs by Florida and National
Audubon Societies and Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to discourage indiscrim-
inate shooting and publicize the fact that these birds need protection. Development
and patrolling of sanctuaries on Lake Okeechobee by National Audubon Society.
Portion of the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge where kites are known to nest
closed to entry and patrolled during nesting seasons by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife. Water-hyacinth control to encourage snails practiced on Loxahatchee Refuge.
Field investigations under way to determine critical factors and effective conservation
measures. South American snail kites, one of four subspecies of Everglade kite, are

120

being reared at Patuxent Center to develop propagation techniques that will be available
for use if ever needed with Florida Everglade kite.

Measures proposed: Efforts to maintain suitable water levels of additional large areas
of fresh marsh in Lake Okeechobee area and closing to entry and patrolling of sections
where kites are found nesting . Research on ecology of the snail Pomacea paludosa to
determine proper water levels . Attempt to get Corp of Engineers and flood control
district to coordinate water use to keep water levels satisfactory for kite habitat and
food supply. Develop artificial potholes to assure survival of nucleus populations of
snails .

Number in captivity: None known.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bent, A. C. 1938. Life histories of North American birds of prey . Part 1.

U.S. National Museum Bulletin 167. Republished 1961 by Dover Publications,

New York, New York.
Julian, W. , Refuge Manager, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Box 278,

Route 1, Delray Beach, Florida (pers . comm . ) .
Snyder, N. F. R. and H. A. Snyder. 1969. A comparative study of the mollusc

predation by limkens , Everglade kites and boat-tailed grackles . The Living

Bird, Eighth Annual, Lab. Ornith. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

175 pp.
Sykes, P. W. , Jr . , Wildlife Biologist, Endangered Wildlife Research Program,

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Delray Beach, Florida (pers. comm.).
Sprunt, A. , Jr. 1945. The phantom of the marshes. Audubon Magazine 47:

15-72.

121

PUERTO RICAN SHARP-SHINNED HAWK Accipiter striatus venator (Wetmore)

Order: FALCONIFORMES Family: ACCIPITRIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small hawk with a long square-ended tail and short,
rounded wings. Straight away flight with quick wing beats alternated with gliding.
Adults have bluish gray upper parts with black barring on tail and underparts barred
with reddish brown. Immatures are brown above and white streaked with brown below.
Distinguished from the American sharp-shinned hawk (velox) by smaller size, darker
coloration, and dark bands of tail heavier and more distinct.

Present distribution: Found only in the Cordillera Central of Puerto Rico between
Maricao Forest and Mayaguez and in Luquillo Forest.

Former distribution: Same as present and possibly more widely distributed in mountain
forests .

Status: Vulnerable because of small numbers and restricted mountain forest habitat.

Estimated numbers: No satisfactory estimate but almost certainly less than 100-200 birds.

Breeding rate in the wild: One nest found by James McCandless contained 2 eggs.

Reasons for decline: Cutting and reduction of area of mountain forests .

Protective measures already taken: Preservation of habitat incidental to establishment
of Federal and State forests .

Measures proposed: A thorough study of this species to determine limits of its
distribution, its abundance, and factors affecting its survival.

Number in captivity: None known .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown but probably poor .

References:

Bond, J. 1936. Birds of the West Indies . Acad. Natural Sciences of

Philadelphia and supplements 1940 to 1956.
Friedmann, H. 1950. The birds of North and Middle America, U.S. Nat. Mus.

Bull. 50. pt. XI.
Kepler, C. B. Administrative reports, Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife.
Leopold, N. F. 1963. Checklist of birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Univ. Puerto Rico Agric . Exp. Sta . Bull. 168.

122

HAWAIIAN HAWK (lO) Buteo solitarius (Peale)

Order: FALCONIFORMES Family: ACCIPITRIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small, soaring type of hawk . Two color phases:
dark, very dark above and below; light, upper parts dark, underparts light buff often
streaked .

Present distribution: Confined to Island of Hawaii. Locally common on slopes of Mauna
Loa , windward and Kona coasts .

Former distribution: Same as present.

Status: In small numbers, although widely distributed on the Island of Hawaii. Much
reduced from former numbers and in need of greater protection.

Estimated numbers: Probably in low hundreds .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Alteration of environment by modern man. Habitat destruction
and illegal killing which still persists.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State and Federal laws .

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment. Increase law enforcement
effort. Initiate ecological and life history research. Surveillance for chemical contami-
nation and other such environmental pollution. Publicize critical status and aesthetic
and scientific values. Quarantine on all birds, including cage birds, brought into the
State, to prevent introduction of disease. Initiate experimental propagation program.

Number in captivity: One in Honolulu Zoo .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Administrative Reports.
Munro, CD. 1960. Birds of Hawaii .

123

SOUTHERN BALD EAGLE Haliaeetus 1 ■ leucocephalus (Linnaeus)

Order: FALCONIFORMES Family: ACCIPITRIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Large, hawk-like, soaring bird, plumage mainly dark
brown with pure white head and tail when adult . Brown blotched with white all over when
immature. Distinuished from the other race of the species, the northern bald eagle, only
by smaller size.

Present distribution: Nests primarily in estuarine areas of Atlantic and Gulf coasts,
locally from New Jersey to Texas , and lower Mississippi Vjilley southward from eastern
Arkansas and western Tennessee, and through southern States west to California and
Baja California . Some birds wander northward in summer after nesting season to northern
United States and southeastern Canada . Adult population of southern Florida essentially
resident .

Former distribution: More extensive, but locally, in the southern United States the same
as at present.

Status: Generally decreasing . Reproduction apparently less successful than formerly
except in Everglades National Park, where about 52 pairs nested in 1965 with a success of
50 percent and a production of 1.46 young per successfial nest.

Estimated numbers: About 235 active nests in 1965, 99 of which were successful.

Breeding rate in the wild: Normally, about 1.5 young per successful nest.

Reasons for decline: Increase in human population in primary nesting areas . Distur-
bance of nesting birds, illegal shooting, loss of nest trees, and possible reduced repro-
duction as a result of pesticides ingested with food by adults.

Protective measures already taken: Federal laws in the United States protect both the
bald and golden eagles . The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the State game
departments enforce these laws . The Bureau is also studying the effects of pesticides
on bald eagles. Eight National Wildlife Refuges in the southeastern United States have
bald eagles nesting on them. The National Audubon Society is conducting intensive
investigations of bald eagle distribution, status, breeding biology, and limiting factors.
Florida Audubon Society has obtained agreements with landowners for 2,300,000 acres
where nests are located to be treated as bald eagle sanctuaries . The Society makes annual
inspections of these nesting sites. Access to eagle nesting areas on National Wildlife
Refuges is restricted. Timber cutting, road traffic, and pesticide use have been reduced
or eliminated. Cooperation of the public is being sought in reducing human activity in
areas adjacent to refuges in vicinity of eagle nests. Potential nest sites (trees) are being
preserved in existing and promising nesting areas . The Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
has developed facilities where propagation of the northern and southern races is underway.
The Center is studying pesticidal contaminants in the environment of the bald eagle and
is developing captive propagation methods to produce birds to bolster wild populations
or restore breeding pairs to depleted habitat.

124

Measures proposed; Continued surveillance of nest sites to determine success of pro-
duction and to learn reasons for failures . Continued research on effects of pesticides
and other presumed limiting factors . Educational programs and personal contacts with
local residents and landowners in bald eagle nesting areas to obtain maximum interest
and cooperation in protecting these birds and their nests . Secure cooperation of other
agencies in reducing and eliminating spraying of DDT.

Number in captivity: At least 50.

Breeding potential in captivity: Limited .

References:

Broley, C. L. 1958. The plight of the American Bald Eagle. Audubon Magazine,

60:162-163, 171.
Cunningham, R. L. 1960. The status of the bald eagle in Florida. Audubon

Magazine, 62:24-26, 41, 43.
Imler, R. H. and E. R. Kalmbach. 1955. The bald eagle and its economic status.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular, 30:1-51.
Robbins, C. S. 1960. Status of the bald eagle summer of 1959. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Leaflet, 418:1-8.
Robertson, W. B. Park Naturalist, Everglades National Park, Homestead,

Florida, (in lit. 1964).

125

PRAIRIE FALCON Falco mexicanus (Schlegel)

Order: FALCONIFORMES Family: FALCONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Medium sized hawk with long pointed wings and long
tail. Generally pale gray coloration, lighter below, with conspicuous dark patches on
under sides of wings where they join the body. Flies with rapid but shallow wing beats.

Present distribution: Breeds from central British Columbia east to southern Saskatchewan
and south to Baja California and northern Texas . Winters throughout breeding range and
southward to central Mexico .

Former distribution: Same, but less localized.

Status: Has disappeared from many localities within its overall range .

Estimated numbers: No estimates .

Breeding rate in the wild: Usually 4 or 5 eggs per set. Insufficient data available
to determine nesting success.

Reasons for decline: Not fully known . Hard pesticides and resulting decline in
production of young a factor in some areas . Young taken for falconry.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by federal law and laws of some states.

Measures proposed: Study to determine decimating factors. Better nest protection.
Status surveys .

Number in captivity: Not known, although certainly a number in zoos and in the
possession of falconers .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bent, A. C. 1938. Life histories of North American birds of prey (Part 2).

U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 170: 482 pp. (18-42).
Craighead, J. J. and F . C. Craighead. 1956. Hawks, owls, and wildlife.

Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Wildlife Management

Institute, Washington, D.C.

126

AMERICAN PEREGRINE FALCON Falco peregrinus anatum (Bonaparte)

Order: FALCONIFORMES Family: FALCONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Medium-sized hawk with long, pointed wings and long
tail. Rapid, shallow wing beats. Adult is slate gray above, wing and tail feathers and
flanks barred with black. Moustache marks on side face black. Throat white. Below
white and reddish buffy , extensively spotted and barred with black . Legs and feet
yellow. Immature brown above, streaked below . Larger, darker, and black markings
on face more extensive than Arctic peregrine (F^. £^. tundrius); paler and more reddish,
less grayish below than Peale's peregrine.

Present distribution: Breeds from non-Arctic portions of Alaska and Canada south to
Baja California (except coast of southern Alaska and British Columbia), central Arizona
and Mexico (locally); eastern limits presently follow eastern front of the Rocky Mountains
in the United States; distribution local in the southern boreal forests of Canada and a few
pairs still breed in Labrador. Winters chiefly in breeding range, but more northern
birds move to south. Other races occur on Pacific coast of British Columbia and southern
Alaska in Arctic North America and other parts of the world.

Former distribution: Same, but breeding distribution also included Eastern United
States south to Georgia; also Ontario, southern Quebec and the Maritime Provinces of
Canada .

Status: Extirpated as a breeding bird east of the Rocky Mountains in the United States ,
in Ontario, southern Quebec, and the Maritimes . Local declines reported from the western
United States also taiga in Yukon Territory, Mackenzie District, and interior Alaska
(Cade and Fyfe) . Eggshell thickness reduced 15 to 20 percent since 1947 (Hickey and
Anderson, Cade and Fyfe, Cade et al . ) , and taiga eggs average more than 600 ppm DDE
(lipid basis); there is a highly significant negative correlation between shell thickness
and DDE concentration in eggs (Cade et al^. ) .

Estimated numbers: Number of known aeries with adults present in 1969-70, but not all
producing young: British Columbia , 19 (J. Simonyi); Alberta, 3 (R . Fyfe); southern
Labrador, 2 (R. Fyfe); California, 2 (H. L. Leach); Oregon, 2 (D . B. Marshall); western
Mexico, 14 (M. Kirven); Arizona, 2 (J. Enderson); New Mexico, 2 (J. Enderson);
Utah, 0 (C. M. White); Colorado, 6-8; Wyoming, 1; Montana, 1 (J. Enderson); Texas, 3-5
(C. M. White). Recent information lacking for Washington, Idaho, and Nevada but
Nelson (in Hickey, 1969) estimated only 10 to 20 percent of pairs remaining in 1965. A
few hundred pairs still breed in interior Alaska and taiga of Northwestern Canada princi-
pally along major rivers . Status in eastern Canadian boreal forest unclear but evidently
not numerous .

Breeding rate in the wild: 3 or 4 eggs per set. Number of pairs laying eggs and hatching
success low in southern part of range (Herman et al.); reproductive rate and number of
breeding pairs also decreasing in taiga populations (Cade and Fyfe) .

127

Reasons for decline: All field and laboratory evidence points to cumulative effects of
chlorinated pesticides and their breakdown products obtained from its prey, especially
DDT and DDE , which have increased adult mortality and reduced production of young by
affecting reproductive mechanisms and causing eggs to become thin-shelled or otherwise
nonviable . Habitat destruction and collection of young and adults for falconry have also
been factors .

Protective measures already taken: Peregrine falcons are protected by Federal law and
by States in the United States . Propagation techniques are being studied by Government
and private investigators and at Cornell University.

Measures proposed: Eliminate use of food chain pesticides where possible. Responsible
agencies should set appropriate regulations for the protection of this species. Include in
international conservation agreements . Develop methods for captive propagation to bolster
wild population. Initiate management-oriented research and investigate the establishment
of refuges around known eyries .

Number in captivity: Not precisely known, but number of peregrines from south of the
taiga in possession of falconers, zoos, and captive breeding projects believed to be less
than 20 (Cade) .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably poor .

References:

Berger, D. D. , D. W. Anderson, and R. W. Risebrough. 1970. Shell thinning in

eggs of Ungava peregrines . Canadian Field-Nat. 84:265-267.
Bond, R. M. 1946. The peregrine population of western North America.
Cade, T.J. 1960. Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon populations in Alaska,
Univ. Cal. Pub. Zool . 63:151-290.

, CM. White, and J . R. Haugh. 1968. Peregrine and pesticides

in Alaska . Condor 70:170-178.

, and R. Fyfe. 1970. The North American peregrine survey, 1970.

Canadian Field-Nat. 84:231-245.

, J. L. Lincer, CM. White, D. G. Roseneau, andL. G. Swartz. 1971.

DDE residues and eggshell changes in Alaskan falcons and hawks. Science

(in press) .
Henderson, J. H. andD. D. Berger. 1968. Chlorinated hydrocarbon residues in

peregrines and their prey species from northern Canada. Condor 70:149-153.
Herman, S. C, M. N. Kirven, and R. W. Risebrough. 1970. The peregrine falcon

decline in California I. A preliminary review. Audubon Field Notes 24(4): 609-613.
Herman, S. G. 1971. The peregrine falcon decline in California; breeding status

in 1970. Calif. Fish & Game Spec. Wildlife Investigations Report.
Hickey, J. J. (editor). 1969. Peregrine falcon populations, their biology and

decline. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 596 pp.
and D. W. Anderson. 1968. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and eggshell

changes in raptorial and fish-eating birds. Science 162: 271-273.
Leach, H. R. and L. D. Fisk. 1972. At the crossroads--a report on California's

endangered and rare fish and wildlife. California Dept. of Fish & Game.
Marshall, D. B. 1969. Rare and endangered plants and animals of Oregon, Part 3.

Birds. Extension Division, Oregon State University.
White, CM. 1968. Diagnosis and relationships of the North American tundra

inhabiting peregrine falcons. Auk 85:179-191.

128

ARCTIC PEREGRINE FALCON Falco peregrinus tundrius (White)

Order: FALCONIFORMES Family: FALCONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Like American peregrine falcon in general appearance,
but smaller and paler in coloration; black moustache marks on side of face narrower.

Present distribution: Breeds in the treeless tundra area of Arctic Alaska, Canada, and
western Greenland. Migrates south chiefly through eastern and middle North America
to gulf coast of United States, middle and South America as far south as Argentina and
Chile . Band recoveries indicate that southward migration along the Atlantic coast may
be chiefly from breeding areas in western Greenland (Shor 1970) .

Former distribution: Same .

Status : Production of fledglings per occupied nest on Colville River, Alaska, dropped
from 1.40 in 152 to 0.5 in 1971; 53 percent of aeries unoccupied in 1970 and 1971. Mean
eggshell-thickness for this population decreased 21.7 percent since 1947; egg contents
average over 800 ppm DDE (lipid basis); and there is a highly significant negative
correlation between shell-thickness and DDE concentration in eggs (T.J. Cade and
co-workers) . In Ungava, of 8 aeries occupied in 1968, only one was occupied in 1969
(J. A. Keith); of 15 aeries examined in 1970, seven had a total of 12 young and 9 bad eggs
(D. D. Berger and co-workers) . Numbers have declined along the Thelon River in
Northwest Territories from 10 pairs in 1966 to 4 pairs in 1970 (R. Fyfe) . No obvious
decline in migrants along the Atlantic or gulf coasts nor consistent reduction in ratio
of young to adults has been shown (Ruos 1970); however, there has been a 31 percent
reduction in the western Great Lakes migrants from the 1938-40 average to the 5-year
period ending in 1967 (D . D . Berger) . Experience with the rapid decline of the American
peregrine indicates this subspecies is following the same pattern which led to collapse in
numbers .

Estimated numbers: 200 to 300 pairs in Arctic Alaska (Cade); perhaps a few thousand
pairs in Arctic Canada (Fyfe), but assumption of a large population in Canadian Arctic
Islands may be erroneous (see J. Weaver and J. Grier in Cade and Fyfe, 1970). No
estimate for Greenland.

Breeding rate in the wild: Average clutch size 3 (Cade I960) . Hatching success decreasing;
number of pairs failing to breed increasing. Dead young noted on nesting ledges in 1969 at
Bathurst Inlet and on Colville River . Periodic fluctuations in weather adverse to breeding
success must be taken into consideration along with other factors (Ruos 1970) .

Reasons for decline: All field and laboratory evidence points to cumulative effects of
chlorinated pesticides and their breakdown products obtained from prey, especially DDT
and DDE, which have increased adult mortality and reduced production of young by
affecting reproductive mechanisms and causing eggs to become thin-shelled or otherwise
nonviable .

Protective measures already taken: Peregrine falcons are protected at all times of the
year by Federal laws and the laws of most States and Provinces . Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, Canadian Wildlife Service, about 20 falconer-aviculturists, and Cornell
University are studying artificial propagation techniques with peregrines .

129

Measures proposed: Work towards the elimination of food chain pesticides in the
environment. Responsible agencies should set appropriate regulations for protection.
All out effort to develop a self-perpetuating captive population to bolster numbers in the
wild.

Number in captivity: 150 to 200 tundra or taiga inhabiting peregrines, including 15 held
at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably poor. At least seven peregrines of all sub-
species have been reared in captive breeding projects since 1966.

References:

Berger, D. D. 1970. (in lit. )

Cade, T. J. 1960. Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon populations in Alaska,

Univ. Calif. Pub. Zool. 63:151-290.
, CM. White, and J. R. Haugh. 1968. Peregrine and pesticides in

Alaska. Condor 70: 170-178.
, and R. Fyfe. 1970. The North American peregrine survey, 1970.

Canadian Field Naturalist 84: 231-245.
Eberly, L. 1970. The 1969 NAFA Peregrine Falcon Symposium, Raptor Research

News 3(4): 73-74.
Enderson, J. N. 1965. A breeding and migration survey of the peregrine falcon.

Wilson Bull. 77: 327-339.
, and D . D . Berger . 1968 . Chlorinated hydrocarbon residues in

peregrines and their prey species from northern Canada. Condor 70:149-153.
Fyfe, R. 1969. The peregrine falcon in northern Canada, pp. 101-114 m: Peregrine

Falcon Populations, their biology and decline, edited by J.J. Hickey, Univ.

Wisconsin press.
Hickey, J. J. (editor) 1969. Peregrine falcon populations , their biology and

decline. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison: 596 pp.
Ruos, J. L. 1970. Correlation of Arctic temperatures in July with numbers of

tundra peregrines (E_. q_. tundrius) seen per part day in October along the

mid-Atlantic coast. Special Report.
Shor, W. 1970. Banding recoveries of Arctic migrant peregrines of the Atlantic

coast and Greenland populations. Raptor Research News 4(4): 125-127.
White, CM. 1968. Diagnosis and relationships of the North American tundra

inhabiting peregrine falcons. Auk 85:179-191.

130

\

NORTHERN GREATER PRAIRIE CHICKEN Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus (Brewster)

Order: GALLIFOR^'IES Family: TETRAONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A brown hen-like bird of prairies; heavily barred and
with short, rounded dark tail and elongated pointed feathers on each side of the neck.

Present distribution: Resident locally in prairie and other grassland habitat from eastern
North Dakota and northwest Minnesota south to northeastern Colorado, and south central
Oklahoma east to central Michigan, northwest Indiana, and south central Illinois. Very
localized, and much reduced or extirpated from most of its former range, particularly in
the more optimum habitat of the midwestern tall grass prairies .

Former distribution: Similar to present but more extensive and continuous , particularly
in the eastern or tall grass prairie section of the central United States east to Ohio and
Kentucky and, following a marked extension of range during early white settlement, in
prairie sections of central southern Canada.

Status: Decreasing over much of its range , particularly east of the Missouri River ■
Extirpated in Iowa, Ohio, Kentucky, and Arkansas; doing poorly in Illinois, Missouri,
Wisconsin and Minnesota, and especially in Michigan and Indiana. Much reduced but still
numerous enough for hunting in parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma.
Despite relatively large numbers in a few limited areas, particularly eastern Kansas, this
race of greater prairie chicken is so dependent on grassland habitat, and this is disappearing
so rapidly over much of its range because of increase of cultivation and grazing , the bird
is vulnerable .

Estimated numbers: About 16,500 in the eastern prairies of Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin,
and Minnesota. In the Great Plains States of South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma ,
there is an estimated population of 796,400 to 1,069,400 birds.

Breeding rate in the wild: One brood of 11 to 14 young each year.

Reasons for decline: Loss of undisturbed grasslands resulting from cultivation, haying,
grazing, and invasion of trees and shrubs. The tall grass prairies which were the main
habitat of this species are exceptionally fertile and tillable and are the most extensively
utilized croplands of the Continent.

Protective measures already taken: Acquisition of land is under way in a number of places
for management of habitat. Six States have acquired 13,848 acres of grassland specifically
for prairie chickens and 8 States have land management for these birds underway or planned.
Four States are conducting research on the species. A "Prairie Grouse Technical Council"
has been formed. In Wisconsin two foundations and other organizations and individuals
have spent about $240,000 for land purchases dedicated to prairie chickens. Another
foundation has been formed in Illinois to purchase suitable prairie land. Habitat has
benefited considerably from the Federal Soil Bank program while it lasted.

131-

Measures proposed: Acquisition and management for preservation of tall grass prairie,
including about 20,000 acres where prairie chickens still occur, in each of 4 areas in
South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. More specific management of Federal
and State refuges and National Grasslands for prairie chickens by exclusion of grazing
and cultivation from sufficiently large areas to permit natural tall grass habitat to become
established and occasional burning to keep out shrubs .

Number in captivity: Very few .

Breeding potential in captivity: Fair .

References:

Christisen, D. M. 1969. National status and management of the greater prairie

chicken. 34th N. A. Wildlife Conference: 207-217.
Cottam, C. et al. 1963. Report of the committee on bird protection.
Hamerstrom, F.N. and Frances Ham.erstrom . 1949. Daily and seasonal movements
of Wisconsin prairie chickens. Auk 66: 313-337.
, O. E. Mattson, and F. Hamerstrom. 1957. A guide to prairie chicken

management. Tech. Wildlife Bull. 15, Wise. Cons. Dept., Madison 128 p.
and F. Hamerstrom. 1961. Status and problems of North American

grouse. Wilson Bull. 73:284-294.
Jones, R. E. 1963. Identification and analysis of lesser and greater prairie

chicken habitat. Journ . Wildlife Mgt. Vol. 27. pp. 757-778.
Sanderson, G. C. and R.J. Ellis of Illinois Natural History Survey.
Yeatter, R. E. 1943. The prairie chicken in Illinois . Bull . Ill . Nat . Hist . Surv.

22:1-99.

132

ATTWATER'S GREATER PRAIRIE CHICKEN Tympanuchus cupido attwateri (Bendire)

Order GALLIFORMES Family: TETRAONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A generally brownish hen-like bird, brown barred with
black above, buffy barred with black below. Darker and more tawny above, and light
colored spots smaller and more tawny above, and light colored spots smaller and more
tawny than northern greater prairie chicken; also tarsi longer and more scantily feathered.

Present distribution: Very local and scattered over 11 counties in small, disjunct popu-
lations in the gulf coastal prairie of Texas , chiefly in Refugio and Colorado Counties .

Former distribution: Over the entire gulf coastal prairie of southwestern Louisiana and
Texas south to the Nueces River .

Status: Exists in small numbers and there is a downward trend of population and habitat. •

Estimated numbers: About 2,200 in 1971.

Breeding rate in the wild: Average about 12 eggs per set.

Reasons for decline: Reduction of natural tall grass prairie habitat below minimum
requirements , chiefly by plowing and overgrazing the original prairie . The coastal
prairie tall grass country is very valuable land for grazing and culture of grain sorghums,
rice, and cotton.

Protective measures already taken: A thorough study of this form has been made by
V. W. Lehmann. It has been protected from hunting by law for many years. The World
Wildlife Fund, with assistance from the Nature Conservancy, has purchased about 3,400
acres in Colorado County, most of it original prairie, with a population of 300 to 400
Attwater's prairie chicken. A 5-year study by Texas A&M University is in progress on
this area to devise management methods including controlled fires and grazing. An
addition to the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge includes a few of these birds . Brush i=
being cleared there to improve habitat . Extensive inventory of bird populations and land
ownership of occupied areas completed.

Measures proposed: Acquisition of several additional preserves of at least 5,000 acres
each, in good habitat, and in as many of the areas where the birds now occur as possible.

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Limited .

References:

Lehmann, V. W. 1941. Attwater's prairie chicken, its life history and management.
North American Fauna 57.

. 1968. The Attwater's prairie chicken current status and restoration
opportunities . Trans. 33rd N. A. Wildlife Conf. : 398-407 .

and R. G. Mauermann. 1963. Status of Attwater's prairie chicken.

Jour, of Wildlife Mgt. Vol. 27, pp. 713-725.

133

LESSER PRAIRIE CHICKEN Tympanuchus pallidicinctus (Ridgway)

Order: GALLIFORMES Family: TETRAONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A hen-like bird , light brown above barred with black ,
whitish below barred with black . Elongated feathers on sides of neck . Lighter in color
and slightly smaller than the greater prairie chicken.

Present distribution: Resident locally in brush-grassland prairies, the shinnery oak
and sand sagebrush habitats of the high plains in southwestern Kansas , southeastern
Colorado, eastern New Mexico, Texas panhandle, and western Oklahoma. Very localized,
and much reduced or extirpated from large portions of its former range. Ideal habitat
is natural grassland interspersed with patches of shinnery oak .

Former distribution: About same as present, but possibly extending further north and
east.

Status: Decreasing and vulnerable . Populations fluctuate markedly .

Estimated numbers: Populations in New Mexico estimated to fluctuate from 10,000 to
50.000 birds; Oklahoma 2,000 to 30,000 birds.

Breeding rate in the wild: 11 to 13 eggs; about seven young per brood at six weeks
of age.

Reasons for decline: Loss of broad expanse of undisturbed prairie grasslands resulting
from agriculture.

Protective measures already taken: Studies by Oklahoma Cooperative Wildlife Research
Unit to learn requirements . No hunting presently permitted in Colorado . New Mexico
acquired about 23,000 acres of prairie chicken habitat, in 17 areas, more than 20 years
ago, and managed it by controlled grazing, supplemental planting and limited hunting.
Brush control where shinnery oak becomes so extensive that there is little grassland
found to increase numbers of these birds (Donaldson) . Inventory of present distribution
and population status in historical range made by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Measures proposed: Preservation of large blocks of grasslands where the species occurs.

Number in captivity: None known.

Breeding potential in captivity: Limited .

References:

Copelin, F. F. "The lesser prairie chicken in Oklahoma."

Donaldson, D. D. 1969. Effect on lesser prairie chickens of brush control in

western Oklahoma. Doctoral Thesis. Oklahoma State University.
Halloran, A. F. 1966. The changing world of the lesser prairie chicken. Spec.

Report to Division of Wildlife Refuges. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

11 pp . and appendix .

134

Hoffman, D. M. 1963. The lesser prairie chicken in Colorado. Journ . Wildlife

Mgmt. 27:726-732.
Jackson, A. S. and R. DeArment. 1963. The lesser prairie chicken in the Texas

Panhandle. Journ. Wildlife Mgmt . 27:733-737.
Jones, R. E. 1963. Identification and analysis of lesser prairie and greater prairie

chicken habitat. Journ. Wildlife Mgmt. 27: 757-778.
. 1964. The specific distinctness of the greater and lesser prairie

chickens. Auk, 81:65-73.
. 1964. Habitat used by lesser prairie chickens for feeding related

to seasonal behavior of plants in Beaver County, Oklahoma. Southwestern
Naturalist, 9:111-117.

135

MASKED BOBWHITE Colinus virginianus ridgwayi (Brewster)

Order: GALLIFORMES Family: PHASIANIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Similar to the common bobwhite of the Eastern United
States but smaller. Male with breast almost pure brick red, and head and throat black
with variable amount of white forming a line over the eye . Plumage of females similar
to eastern bobwhite .

Present distribution: Extremely localized in the central portion of the State of Sonora,
Mexico. Definitely known from only two areas between 1,500- and 2,500-foot elevation
in central Sonora where good growths of grass occur under desert shrubs and cacti.

Former distribution: More extensive than now through middle Sonora to about 50 miles
north of the United States--Mexico border in central southern Arizona from the Baboquivari
Mountains east to the upper Santa Cruz Valley . Its habitat in Arizona was tall grass-
mesquite plains with some smaller shrubs and cactus .

Status: Extirpated from Arizona in early 1900's . Now being reintroduced. Extremely
uncommon and localized in its present range in Sonora . Habitat very vulnerable to cattle
grazing.

Estimated numbers: About 1 , 000 .

Breeding rate in the wild: Average brood size 11 in 1968 and 14 in 1969.

Reasons for decline: Overgrazing, lack of fire, and consequent invasion of woody species
of plants at the expense of grass which is essential for survival . Very short nesting
season gives little opportunity for renesting .

Protective measures already taken: Field studies of ecology, life history, and present
distribution are underway in Sonora by a biologist of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife. Masked bobwhites are being propagated at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.
Several releases of this stock have been made in selected areas of suitable habitat within
historical range in Arizona by cooperative efforts of Federal and State of Arizona agencies.

Measures proposed: Determine location of remaining populations in Sonora . Attempt to
induce owners to exclude cattle from these areas . Continue and expand present captive
propagation with stock on hand supplemented with new blood from wild birds . In available
habitat, determined as suitable by ecological studies in Arizona, introduce stock from
captive reared flocks. Purchase land for management specifically for the masked bobwhite.

Number in captivity: About 600 in 1970 . Fluctuates greatly with use of birds for release
to the wild.

Breeding potential in captivity: Good .

136

References:

Bent, A. C. 1932. Life histories of North American gallinaceous birds. U.S.

National Museum Bull. 162:490 pp.
Director, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland 20810.
Monson, G. D. and A. R. Phillips. 1964. A checklist of the birds of Arizona.

Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, 74 pp.
Tomlinson, R. E. 1972. Review of literature on the endangered masked bobwhite.

USDl and Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publ. 108. 28 pp.
. Administrative reports in Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.
Van Rossem, A.J. 1945. A distributional survey of the birds of Sonora, Mexico.

Occ . Papers Mus . Zool. Louisiana State University 21: 379 pp. (72).
Walker, L. W. 1964. Return of the masked bobwhite . Zoonooz, Feb. 1964: 10-15,

137

WHOOPING CRANE Grus americana (Linnaeus)

Order: GRUIFORMES Family: GRUIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Very large, long-legged, long-necked bird, all white
except black wing tips, back of head, and moustache markings with red skin on top of
the head sparsely covered with black hairs , and pale yellow eye in adults . First-year
birds have rusty brown plumage mottled with white .

Present distribution: Breeds in Wood Buffalo National Park, central southern Mackenzie,
Canada. Winters on Gulf Coast of Texas, occasionally into Mexico.

Former distribution: Bred from present range south through Prairie Provinces and the
northern prairie States to Iowa . Also on the Gulf Coast of Louisiana . Wintered on the
Gulf Coast from Florida to Mexico .

Status: Very small numbers slowly increasing over past few decades .

Estimated numbers: 80 including 59 wild birds on Gulf Coast and 21 (17 at Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center) in captivity in winter of 1971-72. Sixteen nests, largest number
found occupied in one year, found in 1972 in two areas in Wood Buffalo National Park.

Breeding rate in the wild: Maximum of two young per pair per year; usually one. Total
reproduction quite variable from 0 to 10 young each year.

Reasons for decline: Relegation to marginal northern portions of its breeding range by
interference from man; also probably illegal shooting of nonbreeding birds in summer and
migrating individuals in fall in the northern grain-producing farmlands. Occasional
shooting on wintering area .

Protective measures already taken: Enforcement of the laws protecting these birds at
all times by the agents of the Canadian and United States Federal wildlife agencies and
Provincial and State conservation departments. Vigorous campaign of publicity by the
National Audubon Society, other conservation organizations, and the press. Strict
protection of the cranes on their breeding grounds by Canada and on their wintering
grounds by the United States, including establishment of the 47,200-acre Aransas National
Wildlife Refuge in 1937. Fenced areas planted to grain helped keep whooping cranes from
wandering far from Al-ansas Refuge each winter since 1964. Also at Aransas a salt water
impoundment stocked with marine organisms has been utilized by the cranes for feeding.
Other Federal and State refuges on the migration route are utilized for resting and feeding
while in transit. Research on methods of rearing this and other species of cranes in
captivity and of determining their sex by external examination has been conducted by
the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife looking toward developing captive breeding
stock of whooping cranes . Efforts have been made by this Bureau to obtain better utilization
for reproduction purposes of whooping cranes in zoos. One of the tv>'0 eggs per nest have
been taken from wild nests in Canada for propagation at Patuxent without reducing the
production of wild birds .

138

Measures proposed: Continuation of a large scale captive rearing program using eggs
taken from the wild which has as its objective the rearing of these birds in captivity
and eventually conditioning the progeny to return successfully to the wild. Establishment
of additional refuge areas in wintering range adjoining the Aransas Wildlife Refuge and
on St. Joseph and Matagorda Islands . Continuation of the publicity program to inform
the public on the current status of the cranes and the need for rigid protection at all
times .

Number in captivity: Nineteen .

Breeding potential in captivity: Very good.

References:

Allen, R. P. 1952. The whooping crane. Research Report No. 3 of the National

Audubon Society, New York, 246 pp.
. 1956. A report on the whooping crane's northern breeding grounds

(supplement to Research Report No. 3 of the National Audubon Society, New

York), 60 pp.
McNulty, F. 1966. The whooping crane, the bird that defies extinction.

E . P . Button & Co . , New York , 190 pp .
Novakowski, N. S. 1966. Whooping crane population dynamics on the nesting

grounds. Wood Buffalo National Park, Northwest Territories, Canada.

Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series - No. 1:1-20.

139

FLORIDA SANDHILL CRANE Grus canadensis pratensis (Meyer)

Order: GRUIFORMES Family: GRUIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Long legs, neck, and bill. All gray plumage. Bare red
skin on crown. Smaller except for length of leg than the greater sandhill crane. Larger
than the lesser sandhill crane .

Present distribution: Permanent resident in wet prairies, particularly Kissimmee Prairie
in Florida and extreme southern Georgia (Okefenokee Swamp). About 10 pairs in
Everglades National Park.

Former distribution: Same general region as present, but in more localities.

Status: Localized and vulnerable. Habitat diminishing, but no indication that they are
critically threatened at present. Status possibly improved recently due to fencing of
ranches and protecting of cranes on such properties .

Estimated numbers: Between 2,000 and 3,000 estimated by Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1964. Sprunt (1942) estimated 2.650.

Breeding rate in the wild: Two eggs laid each year . Usually no more than one young
reared. Annual production rate unknown.

Reasons for decline: Not known to be declining but increased human populations and
conversion of some of wet prairie habitat for agriculture might start a downward trend.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by Federal and State law . The Okefenokee
Swamp breeding area now included in a Federal refuge . Also nests on Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge in southern Florida. Reared successfully in captivity in San Diego,
California Zoo. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has a captive rearing program of
Florida sandhill cranes .

Measures proposed: Preservation of some of the Florida wet prairies as refuges .
Continue captive rearing program to produce stock for subsequent liberation in
suitable habitat.

Number in captivity: About 50, including eight in Great Bend, Chicago, New York,
San Antonio, and San Diego Zoos in 1963 (pair nested at San Diego in 1965); and
about 40 at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center .

Breeding potential in captivity: Good .

References:

Walkinshaw, L. H. 1949. The sandhill crane. Cranbook Institute of Science,

Bull. 29:202 pp.
Williams, L. E. , Jr., and R. W. Phillips. 1972. North Florida Sandhill Crane

Populations . Auk 89: 541-548 .

140

MISSISSIPPI SANDHILL CRANE Grus canadensis pulla (Aldrich)

Order: GRUIFORMES Family: GRUIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Same size as Florida sandhill crane but plumage darker
colored . The darkest colored of all the subspecies of sandhill cranes .

Present distribution: Jackson County, Mississippi, near Ocean Springs and Fontainbleau
between the Pascagoula River on the east and Jackson-Harrison County line on the west;
U.S. Highway 90 on the south and Bluff Creek on the north (Valentine and Noble, 1970).

Former distribution: More extensively distributed in areas of suitable habitat along the
Gulf Coastal Plain of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

Status: Hearing extinction because of very small and restricted population and deteriorating
habitat.

Estimated numbers: Between 38 and 40 (Valentine and Noble, 1970).

Breeding rate in the wild: One or two young per pair each year .

Reasons for decline: Chiefly because of reduction of suitable habitat which is semiopen
and wet pine savannah by changing land use including drainage, planting of trees,
suburban development and highway building.

Protective measures already taken; Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife is rearing
this species in captivity from eggs taken from wild nests with the intention of establishing
new wild populations .

Measures proposed: Acquisition and restoration of habitat in present range and
adjoining areas. Rerouting proposed U.S. Interstate Highway No. 10 in Mississippi.
Expand captive rearing program to produce stock for subsequent liberation.

Number in captivity: Nine at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.

Breeding potential in captivity: Fair .

References:

Aldrich, J. W. 1972. A new subspecies of sandhill crane from Mississippi.

Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 85:63-70.
Howell, A. H. 1928. Birds of Alabama (2nd Ed.) U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Bureau of Biological Survey and Department of Game and Fisheries of Alabama.

384 pp .
Mcllhenny , E . A . 1938. Florida crane a resident of Mississippi . Auk 55: 598-602.
. 1943. Major changes in the bird life of southern Louisiana during

sixty years . Auk 60: 541-549 .
Valentine, J. M., Jr., and R. E. Noble. 1970. A colony of sandhill cranes in

Mississippi. Journal Wildlife Management 34: 761-768.
Walkinshaw, L. H. 1949. The sandhill cranes . Cranbrook Institute of Science,

Bull. 29:202 pp.

141

CALIFORNIA CLAPPER RAIL Rallus longirostris obsoletus (Ridgway)

Order: GRUIFORMES Family: RALLIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Like other races of clapper rails, it has a gray-brown
back, breast and upper belly tawny, flanks dark gray barred with white, tail short with
white below. Hen-like in action and has long legs. Bill, legs, and feet larger and color
of plumage more grayish than light-footed clapper rail.

Present distribution: Resident in salt marshes of San Francisco Bay and Moss Landing .
Casual along the coast of central western California at Tomales Bay, Humboldt Bay,
Bolings Bay, and Morro Bay. Present range about the same as earlier distribution
except that smaller segments of suitable habitat remain and further inroads may be
anticipated.

Former distribution: About the same as today except more restricted now by habitat losses .

Status : Vulnerable because of restricted habitat which is rapidly decreasing . It depends
on salt and brackish tidal marshes with an abundant growth of cordgrass (Spartina
foliosa) and pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) . It also needs the quality of water which
supports mollusks and other small invertebrates as food items found in the mud bottom
sloughs .

Estimated numbers: Total population is not known. Two or three pairs per 100 acres
of good habitat is estimated on basis of call notes heard.

Breeding rate in the wild: Birds are reported to lay from 5 to 14 eggs per clutch.

Reasons for decline: Population decline due to a reduction in salt marsh habitat and
pollution causing a reduction in habitat and food supply . Filling of bays and estuaries
for urban development is causing the biggest decline in suitable habitat, and this is
particularly true in the San Francisco Bay area where most of the remaining birds are
resident.

Protective measures already taken: The species is protected by Federal and State law .
Abate water pollution wherever possible for this species as well as other water-associated
birds . Establishment of South Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and acquisition of
Tubbs Island by The Nature Conservancy are beginnings toward habitat preservation.
A Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife research biologist is working part-time on this
bird.

Measures proposed: Acquisition and/or agreements with property owners to retain
suitable marsh habitat for this and other water-associated birds. Further improvement
in controlling water quality in problem areas .

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

142

References:

Gill, R. 1972. South San Francisco Bay breeding bird survey. California Dept.

of Fish and Game. Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report No. 72-6.
Grinnell , J . and A . H . Miller . 1944 . The distribution of the birds of California .

Cooper Ornithological Club , Berkeley , California .
Hoffman, R. 1927. Birds of the Pacific States. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Leach, H. R. and L. O. Fisk . 1972. At the crossroads. California Dept. of

Fish and Game. pp. 21-22.
Wilbur, S. Administrative reports, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

143

LIGHT-FOOTED CLAPPER RAIL Rallus longirostris levipes (Bangs)

Order: GRUIFORMES Family: RALLIDAE

Distinguisning characteristics: Similar coloration to the California clapper rail but
has a darker back, richer breast, and legs, feet, and bill are smaller.

Present distribution: A very small number of these birds still exist in a few remaining
places in tidal salicornia marshes from Santa Barbara County to the Mexican border .
Largest populations apparently are at Anaheim Bay, Orange County, and at the mouth of
the Tijuana River, San Diego County. There are other reports for 1920 from Mission
Bay, San Diego County, and upper Newport Bay, Orange County (Wilbur). Distribution
in Mexico unknown .

Former distribution: Formerly common resident in all salt marshes from Santa Barbara
County to the Mexican border and probably also to northwestern Baja California.

Status: Vulnerable because north of Mexican border majority of individuals are in

10 small marshes. Most of them are in 2 marshes. The others have very small populations.

Decreasing because of the decrease in suitable tidal salicornia marsh habitat.

Estimated numbers: Unknown. In Anaheim Bay in 1959 approximately 200 were seen on
an extremely high tide. In 1970 estimated number of 50 heard calling there.

Breeding rate in the wild: Approximately 5 to 14 eggs per clutch.

Reasons for decline: Destruction of its natural habitat by filling for housing and
industrial use , marina development and water pollution destroying food species and/or
habitat.

Protective measures already taken: It is protected by Federal and State law, and
attempts are being made to protect its habitat from reclamation and water pollution
through acquisition of land for refuges , zoning and cooperative agreements with the
Department of Defence which holds some of this bird's habitat. A Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife biologist is working part-time on this subspecies.

Measures proposed: Acquisition and/or agreements with property owners to retain suitable
marsh habitat for this and other water-associated birds . Improvement of the control of
pollution in problem areas. Surveys to determine status of remaining population.

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California.

Cooper Ornithological Club, Berkeley, California.
Hoffman, R. 1927. Birds of the Pacific states. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
Kirven, M.N. (in lit.)
McCaskie, R. G. (in lit . )
Wilbur, S. R. Administrative reports. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

144

YUMA CLAPPER RAIL Rallus longirostris yumanensis (Dickey)

Order: GRUIFORMES Family: RALLIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: In size and appearance similar to a small hen, but has
long, slender, slightly decurved bill, longish legs. Very short tail is white beneath.
General color tawny and grayish with barred flanks . Paler and smaller than other
American clapper rails . Downy young are black .

Present distribution: Restricted in the breeding season to cattail-tule marshes along
lower Colorado River from the Colorado Delta in Mexico north Needles, California, in two
small marshes along the lower Gila River, in two small marshes immediately south of
Phoenix, Arizona, and at the lower end of the Salton Sea. Concentrated mainly in Havasu
Lake , Cibola , and Imperial National Wildlife Refuges . Birds migrate but winter range
unknown at this time .

Former distribution: Marshes of the lower Colorado River from the Parker area south
into the delta, in Mexico, and at the southeastern end of Salton Sea.

Status: Occurs in small numbers and limited breeding habitat due to continuing channeli-
zation of the Colorado River with its continued loss of marshes and sloughs through
draining and covering with spoil. At Salton Sea, increasing salinity of water and
destruction of vegetation in drainage canals has eliminated suitable habitat.

Estimated numbers: 500 to 1,000 individuals along either side of lower Colorado River
in Arizona and California . Survey in May and June 1969 along 240 miles of river recorded
142 birds.

Breeding rate in the wild: Very little data; probably six to ten young .

Reasons for decline: Not certain that it has declined but adverse factors are drainage of
marshes by channelization and filling programs . Increased salinity of Salton Sea and
removal of marsh plants by both physical and chemical means .

Protective measures already taken: Setting aside of Havasu Lake , Imperial , and Cibola
National Wildlife Refuges on Colorado River. Study underway by Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife biologist to determine numbers of birds, their distribution, and habitat
requirements . Fully protected under California Fish and Game Code .

Measures proposed: Marsh management on public lands within the range of this subspecies
for specific purpose of providing clapper rail habitat . Continuing surveys to determine
location and size of populations . Study of taxonomic relationship of clapper rails of the
lower Colorado River Valley and populations of this species along the Gulf of California.
Band Yuma clapper rails to determine wintering area.

References:

Dickey , D . R . Description of a new clapper rail from the Colorado River Valley .

Auk 1923:90-94.
Phillips, A., J. Marshall, and G . Monson . The birds of Arizona. Univ. of Arizona

Press, 1964. p. 31.
Tomlinson, R. E. Administrative reports. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

145

CALIFORNIA BLACK RAIL Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus (Ridgway)

Order: GRUIFORMES Family: RALLIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A tiny blackish rail about 5 to 6 inches long , head and
neck black, nape deep chestnut, back blackish-brown with white spots, and flanks black
with white bars . Birds are very difficult to flush or observe .

Present distribution: This tiny rail is so elusive and secretive that it is seldom seen, and
consequently little is known in regard to its present or former distribution. Usually it
is associated with pickleweed along the tidal marshes from Tomales Bay and San Francisco,
south and casually inland to Stockton, Riverside, and Sal ton Sea. Substantial numbers
along Colorado River .

Former distribution: Thought to be about the same as today .

Status: Vulnerable because much of its former habitat has been destroyed. Coastal marshes
where many observations were made have been filled or are in jeopardy. Seems to favor
habitat of alkali bulrush and saltgrass .

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Breeding rate in the wild: Four to eight eggs per clutch.

Reasons for decline: A reduction in population is thought to be due to a reduction in
tidal marsh habitat by filling, draining, and/or pollution, channelization and phreatophyte
control along Colorado River.

Protective measures already taken: Attempts are being made to preserve remaining
habitat and maintain better water quality. Studies on ecology, distribution and abundance
being made by State and Federal biologists in conjunction with studies of other rails.

Measures proposed: Protect available habitat, especially tidal marshes, from being
destroyed.

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California.

Cooper Ornithological Club, Berkeley, California.
Hoffman, R. 1927. Birds of the Pacific States . Houghton Mifflin Co ., Boston.
Kirven, M.N. in lit.
McCaskie, R. G. in lit.

Tomlinson, R. E. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Administrative reports,
and R. L. Todd. Distribution of two western clapper rail races as
determined by responds to taped calls. Condor, in lit.

146

HAWAIIAN GALLINULE (ALAE ULA) Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis (Streets)

Order: GRUIFORMES Family: RALLIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A grayish marsh bird with brown back, greenish-yellow,
red-tipped legs, and red bill with yellow tip, white side stripes and white patch under
tail. Distinguished from other races of the common gallinule by having more red on the
legs. It is much darker and blacker, less bluish gray, and has less white on the under-
parts than the North American race .

Present distribution: Resident only on the islands of Kauai, Molokai, and Oahu in Hawaii.

Former distribution: All main islands except Lanai and Niihau.

Status: Greatly decreased from former abundance, particularly on island of Oahu.
Most numerous on island of Kauai.

Estimated numbers: Kauai — mid hundreds; Oahu — low hundreds .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Elimination of fresh water ponds and other wetlands which form
its habitat. Predation by mongoose (except Kauai), rats, and feral cats. Illegal hunting.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by Federal and State Law . National
wildlife refuge established at Hanalei, Kauai. Negotiations for other key areas in
progress. Booklet which details causes for decline, loss of habitats, brief descriptions
and life history, key areas and recommended action program published jointly by Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Hawaii Division of Fish and Game.

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment and continue establishment of
needed refuges and sanctuaries. Control predators where needed. Initiate captive
propagation program. Reintroduction into former range. Increase patrol and/or law
enforcement effort. Initiate ecological and life history research of the species. Sur-
veillance for chemical contamination and other such environmental pollution. Continue
to publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific values. Quarantine on all birds,
including cage birds brought into the State to prevent introduction of disease.

Number in captivity: A dozen raised in Honolulu Zoo up to 1972.

Breeding potential in captivity: Very good. Have been bred successfully in Honolulu
Zoo on several occasions.

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports .

Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports.

Schwartz, C. W., and E. R. Schwartz. 1949. A Reconnaissance of the game

birds in Hawaii. Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry,

Territory of Hawaii. 166 pp.

147

HAWAIIAN COOT (ALAE KEOKEO) Fulica americana alai (Peale)

Order: GRUIFORMES Family: RALLIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Dark slate-gray duck-like bird. Almost blackish at a
distance . White bill . White patches under tail . Differs from the American coot in
having darker plumage, more slender bill, and particularly in the much larger and whiter
bare area on the forehead.

Present distribution: Islands of Oahu, Maui, Kauai, Niihau, Molokai, and Hawaii.
Migrates between islands.

Former distribution: Probably the same .

Status: Decreasing in numbers and habitat is being eliminated. A key area, Kanaha Pond,
Maui, threatened by Federal and State airport interests.

Estimated numbers: Since 1969, special statewide census show ranges from 688 to 1,667.
In 1972, 352.

Reasons for decline: Destruction of marshes and other wetlands . On game bird list
until 1939. Subject to predation by free-roaming dogs, cats, and mongoose. Harrassment
and illegal shooting .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by Federal and State law . No open hunting
seasons since 1939. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife conducted a wetlands survey
in cooperation with Hawaii Division of Fish and Game. Acquisition of key area at Hanalei,
Kauai for national wildlife refuge. Negotiations in progress for acquisition of other key
areas. Cooperative agreement with U.S. Navy has established wildlife refuges at Pearl
Harbor and Lualualei, Oahu. Booklet published jointly by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife and Hawaii Division of Fish and Game which describes endangered Hawaiian
waterbirds , including this species, causes for decline, key areas, and recommended
action programs .

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment and continued establishment
of needed refuges . Control predators . Prevent introduction of harmful insects, plants,
and animals. Increase law enforcement. Initiate ecological and life history research.
Surveillance for chemical contamination and other such environmental pollution . Continue
to publicize status and aesthetic and scientific values. Quarantine on all birds, including
cage birds brought into the State to prevent introduction of disease .

Number in captivity: Unknown if any .

Breeding potential in captivity: Considered easy to raise .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports.

Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports.

Munro, G. C. I960. Birds of Hawaii. 192 pp.

Schwartz. C. W. and E. R. Schwartz. 1949. A Reconnaissance of the game birds

in Hawaii. Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry, Territory of

Hawaii. 166 pp .

148

ESKIMO CURLEW Numenius borealis (Forster)

Order: CHARADRIIFORMES Family: SCOLOPACIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Medium sized shorebird, like a small whimbrel but bill
only about 2 inches long and slightly curved, blacker above and on the head, the feathers
with warm buffy brown tips. Underparts warm buffy. Under surface of wings conspicuously
cinnamon buff.

Present distribution: One or two spring migrants seen on the Texas coast in 1950, 1959,
1960, 1961, and 1962. Not recorded there since. Specimen taken in fall migration of 1963
in Barbados, West Indies, now in Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences. A sight
record was made at Cape May, New Jersey, September 20, 1959, and another near
Charleston, South Carolina, July 15, 1956.

Former distribution: Nested in the tundra of northern Mackenzie and possibly north-
eastern Alaska. Wintered in grasslands from southern Brazil, south to southern
Argentina and Chile . In fall migration occurred chiefly in the interior prairie portions
of the continent .

Status: Apparently very rare . Known only from one or two migrants seen occasionally
in spring migration, and one recent fall migrant specimen. No record since 1963. Present
breeding and wintering range unknown . Last winter record was for Province of Buenos
Aires, Argentina in 1939 (Wetmore 1939) .

Estimated numbers: No basis for estimating .

Breeding rate in the wild: One brood of four young annually .

Reasons for decline: Excessive shooting formerly . Present limiting factors unknown .

Protective measures already taken: Along with all other Scolopacidae, except the common
snipe and woodcock, there has been complete protection from hunting by law in the United
States and Canada for many years . Canadian Wildlife Service field personnel alerted to
pay special attention to curlews in hopes that more information can be obtained on their
distribution.

Measures proposed: Special diligence in protection against undue disturbance during
migration in places where these birds have been recorded in recent years. Effort to
locate wintering populations in southern South America and breeding populations in
Canada to determine what limiting factors may exist there.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

149

References:

Emanuel, V. E. 1962. Texans rediscover the nearly extinct Eskimo Curlew.

Audubon Magazine, May - June, pp. 162-165.
Weston, P.M., and E. A. Williams. 1965. Recent records of the Eskimo Curlew.

Auk 82:493-496.
Wetmore, A. 1939. Recent observations on the Eskimo curlew in Argentina.

Auk 56:475-476.
Williams, G. G. 1959. Probable Eskimo Curlew on Galveston Island, Texas.

Auk 76:539-541.

150

HAWAIIAN STILT (AEO) Himantopus himantopus knudseni (Stejneger)

Order: CHARADRIIFORMES Family: RECURVIROSTRIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Shorebird with sharply contrasting color pattern, black
above, white below; very long red legs. Distinuished from North American black-necked
stilt by extension of black on head farther down on the forehead, and black on neck to
sides and front of neck, and by longer bill, tarsus, and tail.

Present distribution: Islands of Kauai, Niihau, Maui, Hawaii, Molokai (occasionally)
and Oahu of the Hawaiian Islands. Known to migrate (degree unknown) between Oahu
and Maui . Suspected to migrate between others . Maui and Oahu support largest numbers
followed by Kauai, Niihau, Hawaii, and Molokai.

Former distribution: All main Hawaiian Islands .

Status: Decreasing because of habitat destruction. A key area, Kanaha Pond, Maui
threatened by Federal and State airport interests .

Estimated numbers: Since 1968 special statewide census shows ranges in population
from 934 to 1,513. Count in 1972 was 1,366.

Breeding rate in the wild: Usually 4 eggs per year, occasionally fewer.

Reasons for decline: Draining and filling of marshes and shallow ponds . On the
gamebird list until 1941. Predation by mongoose, feral cats and dogs. Occasional
illegal shooting .

Protective measures already taken: Elimination of hunting in 1939 . Protected by Federal
and State law . Cooperative agreement has established refuge in habitat on Kaneohe Marine
Corps Air Station and Pearl Harbor Naval Base Lualualii Ammunition Depot. Critical
habitats identified as causes for decline . Detailed and recommended action program
publicized in booklet published by Federal-State wildlife agencies. Booklet published
jointly by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Hawaii Division of Fish and Game
describing endangered Hawaiian waterbirds including this species, causes for decline,
key areas and recommended action program. National wildlife refuge established at
Hanalei, Kauai. Protection in progress for other key areas.

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment and continued establishment
of needed refuges . Control predators where needed. Prevent introduction of harmful
insects, plants, and animals. Increase law enforcement effort. Initiate ecological and
life history research on the species . Surveillance for chemical contamination and other
such environmental pollution. Continue to publicize critical status and aesthetic and
scientific values. Quarantine on all birds, including cage birds brought into the State
to prevent introduction of disease.

Number in captivity: Unknown if any .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

151

References:

Berger, A. J. 1967. Auk (84), p. 130.

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports.

Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports .

Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii . 192 pp.

Schwartz, C. W., and E. R. Schwartz. 1949. A Reconnaissance of the game

birds in Hawaii. Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry,

Territory of Hawaii . 166 pp .

152

i

1

CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN Sterna albifrons browni (Mearns)

Order: CHARADRIFORMES Family: LARIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small tern with a yellow bill . Adults are white with
a pale gray mantle, forehead white, black cap, wings with a dark area on leading edge.
Has quicker wingbeats than other terns, and it can hover for a longer time.

Present distribution: Breeds along Pacific coast from South San Francisco Bay,
California, to southern Baja California. Nonbreeding birds range north to Alameda
County in summer .

Former distribution: Thought to be approximately the same as the present range .

Status: Critical because of disturbance to limited nesting habitat. Locally common where
suitable nesting areas occur. Disappearing from disturbed areas, and nesting temporar-
ily on new-made land from dredged sand at Huntington Beach.

Estimated numbers: In 1970, 300 pairs nested in 15 sites.

Breeding rate in the wild: Generally two eggs laid in a shallow depression in the sand.

Reasons for decline: Nesting habitat is being lost because of increased human activity
on beaches which are preferred for nesting sites .

Protective measures already taken: Huntington Beach State Park Tern Sanctuary
established by State. Santa Margarita River Tern Sanctuary established on Camp
Pendleton Marine Base. Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve established by State.
Nesting habitat developed by Navy at Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. Classified as
endangered under California Game Code .

Measures proposed: Take measures necessary to protect nesting areas not already
protected from motor scooters, dune buggies, and other human encroachment. Restore
sites formerly used by terns . Create new artificial sand islands by dredging in
protected areas .

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

California Department of Fish and Game.

Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California .

Cooper Ornithological Club, Berkeley, California.
Hoffman, R. 1927. Birds of the Pacific States . Houghton Mifflin Company , Boston .
Kirven .M.N. (in lit^) .
Leach, H. R. and L. O. Fisk. 1972. At the crossroads. A report on California's

Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife. California Department of Fish and Game.

153

Longhurst, A. R. 1969. Status of an endangered bird species (Sterna albifrons)

in San Diego County, 7 pp. mimeographed.
McCaskie, R. G. (in lit.).
Wilbur, S. R. Administrative Reports, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

154

PUERTO RICAN PLAIN PIGEON Columbia inornata wetmorei (Peters)

Order: COLUMBIFORMES Family: COLUMBIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Size of domestic pigeon. Head and forepart of body
pinkish violet. Back grayish brown. Rump and tail gray. Wing coverts margined with
white. Differs from other subspecies of plain pigeon by darker coloration.

Present distribution: Woodland near Lago de Cidra, 22 km. southwest of Caguas, Puerto
Rico; possibly also Cerro de la Tabla, 12 km. south of Lago de Cidra.

Former distribution: Formerly widespread in the western foothills and valleys of
Puerto Rico. Old records exist from Utuado, Lares, Anasco, Morovis (cave deposits)
and Ponce (cave deposits).

Status: Formerly considered extinct, now known to occur, apparently in very small
numbers . Since 1961 known to have been shot occasionally and indiscriminately by hunters
who do not distinguish it from other wild pigeons . Has appeared for sale as food in Ponce.
Thought by some observers to be increasing in numbers .

Estimated numbers: Possibly several hundred scattered in lowland forests . 18 seen
Lago de Cidra, April 1969.

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Unknown, but probably overhunting and extensive destruction of
natural forest habitat.

Protective measures already taken: 1969 hunting regulations specifically closed the
municipality of Cidra to hunting .

Measures proposed: Complete prohibition of hunting of this species . Study to determine
its requirements and limiting factors .

Number in captivity: None known .

Breeding potential in captivity: Because of close relationship to domestic pigeon,
probably good.

References:

Bond, J . 1950 . Checklist of birds of West Indies . The Academy of Natural

Sciences of Philadelphia .
lUCN Bull. No. 17, October-December 1965. p. 3.

Kepler , C . B . Administrative reports , Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife .
Leopold, N. F. 1963. Checklist of birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

University of Puerto Rico Agric . Exp. Sta. Bull. 168. Rio Piedras, P. I. 119 pp.

155

PUERTO RICAN PARROT Amazona vittata (Boddaert)

Order: PSITTACIFORMES Family: PSITTACIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A bright green parrot, about a foot in length, with red
forehead, blue primary wing feathers, and flesh colored bill and feet.

Present distribution: Confined to Sierra de Luquillo and chiefly to the 3,000 acres within
the 28,000-acre Luquillo Experimental Forest administered by the U.S. Forest Service in
eastern Puerto Rico. Tropical and subtropical moist and wet forest between 1,600- and
2,700-foot altitudes. Nests only in Palo Colorado tree which grows between 2,000 and
2,500 feet elevation.

Former distribution: Much wider range in Puerto Rico, including both lowland and up-
land forest. Became restricted to Sierra de Luquillo by 1930.

Status: Close to extinction because of very small and decreasing numbers . Decrease of
80 to 90 percent in last 16 years, 12 to 20 percent between 1968 and 1970. In 1972 only
16 to 18 birds in the wild.

Estimated numbers: Probably 15 to 20 birds .

Breeding rate in the wild: 2 to 3 eggs . No successful nesting known in 1969 and
possibly 2 in 1970.

Reasons for decline: Destruction of habitat for agriculture . Nest predation by rats ,
pearly-eyed thrashers, and possibly screech owls. Possibly competition with the pearly-
eyed thrasher for suitable cavities for nesting sites . Possibly severe storms contribute
to decline .

Protective measures already taken: Effort made to transplant these parrots from Luquillo
Forest to Toro Negro Unit of the National Forest before 1942, unsuccessful. After an
initial survey of the species in 1946 by Ventura Barnes, Jr . , of the Fishery and Wildlife
Section, Department of Agriculture and Commerce, it was decided that the central part
of the Espiritu Santo Valley and the eastern section of the Rio Hicaco be reserved for the
protection of this parrot . Studies of nesting and food habits have been conducted on the
species through a Federal Aid project W-7-R by Jose Rodriguez-Vidal . Entire Luquillo
Experimental Forest, including thousands of acres surrounding the area frequented by
the parrots , is a State game refuge , where no hunting is allowed . The Forest Service
conducts patrols to detect illegal hunting . Military maneuvers formerly common in the
forest have been stopped in all areas frequented by parrots. A cooperative rat control
program is being developed to halt predation. Nesting boxes are being installed. Research
is being conducted on its population ecology . Aviary for captive propagation being con-
structed in Luquillo Forest .

Measures proposed: Further studies of entire ecology, including particularly habitat,
food requirements, predation, and competition. Test effectiveness of pearly-eyed thrasher
and rat control and nesting boxes . Develop captive populations for liberation in other
areas .

156

Number in captivity: Three at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown, but other species of Amazona have bred in
captivity .

References:

Kepler, C. Administrative reports. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Rodriguez-Vidal, J. 1959. The Puerto Rican parrot study. Monographs of the

Department of Agriculture and Commerce, Puerto Rico, 1:1-15.
Wadsworth, F. H. U.S. Forest Service, P.O. Box 577, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
(in lit. 1964).

157

NEWTON'S PUERTO RICAN SCREECH OWL Otus nudipes newtoni (Lawrence)

Order: STRIGIFORMES Family: STRIGIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small, resembing North American screech owl but lacks
ear -tufts . In general, brownish gray or reddish brown (two color phases) . Flanks and
belly lighter, streaked brown and white. Differs from the common subspecies on Puerto
Rico (G_. n . nudipes) by lighter and more grayish coloration above and more sparse
streaking below.

Present distribution: Possibly still exists on St. Croix, Virgin Islands.

Former distribution: Vieques off Puerto Rico, and St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix
of the Virgin Islands .

Status: Apparently never common and little known about it. Special efforts by William
Robertson on St . John and by Cameron Kepler on St . Croix failed to find it . George Seaman
(in personal communication with Cameron Kepler) says that it may exist in Caledonia Gorge
in the forests of northwestern St. Croix. If still extant it must be extremely scarce.

Estimated numbers: No estimate .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Unknown .

Protective measures already taken: Creation of a National Park at St . John .

Measures proposed: Repeated effort to locate a population of the species so that studies
can be made to determine what the limiting factors are .

Number in captivity: None known.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bond, J. 1956. Check-list of birds of the West Indies (revised). Acad. Nat.

Sci. Phil. p. 81.
. 1961. Birds of the West Indies (field guide) . Houghton Mifflin Co. ,

Boston, p. 121.
Kepler, C. B. 1969. Administrative report of Bureau of Sport Fisheries and

Wildlife on investigations of Puerto Rican parrot ecology and management

status of other threatened wildlife species in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands .
Ridgway, R. 1914. The birds of North and Middle America. U.S. Nat. Mus . Bull. 50

(Part VI), p. 679.

158

SPOTTED OWL Stirix occidentalis (Xantus)

Order: STRIGIFORMES Family: STRIGIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A large, white-spotted, dark brown owl with brown eyes
and without ear-tufts . Differs from the similar appearing barred owl of eastern North
America in being much more heavily spotted with white all over and particularly on the
posterior underparts where the barred owl lacks these markings .

Present distribution: (Divided into three subspecies) . Resident in Pacific coastal and
Cascade Mountains forests from southwestern British Columbia south to northwestern
California; also Sierra Nevada and mountains of southern California; also southern
Rocky Mountains from central Colorado, south through eastern Arizona and New Mexico;
and mountains of Mexico in Sonora, Michoacan, Guanajuato, and Nuevo Leon.

Former distribution: The same as at present but including some localities from which it
is apparently now extirpated in western Texas and Utah .

Status: All three subspecies very uncommon and vulnerable. Widely scattered pairs.
Known to be seriously declining in numbers in the heavy forests of western Oregon,
Washington, and northwestern California which comprise the range of S. o. caurina.

Estimated numbers: Total population unknown.

Breeding rate in the wild: Two or three (usually two) eggs per set.

Reasons for decline: Removal of old-growth timber — its required habitat, in the
Cascades and coast range of the Northwest; disturbance of limited areas of habitat in
mountain canyons by recreational and construction activities . Extremely sedentary
nature retards movement of birds to new and more favorable habitat when old sites are
destroyed.

Protective measures already taken: Some habitat is preserved at lower altitudes in
Olympic and Mt. Rainier National Parks. Forest management agencies have been alerted
to the incompatability of this species with present forest management practices in the
Northwest. A study of the ecology and populations was begun at the Oregon Cooperative
Wildlife Research Unit in spring of 1972 in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service.

Measures proposed: Locate existing breeding pairs . Absolute protection of the
environment of known nesting sites in all parts of its range . Preliminary information
indicates each pair of S. o. caurina occupies and requires 300 to 600 acres of old-growth
timber. Thorough study of-its ecological requirements and limiting factors.

Number in captivity: Unknown. One at Oregon State University .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

159

References:

Bent, A. C. 1938. Life histories of North American birds of prey (Part 2).

U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 170:202-213.
Forsman, E. 1973. in lit.
Johnson, N. K. 1971. in lit.

Marshall, J. T. , Jr. 1942. Food and habitat of the spotted owl. Condor 44: 66-67.
Wight, H. M. 1971. in lit.
Wight, H. M, 1972. in lit.

160

PUERTO RICAN WHIP-POOR-WILL Caprimulgus noctitherus (Wetmore)

Order: CAPRIMULGIFORMES Family: CAPRIMULGIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Robin-sized night bird with long bristles about the
mouth. Variegated mottling of dark brown, black, gray. White band across throat.
White spots at end of tail feathers .

Present distribution: Known to occur only in the Guanica Forest , near Guanica on the
south coast of Puerto Rico, also Susua Forest and the dry limestone hills north of Tallaboa
and Playa de Guayanilla, but south of Penuelas .

Former distribution: Probably in suitable habitat pretty much over entire island .

Status: Rediscovered recently after being considered extinct. It was recently rediscovered
by George B. Reynard. The threat to its limited habitat imposed by smelters and refineries
is a matter of great concern .

Estimated numbers: Probably not more than 300 pairs in three areas .

Breeding rate in the wild: Nests with two eggs and adults with two young have been
found. Breeding season May through July.

Reasons for decline: Probably destruction of habitat and predation by mongoose .

Protective measures already taken: Two of the forests where birds occur set aside as
reserves .

Measures proposed: Thorough study of the distribution and ecology of the species
determine what its habitat requirements are, how much suitable habitat exists, and what
other limiting factors there are . Try to save some of the habitat in limestone hills near
Ponce that is threatened with industrial development. More rigid protection of common-
wealth forests especially from domestic herbivores (mainly goats) and excessive recrea-
tional development and pollution from expanding industry .

Number in captivity: Probably none .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Biaggi, V . , Jr . University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez .

Kepler, C. Administrative reports. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Leopold, N. F. 1963. Checklist of birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Bull. 168, Univ. Puerto Rico Agric . Exp. Sta.
Reynard, G. B . 1962. The rediscovery of the Puerto Rican Whip-poor-will.

The Living Bird, First Annual of Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology.

161

RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER Dendrocopos borcalis (Vicillot)

Order: PICIFORMES Family: PICIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small woodpecker with black and white horizontal stripes
on back, white cheeks and under parts, flanks black streaked. Cap and stripe on side
of throat and neck black . Male has a small red spot on each side of black cap .

Present distribution: Resident in open, old age pine woodlands from Southeastern
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Western Kentucky, Southeastern Virginia south to Gulf Coast and
southern Florida .

Former distribution: Southern Missouri, Western Kentucky, and southeastern Virginia,
south to Gulf Coast and Southern Florida .

Status: Vulnerable, because of limited number of specialized nesting sites in old, living
pines infected with red-heart disease, and current trend in forestry practice to eliminate
such trees .

Estimated numbers: Estimate 3,000 to 10,000 but uncommon and very local.

Protective measures already taken: Federal and some State forestry agencies have
policies of saving some large pine trees infected with red-heart disease in limited areas
where red-cockaded woodpeckers are known to occur .

Measures proposed: Managing blocks of land to provide all necessary habitat requirements .

Number in captivity: None known .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably poor .

References:

Bent, A. C. 1939. Life histories of North American woodpeckers . U.S. Nat. Mus .

Bull. 174:72-79.
Czuhai, E. 1971. Synoptic review of forest resource and use within the range of

the red-cockaded woodpecker . In the Ecology and Management of the Red-cockaded

Woodpecker, Proc . Symposium at Okefenokee Nat. Wildlife Refuge, Folkston, Ga.

May 26-27, 1971, sponsored by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Tall

Timbers Research Station.
Dennis , J . V . 1972 . Red-cockaded woodpecker . National Parks and Conservation

Magazine. 46(4): 24-27.
Jackson, J. A. 1971. The evolution, taxonomy, distribution, past populations and

current status of the Red-cockaded woodpecker. In The Ecology and Management

of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Proc. Symposium at Okefenokee Nat. Wildlife

Refuge, Folkston, Ga . May 26-27, 1971, sponsored by Bureau of Sport Fisheries

and Wildlife and Tall Timbers Research Station .
Lay, D. W. , and D.N. Russell. 1970. Notes on the Red-cockaded woodpecker in

Texas. Auk 87:781-786.

162

Morse, D. 1972. Habitat utilization of the red-cockaded woodpecker during the winter.

Auk 89:429-434.
Thompson, R. L. and W. W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red-cockaded woodpecker

habitat requirements . In The Ecology and management of the red-cockaded

woodpecker, Proc . Symposium at Okefenokee Nat. Wildlife Refuge, Folkston, Ga.

May 26-27, 1971, sponsored by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Tall Timbers

Research Station .

163

AMERICAN IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKER Campehilus p . principalis (Linnaeus)

Order: PICIFORMES Family: PICIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A very large woodpecker, larger than a crow, with a
white bill, large patches of white on wings, and white lines on either side of neck. Male
with red, female with black crest. Differs from pileated woodpecker in having a white
rather than dark bill and much more white in wings which shows when not in flight.
Flight level not looping as in pileated woodpecker . Call a single note like the sound of
a toy tin horn.

Present distribution: Only recent records are for SE Texas, southern Louisiana and
central South Carolina . Considerable effort has failed to produce reliable records
elsewhere in its former range .

Former distribution: Resident in southeastern United States from southeastern Oklahoma,
northeastern Arkansas, southeastern Missouri, southeasten Illinois, and southeastern
North Carolina, southward to the Gulf coast of eastern Texas, eastward to southern Florida.

Status: Probably very close to extinction because of scarcity of suitable habitat.

Estimated numbers: No basis for estimating total numbers .

Breeding rate in the wild: 3 to 5 eggs per year .

Reasons for decline: Reduction of overmature forests with dead and dying trees which
supply the wood boring beetle larvae required for food. Illegal shooting may also be a
factor .

Protective measures already taken: Strict legal protection including prohibition of
collection for scientific purposes . Search for birds and suitable habitat as first step in
planning appropriate conservation measures conducted by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife from 1965 to 1968, and likely reports are being checked. Two timber management
compartments at the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge (Florida) have been selected for
management in an effort to provide suitable habitat for ivory-billed woodpeckers which
might be living in the area.

Measures proposed: Widescale search to locate remaining birds with help of playing of
sound recordings and aerial reconnaissance . Education to aid in proper identification of
bird and to prevent thoughtless shooting. Preservation of habitat, especially effort to save
scattered mature bottom land hardwoods. Publicity to inform public of the birds' needs,
habits , and general whereabouts .

Number in captivity: Probably none .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

164

References:

Agey, H. N. and G . M. Heinzman. 1971. The ivory-billed woodpecker found

in central Florida. Florida Naturalist, 44(2): 46-47 & 64.
D'-'nnis, J. Administrative reports, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Eastman, W. 1958. Ten-year search for the ivory-billed woodpecker . Atlantic

Naturalist 13:216-228.
Sykes, P. Administrative reports. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Tanner, J. T. 1942. The ivory-billed woodpecker. Research Report No. 1

of the National Audubon Society, HI pp.

165

HAWAIIAN CROW (ALALA) Corvus tropicus (Gmelin)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: CORVIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: All black, like American crows but duller, tinged with
brown, especially on wings and with more massive bill. Higher pitched voice.

Present distribution: Resident locally in forested areas and higher elevations on North
and South Kona and Kau Districts of the island of Hawaii, including ranching country.

Former distribution: Same as present but more generally distributed from Kau to
Puuwaawaa from 1,000 to 8,000 feet elevation.

Status: Greatly reduced from former numbers and continuing to decline .

Estimated numbers: About 50. In May, 1972, 17 seen by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife and Hawaii Division of Fish and Game personnel on slopes of Mt. Hualalai,
Hawaii .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown; however, a nest with two young found.

Reasons for decline: Shooting. Alteration of environment by modern man, especially
destruction. Possibly avian diseases. Destruction of native forest by domestic livestock.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State and Federal law . Status and
ecological study initiated.

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment and establishment of needed
refuges and sanctuaries . Initiate propagation program and develop techniques for stocking
suitable habitat. Increase patrol and/or law enforcement effort. Intensify ecological and
life history research of the species. Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific
values . Quarantine on all birds , including cage birds brought into the State to prevent
introduction to disease. Control or elimination of grazing by feral grazing animals and
domestic livestock in key habitat areas .

Number in captivity: One at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports.
Fisher, J. , and R. T. Peterson. 1964. World of birds .
Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports .

Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii. Charles E. Tuttle Co., Rutland, Vermont,
and Tokyo, Japan. 192 pp.

166

SMALL KAUAI THRUSH (PUAIOHI) Phaeornis palmeri (Rothschild)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: TURDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Upper parts dull brown, head darker, a white mark over
eye; underpart grayish, abdomen white. Differs from a similar Hawaiian thrush in
smaller size and flesh-colored (not dark) legs, and white mark over eye.

Present distribution: Unknown . Observed in Alakai Swamp on island of Kauai of Hawaii .

Former distribution: Unknown . Very few widely separated records in the native forests
of Kauai.

Status: Vulnerable because of extremely restricted distribution. Exotic plants becoming
established in Alakai Swamp . Proposal for power and irrigation dam and reservoir on
edge of swamp .

Estimated numbers: Unknown, but probably very low.

Breeding rate in wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline : Destruction of native forests, but has always been rare according
to early collectors .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State and Federal law . Selective
limitation by State and Federal Governments of introduction of foreign species . Establish-
ment of the 10,000-acre Alakai Swamp Wilderness Preserve by Hawaii State regulation
which prohibits disturbance of the required habitat. Ecological and life history studies
begun.

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment, including establishment of
permanent needed refuges . Control predators . Prevent introduction of harmful insects,
plants, and animals. Control of feral grazing animals. Intensify ecological and life
history research of the species. Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific
values. Quarantine on all birds, including cage birds brought into the State to prevent
introduction of disease . Initiate propagation program to develop techniques that could be
applied to this and other Hawaiian forest birds .

Number in captivity: One female in Honolulu Zoo since 1968.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports.

Fisher, J. , and R. T. Peterson. 1964. World of Birds .

Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports .

Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii . Charles E. Tuttle Co . , Rutland, Vermont,

and Tokyo, Japan. 192 pp.
Richardson, F. , and J. Bowles. 1964. A survey of the birds of Kauai, Hawaii.
Bernice P. Bishop, Museum Bull. 227, 51 pp.

167

LARGE KAUAI THRUSH (KAUAI OMAO) Phaeornis obscurus myadestina (Stejneger)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: TURDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Dark brown upper parts, gray underparts; plump.
Differs from the Small Kauai Thrush in larger size, plump appearance, and dark (not
flesh colored) legs; lacks white mark over eye. Has habit of trembling.

Present distribution: Most often observed in Alakai Swamp on island of Kauai, Hawaii.

Former distribution: Reportedly the most common forest bird in all forests of Kauai in
1891.

Status : Restricted distribution and small numbers . Power and irrigation dam proposed
on edge of Alakai Swamp .

Estimated numbers: Unknown--but presently low .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Encroachment of civilization, including feral grazing animals, on
its specialized habitat with reduction of heavy forest. Also possibly the effect of
introduced diseases and their insect vectors or competition from introduced birds .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State and Federal law . Selective
limitation by State and Federal Governments of introduction of foreign species . Establish-
ment of the 10,000-acre Alakai Swamp Wilderness Preserve by Hawaii State regulation
which prohibits disturbance of the major habitat. Ecological and life history studies begun.

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment and establishment of needed
refuges and sanctuaries. Control predators. Prevent introduction of harmful insects,
plants , and animals . Inspection and fumigation of all arriving aircraft and ships .
Control of feral grazing animals. Initiate propagation program to develop techniques
which may be applied to this and other Hawaiian forest birds . Publicize critical status
and aesthetic and scientific values. Quarantine on all birds, including cage birds,
brought into the State to prevent introduction of disease. Intensify research. Initiate
propagation program to develop techniques that could be applied to this and other
Hawaiian forest birds . "

Number in captivity: Probably none .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Berger, A. J. 1970. The present status of the birds of Hawaii . Pac . Sci. 24(1):

29-42.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports .

168

Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii . Charles E. Tuttle Co., Rutland, Vermont,

and Tokyo, Japan. 192 pp.
Richardson, F. and J. Bowles. 1964. A survey of the birds of Kauai, Hawaii.

Bernice P. Bishop, Museum Bull. 227, 51 pp.

169

MOLOKAI THRUSH (OLOMAU) Phaeornis obscurus rutha (Bryan)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: TURDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Plump bird, dark brown above, unspotted gray
underparts . Has habit of trembling .

Present distribution: Confined as far as known to higher portions of native forest of
eastern Molokai, Hawaii.

Former distribution: Widely distributed in all native wet forests on Molokai.

Status: Threatened primarily because very rare and restricted range. Thought to have
become extinct between 1907 and 1936 (Greenway), but rediscovered by Noah Pekelo, Jr.,
who saw two at Puu Haha, July 17, 1963.

Estimated numbers: Very low.

Breeding rate in the wild: No information.

Reasons for decline: Introduction of foreign birds, avian diseases, and insect vectors;
elimination and alteration of natural forest by man and introduced ungulates, including
domestic livestock.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation by State
and Federal Governments of introduction of foreign species of birds .

Measures proposed: More complete control of introduction of foreign species of birds
and mammals and reduction of those already present in range of this species . Restoration
and protection of natural forest habitat, including establishment of needed refuges.
Initiate ecological and life history research to determine particular ecological requirements
and limiting factors of this species. Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific
values. Quarantine on all birds, including cage birds brought into the State to prevent
introduction of disease. Initiate propagation program to develop techniques that may be
applied to this and other Hawaiian forest birds .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports .

Greenway, J. C., Jr. 1958. Extinct and vanishing birds of the world . Spec. Pub.

13 Amer. Committee for International Wild Life Protection. New York, New York,

p. 287.
Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports.
Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii .

Pekelo, N. 1963. Nature notes from Molokai . Elepaio 24(4): 17- 18 .
Richardson, F. 1949. Status of native land birds on Molokai. Pac . Sci . 3(3).

226-330.

170

NIHOA MILLERBIRD Acrocephalus kingi (Wetmore)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: SYLVIIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small, plain bird, smaller than a sparrow with a thin,
warbler-type bill; gray-brown above and buffy white below.

Present distribution: Confined to Nihoa Island in the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife
Refuge in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands .

Former distribution: Same as present .

Status: Vulnerable because of very small population and extremely restricted geograph-
ical distribution (174 acres).

Estimated numbers: About 400 in September, 1972, by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife personnel. Fluctuates from 300 to 600 for unknown reasons.

Breeding rate in the wild: Two or three eggs per clutch.

Reasons for decline: Not known to be declining and no reason known at present why it
should .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State and Federal law . Its entire range
is within the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge and thus is protected. Landings
on islands restricted and by permit only. Life history study begun. Publicity of refuge
status in news media. Status of refuge and need for entry permit included in current
nautical charts of area and U.S. Coast Pilot.

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment. Prevent introduction of
harmful insects, plants, and animals. Initiate experimental artificial propagation
program . Introduction into new range . Increase patrol . Continue ecological and life
history research of the species. Continue to publicize critical status and aesthetic and
scientific values .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports.
Wetmore, A. 1924. A warbler from Niboa . Condor 26: 177-178 .

171

KAUAI OO (OO AA) Moho braccatus (Cassin)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: MELIPHAGIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A slender , sooty bird , with slender black bill , white
streaks on throat, yellow thighs, white wing patch and pointed tail.

Present distribution: Confined to island of Kauai in Hawaii . Very local . Known to
occur in the Alakai Swamp. Richardson and Bowles (1964) were able to locate at least
12 individuals on July 21, 1960 in Alakai Swamp. Sincock (1971) found a pair at nesting
cavity in dead Ohia tree on May 31, 1971, near Mt. Waialeale, and saw six same area in
1972.

Former distribution: Generally distributed in the heavy forest of Kauai .

Status: Population greatly depleted. Irrigation and power dam and reservoir on edge of
Alakai Swamp is proposed.

Estimated numbers: Total number unknown, but apparently very few.

Breeding rate in the wild: Two young in nest found by Sincock .

Reasons for decline: Encroachment of civilization on its specialized habitat with
reduction of heavy forest. Also possibly the effect of introduced diseases and disease-
carrying insects .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation by
State and Federal Governments of introductions of foreign species of birds . Establishment
of the 10,000 acre Alakai Swamp Wilderness Preserve by Hawaii State regulation which
prohibits disturbance of the major habitat. Research in ecology and life history in
progress .

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment including establishment of
needed refuges . Prevent introduction of harmful insects, plants, and animals . Control
of feral grazing animals. Continue ecological and life history research of the species.
Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific values . Quarantine on all birds ,
including cage birds brought into the State to prevent introduction of disease. Initiate
propagation program to develop techniques applicable to other forest birds .

Number in captivity: None known .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown, but probably poor .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports .

Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports.

Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii.

Richardson and Bowles. 1964. A survey of the birds of Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop

Museum Bull. 227.
Warner, R. E. 1968. The role of introduced diseases in the extinction of the

endemic Hawaiian avifauna .

172

BACHMAN'S WARBLER Vermivora bachmanii (Audubon)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: PARULIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Very small bird with fine bill; male olive green above;
face and underparts yellow; throat-patch and crown-patch black. Female lacks black
throat; upper parts olive green; forehead and underparts yellow; crown grayish.

Present distribution: Known only from recent (since 1950) observation of nonbreeding
individuals near Lawton, Virginia, and Charleston and Francis Marion National Forest,
South Carolina and three localities in Alabama .

Former distribution: Bred in river swamp forests of southeastern Missouri, northeastern
Arkansas, western Kentucky, central Alabama, and South Carolina. Migrated through
gulf states and Florida to winter in Cuba .

Status: So infrequently seen that nothing is known of its present breeding or wintering
distribution . Only an occasional nonbreeding individual observed .

Estimated numbers: No estimates .

Breeding rate in the wild: Three to five eggs to a set.

Reasons for decline: Obscure. Possibly the cutting of practically all the virgin swamp
or bottomland timber in the Southeast. Excessive collecting along restricted migration
route in Florida may have caused decline in earlier years .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by Federal law since revision of interpre-
tation of provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1965, also by the laws of States
in which it formerly occurred . Some of the National Wildlife Refuges in the Southeast
have river swamp forests which may be potential habitat for this species .

Measures proposed: An intensive study to locate breeding Bachman's warblers and to
learn what their requirements are so that further protective measures can be taken.
Complete protection from collecting anywhere .

Number in captivity: None known .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown but probably poor .

References:

Bent, A. C. 1953. Life histories of North American wood warblers . U.S.

National Museum Bulletin 203.
Imhof, T. A. 1962. Alabama Birds . University of Alabama Press . 591pp.
Meanley, B. Manuscript of account of species for the Handbook of North

American birds.

173

GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER Dendroica chrysoparia (Schlater and Salvin)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: PARULIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Smaller than sparrow . Male with bright yellow cheeks
and with black throat, back and line through the eyes. Female similar but back olive.

Present distribution: Breeds only in mature growth "cedar breaks" of the Edwards
Plateau of central Texas; also northeast to Dallas and Palo Pinto counties. Exact winter
range unknown. A few observations in winter in the highlands of Guatemala, Nicaragua,
and Honduras (Pulich 1962 and 1969); also Tamaulipas , Mexico (Evenden 1965).

Former distribution: Same as present.

Status: Vulnerable because of very specialized and restricted habitat, although common
in such areas of mature cedar (Juniperus ashei) 25-40 feet high. Loss of this type of
habitat has resulted in disappearance of the species in many places . Current trends in
brush removal and urbanization in breeding areas, if accelerated could jeopardize the
species in a short time .

Estimated numbers: Pulich (1969) estimated about 15,000 to 17,000 in total population.

Breeding rate in the wild: One set of 3 to 5 eggs per year .

Reasons for decline: Removal of mature stands of Ashe juniper for brush eradication to
increase growth of grass and expansion of urbanization into the limited nesting range of
the species .

Protective measures already taken: Strictly protected by Federal law . Court ruling to
protect one breeding area from development as a golf course .

Measures proposed: Preservation of mature stands of Juniperus ashei through acquisition
or lease of land. Further study of wintering areas to determine exact range and any limiting
factors that may exist there . Eliminate brush clearing in key habitats .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Poor .

References:

Evenden, F. (in li« • 1965)

Pulich, W. M. 1962. In quest of the golden-cheeked warbler--some preliminary

findings. Newsletter of the Texas Ornithological Society. 10: 5-11.
. 1969. Golden-cheeked warbler: threatened bird of the cedar

Brakes. National Parks Mag. March 1969, 10-12.

174

KIRTLAND's WARBLER Dendroica kirtlandii (Baird)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: PARULIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small bird with finely pointed bill . Bluish gray above
with black streaks on back. Male has black mask, is pale yellow below with distinct
dark streaks on sides of breast. Female is duller and lacks mask. In fall plumage, face,
sides, and upper parts heavily obscured with brown. Habit of bobbing tail at all times.

Present distribution: Breeds in the northern part of the lower peninsula of Michigan
from Lake Huron west to Kalkaska County and from Presque Isle County south to Ogemaw
County principally in watershed of the AuSable River . Nesting habitat young jack pines
with low brushy undergrowth . Winters in the Bahama Islands . Recent records from
Eleuthera, New Providence, and Grand Bahama, 5 in 1964. Winter habitat noted as pine
woods , broad-leafed scrub , and Australian pine (Casuarina) .

Former distribution: Perhaps more extensive breeding area. Winter specimens taken on
10 of the Bahama Islands between 1879 and 1915 . Early observers noted winter habitat as
broad-leafed scrub .

Status: Vulnerable due to small numbers, limited geographical range, exacting breeding
habitat requirements , and increasing parasitism by cowbirds .

Estimated numbers: Less than 300 pairs .

Breeding rate in the wild: Usually lays 5 eggs in first set and 4 in replacement sets.
Two records of two successful nestings in one season by same pair, but may be more
often .

Reasons for decline: Population may fluctuate with varying amounts nesting habitat.
Parasitism of cowbirds thought a probable limiting factor to production. Nothing known
of limiting factors on wintering grounds .

Protective measures already taken: The U.S. Forest Service has set aside 4,010 acres
of National Forest to be managed to provide optimum nesting habitat for Kirtland's warbler.
Prescribed burning is being used in this area to create the young jack pine stands needed.
The Michigan Conservation Department has established three Kirtland's Warbler Management
Areas, each of 4 square miles, on State forest land. Michigan Audubon Society is coo-
perating with U.S. Forest Service in planting jack pines on burned areas where natural
reproduction is not occurring. Dr. Nicholas Cuthbert studied and controlled cowbirds
with favorable results. Kirtland's Warblers are strictly protected by State and Federal
laws . National Audubon Society has recently underwritten an assessment of the winter
status of this bird . Florida Audubon Society has attempted to get protection for areas
where birds observed in Bahamas . The third decennial census of this species for 1971
organized by Harold Mayfield.

Measures proposed: More study of the wintering areas in the Bahamas to determine the
habitat requirements and possible limiting factors there which might be controlled. Obtain
protection for wintering areas where birds have been seen recently. Expand protected
breeding areas. Continue control of cowbird parasitism of Kirtland's warbler nests.
Continue study of jack pine reproduction and ecology at North Central Forest Experimental
Station .

175

Number in captivity: None known .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown but probably poor .

References:

Anonymous. 1972. Trouble for Michigan bird of fire . Audubon. 74:34-35.
Blanrhard, D. 1965. Kirtland's warbler in winter on Grand Bahama. Jack

Pine Warbler 43: 39-42.
Handley, M.N. 1967. Recent wintering records of the Kirtland's warbler.

Auk 84:425-426.
Mason, C. R. Florida Audubon Society, Altamonte Springs, Florida, in lit . 1964.
Mayfield, H. 1960. The Kirtland's warbler . Cranbrook Institute of Science. 242 pp.
. 1963. Establishment of preserves for the Kirtland's warbler in

the state and national forests of Michigan. Wilson Bull. 75:216-220.

. 1972. Third decennial census of Kirtland's warbler. Auk 89: 263-268.

Radtke, R. and J. Byelich. 1963. Kirtland's warbler management . Wilson Bull.

75:208-215.
Von Bergen, J. 1969. Kirtland's report. Michigan Audubon Newsletter 17: 3.
Wallace, G.J. 1968. Another August record of Kirtland's warbler on its winter

grounds. Jack Pine Warbler 46: 7.

176

ELFIN WOODS WARBLER Dendroica angelae (Kepler and Parkes)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: PARULIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small warbler, generally black above, white below,
the chest, breast, and belly spotted with triangular dots. Laterally shows prominent
white eye ring, two curved white arcs on nape and post-auriculars, two white wing bars,
and a white wing "speculum."

Present distribution: Very restricted, confined to about 1,000 acres of Elfin Woodland
forest on the peaks of El Yunque, El Toro, and East Peak, Luquillo Forest, eastern
Puerto Rico .

Former distribution: Probably same as present although some habitat recently destroyed.

Status : Very small population in extremely restricted geographical distribution
(1,000 acres).

Estimated numbers: Probably does not exceed 300 pairs .

Breeding rate in wild: Unknown . Pairs with one to three young have been seen in
June and July .

Reasons for decline: Not definitely known to be declining but habitat destruction on
East Peak may have destroyed 5 percent of the total habitat.

Protective measures already taken: The entire known range lies within Luquillo
Experimental Forest, administered by the U.S. Forest Service, which is also a bird
refuge . The Elfin Woodland can be reached only on foot or through restricted roads
that are kept locked with vehicular access by permit only.

Measures proposed: The Elfin Woodland and adjacent forests of El Toro, El Cacique,
East Peak, West Peak, and parts of El Yunque be declared "Endangered Species Areas"
by the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture which maintains jurisdiction
of the Luquillo Forest. No development within this area. Strict regulation of museum
collecting of the species . Initiate ecological and life history research on the species .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown but probably poor .

References:

Kepler, C. B. and K. C. Parkes. 1972. A new species of warbler (Parulidae)
from Puerto Rico . Auk 89:1-18.
Wildlife .

177

CRESTED HONEYCREEPER (AKOHEKOHE) Palmeria dolei (Wilson)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A medium-sized perching bird, generally black, with
orange-tipped feathers above and below; patch of reddish-orange feathers at back of
neck; prominent gray or white crest on forehead .

Present distribution: Very restricted; confined to rain forests on the northeast slopes
of Haleakala between 6,000 and 7,000 feet. Island of Maui, Hawaii.

Former distribution: Mountain forests of Molokai and Maui, Hawaii.

Status: Vulnerable because of very limited distribution and numbers . Seen by a number
of ornithologists in 1965-67 near Wai Anapanapa and Puu Alaea and in upper Kipahulu
Valley, Maui. Habitat very limited.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Probably adversely affected by introduced birds diseases and
encroaching civilization on the forest habitat. Noted to have deserted forests opened by
invasion of cattle .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation by
State and Federal Governments of introduction of foreign bird species. Acquisition and
protection of large area in Kipahulu Valley, Maui, by The Nature Conservancy for
inclusion in Haleakala National Park as a wilderness area .

Measures proposed: Preservation of additional natural environment, including establish-
ment of needed refuges . Prevent introduction of harmful insects, plants, and animals.
Control of feral grazing animals. Initiate ecological and life history research of the
species. Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific values. Quarantine on all
birds, including cage birds brought into the State to prevent introduction of disease.
Initiate propagation program and develop techniques which may be applied to Hawaiian
forest birds .

Number in captivity: None known.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports
Greenway, J. C. 1958. Extinct and vanishing birds of the world;
Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports.
Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii.

178

KAUAI AKIALOA Hemignathus procerus (Cabanis)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A bright greenish-yellow bird with an extremely long
sickle-like bill, about a third the total length of the bird.

Present distribution: The upper rain forest island of Kauai, Hawaii. Known at present
to occur only in the Alakai Swamp .

Former distribution: Generally distributed in the heavily forested regions of Kauai.

Status: Very rare in restricted and vulnerable habitat. Exotic plants becoming
established and power and irrigation dam proposed on edge of Alakai Swamp .

Estimated numbers; Total unknown .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline; Possibly introduced avian diseases and parasites . Alteration of
habitat by invasion by foreign plants or browsing by feral and domestic animals.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation by State
and Federal Governments of introduction of foreign birds . Establishment of the 10,000
acre Alakai Swamp Wilderness Preserve by Hawaii State regulation which prohibits dis-
turbance of the major habitat. Field investigations are underway to develop guidelines
for action programs .

Measures proposed: Restoration and preservation of natural forest conditions of only known
area of forest where species occur and establishment of wildlife refuge and sanctuaries.
Continue ecological and life history research. Prevent introduction of harmful insects,
plants, and animals. Control of feral grazing animals and domestic stock. Publicize
critical status and aesthetic and scientific values. Quarantine on all birds, including
cage birds brought into the State to prevent introduction of disease . Initiate propagation
program or develop techniques which could be applied to Hawaiian forest birds.

Number in captivity: None known.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports .

Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports.

Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii.

Richardson and J. Bowles. 1964. A survey of the birds of Kauai, Hawaii. Bishop

Museum Bull. 227.
Warner, R. E. 1968. The role of introduced diseases in the extinction of the

endemic Hawaiian avifauna. Condor 70: 101-120.

179

' ^ KAUAI NUKUPUU Hemignathus lucidus hanapepe (Wilson)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small bird with upper parts and breast yellow, white
on abdomen; feet slately black. Long, down-curved bill with upper mandible twice
length of lower. Female smaller and duller colored than male.

Present distributiorl: The upper rain forest of the island of Kauai , Hawaii . Known to
occur at present only in the Alakai Swamp .

Former distribution: Probably more generally distributed than at present, but seldom
seen below 4,000 feet elevation (Munro, 1960).

Status: Very rare in restricted vulnerable habitat. Exotic plants becoming established
and power dam proposed on edge of Alakai Swamp.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Possibly introduced avian diseases with insect vectors and
destruction of habitat.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation by
State and Federal Governments of introduction of foreign species of birds. Establishment
of the 10,000-acre Alakai Swamp Wilderness Preserve by Hawaii State regulation which
prohibits disturbance of the major habitat. Limited field investigations in progress.

Measures proposed: Restoration and preservation of native forest habitat and establish-
ment of wildlife refuges or sanctuaries, and exclusion of human and domestic animal
interference in area where known to exist at present. Initiate propagation program and
develop techniques applicable to Hawaiian forest birds. Initiate ecological and life
history research. Prevent introduction of harmful insects, plants, and animals. Control
of feral grazing animals. Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific values.
Quarantine on all birds , including cage birds brought into the State to prevent
introduction of disease .

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown.

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports

Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports

Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii .

Richardson, F., and J . Bowles. 1964. A survey of the birds of Kauai . Bishop,

Museum Bull. 227 pp.
Warner, R. E. 1968. The role of introduced diseases in the extinction of the

endemic Hawaiian avifauna. Condor 70: 101-120.

180

MAUI NUKUPUU Hemignathus lucidus affinis (Rothschild)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small bird with long down-curved bill; upper mandible
twice length of lower. Under parts and head bright yellow, back olive green. Females
and immatures are duller below with olive crown, yellow throat, and yellow stripe above
the eye .

Present distribution: Known to occur from 5,500 to 6,500 feet northeast slopes of
Haleakala Crater, island of Maui, Hawaiian Islands. Two, possibly three seen in
Kipahulo Valley in August 1967 (Banko) .

Former distribution: Historically reported in forests at about 4,000 feet elevation, Maui.

Status: Very uncommon.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Alteration of natural environment by man. Probable susceptibility
to exotic avian diseases transmitted by introduced mosquitoes .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation of
introduced foreign species of birds. Limited field research program in progress.
Acquisition of large area of Kipahulu Valley, Maui, by the Nature Conservancy for
inclusion as wilderness area in Haleakala National Park.

Measures proposed: Preservation in natural condition the native rain forest environment
in Kipahulu Valley and other areas and establishment of refuges or sanctuaries . Prevent
introduction of harmful insects, plants, and animals. Control of feral grazing animals.
Control of domestic stock. Initiate ecological and life history research of the species.
Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific values. Quarantine on all birds,
including cage birds brought into the State to prevent introduction of disease. Initiate
propagation program and develop techniques applicable to Hawaiian forest birds.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Amadon, D. 1950. The Hawaiian Honeycreepers . Bui. Am. Mus . Nat. Hist.,

Vol. 95, Art. 4.
Banko, W. E. 1968. Re-discovery of Maui Nukupuu, Hemignathus lucidus affinis ,
and sighting of Maui Parrotbill, Pseudonestor xanthophrys, Kipahulu Valley,
Maui, Hawaii. Condor 70: 265-266 .

181

Greenway, J. C. , Jr. 1958. Extinct and Vanishing Birds of the World.
Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports .
Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii.

Warner, R. E. 1968. The role of introduced diseases in the extinction of the
endemic Hawaiian avifauna. Condor 70: 101-120.

182

AKIAPOLAAU Hemignathus wilsoni (Rothschild)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small bird with head and breast yellow; upper parts
olive green; abdomen dull yellow. Long, down-curved upper mandible, lower
mandible, short and straight.

Present distribution: Confined to upper forests of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, island of
Hawaii. Three sightings in the Kilauea Koa Forest made in 1970 by Banko. Seen in
recent years in mamane forest of Mauna Kea by Andrew S . Berger . Seen in very small
numbers by various observers in 1972 in Keahou Forest Reserve on island of Hawaii.

Former distribution: Much more widely distributed and more numerous than at present.

Status: Now nonexistent or very uncommon over wide range of upper forests.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Introduction of foreign birds, avian diseases, and insect vectors;
elimination and alteration of natural forest by man and introduced ungulates, including
domestic livestock and feral sheep and goats .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation by
State and Federal Governments of introduction of foreign species of birds . Limited field
investigations are underway to develop guidelines for action programs .

Measures proposed: More complete control of introduction of foreign species of birds
and mammals and reduction of those already present in range of this species . Restora-
tion and protection of natural forest habitat and establishment of wildlife refuges. Study
of ecological requirements and limiting factors . Publicize critical status and aesthetic
and scientific values. Quarantine on all birds, including cage birds brought into the
State to prevent introduction of disease. Initiate propagation program and develop
techniques that could be applied to Hawaiian forest birds .

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Banko, W. 1970. in lit.

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports .
Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports.

IGng, W. B. and D. Bratley . 1964. Birds on Hawaii's "Bio Island" Elepaio 25(2): 8.
Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii .

Warner, R. E. 1968. The role of introduced diseases in the extinction of the endemic
Hawaiian avifauna. Condor 70: 101-120.

183

HAWAII AKEPA (AKEPA) Loxops coccinea coccinea (Gmelin)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small bird with short, light colored, pointed bill.
Males are bright reddish orange, somewhat duller on the back and with dusky wings
and tail. Females greenish-yellow below, olive or yellowish green above.

Present distribution: Confined to very limited areas of native forests and widely
scattered on Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa and Hualalai on the island of Hawaii.

Former distribution: Same as present but much more widespread. Found in all native
forests according to Munro.

Status: Appears in very small numbers. Populations declining. Only four seen in
recent years despite intensive search by Winston Banko in formerly occupied habitats.
About a dozen were seen by him April, 1971 in Kaalaa, Kau District.

Estimated numbers: No estimate, but very low.

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Introduction of foreign birds, avian diseases, and insect vectors.
Elimination and alteration of native forest by man and introduced ungulates, including
domestic livestock and feral goats .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation by
State and Federal Government of introduction of foreign species of birds . Field
investigations are underway to develop guidelines for action programs.

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment and establishment of wildlife
refuges. Control of domestic and feral grazing animals. Conduct ecological and life
history research of the species. Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific
values . Quarantine on all birds including cage birds brought into the State to prevent
introduction of disease . Captive propagation and develop techniques applicable to
Hawaiian forest birds .

Number in captivity: None known.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Amadon, D. 1950. The Hawaiian Honeycreepers (Aves , Drepaniidae) . Bull. Amer.

Mus. Nat. Hist. 95:155-262.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports
Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports .
Munro, G.C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii . Ridgeway Press . Revised Edition.

184

MAUI AKEPA (AKEPUIE) Loxops coccinea ochracea (Rothschild)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small bird with short sharp-pointed bluish gray bill .
Some males are dull brownish orange or ochraceous, others are dull yellow washed with
olive above or intermediate between these two extreme color types . Females are yellowish
below and olive green above being duller and less yellowish than females of the Hawaii
akepa .

Present distribution: If extant, confined to windward forest of Haleakala, island of
Maui, Hawaii.

Former distribution: More widely distributed in native forest than at present .

Status: Could possibly be extinct. Three birds reported between 2,000 and 3,000 feet on
the south slope of Haleakala on November 24, 1950, appear to be only records since 1894
(Richards and Baldwin, 1953).

Estimated numbers: No estimate.

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown. No record of eggs or nestlings.

Reasons for decline: Probably the effect of encroachment of civilization on the native
forest habitat, introduced diseases, and disease-carrying insects.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation by
State and Federal Governments of introduction of foreign species of birds. Field
investigations are underway to develop guidelines for action programs .

Measures proposed: More complete control of introduction of foreign species of birds and
mammals and reduction of those already present in range of this species . Restoration
and protection of natural forest habitat. Initiate or continue ecological and life history
research particularly to determine ecological requirements and limiting factors .
Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific values. Quarantine on all birds,
including cage birds brought into the State, to prevent introductions of disease.

Number in captivity: None known.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii.

Richards, L. P. and P. H. Baldwin. 1953. Recent records of some Hawaiian
honeycreepers . Condor 55: 221-222 .

185

OAHU CREEPER (ALAUWAHIO) Loxops maculata maculata (Cabanis)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small bird with straight, slender, sharp-pointed bill .
Male yellow below and yellow washed with olive green above, duskier on wings and
tail. Female somewhat duller. Adults retain white wing-bars which are only present
in Juvenal plumage of other subspecies .

Present distribution: Confined to higher elevations of native forests of the island of
Oahu, Hawaii.

Former distribution; Same as present but more widespread.

Status: Very small and declining numbers .

Estimated numbers: No estimate but very low.

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Introduction of foreign birds, avian diseases, and insect
vectors; alteration of native forests by man and introduced ungulates.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation by
State and Federal Governments of introduction of foreign species of birds. Limited
field investigations in progress .

Measures proposed: More complete control of introduction of foreign species of birds
and mammals and reduction of those already present in range of this species . Restoration
and protection of natural forest habitat, including establishment of needed refuges.
Conduct ecological and life history research to determine ecological requirements and
limiting factors for this species. Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific
values . Quarantine on all birds including cage birds brought into the State to prevent
introduction of disease . Initiate propagation program and/or develop techniques which
may be applied to Hawaiian forest birds .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Amadon, D. 1950. The Hawaiian honeycreepers . Bull. Amer. Mus . Nat. Hist.

95: 155-262.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Administrative Reports.
Hawaii Division of Fish and Game, Administrative Reports.
Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii .

186

MOLOKAI CREEPER (KAKAWAHIE) Loxops maculata flammea (Wilson)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small bird, males bright scarlet with brownish wing and
tail, females dull brownish gray becoming almost white below and sparingly washed with
pinkish buff, young males resemble females or are in partially scarlet plumage.

Present distribution: Endemic to island of Molokai where it is restricted to boggy
forests of the eastern mountains .

Former distribution: Known only from the above area .

Status: Exists in extremely small numbers. Thought to be extinct prior to 1961
sightings. Seen also in 1962 and 1963 (Pekelo, 1963).

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Alteration of natural environment by man through clearing and
grazing by domestic livestock and introduced goats and Axis deer. Probable suscepti-
bility to exotic avian disease .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation of
introduced foreign species of birds . Field research program underway to determine
status and base guidelines for future conservation action.

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment, including establishment of
needed refuges. Prevent introduction of harmful insects, plants, and animals . Control
of feral grazing animals and livestock. Initiate ecological and life history research.
Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific values. Quarantine on all birds,
including cage birds brought into the State to prevent introduction of disease . Initiate
propagation program and develop techniques applicable to Hawaiian forest birds .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References

Amadon, D. 1950. The Hawaiian Honeycreepers . Bull. Am. Mus . Nat. Hist.,

Vol. 95, Art. 4.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports
Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports
Munro, G. C. 1944. Birds of Hawaii .
Pekelo, N., Jr. 1963. Some notes from Molokai. Elepaio 23(12): 64.

187

MAUI PARROTBILL Pseudonestor xanthophrys (Rothschild)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small, olive green bird with yellow breast and yellow
stripe over eye . Heavy parrot-like bill .

Present distribution: Confined to island of Maui where only known to occur in native
rain forest on the northeast slope of Haleakala volcano between 4,000 and 6,000 feet.
Seen in 1950 (Greenway 1958), and 1967 (Banko 1968) in Kipahulu Valley.

Former distribution: Only known from above area .

Status: Very rare and limited in distribution.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Change of natural environment by man through clearing and
introduction of domestic livestock. Possibly result of disease carried into its habitat
by introduced birds and transmitted by introduced insects.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation by
State and Federal Governments of introduction of foreign species. Acquisition and
protection of large section of Kipahulu Valley, Maui, by The Nature Conservancy for
inclusion as a wilderness area.

Measures proposed: Preservation of additional natural environment including establish-
ment of needed refuges. Prevent introduction of harmful insects, plants, and animals.
Initiate ecological and life history research of the species. Publicize critical status and
aesthetic and scientific values. Quarantine on all birds, including cage birds brought
into the State to prevent introduction of disease. Initiate propagation program or
develop techniques which may be applied to Hawaiian forest birds . Control of feral
grazing animals and domestic stock.

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Banko, W. E. 1968. Condor 70:265-266.

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports .
Greenway, J. C. 1958. Extinct and vanishing birds of the world.
Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports .
Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii.

Warner, R. E. 1968. The role of introduced diseases in the extinction of the
endemic Hawaiian avifauna. Condor 70: 101-120.

188

OU Psittirostra psittacea (Gmelin)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small bird with short, parrot-like bill, yellow head,
and olive green back, wings, and tail. Underparts greenish-gray. Female has green
head and duller plumage .

Present distribution: Islands of Kauai (Alakai Swamp) and Hawaii in Hawaii. One seen
near Hawaii Volcanoes National Park headquarters, Hawaii, July 19, 1970.

Former distribution: Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii.

Status: Very rare in restricted, vulnerable habitat. Less rare on Kauai. Irrigation and
power dam and reservoir proposed on edge of Alakai Swamp.

Estimated numbers: Unknown .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Possibly introduced avian diseases and parasites . Possibly
alteration of habitat by invasion of foreign plants or browsing by feral pigs, goats
and domestic livestock .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation by
State and Federal Governments of introduction of foreign species of birds . Establishment
of the 10,000-acre Alakai Swamp Wilderness Preserve by Hawaii State regulation which
prohibits disturbance of the major habitat on Kauai. Field investigations in progress.

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment including establishment of
needed refuges and prevent introduction of harmful insects, plants, and animals. Control
of feral grazing animals and domestic stock. Initiate ecological and life history research.
Initiate propagation program and develop techniques which may be applied to Hawaiian
Forest birds . Publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific values . Quarantine on
all birds , including cage birds brought into the State to prevent introduction of disease .

Number in captivity: None known.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports.

Greenway, J. C. , Jr. 1958. Extinct and vanishing birds of the world.

Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports.

Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii .

Richardson and Bowles . 1961 . Record of the rarer native forest birds of

Kauai, Hawaii, Condor 63:179-180.
Warner, R. E. 1968. The role of introduced diseases in the extinction of the

endemic Hawaiian avifauna. Condor 70:101-120.

189

LAYSAN FINCH Psittirostra c ■ cantans (Wilson)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Finch-like Hawaiian honeycreeper with thick bill . Male,
yellow head and breast. Brownish back, wings, and tail. Female, duller with streakings
on crown, back and flanks. Immatures streaked above and below. Differs from other
race of the species on Nihoa Island by larger size and paler coloration.

Present distribution: Endemic to Laysan Island, Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge.
About 400 (1972) presently on Southeast Island, Pearl and Hermes Reef, Hawaiian Islands
National Wildlife Refuge from 100 introduced March 21, 1967. About 8 to 10 each on Grass
and Seal Islands at Pearl and Hermes Reef also .

Former distribution: Laysan Island.

Status: Although common within its limited range, confinement of entire population to
two small islands makes it vulnerable to extinction, if pest plants, insects, or predatory
animals are accidentally liberated there that could drastically change the habitat or
introduce diseases .

Estimated numbers: About 10,000 on Laysan Island (1972) and 400 + on Pearl and
Hermes Reef (1972) .

Breeding rate in the wild: Clutch size 3 to 4.

Reasons for decline: Almost became extinct in early part of the century because of
destruction of vegetation by rabbits introduced by man on Laysan Island,

Protective measures already taken: Introduced rabbits were exterminated on Laysan
Island. Frequency of patrol being increased. Continued research in progress . Protected
by Federal and State law. Birds transplanted to Southeast Island, Pearl and Hermes Reef
have reproduced quite well. Landing on island restricted and by permit only. Status of
refuge and need of entry permit information included in nautical charts of area and U.S.
Coast Pilot. Status of refuge publicized in news media.

Measures proposed: Intensified patrol by refuge personnel . Trial introductions on other
islands, but not on Nihoa, where another race of this species already occurs and which
would lose its identity by hybridization. Prevent introduction of harmful insects, plants,
and animals . Continue captive propagation program . Increase patrol . Continue research .
Continue to publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific values .

Number in captivity: Two at Honolulu Zoo.

Breeding potential in captivity: Good. Bred successfully at Honolulu Zoo (Throp, 1970),
and University of Michigan.

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports.

Throp, J. L. 1970. The Laysan finchbill in the Honolulu Zoo. Elepaio 31: 31-40.

190

NIHOA FINCH Psittirostra cantans ultima (Bryan)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Hawaiian honeycreeper with thick, finch-like bill.
Male has head and breast yellow becoming dull white on abdomen. Upper parts brownish
washed with yellow. Female similar, but duller and with brownish flanks. Immatures
streaked above and below . Differs from other race of the species on Laysan Island by
darker coloration and smaller size .

Present distribution: Endemic to Nihoa Island, Hawaii. About 10 from 36 transplanted
in 1967 surviving on Fern Island at French Frigate Shoals as of 1972.

Former distribution: Nihoa Island, Hawaii.

Status: Fairly common where it occurs; geographic range limited to one small island
makes it vulnerable to extinction if the habitat is adversely altered or harmful insects
or other animals are introduced .

Estimated numbers: About 3,500 based on transect counts in September, 1972 by
refuge personnel . Populations fluctuate from year to year for unknown reasons .

Breeding rate in the wild: Two to four eggs .

Reasons for decline: Not known to have declined.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State and Federal law . Entire range
is included in the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge . Frequency of patrol by
refuge personnel is being increased. Field investigations are being continued. Landing
on island restricted and by permit only . Status of refuge and need of permit information
included on nautical charts of area and in U.S. Coast Pilot. Status of refuge publicized
in news media.

Measures proposed: Increased patrol by refuge personnel and continued publicity to
acquaint public, military and seafarers with the status of island. Trial introductions on
other islands such as Necker Island, which most closely resembles Nihoa, but not
Laysan where another race of this species would lose its identity by interbreeding .
Prevent introduction of harmful insects, plants, and animals. Initiate artificial propagation
program. Continue ecological and life history research of the species. Continue to
publicize critical status and aesthetic and scientific values.

Number in captivity: Four at University of Hawaii .

Breeding potential in captivity: Possible. One young raised by Dr. Andrew Berger at
University of Hawaii from nesting attempt by birds in experimental propagation program .

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports .
Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii.

191

PALILA Psittirostra bailleui (Oustalet)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: DREPANIDIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small bird with thick, heavy bill; yellow head, neck,
and breast; abdomen white; back gray; wings and tail black.

Present distribution: Island of Hawaii . Presently restricted to the mamane-naio forests
on Mauna Kea between 7,000 and 9,500 feet (Berger 1970).

Former distribution: Wider distribution on the island including upper forest zone of
Kona and Hamakua districts from 4,000 to 10,000 feet.

Status: Uncommon in its restricted range which is continuing to be reduced .

Estimate numbers: Low hundreds .

Breeding rate in the wild: Two eggs (Berger 1970).

Reasons for decline; Possibly decimated by introduced bird diseases transmitted by
introduced insects, encroachment of civilization on habitat, and particularly the
reduction of the mamane-naio forests due to overgrazing by feral sheep and goats.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law . Selective limitation by
State and Federal Governments of introduction of foreign species. Some reduction of
feral animals by public hunting . Field investigations in progress .

Measures proposed: Preservation of natural environment, including establishment of
needed refuges . Prevent introduction of harmful insects, plants, and animals . Control
of feral grazing animals. Continue ecological and life history research. Publicize
critical status and aesthetic and scientific values. Quarantine on all birds, including
cage birds brought into the State to prevent introduction of disease. Initiate artificial
propagation program or develop techniques applicable to Hawaiian forest birds .

Number in captivity: None known.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Berger, A. J. 1970. The present status of the birds of Hawaii, Elepaio 31(6): 51-60.
1970. The eggs and young of the palila, an endangered species.

Condor 72:238-240.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports .
Greenway, J. C. , Jr. 1958. Extinct and vanishing birds of the world.
Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports
Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii .
Warner, R. E. 1968. The role of introduced diseases in the extinction of the endemic

Hawaiian avifauna. Condor 70: 101-120.

192

WALLOWA GRAY-CROWNED ROSY FINCH Leucosticte tephrocotis wallowa (Miller)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: FRINGILLIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Small brown sparrow-like bird with rosy wings and
rump and gray head patch. Distinguished from neighboring subspecies of gray-crowned
rosy finches of the Cascades and Blue Mountains by having cinnamon brown of lower
surface duller and more sooty, and darker, less tawny upper parts, with dark streaks
of back darker and broader . Much browner and less blackish than the black rosy finch
(L . atrata) of the nearby Seven Devils Mountains to the east .

Present distribution: Confined in breeding season to open , alpine habitats in the
Wallowa Mountains, Oregon. Presumably winters at lower elevations but exact area
unknown .

Former distribution: Same as present.

Status: Vulnerable because it is uncommon within its breeding range which is confined
to a very limited area of alpine habitats in one isolated mountain range . Habitat
requirements are rocky terrain with permanent snow fields , cliffs , and small meadows .
Compared with other rosy finches, it does not seem to be as abundant as it should be
in seemingly suitable habitat.

Estimated numbers: No estimate.

Breeding rate in the wild: Probably 3 to 5 eggs like other subspecies of gray-crowned
rosy finch .

Reasons for decline: Not known to be declining .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by Federal and State laws . Entire
breeding range falls within that part of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest which is
protected under the Wilderness Act as the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area. Information on
this bird provided by the U.S. Forest Service to wilderness area users on Eagle Cap
Wilderness Area map .

Measures proposed: Preserve the natural environment. Surveillance of the area by
periodic observations to learn more about this subspecies' life history, status and
distribution .

Number in captivity: None known .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Bent, A. C. 1968. Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings,
towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies. Part 1. (Compiled and edited by
Oliver L. Austin, Jr.). Smithsonian Inst . Press. Wash., D. C. 602 pp.

Johnson, R. E. (in lit . )

Marshall, D. B. Administrative reports. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Miller, A. H. 1939. The breeding leucostictes of the Wallowa Mountains, Oregon.
Condor 41:34-35.

193

IPSWICH SPARROW Passerculus princeps (Maynard)

Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: FRINGILLIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A streaked, sandy-colored sparrow living in the sand
dunes .

Present distribution: Breeds on Sable Island off Nova Scotia. Winters among sand dunes
along Atlantic coast from Sable Island south to southern Georgia.

Former distribution: Same as present.

Status: Vulnerable because oil exploitation in its limited habitat on a small breeding
island. Limited to narrow belt of Atlantic coast sand dunes, particularly the outer dunes,
for winter habitat. Reported in recent years to be less common on wintering grounds than
formerly. The bulk of the population probably winters from New Jersey to Virginia
(Stobo and McLaren 1971) .

Estimated numbers: McLaren estimated a breeding population on Sable Island of 4,000
birds nesting in 280 hectares of habitat in 1967.

Breeding rate in the wild: 4 or 5 eggs per set.

Reasons for decline: Reduction in size of breeding area by progressive washing away
of already very small Sable Island (Dwight, 1895 and Erskine, 1964). Interference with
winter habitat by residential development along the Atlantic coast beaches .

Protective measures already taken: Establishment of Chincoteague, Back Bay, Pea
Island, Cape Romain, Blackboard Island, Wolf Island, and Tybee National Wildlife Refuges,
and of Cape Cod, Asateague Island, and Cape Hatteras National Seashores will assure
continuation of Ipswich sparrow sand dune wintering habitat in these places.

Measures proposed: Setting aside of additional national seashore areas and national
wildlife refuges along the Atlantic coast and encouraging preservation of sand dunes
in natural condition on properties under private ownership . Establishing a refuge for
this species on Sable Island by Canadian Government.

Number in captivity: None known .

Breeding potential in captivity: Good .

References:

Dwight, J. , Jr. 1895. The Ispwich sparrow (Ammodramus princeps Maynard)

and its summer home. Memoirs of the Nuttall Ornithological Club. No. 11. 56 pp.
McLaren, I. A. 1968. Censuses of Ipswich sparrow on Sable Island Can. Field

Nat. 82:148-150.
. 1969. Ipswich sparrow and its island home, Canadian Audubon,

Nov. -Dec. 1969:134-140.
Stobo, W. T. and I*. A. McLaren. 1971 Late winter distribution of the Ipswich

sparrow. Amer . Birds. 25:941-944.

194

DUSKY SEASIDE SPARROW Ammospiza nigrescens (Ridgway)

Order; PASSERIFORMES Family: FRINGILLIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A dark colored sparrow-size bird of the coastal salt
marshes. Upper parts blackish, under parts heavily streaked with black, yellow line
between eye and bill , and white streak along jaw .

Present distribution: Resident in salt marshes on Merritt Island, Florida, from Marsh
Bay south to Brock Creek, and on the mainland in the brackish marshes on the east side
of the upper St . Johns River west of Titusville south to Sharpe .

Former distribution: Much more widespread on Merritt Island and possibly along the
St. Johns River.

Status: Jeopardized because of very restricted salt marsh habitat which is being
continually reduced.

Estimated numbers: Estimate in 1969, between 1,000 and 2,000 individuals. Most of these
are on the St. Johns River marshes with only about 80 on Merritt Island.

Breeding rate in the wild: Usually 4 eggs per set. The species is double and, perhaps
sometimes, triple-brooded.

Reasons for decline: Altering of habitat on Merritt Island by construction of impoundments
to insure flooding for mosquito control and on the St. Johns because of the proposed
changes of the Army Corps of Engineers, Central and Southern Florida Flood Control
District, and real estate development.

Protective measures already taken: Part of the population is within the Merritt Island
National Wildlife Refuge. Studies have been made by Charles H. Trost, 1961-1963, and
Brian Sharp, 1968, which have determined the habitat requirements and remedial measures
necessary for correction of deteriorating habitat. Study of effects of experimental marsh
management on the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge are in progress .

Measures proposed: Flood its former habitat on Merritt Island with salt water again to
restore the former vegetation and eliminate the brackish species that have intruded,
bringing new predators with them. Continue research on the status, distribution, life
history, and ecology of the species. The State of Florida pass legislation fully protecting
the bird. Establish a refuge or sanctuary for the species on the St. Johns River.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

195

References:

Sharp, B. 1968. Numbers, distribution, and management of the dusky seaside

sparrow. Thesis for Masters Degree, Department of Wildlife Ecology, University
of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.

. 1969. Conservation of the dusky seaside sparrow on Merritt Island,

Florida. Biological Conservation 1(2) : 175-176 .

. 1969. Let's save the dusky seaside sparrow. Florida Naturalist

42(2): 68-70.
. 1970. A population estimate of the dusky seaside sparrow. Wilson

Bulletin 82(2): 158-166.

Sykes , P. W., Jr. Administrative reports , Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife .

Trost, C. H. 1968. Dusky seaside sparrow. In A. C. Bent etal. (O. L. Austin,

ed.). Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees ,
finches, sparrows, and allies . U.S. Nat. Mus . Bull. 237:849-859.

196

CAPE SABLE SPARROW Ammospiza mirabilis (Howell)

Ordc • PASSERIFORMES Family: FRINGILLIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Dull colored, olive- gray sparrow, smaller than house
sparrow, with a short yellow line before the eyes, and white streak along the jaw.
Greener above and whiter below than the more common seaside sparrows .

Present distribution: Resident in a few scattered populations in fresh and brackish
water marshes of southwestern Florida from Ochopee south to Cape Sable.

Former distribution: Same as present .

Status: Very uncommon with constantly changing population in a restricted range.
Habitat is brackish marsh of salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina bakeri) between mangrove
belt and fresh water Everglades sawgrass .

Estimated numbers: Less than 1,000. Perhaps less than 500. Werner (1970) located a
minimum of 27 individuals in the Ochopee-Turner River area and 11 at Cape Sable.

Breeding rate in the wild: Three or four eggs laid per set, number of bi-oods unknown.
Adult to juvenile ratios; 6 to 5 at Cape Sable; 13 to 2 at Ochopee (Werner 1970).

Reasons for decline: Limited habitat which is very unstable as a result of fire, draught,
hurricanes, and encroachment of mangroves on marsh grass. Real estate development
now encroaching on range outside Everglades National Park at Ochopee.

Protective measures already taken: Protection is afforded by the Everglades National
Park. Complete protection by Florida and Federal law. Study of present distribution
and limiting factors was begun in 1970 by Harold W. Werner, graduate student at
University of South Florida.

Measures proposed: Continue research on the distribution and ecology of the species .
Acquire habitat outside of park. Manage habitat to create conditions found by study to
be optimum for species .

Number in captivity: None

Breeding potential in captivity: Good .

References:

Robertson, W. B. Everglades National Park, P.O. Box 299, Homestead, Florida.
Stimpson, L. A. 1956. Auk, 73: 489-502 . Also in Bent's life histories of North

American birds .
Sykes, P. Administrative reports, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Werner, H. W. 1970. (in lit.)

. 1971. Cape Sable sparrows rediscovered on Cape Sable. Auk 88:432.

197

PERIPHERAL BIRDS

A peripheral species or subspecies is one whose occurrence in the United States is at
the edge of its natural range and which is threatened with extinction within the United
States although not in its range as a whole . Special attention is necessary to assure
retention in our Nation's fauna.

Harcourt's Petrel, Oceanodroma castro

Breeds in the Pacific on Hawaiian Islands (Kauai and possibly other high islands),
the Galapagos Islands and possibly Cocos Island; in the Atlantic from the Azores
to Ascension Island and St . Helena . Endangered in Hawaii .

Green-throated Arctic Loon, Gavia arctica viridigularis

Breeds from Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, west to Khatanga River, Kamchatka and
Sakhalin Island, U.S.S.R. Winters south to Baltic Sea and Japan.

Northeastern Least Grebe , Podiceps dominicus brachypterus
Resident from southern Texas south to Panama .

Red-Billed Tropicbird, Phaethon aethereus mesonauta

Breeds off both coasts of Middle America, northern South America and the
Caribbean Islands . Rarely in Puerto Rico .

Atlantic Blue-Faced Booby, Sula dactylatra dactylatra

Bahamas and West Indies including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands , to
northeastern coast of South America, Fernando de Noronha and South Trinidad.

Red-Faced Cormorant, Phalacrocorax urile

Breeds from Pribilof Islands and Aleutian Islands west to Komandorskie Islands
and Siberia, U.S.S.R. Winters from Pribilof and Aleutian Islands south to Japan.

Eastern Reddish Egret, Dichromanassa r. rufescens

Breeds along Texas coast and in Florida Keys south to Hispaniola. Winters from
southern Texas south to Venezuela.

Roseate Spoonbill , Ajaia ajaja

Breeds and winters from coastal Texas, Louisiana, and southern Florida south to
central Argentina.

West Indian Tree Duck, Dendracygna arborea

Resident in West Indies. Rare in Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.

White-Cheeked Pintail (Bahama duck). Anas bahamensis

Resident in the West Indies. Rare in Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.

Northern Black-Bellied Tree Duck, Dendrocygna autumnalis fulgens

Breeds from southeastern Arizona and Gulf coast of Texas south to Panama.
Winters from Mexico south to Panama .

Masked Duck, Oxyura dominica

Resident in Mexico south to Argentina, casual in South Texas; rare in Puerto Rico.

198

Short-Tailed Hawk, Buteo brachyurus

Breeds from northern Florida and eastern Mexico south to northern Argentina.
Rare in Florida .

Zone-Tailed Hawk, Buteo albonotatus

Resident from northern Baja California, central Arizona, southwestern New Mexico,
and centralwestern Texas, southward to northern South America.

Sennett's White-Tailed Hawk, Buteo albicaudatus hypospodius

Resident in southern Arizona and Southern Texas south to North Colombia and
Western Venezuela.

Northern Gray Hawk , Buteo nitidus maximus

Breeds from Southern Arizona, Southern New Mexico, and Southern Texas south
to northern Mexico . Winters in Mexico .

Northern Black Hawk , Buteogallus a . anthracinus

Resident from Southern Arizona, Southern New Mexico, and Southern Texas south
to northern Colombia .

Northern Chachalaca, Ortalis vetula mccalli

Resident from lower Rio Grande region of Texas south to Northern Vera Cruz.

Richardson's Blue Grouse, Dendragapus obscurus richardsonii

Resident from extreme northern Idaho and northwest Montana to Yukon Territory .

Northern White-Tailed Ptarmigan, Lagopus 1. leucurus

Resident from northern Yukon to northwestern Montana.

Gould's Turkey, Meleagris gallopavo mexicana

Resident in mountains from southwestern New Mexico south to northern Jalisco,
Mexico .

Northern Jacana, Jacana s . spinosa

Resident from southern Texas south to Panama .

Rufous-Necked Sandpiper, Erolia ruficollis

Breeds in vicinity of Wales, western Alaska to northeast Siberia, U.S.S.R.
Winters from southern China to islands of southeast Pacific, Australia, and
New Zealand.

Elegant Tern, Thalasseus elegans

Formerly bred along the Pacific Coast of Baja California but now apparently
confined to islands in the Gulf of California, Mexico and a small nesting colony in
San Diego Bay California.

Northern Xantus' Murrelet, Endomychura hypoleuca scrippsi

Breeds from southern California to central Baja California. Winters on coast of
southern California and Baja California.

199

Whiskered Auklet, Aethia pygmaea

Breeds on western Aleutian Islands west to Komandorskie Islands and southern
Kurile Islands . Winters on waters surrounding breeding range .

Northern Red-Billed Pigeon, Columba f . flavirostris

Resident from lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas south to Nicaragua.

Northern White-Fronted Dove, Leptotila verreauxi angelica

Resident in lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas south to northern Vera Cruz and
Chiapas .

Florida Mangrove Cuckoo, Coccyzus minor maynardi

Breeds from southeast coast of Florida to Bahama Islands and Cuba. Winters in
breeding range south of Florida .

Northern Groove-Billed Ani, Crotophaga s ■ sulcirostris

Resident from lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas to Colombia and British Guiana.

Ferruginous Owl, Glaucidium brasilianum

Resident from southern Arizona and lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas, southward
in lowlands to southern South America.

West Indian Nighthawk, Chordeiles minor gundlachii

Breeds in Florida Keys, Bahamas, Hispaniola, and rarely Puerto Rico. Winters
presumably in South America .

Eastern Blue-Throated Hummingbird, Lampornis c . clemenciae

Breeds in mountains of central western Texas south to southern Mexico . Winters
in lowlands of Mexico .

Western Blue-Throated Hummingbird, Lampornis clemenciae bessophilus

Breeds in mountains of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico south
to central western Mexico . Winters at lower elevations .

Northern Buff-Bellied Hummingbird, Amazilia yucatanensis chalconota

Breeds from lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas south to San Luis Potosi and Vera Cruz,
Mexico. Winters in southern Tamaulipas and Vera Cruz, Mexico.

Northern Violet-Crowned Hummingbird, Amazilia verticalis ellioti

Breeds from southern Arizona south to Colima and Hidalgo, Mexico. Winters in
Mexico .

Coppery-Tailed Elegant Trogon, Trogon elegans canescens

Breeds from central southern Arizona south to Sinaloa. Winters in northwestern
Mexcico .

Northeastern Elegant Trogon, Trogon elegans ambiguus

Resident in lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas south to Isthmus of Tehuantepec,
Mexico .

Northeastern Green Kingfisher, Chloroceryle americana septentrionalis
Resident from southern Texas south to Guatemala and El Salvador.

200

Northwestern Green Kingfisher, Chloroceryle americana hachisukai
Resident from centralwestern Texas south to Nayarit, Mexico.

Northwestern Rose-Throated Becard, Platypsaris aglaiae richmondi

Breeds from southern Arizona south to southern Sonora, Mexico. Winters in Mexico.

Northeastern Rose-Throated Becard. Platypsaris aglaiae gravis

Resident from lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas, south to San Luis Potosi and
northern Vera Cruz , Mexico .

Northeastern Tropical Kingbird, Tyrannus melancholicus couchii

Resident from extreme southern Texas south to Puebla and central Vera Cruz, Mexico.

Northwestern Tropical Kingbird, Tyrannus melancholicus occidentalis

Breeds from southeastern Arizona south to Guerrero, Mexico. Winters in Guatemala.

Northern Thick-Billed Kingbird, Tyrannus crassirostris pompalis
Resident in South Arizona and North Sonora .

Northern Buff-Breasted Flycatcher, Empidonax fulvifrons pygmaeus

Breeds from southeastern Arizona south to southwestern Chihuahua . Winters in
Mexico .

Northeastern Beardless Flycatcher, Camptostoma i. imberbe

Breeds from extreme southern Texas south to Costa Rica . Winters in Mexico and
Costa Rica .

Northwestern Cave Swallow, Petrochelidon fulva pallida

Breeds from southeast New Mexico and south central Texas, in the vicinity of
certain caves, south to Coahuila and Tamaulipas, Mexico. Winter range unknown.

Couch's Mexican Jay, Aphelocoma ultramarina couchii

Resident in mountains of Big Bend of Texas south to central Nuevo Leon and
Tamaulipas, Mexico.

Northern Green Jay , Cyanocorax yncas luxuosus

Resident from lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas, south to Guanajuato and central
Vera Cruz, Mexico.

Cascade Boreal Chickadee, Parus hudsonicus cascadensis

Resident from central southern British Columbia south to central northern
Washington.

Azure Eastern Bluebird, Sialia sialis fulva

Resident from central southern Arizona south to southern Mexico.

Red-Spotted Bluethroat, Luscinia s . svecica

Breeds from coast of northern Alaska west to northern Asia and Europe. Winters
from northern Africa to northwestern India .

201

Cuban Black-Whiskered Vireo, Vireo altiloquus barbatulus

Breeds along coast of southern Florida to Bahamas, Cuba, and Isle of Pines.
Winters in Amazon Basin, South America.

Colima Warbler, Vermivora crissalis

Breeds from southwestern Texas to southwestern Tamaulipas, Mexico. Winters from
southern Sinaloa south to Guerrero , Mexico .

Olive Warbler , Peucedramus taeniatus arizonae

Breeds from central and southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico south
to central Mexico .

Cuban Yellow Warbler, Dendroica petechia gundlachi

Resident in lower Florida Keys, Cuba, and Bahamas.

Northern Olive-Backed Warbler, Parula pitiayumi nigrilora

Resident from lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas, south to northern Hidalgo and
northern Vera Cruz, Mexico.

Alta Mira Lichtenstein's Oriole, Icterus gularis tamaulipensis

Resident from extreme southern Texas south to Campeche, Mexico.

Audubon's Black-Headed Oriole, Icterus graduacauda audubonii

Breeds from southern Texas south to central Tamaulipas, Mexico. Winters in
breeding range and southward to San Luis Potosi, Mexico.

Dickey's Varied Bunting, Passerina versicolor dickeyae

Breeds from central southern Arizona to Colima. Winters in northwestern Mexico.

Northern White-Collared Seedeater , Sporophila torqueola sharpei

Resident from extreme southern Texas south to San Luis Potosi and northern
Vera Cruz, Mexico.

Southeastern Pine Grosbeak, Pinicola enucleator eschatosus

Breeds from northern New England north to central Quebec and Newfoundland .
Winters in breeding range and occasionally south to Virginia.

Northern Olive Sparrow, Arremonops r . rufivirgata

Resident from southern Texas south to eastern Coahuila and central Tamaulipas .

Arizona Grasshopper Sparrow, Ammodramus savannarum ammolegus
Breeds in southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora .

Northern Rufous-Winged Sparrow, Aimophila c . carpalis

Resident from southern Arizona south to central Sonora.

Northeastern Botteri's Sparrow, Aimophila botterii texana

Resident from lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas, south to northeastern Tamaulipas,
Mexico .

Western Botteri's Sparrow, Aimophila b . botterii

Breeds from southeastern Arizona south to southern Mexico. Winters in southern
part of breeding range.

202

STATUS-UNDETERMINED BIRDS

A status-undetermined species or subspecies is one that has been suggested as possibly-
threatened with extinction, but about which there is not enough information to determine
its status. More information is needed.

Wood, Ibis, Mycteria americana

Resident from Florida and Gulf Coast south on both coasts of Mexico and central
America to southern South America.

White-Faced Ibis , Plegadis chihi

Breeds from eastern Oregon, southern Idaho, northern Utah, Colorado, and
Nebraska south locally to southern South America.

Red-Bellied Red-Shouldered Hawk, Butei lineatus elegans

Resident in Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and southern coastal lowlands of
California south to northern Baja California.

Puerto Rican Broad-Winged Hawk, Buteo platypterus brunnescens

Resident locally in small numbers in Puerto Rico chiefly in El Yunque but also at
Utuado and Maricao .

Ferruginous Hawk, Buteo regalis

Breeds from eastern Washington and southwestern Manitoba south to Nevada and
western Oklahoma . Winters chiefly from southwestern United States south to
northern Mexico .

American Osprey, Pandion haliaetus carolinensis

Breeds from northern Alaska south to Baja California and Sonora, east to southern
Labrador, Newfoundland, and southern Florida. Winters from southern United
States south to South America .

Audubon's Caracara, Caracara cheriway audubonii

Resident from southern Arizona, southern Texas, and central Florida south to
western Panama and Cuba .

Northern Aplomado Falcon, Falco fermoalis septentrionalis

Bred formerly from southern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and southern
Texas south to southern Mexico .

Prairie Pigeon Hawk, Falco columbarius richardsonii

Breeds from southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, and southwestern Manitoba
south to northern Montana and northern North Dakota. Winters from Wyoming and
California south to northern Mexico .

Eastern Pigeon Hawk, Falco c . columbarius

Breeds from northern Manitoba east to Labrador and Newfoundland south to north-
eastern North Dakota, northern Minnesota, northern Michigan, northern New York,
Maine , and Nova Scotia . Winters from southern Texas east to South Carolina and
south to the West Indies and northern South America .

203

Townsends's Rock Ptarmigan, Lagopus mutus townsendi

Resident on Kiska and Little Kiska , and possibly Buldir Islands , Aleutian Islands .

Yunaska Rock Ptarmigan, Lagopus mutus yunaskensis

Resident on Yunaska Island, possibly also Amukta Island and Island of the Four
Mountains , Aleutian Islands .

Sanford's Rock Ptarmigan, Lagopus mutus sanfordi

Resident on Tanaga and Kanaga Islands, Aleutian Islands.

Dixon's Rock Ptarmigan, Lagopus mutus dixoni

Resident in southern Alaska from Yakutat Bay south to Baranof and Admiralty Islands .

Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse, Pedioecetes phasianellus columbianus

Resident from northcentral British Columbia south to northwestern Nevada east to
western Colorado and northern New Mexico .

Texas Gambel's Quali, Lophortyx gambelii ignoscens
Resident in Rio Grande Valley in western Texas .

Western Snowy Plover, Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

Breeds on Pacific coast from southern Washington south to southern Baja California
east to southwestern Kansas; northwestern Oklahoma, north central and southern
Texas . Winters on Pacific coast from northern Oregon to southern Baja California
and the Gulf coast from southern Texas east to Mississippi.

Mountain Plover, Eupoda montana

Breeds in Great Plains from Montana and North Dakota to southeastern New Mexico
and western Texas. Winters from central California, southern Arizona, and central
and coastal Texas south to southern Baja California.

Northern Long-Billed Curlew, Numenius americanus parvus

Breeds from south central British Columbia, southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan,
and southern Manitoba south to north eastern California, central western Nevada,
northern Idaho, southwestern Montana, central Wyoming and northwestern South Dakota.
Winters from central California, southern Texas and southern Louisiana south to
middle Mexico .

Bristle-Thighed Curlew, Numenius tahitiensis

Breeds locally in mountains of southwestern Alaska. Winters in islands of central
and southwestern Pacific .

Alaskan Short- Billed Dowitcher, Limnodromus griseus caurinus

Breeds along southcentral Alaskan coast from Nushagak Bay to Yakutat Bay. Winters
south along the Pacific coast to Baja California.

Pacific Bar-Tailed Godwit, Limosa lapponica baueri

Breeds from Kuskokwini delta to Colville delta, western Alaska. Winters in south-
western Asia and Malaysia to Australia and New Zealand.

204

Red-Legged Kittiwake, Rissa brevirostris

Breeds on Komandorskie and Pribilof Islands , Bering Sea. Winters on adjoining seas.

Newton's Puerto Rican Screech Owl, Otus nudipes newtoni

Resident on St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix, Virgin Islands.

Florida Burrowing Owl, Speotyto cunicularia floridana
Resident prairie central and southern Florida.

Western Burrowing Owl , Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea

Breeds from southern interior British Columbia east to central southern Manitoba
and eastern border of Great Plains, south to central Mexico. Winters over much
of breeding range except in northern Great Basin and Great Plains region .

Puerto Rican Short-Eared Owl , Asio flammeus portoricensis

Puerto Rico where apparently widely distributed but localized in the area of the
Anegardo Lagoon, some swamps in the west of the island, Guanica Forest, and
Rio Piedras .

Pribilof Winter Wren, Troglodytes t. alascensis
Resident in Pribilof Islands , Alaska.

Semidi Winter Wren, Troglodytes t . semidiensis

Resident on Semidi Islands, southeastern Alaska.

Unalaska Winter Wren, Troglodytes t . petrophilus

Resident on Unalaska and other islands in Fox Islands, Alaska.

Kiska Winter Wren, Troglogytes t. kiskensis

Resident on Kiska, Little Kiska, Amchitka, Ogliuga, and Semisoposhnoi Islands in
the central Aleutian Islands .

Tanaga Winter Wren, Troglogytes t. tanagensis

Resident in Andreanof Islands in the central Aleutian Islands .

Seguam Winter Wren, Troglodytes t ■ seguamensis

Resident on Seguam, Amukta, Yunaska, Islands of the Four Mountains, Aleutian
Islands .

Black-Capped Vireo, Vireo atricapilla

Breeds locally from northcentral Oklahoma through central Texas to central northern
Mexico. Winters on the west coast of Mexico from southern Sonora to Guerrero.

Pribilof Gray-Crowned Rosy Finch, Leucosticte tephrocotis umbrina

Resident on St. Paul, St. George, St. Matthew, and Otter Islands, Bering Sea.

Florida Grasshopper Sparrow, Ammodramus savannarum floridanus
Resident central peninsula Florida.

Yakutat Fox Sparrow , Passerella iliaca annectens

Breeds in coastal Alaska, in the vicinity of Yakutat Bay. Winters from southwestern
British Columbia south to southern California .

205

Samuel's Song Sparrow, Melospiza melodia samuelis

Resident in salt marshes on northern side of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays
central-western California.

San Francisco Song Sparrow, Melospiza melodia pusillxila

Resident in salt marshes surrounding south area of San Francisco Bay, California.

Suisun Song Sparrow , Melospiza melodia maxillaris

Resident in brackish marshes surrounding Suisun Bay, central California.

Amak Song Sparrow, Melospiza melodia amaka
Resident on Amak Island, Aleutian Islands.

McKay's Bunting, Plectrophenax hyperboreus

Breeds on Hall and St. Matthew Islands, Bering Sea. Winters there and in western
coastal Alaska .

206

Threatened

MAMMALS

of the United States

sul?6pecias of mammaj^^hat areso few i^nur
5n4d^>fy ^r^zenV-eircum^arjj^es , Vs,-to beHn da

Arranged, one sheet for each species or subspecies (whales
are grouped on one sheet), in systematic order.

Note--On the mammal data sheets some of the general references
are in shortened form; they are listed in fuller form immediately
following this sheet.

207

GENERAL REFERENCES - Mammals

Allen, Glover M. 1942. Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the Western Hemisphere.

American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Special Publication 11. 620 p.

Allen, J. \. 1880. History of North American Pinnipeds; A Monograph of the Walruses,
Sea Lions, Sea Bears, and Seals of North America. U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, Miscellaneous Publication
12. 785 p.

Animal Census. 1963. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums,
Oglebay Park, Wheeling, West Virginia. Mimeographed.

Bearc, Daniel B. 1942. Fading Trails; The Story of Endangered American Wildlife.
Macmillan, New York. 279 p.

Crandall, Lee S. 1964. The Management of Wild Mammals in Captivity . University of
Chicago Press . 761 p .

Elliot, Daniel Giraud. 1904. The Land and Sea Mammals of Middle America and the
West Indies . Publications of the Field Columbian Museum , Zoological Series ,
Vol . 4 , Part 2 .

Hall, E. Raymond, and Keith R. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America . Ronald
Press , New York . 2 Vols . 1083 p.

Kenyon, Karl W. , and Victor B. Scheffer. 1955. The seals, Sea-Lions, and Sea Otter
of the Pacific Coast; Descriptions, Life History Notes, Photographs, and Drawings.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , Circular 32 . 34 p .

Matthiessen, Peter. 1959. Wildlife in America . Viking, New York . 304 p.

National Wildlife Federation. 1956. Our Endangered Wildlife . 32 p .

Palmer, Ralph S. 1954. The Mammal Guide; Mammals of North America North of
Mexico. Doubleday, Garden City, New York. 384 p.

Scheffer , Victor B . 1958. Seals, Sea Lions, and Walruses . Stanford University Press .
179 p.

208

INDIANA BAT Myotis sodalis (Miller and Allen)

Order: CHIROPTERA Family: VESPERTILIONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A medium-size myotis, closely resembling the little
brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) but differing in coloration, the fur being a dull grayish
chestnut rather than bronze, with the basal portion of the hairs of the back dull lead
colored; coloration of underparts pinkish to cinnamon; hind feet smaller and more
delicate than in M. lucifugus; calcar strongly keeled.

Present distribution: Midwest and Eastern United States from the western edge of
Ozark region in Oklahoma to central Vermont, to southern Wisconsin, and as far south
as northern Florida . Distribution is associated with major cavernous limestone areas
and areas just north of cave regions. (Hall, 1962: 7)

Former distribution: Probably about the same, although there is evidence that many
caves within the range of the species have been abandoned since 1950.

Status: Decreasing in numbers .

Estimated numbers: About 500, 000 .

Breeding rate in the wild: Usually a single young per season in late June.

Reasons for decline: Commercialization of caves in which Indiana bats roost. Wanton
destruction of large numbers of Indiana bats by vandals (John S . Hall reported in
personal communication, 1965, that a few years ago two boys killed about 10,000
Myotis sodalis in Carter Cave, Kentucky, in just a few minutes) . Roosts being
disturbed by increasing numbers of spelunkers and others seeking recreation.
Disturbances during bat banding programs . Colonies frequently raided for laboratory
experimental animals. Insecticide poisoning may possibly be new threat. The species
has a fairly restricted geographic range and shows a high degree of aggregation in the
winter, when over 90 percent of the estimated population occurs in only four caves.
This high degree of aggregation makes the species very vulnerable.

Protective measures already taken: American Society of Mammalogists appointed a
committee in the fall of 1963 to investigate the problem of reduction in bat populations;
resolution approved by American Society of Mammalogists on June 17, 1964, that
removal of bats from caves be discouraged except for scientific research and that
molestation of bats in roosts or other unnecessary disturbance be discontinued.
Construction of a gate across entrance to Carter Cave, Kentucky, where over 100,000
Myotis sodalis winter, to keep irresponsible persons from entering and destroying
bats . Comprehensive study of the life history and taxonomy of the species published
in 1962 by John S. Hall. Wyandotte Cave, a winter hibernating area, purchased by
Indiana Department of Natural Resources .

209

Measures proposed: Educate the public with regard to the interesting life history and
biology of bats . Publicize the economically important role of bats in insect control .
Acquisition and closing to public of caves in which colonies occur .

Numbers in captivity: None known .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown; probably no potential .

References:

Davis, W. H., andW. Z. Lidicker, Jr. 1955. Myotis sodalis in Wisconsin.

Jour. Mamm. , 36(4): 507.
Guthrie, Mary J. 1933. The reproductive cycles of some cave bats.

Jour. Mamm., 14(3): 199-216 .
Hall, John S. 1962. A life history and taxonomic study of the Indiana bats,

Myotis sodalis . Reading Public Museum and Art Gallery, Sci. Pubis. No. 12,

68 pp .
Jennings, W. L., and J . W. Layne . 1957. Myotis sodalis in Florida.

Jour. Mamm., 38(2): 259.
Mumford, R. E., and J . B. Cope. 1958. Summer records of Myotis sodalis

in Indiana. Jour. Mamm., 39(4): 586-587 .

210

OZARK BIG-EARED BAT Plecotus townsendii ingens (Handley)

Order: CHIROPTERA Family: VESPERTILIONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A bat with enormous (1-1/2 inch) ears and lumps on
the snout. Closely resembles the more common eastern big-eared bat (Plecotus
rafinesquii), but with reddish fur rather than gray, and tan beneath rather than white;
eastern species . This race is larger and more reddish than any other race of townsendii ■

Present distribution: Known only from straggling individuals found in a dozen caves
in northwestern Arkansas and neighboring Oklahoma and Missouri .

Former distribution: Probably the same .

Status: Numbers apparently stable .

Estimated numbers: Less than 100.

Breeding rate in the wild: One young per year .

Reasons for decline: Probably always occurred in small numbers . A relict popu-
lation. The species is intolerant of human disturbance; disturbance causes the bats
to abandon favored roosts .

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Secure protection for the crevice cave in Devils Den State Park,
Arkansas, in which most known specimens have been found.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity; Poor .

Remarks: This race is known only from occasional specimens found in caves, never
more than four at a time. All records probably represent stragglers. Surely there
must be a nursery colony somewhere in an Ozark cave. So long as it remains unknown
to man, this race will probably persist.

References:

Barbour, R. W., and W . H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America . Univ. Press of

Kentucky, Lexington.
Handley, Charles O, , Jr. 1959. A revision of American bats of the genera

Euderma and Plecotus . Proc . U.S. Natl. Mus . 110:95-246.
Sealander, John A., Jr. 1956. A provisional check-list and key to the

mammals of Arkansas (with annotations) . Amer. Midi. Nat. 56 (2); 257-296 .

211

VIRGINIA BIG-EARED BAT Plecotus townsendii virginianus (Handley)

Order: CHIROPTERA Family: VESPERTILIONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A bat with enormous (1-1/2 inch) ears and lumps on
the snout. Closely resembles the more common eastern big-eared bat (£. rafinesquii) ,
but with fur less grayish, and with tan beneath rather than white; upper incisors
unicuspid rather than bifid and toes lacking the long hairs seen on the eastern species .
This race differs from P. _t. ingens in being smaller, and more grayish in coloration,
and in a number of cranial details .

Present distribution: In the caves of Pendleton County, West Virginia, with a few
colonies in neighboring counties. Also a colony in Tazewell County, Virginia, and
one in Lee County, Kentucky.

Former distribution: Probably the same in recent times . Many of the caves within the
major range have been abandoned.

Status: Numbers apparently stable.

Estimated numbers: About 5,000.

Breeding rate in the wild: A single young per season in June .

Reasons for decline: This race is a relict of a western species and has probably had
a natural decrease in range during past geologic epochs . The species is very
intolerant to human disturbance.

Protective measures already taken: None. The Forest Service, U .S . Department of
Agriculture, is negotiating to obtain the private inholding housing the colony in
Kentucky .

Measures proposed: Acquire some of the few remaining nursey caves and minimize
human disturbance. None is now protected.

Numbers in captivity: None . All attempts to keep this species in captivity have
been discouraging.

Breeding potential in captivity: Poor .

References:

Barbour, R. W. , and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Univ. Press of

Kentucky, Lexington.
Conrad, Lyle G. 1961. Distribution and speciation problems concerning the
long-eared bat, Plecotus townsendii virginianus. D.C. Speleograph

17:49-52.
Graham, Richard E. 1966. Observations on the roosting habits of the big-eared

bat Plecotus townsendii, in California limestone caves. Cave Notes 8(3): 17-22.

212

Handley, Charles O. , Jr. 1959. A revision of American bats of the genera
Euderma and Plecotus . Proc . U.S. Natl. Mus. 110:95-246.

Rippy, Charles L. , and Michael J. Harvey. 1965. Notes on Plecotus townsendii
virginianus in Kentucky. Jour. Mamm. 46(3): 499.

213

HAWAIIAN HOARY BAT Lasiurus cinereus semotus (Peale and Beauvois)

Order: CHIROPTERA Family: VESPERTILIONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Very similar in coloration to the North American hoary
bat (L. c. cinereus), but differs in smaller size. Reported to occur in two color
phases, a gray or common phase, and a red phase; Tomich (1969). however, believes
these differences may be due to conditions of age and wear rather than genetic anomaly .

Present distribution: Specimens recorded from Kauai, Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii, but
probably occurs on all main islands at least sporadically, and casually in flight over
offshore islets (Tomich, 1969).

Former distribution: Same .

Status: This is a non-social species , with a scattered population that may give the
appearance of being less common than it actually is .

Estimated number in the wild: Possibly numbers a few thousand (Tomich, 1969: 24).
Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Apparent loss of habitat due to removal of sheltering tree growth
in many areas may have brought about a decline in numbers .

Protective measures already taken: Field research program underway to determine
actual status and base guidelines for possible future action. Considered an endangered
species by State of Hawaii; thus is protected by law.

Measures proposed: Strictly prohibit collecting even for legitimate scientific purposes;
initiate or continue life history studies, possibly through a banding program.

Numbers in captivity: None known .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Tomich, P. Quentin. 1969. Mammals in Hawaii. Bishop Museum Press,
Honolulu .

214

SPOTTED BAT Euderma maculatum (J. A. Allen)

Order: CHIROPTERA Family: VESPERTILIONIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A medium-size bat of spectacular appearance; large
pink ears; black back with three white spots; ventral hair white tipped, black at base.
Some individuals have white at the base of the ears and a black band on the lower,
undersurface of the neck .

Present distribution: One or two records (except Texas and New Mexico, which have
more) from each of the Southwestern States and the Mexican state of Durango. It has
been found as far north as Yellowstone County, Montana, and Canyon County, Idaho, and
as far east as Brewster County, Texas.

Former distribution: Probably same as present.

Status: A bat of the high cliffs and canyons (sedimentary origin?) living in the cracks
and crevices during the day. Apparently highly selective in its roosts, yet ranges from
ponderosa pine belt to Lower Sonoran Life Zone . This bat may prove to be more numerous
than records indicate. However, until proven so, there is cause for concern.

Estimated numbers: None available, but the species appears to be extremely uncommon.
About 70 individuals have been collected since the species was first described.

Breeding rate in the wild: A single young per year, probably born in spring, rarely
in early summer (June).

Reasons for decline: Probably always was common.

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Continue research for information on habits, habitat, and
distribution. David Easterla has recently been studying this species in southwest Texas
and has successfully captured, observed, measured, banded, and released a number of
spotted bats .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown , probably none .

References:

Barbour, Roger W. , and Wayne H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Univ. Press

of Kentucky, 161-163.
Constantine, Denny G. 1961. Spotted bat and big free-tailed bat in northern

New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist , 6:92-97.
Easterla, David A. 1965. The spotted bat in Utah . Jour . Mamm ., 46(4): 665-668.
1970. First records of the spotted bat in Texas and notes on

its natural history. Amer . Midland Naturalist, 83(1): 306-308 .

215

Easterla, David A. 1971. Notes on young and adults of the spotted bat, Euderma

maculatvim . Jour. Mamm. 52:475-476.
. , and Patricia Easterla. 1969. America's rarest mammal.

National Wildlife Maga . . 7(5): 14-18.
Findley, J. S., and Clyde Jones. 1965. Comments on spotted bats. Jour.

Mamm., 46:679-680.
Gardner, A. L. 1965. New bat records from the Mexican state of Durango.

Proc. Western Found. Vert. Zoology, 1:101-106.
Handley, Charles O. , Jr. 1959. A revision of American bats of the genera

Euderma and Plecotus . Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus . , Vol. 110, pp. 95-246.
Jones, Clyde. 1961. Additional records of bats in New Mexico. Jour.

Mamm., 42:538-539.

216

UTAH PRAIRIE DOG Cyonmys parvidens ( J . A . Allen)

Order: RODENTIA Family: SCIURIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: White-tailed, stout-bodied ground squirrels uniformly
brown in color, with short legs and tail; usually living colonially in a "town."

Present distribution: Reported only from six counties in south-central Utah, at higher
altitudes. Wayne, Garfield and Iron are the only counties with significant populations.
(1972).

Former distribution: Always restricted to Utah; occurred in nine counties in 1935.

Status: Never widespread or abundant.

Estimated numbers: 48 dog towns covering 2,355 acres; total number of animals
estimated at 5,715 (Collier and Spillett, 1972).

Breeding rate in the wild: 4 to 6 young per litter annually.

Reasons for decline: Damage and disease suppression; records of infection with
sylvatic plague .

Protective measures already taken: Control personnel instructed to refrain from
disturbing this species .

Measures proposed: None .

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably good.

Remarks: The prairie dog is strictly vegetarian in feeding habits, but in large
numbers it often ruins crops or natural vegetation.

References:

Collier, G. D., and J.J. Spillett. 1972. A legend in danger. Utah Science,

33(1): 22-25.
Durrant, S. D. 1952. Mammals of Utah. Univ. Kansas Pubis . , Mus . Nat.

History, Vol. 6, pp. 549.
Hall, E. R. , and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America.

Ronald Press, N.Y. , Vol. 1, pp. 367-368.
Matthiessen, P. 1959. Wildlife in America . Viking , N.Y ., 304 pp .
Palmer, R. S. 1954. The mammal guide; Mammals of North America North of

Mexico. Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y., pp. 170-172.

217

K.A.IBAB SQUIRREL Sciurus kaibabensis (Merriam)

Order: RODENTIA Family: SCIURIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A black tree squirrel, tassel-eared, white tail.

Present distribution: Kaibab plateau on north side of Grand Canyon, Arizona, an area
of approximately 30 by 70 miles; closely associated with yellow pines. Apparently
restricted to Kaibab National Forest and Grand Canyon National Park lands .

Former distribution: Probably the same since historic times.

Status: Restricted in range .

Estimated numbers: Approximately 4,000 in 1968 (Webb, 1969).

Breeding rate in the wild: One or two litters (3-4 each) annually.

Reasons for decline: Automobile traffic and disease the most conspicuous causes of
mortality. Possibly the long history of complete fire prevention on the Kaibab area has
resulted in a deterioration of the habitat for this species .

Protective measures taken: Complete legal protection for many years. North rim of
Grand Canyon National Park serves as a sanctuary.

Measures proposed: Continue complete legal protection. Preservation of Gambel oak
and yellow pine (squirrel feeds on the cambium layer) . Efforts should be made to get
a captive breeding program into operation.

Number in captivity: 5 to 10.

Breeding potential in captivity: Good .

Remarks: The squirrel population fluctuates from year to year for reasons unknown.
Dr. Joseph G. Hall, who studied the species under sponsorship of the National Park
Service, wrote on August 7, 1964, that, in his opinion, the population was at its
highest about 30 years ago and that it "is now at its lowest ebb in a half century."
The Arizona Game and Fish Commission believes that the status of this species is about
optimum for its limited range and the species is not threatened.

References:

Allen, G. M. 1942. Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the Western Hemisphere.

American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Special Publ . 11,

pp. 42-44.
Goldman, E. A. 1928. The Kaibab or white-tailed squirrel . Jour. Mamm . ,

9:127-129.
Hall, J. G. 1964. Report on Kaibab squirrel investigations. MS report.

National Park Service.

218

Hall, E. R., and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America.

Ronald Press, N .Y . , Vol. 1, pp . 385-386.
Keith, J. O. 1965. The Abert squirrel and its dependence on ponderosa pine.

Ecology, 46:150-163.
Matthiessen, P. 1959. Wildlife in America . Viking , N .Y ., pp . 131-132 .
Peterson, W. 1965. The story of Arizona's own Kaibab squirrel . Arizona

Highways, 41(5): 2-11.
Webb, P. M. 1969. Kaibab Squirrel--Rare and Endangered? Paper presented to

New Mexico-Arizona Section of The Wildlife Society, Feb. 7 and 8, 1969.

219

DELMARVA PENINSULA (BRYANT) FOX SQUIRREL Sciurus niger cinereus (Linnaeus)
Order: RODENTIA Family: SCIURIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Similar to, but larger than, the gray squirrel;
coloration uniform light grizzled-grayish above with a steel blue cast; belly and feet
white; tail with a pronounced black stripe on outer edges . A melanistic form occurs in
which the belly and back are black .

Present distribution: Queen Anne's, Dorchester, Talbot, Wicomico, Somerset, and
Worcester Counties , Maryland . The center of population appears to be in the
Drawbridge district of Dorchester County.

Former distribution: From southeastern Pennsylvania, south on the Delmarva Peninsula
to Northampton County, Virginia.

Status: Occurs in limited numbers in restricted areas. Flyger (1964) considered this
race as "threatened with immediate extinction."

Estimated numbers: 200 on Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Maryland; 250 on
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge, Maryland; 18 on Chincoteague National Wildlife
Refuge, Virginia and Maryland.

Breeding rate in the wild: One or two litters of two to four young per year.

Reasons for decline: Destruction of habitat through timber cutting, construction,
road building, forest fires, etc.

Protective measures already taken: Establishment of the Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge (1933) and of the Pocomoke State Forest has helped to preserve some habitat.
Introduced to Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in 1968. Lecompte Wildlife
Management Area designated as refuge for species by the State of Maryland in 1970.
The State of Maryland closed the hunting season on this squirrel for 1971.

Measures proposed: Initiate studies to determine optimum habitat requirements .
Enlarge refuges on the Delmarva Peninsula to protect and develop optimum habitat.

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably good.

Remarks: The scientific name of this race has changed several times in recent years .
Thus , it is often known in the literature as Sciurus n . bryanti or S . n . neglectus .

References:

Allen, CM. 1942. Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the Western Hemisphere.
American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Special Publ . 11,
pp. 45-46.

220

Dozier, H. L. , and H. E. Hall. 1944. Observations on the Bryant fox squirrel
Sciurus niger bryanti (Bailey). Maryland Conservationist 21(1): 1-12.

Flyger, V. 1964. Urban sprawl endangers native Maryland mammals .
Maryland Conservationist, 41(3): 6-7.

Mansueti, R. 1950. Extinct and vanishing mammals of Maryland and the
District of Columbia . Maryland Nat . , 20(1&2): 1-48.

Paradiso, J. L. 1969. Mammals of Maryland . North America Fauna 66; IV -193.

221

EVERGLADES FOX SQUIRREL Sciurus niger avicennia

Order: RODENTIA Family: SCIURIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Coloration grades from black on the head and shoulders
to brown with an orange wash on the sides , rump , and tail . The belly is orange or black
washed with orange . This combination differs markedly from the fox squirrels of central
and northern Florida which are much paler on the belly and back. A melanistic form of
the Everglades fox squirrel occurs in which the entire pelage is black except for some
white on the nose .

Present distribution: Found only in the Big Cypress Swamp and adjacent pinelands of
southwestern Florida (Collier and northwestern Monroe Counties) .

Former distribution: Across all of southern Florida south of Lake Okeechobee in suitable
habitat. It was present in Dade and Broward Counties until the early 1900's. There are
no recent records of its occurrence in those portions of Everglades National Park where
it once was found.

Status: Occurs in low numbers in restricted areas.

Estimated numbers: Not possible to accurately estimate, but certainly no more than a few
hundred.

Breeding rate in the wild: Not known, but probably one or two litters per year of two
to four young each.

Reasons for decline: Habitat destruction as result of logging mature pine and cypress
forests brought about its early decline. Continued bulldozing of trees and development of
natural habitats in and around the Big Cypress Swamp are eliminating remaining populations .
Complete fire protection in pine woodlands has resulted in growth of dense understory
vegetation consisting of palmettos and broadleaf trees . Fox squirrels in Florida do not
fare well unless the understory vegetation is open and sparce.

Measures proposed: Initiate studies to determine optimum habitat requirements; conduct
control burns in the pinelands to open up the understory; establish refuges in the Big
Cypress Swamp area to protect and develop optimum habitat.

Number in captivity: None probably .

Remarks: This subspecies is sometime referred to as the Mangrove fox squirrel, because
it is occasionally sighted in the mangrove zone along the southwest coast of Florida. However,
because of the absence of nesting cavities or suitable food, this squirrel cannot be con-
sidered permanent residents of the mangrove zone.

Over the last few years, L.N. Brown has surveyed various habitats of the Big Cypress
Swamp region for evidence of S . niger avicennia. Only a few scattered populations of low
densities were found. The only protected population known is located in the Corkscrew
Swamp Sanctury of the National Audubon Society situated in northern Collier County . It is
also possible that a few fox squirrels remain in the remote northern portions of Everglades
National Park, but this has not been verified.

222

This squirrel is very vulnerable to decimation by hurricanes , as evidenced by the
devastation wrought by Hurricane Donna in 1960. The famous "town-squirrel" population
reported by Moore (1954) in the Everglades City area was virtually wiped out by this
hurricane and have not yet repopulated to its previous level .

The scarcity and decreasing range of the Everglades fox squirrel has been documented
by both Schwartz (1952) and Moore (1956) .

References:

Brown, L.N. 1971. Everglades fox squirrel rare and becoming rarer. Florida

Wildlife .
Howell , A . H . 1919 . Notes on the fox squirrels of the southwestern United States ,

with description of a new form from Florida. Jour. Mamm. 1: 36-38.
Moore, J. C. 1954. Fox squirrel receptionists . Everglades Natural History , 2: 153-160 .
. 1956. Variation in the fox squirrel in Florida . American Midi .

Naturalist, 55:41-65.
Schwartz, A. 1952. The land mammals of southern Florida and the upper Florida Keys.

Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor.

223

MORRO BAY KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys heermanni morroensis (Merriam)

Order: RODENTIA Family: HETEROMYIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: "The darkest colored of all known kangaroo rats"
(Grinnel, 1922) . "The dark coloration of D. h. jolonensis is further intensified in
D. h. arenae and reaches an extreme in morroensis" (Boulware, 1943). Dorsal color
tawny-olive, clearest on sides and strongly overwashed with blackish on tops and
sides of head and down middle of back; facial cresents broad, continuous and jet black,
involving whole top of nose for at least 5 mm . ; dorsal and ventral tail stripes almost
solid black and very broad, each more than twice width of either white lateral stripe;
tail weakly crested and tufted; white band across outer side of flank usually incomplete
or lacking.

Present distribution: Restricted to sandy soils comprising an area of about 1.7 square
miles on the south side of Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo County, California.

Former distribution: Probably about the same since historic times , but possibly also
including an area on the north side of Morro Bay.

Status: Suitable habitat now reduced to approximately 2 square miles; habitat
destruction continuing .

Estimated numbers: Population density estimated to average five per acre; total
population probably less than 3,000.

Breeding rate in the wild: Breeding activity is greatest during the spring and summer,
but some breeding may also occur during the fall and winter. Females probably bear
one or two litters annually , each containing two to four young .

Reasons for decline: Destruction of habitat, especially by community development;
predation by house cats .

Protective measures already taken: Taking and possession prohibited by State law.
Extension of Montana de Oro State Park places additional habitat under public stewardship .

Measures proposed: Establishment of proposed Morro Bay Ecological Reserve would
provide additional protection.

Number in captivity: Unknown, but probably very few.

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably fairly good with proper facilities and
management.

Remarks: This kangaroo rat is closely restricted to moderately compacted, sandy soils
covered by fairly open scrub vegetation. Its range is bordered by coastal sand dunes,
salt marsh, cultivated land, and chaparral. Some chaparral areas exist within the range
and can be temporarily colonized following fires. Significant range extensions are pre-
vented, however, by surrounding hard soils. Destruction of the habitat began in the early

224

1900's with the planting of several large groves of eucalyptus trees. Continuing growth of
a retirement community and increasing use by dune buggy enthusiasts threaten to destroy
most of the remaining habitat.

References:

Boulware, J. T. 1943. Two new subspecies of kangaroo rats (genus Dipodomys)

from Southern California. Univ. of California Publ. in Zoology, 46: 391-396.
Grinnel, J. 1922. A geographical study of the kangaroo rats of California. Univ.

of California Publ . in Zoology, 24:1-124.
Stewart, G. R., and A. I. Roest. 1969. Distribution and habits of kangaroo

rats atMorroBay. Jour. ofMamm., 41:126-129.

225

SALT-MARSH HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys raviventris

Order: RODENTIA Family: CRICETIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: External measurements: 135-162; 64-88, 16-19. Upper
parts pinkish cinnamon interspersed with black hairs, especially middorsally; under-
parts pinkish cinnamon or whitish; hind feet dark brown or whitish; tail dark brown or
blackish above, paler, sometimes almost white, below. As compared with R. megalotis
longicaudus, its geographically nearest congener, R. raviventris differs cranially in
larger skull with relatively shorter rostrum; nasals and incisive foramina shorter; and
zygomata more widely spreading anteriorly .

This unusually dark-colored harvest mouse lives in the salt marshes where the ground
is damp or wet and the marsh plants form a thick mat over a network of interstices.

Present distribution: Restricted to salt marshes bordering San Francisco, San Pablo
and Suisun Bays in areas where the salt marshes are not heavily diked on the upland
side. The remaining marshes with moderate populations include those near Petaluma,
San Pablo Bay near Vallejo, Grizzly Island in Suisun Bay, Point San Pedro, Dumbarton
in South San Francisco Bay, Alviso and the Palo Alto-Redwood City marshes of the
South San Francisco Bay.

Former distribution: Extensive marshes bordering the San Francisco, San Pablo and
Suisun Bays . Especially prevalent throughout the Petaluma-Napa areas as well as the
Gallinas, Corte Madera and Petaluma Creek areas of the San Pablo Bay. The marshes
on both north and south shores of the Suisun Bay and most of the South San Francisco
Bay, especially in the extensive marshes which extended from the present city of
Oakland around the bay up to the areas now known as San Mateo and Burlingame.

Status: Population low, natural range greatly restricted, once continuous distribution
now broken up into small isolated populations, destruction of remaining suitable habitats
has been accelerated over the last two decades .

Reasons for decline: Most of its habitat destroyed by urban and industrial land fills and
salt production ponds .

Protective measures already taken: Taking and possession prohibited by State law.
Establishment of South San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and acquisition of
Tubbs Island by The Nature Conservancy.

Measures proposed: Continue with acquisition of key areas already started.

Number in captivity: Few animals occasionally held for study in the Museum of
Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, and the Department of Biological
Sciences, San Jose State College, San Jose, California.

226

References:

Fisler, G. F. 1963. Effects of salt water on food and water consumption and weight

of harvest mice . Ecology, 44:604-608.

. 1965 . Adaptation and speciation in harvest mice of the marshes of

San Francisco Bay. Univ. Calif. Publ . Zool . , 77:1-108.
Hall, E. R. , and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America. The Ronald

Press, N.Y., Vol. 2, p. 588.
Leach, H. R. and L. O. Fisk . 1972. At the crossroads — a report on California's

endangered and rare fish and wildlife. Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game. 99pp.
Pearson, O. P. 1960a. Habits of harvest mice revealed by automatic, photographic

recorders. Jour. Mamm., 41:58-74.
. 1960b. The oxygen consumption and bioenergetics of harvest mice.

Physiol. Zool., 33:152-160.
Scharb, D. B. 1972. Salt-marsh harvest mouse survey, 1971. Calif. Dept. of

Fish & Game. Spec. Wild. Investigation, Final Report.
Shellhammer, H. S. 1961. Variation in brain acetylcholinesterase in the wild mice

Mus musculus and Reithrodontomys megalotis. Physiol. Zool., 34:312-318.
. 1967. Cytotaxonomic studies of the harvest mice of the San Francisco

Bay region. Jour. Mamm., 48:549-556.

227

KEY LARGO WOODRAT Neotoma floridana smalli

Order: RODENTIA Family: CRICETIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Coloration is gray-brown on the back and head with the
belly and throat white. The ears are large and bare and the tail is covered with short
bristle-like fur. Sherman (1955) reported that the skull morphology differed slightly from
that of the nearest eastern woodrats in central and northern Florida.

Present distribution: Found only in "climax hammock" vegetation restricted to the
northern portion of the island of Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida.

Former distribution: At one time occupied the entire length of the island of Key Largo,
Florida, which is 35 miles long and only one-half to two miles wide (Schwartz, 1952) .
No woodrats other than this relict population occur in all of southern Florida.

Status: Seriously depleted. Only a few hundred acres of suitable climax vegetation remain
on North Key Largo . Trapping has revealed that the woodrats do not occur in any of the
early to mid-successional stages of subtropical hammock. The only populations which
remain in existence, occur on the northern end of the island (see attached map of Key Largo) .

Estimated numbers: Not possible to say precisely, but one study plot in prime habitat
averaged one woodrat per each two acres . The amount of climax subtropical forest
remaining in North Key Largo is decreasing rapidly due to bulldozing and would not
presently exceed 1,500 acres. Thus, the total population of this woodrat is presently
estimated to be between 700 and 800 individuals .

Breeding rate in the wild: Two litters per year averaging two young each are produced
by mature females . The chief sources of mortality in the young as well as adults appear
to be rattlesnakes , raccoons , and owls .

Reasons for decline: Habitat destruction by man on an island where the amount of climax
vegetation is not extensive anyway. Repeated fires and bulldozing for commercial develop-
ment have eliminated this woodrat entirely from the southern two-thirds of Key Largo . A
decline in the total population has also been recorded during four years (1968-72) of study
on North Key Largo.

Measures proposed: Pf-eservation in public ownership of some of the remaining climax
subtropical forest restricted to North Key Largo . If this is not accomplished this species
could probably be successfully introduced to suitable "protected" islands nearby having
climax subtropical forest. The islands of Biscayne Bay National Monument located just
north of Key Largo appear to be suitable for this possibility.

Number in captivity: None presently. From 1968 to 1970, a breeding colony was main-
tained at the University of South Florida, Tampa.

228

Remarks: The Key Largo woodrat builds very large and conspicuous "stick nests" on the
ground which sometimes approach the size and configuration of small beaver lodges . These
nests are apparently used and added to by successive generations of woodrats, and often
measi'-e four feet high and six to eight feet in diameter. Only one adult woodrat is found
occupying each active nest which suggests territorality .

The Key Largo deer mouse (Peromysius gossypinus allapaticola) is a small-bodied
companion species of the woodrat and shares its current plight. Its range is also confined
to Key Largo and its habitat is the climax subtropical forest.

References:

Brown, L. N. 1970. Unique mammals found in the Florida Keys . Florida Naturalist,

43:146-147.
Schwartz, A. 1952. The land mammals of southern Florida and the upper Florida Keys.

Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor .
Sherman, H. B. 1955. Description of a new race of woodrats from Key Largo, Florida.

Jour. Mammalogy, 36:113-120.

229

BLOCK ISLAND MEADOW VOLE Microtus pennsylvanicus provectus (Bangs)

Order: RODENTIA Family: CRICETIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Minute differences (larger; gray belly) from the
common meadow vole of mainland .

Present distribution: Block Island, Newport County, Rhode Island. Voles are present
on 602 acres, or about 9 percent of the total available area on Block Island, where they
are most abundant in vegetation dominated by beachgrass (Ammophila) and in abandoned
fields containing uncut grass and herbs; about 335 acres of optimum vole habitat are
available (Clough and Fulk, 1971) .

Former distribution: Same .

Status: Reportedly reduced in numbers since early days. Clough and Fulk (1971) report
that "there is a secure reservoir population."

Estimated numbers: Apparently reached a high level in 1965, and have since declined.
Live-trapping in November 1965' produced 33 voles (0.89 per 100 trap-hours); in May 1967,
20 Voles (0.50); in November 1969', 23 voles (0.27). (Clough and Fulk, 1971).

Breeding rate in the wild: Several litters of five to seven annually .

Reasons for decline: Construction of buildings and roads on island; effects of storms
and hurricanes. Hotels and cottages for the tourist trade, and accompanying development
of dairy farming, altered and reduced the habitat for voles; tourism and farming have
declined in the last few decades. (Clough and Fulk, 1971).

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: Measures should be taken to encourage the continued existence of
suitable perennial grass habitat. Clough and Fulk (1971) recommend securing as much
of the existing beachgrass and wetland habitats as possible, and maintaining them free
from disturbance .

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Forty-three were collected in 1952 (Chamberlain).

References:

Allen, G. M. 1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Western Hemisphere.

American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Special Publ . 11,

p. 98.
Chamberlain, J. L. 1954. The Block Island meadow mouse. Jour. Mamm . ,

35:587-589.
Clough, G. C. , and G. Fulk. 1971. Current status of the Block Island meadow

vole, Rhode Island. Biological Conservation (Elsevier Publ. Co., England),

Vol. 3 pp. 151-152.
Hall, E. R. , and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America . Ronald

Press, N.Y., Vol. 2. p. 727.

230

BEACH MEADOW VOLE Microtus breweri (Baird)

Order: RODENTIA Family: CRICETIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Larger and paler in color than common meadow vole .

Present distribution: Muskeget Island off Nantucket, Massachusetts.

Former distribution: Muskeget, including Adams and South Point Islands.

Status: Apparently persisting on Muskeget; one collected 1956 (Haft) .

Estimated numbers: Populations fluctuate; apparently at a fairly high level in early 1965.

Breeding rate in the wild: Several litters (usually five to seven young) annually.

Reasons for decline: Predation by short-eared owls and by cats kept at Life Saving
Station. Habitat eliminated by erosion after storms and by construction.

Protective measures already taken: Muskeget Island now a refuge for nesting terns.

Measures proposed: Encourage suitable perennial grass habitat. Continue maintenance
of refuge . Elimination of cats .

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: On Muskeget Island, "excessively abundant" in 1869; "only a few" in 1890;
"no trace" of them in 1891; a "thriving colony" in 1892; "entirely disappeared" in 1893,
when G. S. Miller transplanted a few from nearby South Point Island. Apparently the
population underwent violent fluctuations , as do meadow voles on the mainland . This
species is especially adapted for digging in sand.

References:

Allen, G. M. 1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Western Hemisphere.

American Committee for International Wildlife Protection. Special Publ . 11,

pp. 93-96.
Haft, J. S. 1963'. Malformations of molars in Microtus breweri. Jour. Mamm.,

44:270-272.
Hall , E . R . , and K . R . Kelson . 1959 . The mammals of North America .

Ronald Press , N . Y . , Vol . 2 , p . 728 .
Matthiessen, P. 1959. Wildlife in America . Viking, N.Y.; pp. 130-132.
Miller, G. S., Jr. 1896.' The beach mouse of Muskegat Island. Proc. Boston

Soc. Nat. Hist. , 27:75-87.

231

WHALES

Toothed Whales (Suborder Odontoceti)
Order: CETACEA Baleen Whales (Suborder Mysticeti)

Among the animals threatened with extinction, the whales present a special case. It
seems impractical here to consider them in the same manner as the other mammals.
Except for the sirenians , these large, intelligent animals are the earth's only completely
aquatic mammals; from birth to death they live in a marine environment. All the species,
presently threatened, are the so-called Great Whales. These large mammals have been
ruthlessly exploited by a loosely regulated whaling industry for decades. It is primarily
this exploitation that has pushed some species of whales to the brink of extinction and
seriously threatens others. The Great Whales spend at least part of their life on the
high seas; they are an international resource and no nation has complete jurisdiction over
them.

The whales received some consideration under the 1937 International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling, when the Convention established an International Whaling
Commission. That Commission was provided limited management capacity and little
enforcement authority . Membership in the Commission is voluntary . Many whaling
nations are not members; therefore, are not subject to the Commission's regulations.

It is only during recent years that some of the whaling nations have acknowledged their
obligation to manage whale stocks in a responsible manner. In 1971, some whaling
nations agreed to allow international observers aboard their whaling vessels and to
inspect their whaling stations to insure better compliance with whaling agreements .
Serious consideration is now being given to conducting research in an effort to determine
the status of various species of whales and to manage them in accordance with research
findings. It is only when such knowledgeable management programs become realities
that we can assume the threat of extinction has lessened.

With exception of the sperm whale, all species in American waters that are in jeopardy
are baleen whales (suborder Mysticeti); the sperm is a toothed whale (suborder
Odontoceti) .

SPERM WHALE or CACHALOT, Physeter catodon (Linnaeus) . Polar, temperate and
tropical seas; occurs off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of North America.
Still widely hunted; not protected by international agreement. Considered of
special concern because of the numbers that are being commercially taken, and
because of lack of international protection.

GRAY WHALE, Eschrichtius robustus (Lilljeborg) . Distributed in eastern North Pacific,
Alaska to Baja California; also a population in western North Pacific. Populations
of this whale were severely depleted during the 19th century by over-exploitation.
Protection provided by a 1938 international agreement has helped the gray whale
recover. The eastern Pacific population appears stable, although concern still
exists over the status of the western Pacific population. The increasing numbers
and apparent stable population is a good example of the ability of an animal to
recover when adequate protection is provided. Considered as in need of attention
because of concern over western Pacific population and lack of effective management
programs .

232

BLUE WHALE, Balaenoptera musculus (Linnaeus) . Cosmopolitan; occurs along both the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts of North America. Numbers greatly reduced through
excessive exploitation; protected by international agreement since 1966. Status
a matter of special concern because of decimation of numbers prior to protection
and apparent scarcity of the species at the present time .

FINBACK WHALE, Balaenoptera phy sal us (Linnaeus). Cosmopolitan; occurs along both
the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of North America. Still widely hunted; not pro-
tected by international agreement . Considered in peril because of uncertainty of
the effects of continued exploitation, and lack of international protection.

SEI WHALE, Balaenoptera borealis Lesson. Cosmopolitan; occurs off both the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts of North America . Still widely hunted; not protected by
international agreement. Considered jeopardized because of the effects of wide-
spread exploitation , and the lack of adequate protection .

HUMPBACK WHALE, Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski) . Cosmopolitan; occurs along
both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of North America . Numbers greatly reduced
because of excessive exploitation prior to protection; protected, since 1966', by
international agreement. Considered in need of special attention due to greatly
reduced population.

RIGHT WHALE, Eubalaena glacialis (Muller) . Polar, temperate and tropical seas; in

North America roughly from Iceland to Bermuda in the western Atlantic, and from
Alaska to Baja California in the eastern Pacific . Population may now be stable;
protected by international agreement. Considered in need of attention because
of greatly reduced numbers .

BOWHEAD WHALE, Balaena mysticetus (Linnaeus) . Northern oceans, south to the
Pribilof Islands and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Greatly depleted in numbers;
protected by international agreement and population may now be stable . Con-
sidered as in need of careful watching because of its low population level .

References:

Gilmore, R. M. 1959'. A census of the California gray whale. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Spec. Sci . Report--Fisheries No. 342, 30 pp.

. 1961; The story of the gray whale . Priv. printed, 16 pp. pp.
International Whaling Statistics. Edited by the Committee for Whaling Statistics,

Oslo, Norway (periodical).
Kellogg, Remington. 1961'. Whales, giants of the sea. Nat. Geogr. Mag.,

Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 39-90.
Klumov, S. K. 1962'. The right whales in the Pacific Ocean. Trudy Inst. Oceanol.,

Vol. 58, pp. 202-297.-
Norman, J. R., and F . C. Fraser . 1938. Giant fishes, whales, and dolphins .

W . W . Norton & Co . , Inc . , New York .
Omura, H. 1958. North Pacific right whale. Scientific Reports of the Whales

Research Institute, No. 13, pp. 1-52.
Pike, G. C. 1962'. Migration and feeding of the gray whale. Jour. Fisheries

Research Board of Canada, Vol. 19, pp. 815-838.
Rice, D. W. 1964'. Eskimo whaling in Arctic Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Marine Mammal Biological

Laboratory, Seattle. Unpublished administrative report, 23 pp.

233

Rice, D. W. , and A. A. Wolman. 1971. The life history and ecology of the

gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) . Special Publ . No. 3, American Society

of Mammalogists .
Scheffer, V. B. , and D. W. Rice. 1963. A list of the marine mammals of the

world. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Spec. Sci. Report--Fisheries

No. 431, 12 pp.
Slijper, E. J. 1962'. Whales. Hutchinson & Co . , London.

234

NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLF Canis lupus irremotus (Goldman , 1937)

Order: CARNIVORA Family: CANIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A medium to large subspecies of wolf generally light in
color, with hair tips gray or black.

Present distribution: Although irremotus has been considered extinct in the U.S. , wolves
in the former range of irremotus have recently been reported from Yellowstone National
Park, Glacier National Park, and the following National Forests: Boise, Challis, Flathead,
Gallatin, Helena, Kootenai, Salmon, Shoshone, Teton, Custer, Beaverhead andTarghee.
Reports are based on sightings and tracks. Nowak (pers . comm . 1973) has identified a
specimen taken in Lewis and Clark County, Montana in 1964 as being Canis lupus irremotus,

Former distribution: All of Montana except northeastern third; Black Hills of South
Dakota; northern two-thirds of Wyoming; all of Idaho; eastern third of Oregon and
Washington; southern third of Alberta; and southeast corner of British Columbia.

Status: Present small numbers in wildly scattered groups represent a remnant popu-
lation at best.

Estimated numbers: The best estimate, based on scattered reports, is that fewer than
20 individuals, mostly loners or pairs, are known to exist although up to five in one
group were seen in Yellowstone National Park.

Breeding rate in the wild: Probably an average litter size of five to six, as with
other subspecies. Sexual maturity at 2 or 3 years of age.

Reasons for decline: Land development, including loss of habitat, poisoning, trapping
and hunting, and the wolf's inability to adapt to most of man's development activities.

Protective measures already taken: Preliminary mail survey to check reports of the
remnant population; complete legal protection in Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks.

Measures proposed: Invoke protective regulations for all lands within the former range
of this animal .

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably good .

Remarks: Distinguishing one subspecies from others requires examination of skulls, so
it cannot be stated with certainty that the wolves reported in the former area of C . l_.
irremotus actually belong to that subspecies. However, since most of the present reports
are from the center of the former range of irremotus , the best judgment is that they
represent members of irremotus descended from those few individuals in that back
country that escaped persecution in the thirties, forties and fifties. However, the
possibility always remains that the reported wolves are really migrants of other sub-
species, or are accidental or deliberate transplants of other subspecies by human beings.

235

References:

Cole.G.F. 1971. Yellowstone Wolves . Research Note No. 4, Yellowstone National

Park.
Cowan, I. M. 1947. The Timber Wolf in the Rocky Mountain National Parks of

Canada. Can. J. Res. 25:139-174.
Goldman, E. A. 1944. The Wolves of North America . Part II. Classification of

Wolves, pp. 389-636. Young, S. P. Parti. Their Life History, Economic

Status, and Control. American Wildlife Institute, Wash. , D.C.
Mech, L. D. 1970. The Wolf. Doubleday Publishing Co. , N.Y ., 389 pp .
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1970. Estimates of Big Game Animals on National

Forests and National Grasslands. April 30, 1970.

<i36

EASTERN TIMBER WOLF Canis lupus lycaon (Schreiber)

Order: CARNIVORA Family: CANIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A large, broad-headed wild canid with thick, rich fur
of grizzled gray coloration.

Present distribution: The Lake Superior region of Michigan and the International
border region of Minnesota; Isle Royale, Michigan; Ontario, Canada, north to James Bay,
eastward to Gulf of St. Lawrence. One specimen was taken in 1968 in Fulton County,
New York; prior to that, the last authentic record of the wolf in New York was in 1899.

Former distribution: Minnesota and eastern Canada south to Ohio and the Northeastern
United States .

Status: Greatly reduced in range and numbers in the conterminous United States, but
stable in Minnesota.

Estimated numbers: As of October 1969', 12 or less in Michigan exclusive of Isle Royale,
where there were at least 20 in 1970; 500 to 1000 in Minnesota in January 1970 according
to Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife estimate; approximately 300 wolves in Superior
National Forest.

Breeding rate in the wild: An average litter size of seven, not necessarily annual in
frequency .

Reasons for decline: Heavy hunting and trapping pressure for bounty . Modification
of large areas of suitable primitive habitat by commercial interests . Encroachment
of civilization.

Protective measures already taken: Complete legal protection in Michigan; Use of
snares, aerial hunting and poisoning illegal in Minnesota. Bounty has been reduced to
a localized basis only in Minnesota.

Measures proposed: Removal of all wolf bounties . Restocking wilderness areas where
the environment is compatible and there would be minimal conflict with farmers or
cattle industry; locate remnant populations and take measures to preserve the habitat
in such areas . Discourage private action against depredation losses .

Number in captivity: A least 22 specimens in six zoos (1963), probably more.

Breeding potential in captivity: About as in the wild state.

Remarks: Most other subspecies, except those inhabiting Alaska and Canada, are
similarly reduced. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife personnel report indications
that a remnant wolf population iC_. }_. irremotus?) is present in Wyoming; officials at
Yellowstone National Park report 22 sightings dating back to 1955. Mech lists 24
subspecies in North America and 8 in Europe, of which 6 are extinct. Minnesota State
officials do not believe wolves are endangered.

237

References:

Animal Census, 1963'.

Mech, L. D. 1970. The wolf . Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y.

. and L. D. Frenzel, Jr. 1971. Ecological studies of the timber wolf

in Northeastern Minnesota. USDA Forest Service Research Report NC-55, 66 pp.
Murie, A. 1944. The wolves of Mount McKinley. Fauna Series No. 5, Fauna

of the National Parks , 238 pp .
Pimlott, D. H. 1961'. Wolf control in Canada. Canadian Audubon Mag . ,

Nov. -Dec: 145-152.

. 1964'. War against wolves . Animals, 3(12): 330-335.

Stebler, A.M. 1951. The ecology of Michigan coyotes and wolves. Univ.

Microfilms, Publ . No. 2657, 207 pp.
Stenlund, M. H. 1955. A field study of the timber wolf (Canis lupus) on the

Superior National Forest, Minnesota. Minn. Dept. Cons., Tech. Bull. No. 4,

55 pp.
Thompson, D. Q. 1952. Travel, range, and food habits of timber wolves in

Wisconsin. Jour . Mamm . 33'(4): 429-442 .
Young, S. P. , and E. A. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America.

Wildlife Management Institute, Wash., D.C.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1970. Twin Cities, Minn. Proceedings

of a symposium on wolf management in selected areas of North America.

35th North American Wildlife Conference, Chicago, Illinois, March 24, 1970.

238

MEXICAN WOLF Canis lupus baileyi (Nelson and Goldman)

Order: CARNIVORA Family: CANIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A very small, dark wolf, the smallest wolf in North America;
face very short, and cheeks wide. Weight of males under one hundred pounds; females
under seventy.

Present distribution: Extreme southern Arizona, east to west Texas, south to San Luis
Potosi in Mexico .

Former distribution: About the same as present distribution, but within this range the
Mexican wolf has been eliminated from many areas .

Status: Apparently extirpated in the United States during the 1940' s, but the species
has reappeared in recent years in Arizona and Texas.

Estimated numbers: Not known; at least six specimens have been reported in Arizona
and Texas since 1968.

Breeding rate in the wild: The same as for other wolves . They do not breed until they
are two to three years old; the gestation period is from 60 to 63, with the average litter
size being seven.

Reasons for decline: Heavy hunting and trapping pressure to eliminate the wolf as a
predator on domestic livestock .

Protective measures already taken: Defenders of Wildlife has paid livestock damage costs,
and is attempting to purchase land; Federal predator control operations have ceased in

the area. "The Arizona Game and Fish Department

protects wolves in Arizona with a no open season regulation."
Measures proposed: Locate areas where populations occur; educate the public to avoid
hunting and trapping of wild canids in these areas; establish sanctuaries in west Texas
and eastern Arizona to protect resident populations and/or migrants from Mexico.

BNumber in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably good.

Remarks: Two animals taken in western Texas in 1968 have been definately identified as
Mexican wolves (C. lupus baileyi) by Paradiso and Nowak . It is not now known, however,
whether the wolves in Arizona and Texas are remnant native populations, or are migrants
from Mexico; E. L. Cockrum of the University of Arizona, believes that the Arizona
population is a remnant native .

References:

Anderson, T. 1973. pers . comm.
Caroline, M. 1973. pers. comm.
Defenders of Wildlife. 1973. pers. comm.

239

McBride, R. 1973. pers . comm .

Mech, 1. D. 1970. The wolf. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.
Young, S. P., and E. A. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America.
America Wildlife Institute, Washington, D.C.

240

RED WOLF Canis rufus (Audubon & Bachman)

Order: CARNIVORA Family: CANIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A medium-sized, slender, wild canid resembling the
coyote but larger and more robust; legs and ears relatively longer than in coyote;
occurs in two color phases; common and black. Coloration in common phase similar to
that of coyote, but tawny element more pronounced; pelage usually somewhat coarser
than that of coyote. Slightly smaller than gray wolf (C_. lupus) , with a more slender
and elongated head. Pelage shorter and coarser than in any race of lupus . Legs
appear to be longer and ears bigger but actually they are not.

Present distribution: Extirpated throughout its former range except in eastern Texas
and Louisiana. Here, it appears to have hybridized in most areas with coyotes and
domestic dogs . Pure populations are thought to occur only in four southeastern Gulf
Coast counties of Texas and adjacent Louisiana.

Former distribution: Southeastern United States from Florida to central Texas, and
north to southern Indiana .

Status: Extremely small numbers and greatly restricted in distribution.

Estimated numbers: The red wolf was long thought to be more numerous in Texas than
it actually was because many coyotes were erroneously identified as red wolves. Its
apparent hybridization with coyotes and dogs has also led to confusion with regard to
its actual numbers .

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown; probably similar to that of the coyote.

Reasons for decline: Apparently stereotyped and habitual behavioral patterns rendered
the animal vulnerable to trapping and hunting pressures . Habitat changes favor the
coyote, with which red wolves appear to readily hybridize. Inability of red wolves to
compete with the more aggressive coyote that has expanded its range into red wolf
territory. Mange, intestinal parasites and heart worms infest much of the population.

Protective measures already taken: Assignment of field personnel to investigate the
problem, resulted in the discovery of a few pure populations in the coastal prairie
marshes of the northeastern Texas Gulf Coast. About 300 animals are resident in this
region. Management area established in Liberty, Galveston, Harris, Chambers, Jefferson,
and Orange Counties, Texas, plus area of Brazoria east of Brazos River and Cameron
and Vermilion Parishes, Louisiana, in which only known livestock killers are controlled
by Federal agents . These depredating animals are removed alive and transferred to
the Wild Animal Propagation Trust of the American Association of Zoological Parks and
Aquariums . Education program now underway to discourage control by private
individuals .

Measures proposed: Additional field work to determine the total limits of pure popu-
lations of red wolves . Investigate means of placating ranchers in areas where red

241

wolves cause livestock damage, to prevent ranchers resorting to private control
measures. More widely publicize through the popular press the uniqueness of the red
wolf and its precarious status . Obtain additional refuge lands in coastal prairie areas,
supplemental to those in the present Anahuac and Brazoria National Wildlife Refuges .
Maintain good breeding stock in captivity (zoos, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
etc.) for possible restocking in case of sharp declines (due to rabies, flooding,
hybridization with coyotes, etc.) in the wild, and for biological studies of reproduction ,
behavior, etc .

Number in captivity: Uncertain; many alleged red wolves may be coyotes or coyote-
red hybrids. Sixteen known red wolves in five zoos (Ogilvie 1969) .

Breeding potential in captivity: Not known; probably good.

Remarks: Pure populations of red wolf today are known only from the coastal prairie
marshes of east Texas and adjacent Louisiana. All efforts should be made to preserve
these marshes in their present state. Most recent field information (1971), however,
strongly suggests that coyotes are now present throughout this area, and perhaps
hybridizing with red wolves, a situation not evident two years ago. The future has
been considerably dimmed by this new factor .

References:

McCarley, H. 1962. The taxonomic status of Canis (Canidae) in the South

Central United States. Southwestern Naturalist, 7(3-4): 227-235.
Nowak, R. M. 1967. The red wolf in Louisiana . Defenders of Wildlife News,

42(1): 60-70.
. 1970. Report on the red wolf. Defenders of Wildlife News,

45(1): 82-94.
Ogilvie, P. W. 1970. Interim report on the red wolf in the United States.

International Zoo Yearbook, pp. 122-124.
Paradiso, J. L. 1965. Recent records of the red wolf from the gulf coast of

Texas. Southwestern Naturalist, 10(4): 318-319 .
. 1968. Canids recently collected in east Texas, with comments on

the taxonomy of the red wolf. American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 80, No. 2,

pp. 529-534.
Pimlott, D. H. , and P. W. Joslin. 1968'. The status and distribution of the

red wolf. Trans . 33rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources

Conference, pp. 373-389.

242

SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX Vulpes macrotis mutica (Merriam)

Order: CARNIVORA Family: CANIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small desert dwelling fox, with buffy yellow coloration
over the body; tail black tipped; feet no darker than rest of body. Males weigh 5.0 pounds
and females 4.6 pounds. Similar to Nevada kit fox, but slightly larger.

Present distribution: Foothills below 2,000 feet and areas of native vegetation on the west
side of San Joaquin Valley in Merced, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties, California.

Former distribution: Drier parts of San Joaquin Valley from Tracy south.

Status: Population low, natural range restricted; 34 percent reduction in habitat between
1960 and 1970 and trend continuing . Two million acres of habitat in 1970.

Estimated numbers: Probably 1,000 to 3,000 animals altogether. One den per 2.07 square
miles in atriplen plant communities.

Breeding rate in the wild: Average litter size four. Breeds during second year.

Reasons for decline: Primarily, reduction of former rough, dry valley land habitats
to highly developed, irrigated agriculture. Susceptible to certain rodenticides , which
have been used in the area. Most recent threat comes from irresponsible use of "game
calls" to attract them to gunfire and illegal trapping.

Protective measures already taken: Classed as rare by California Department of Fish
and Game . Life history study by California Department of Fish and Game under the
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program (P.R. project) in cooperation with Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife completed. Taking and possession prohibited by State
law. Night hunting prohibited over much of this animals' range.

Measures proposed: Continue efforts to re-establish fox on suitable areas. Designation
of Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve as an Ecological Reserve by action of the California
Fish and Game Commission.

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Grinnel, D. and L. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California . Univ. Calif.

Press , 2 vols .
Laughrin, L. 1970. San Joaquin kit fox, its distribution and abundance. Calif.

Dept. of Fish & Game, Wildlife Management Branch Admin. Report No. 70-2.
Morrell, S. 1971. Life history of the San Joaquin kit fox. Calif. Dept. of Fish &

Game, Admin. Report.
. 1972. Life history of the San Joaquin kit fox. Calif. Dept. of Fish &

Game, 58(3) : 162-174 .

243

GLACIER BEAR Ursus americanus emmonsii (Dall)

Order: CARNIVORA Family: URSIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: This grayish or bluish bear is thought to be a small
color phase of the common black bear, restricted to southern Alaska and northern
British Columbia.

Present distribution: Mainland of Alaska from the Upper Copper River and Matanuska
River Valleys southeastward at least to Tracy Arm and the mouth of the Chickamin
River .

Former distribution: Same .

Status: Restricted in range and limited in numbers, but the population appears to
be stabilized .

Estimated numbers: About 500.

Breeding rate in the wild: One to two cubs in alternate years .

Reasons for decline: Overhunting as a curio, and its circumscribed range.

Protective measures already taken: Glacier Bay National Monument serves as a refuge.
Hunting of black and glacier bears in Alaska Units 1-5 is prohibited during July and
August; no more than one glacier bear may be taken per hunter per year. The taking
of cubs, or females accompanied by cubs, is prohibited. In addition, no glacier bear
skins may be sold.

Measures proposed: Adequate patrolling to prevent poaching .

Breeding potential in captivity: Thought to be good .

Number in captivity: One male in San Diego Zoo (1972) .

References:

Allen, G. M. 1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Western Hemisphere.

American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Spec. Publ . 11,

pp. 135-138.
Matthiessen, P. 1959. Wildlife in America. Viking, N. Y., p. 89.

244

GRIZZLY BEAR Ursus arctos horribilis (Ord)

Order: CARNIVORA Family: URSIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Large bear, average about 600 pounds for males;
grizzled brown, hump on shoulder, huge front claws, concave facial profile.

Present distribution: Colorado (questionable if any remain), Idaho, Wyoming, Montana,
and Washington .

Former distribution: In addition to presently inhabited areas, the grizzly previously
occupied suitable habitat in all of the Western States from the Pacific Ocean to the eastern
edge of the Rocky Mountains .

Note: The taxonomic status of the grizzly is confused (see "remarks"
belov) . The grizzly and big brown bear of Alaska are closely allied,
and 77 species of the two combined have been described. Some of these
are now extinct, while others are doubtless synonyms. What we here
refer to as the grizzly bear, Ursus horribilis (with 4 subspecies included),
represents populations from Idaho, Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming.

Status: Occurs in small numbers in the conterminous United States . The population
trend has been static in the last decade.

Estimated numbers: Idaho, 10; Montana, 375 to 700; Wyoming, 300; and a few in
Colorado . About 10 in Washington in 1970 (Lauckhardt) .

Breeding rate in the wild: Usually 1 to 2 cubs in alternate years .

Reasons for decline: Numbers have been killed with guns, traps, dogs, and poisons
as predator and menace to man and his livestock. Human activity continues to intrude
on the habitat of this wilderness species, that is apparently unable to adapt to most of
man's activities.

Protective measures already taken: Complete protection in Washington, Colorado and
Idaho; managed by State as a game animal in Montana and Wyoming with very restrictive
regulations . Complete protection by Federal Government in National Parks .

Measures proposed: Wilderness areas most needed, with cessation of any unnecessary
persecution as a predator.

Number in captivity: 33 males and 53 females in 31 American zoos (1963).

Breeding potential in captivity: Good .

Remarks: Last grizzly reported in California in 1922. The taxonomy of the grizzly and
brown bears is confused and clarification is greatly needed. It is currently being
reviewed by E. R. Hall and has been studied previously by R. L. Rausch.

245

References:

Allen, G. M. 1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Western Hemisphere.

American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Spec. Publ. 11,

pp. 139-165.
Beard, D. B. 1942. Fading trails; The story of endangered American wildlife .

Macmillan, N.Y., pp. 40-47.
Cowan, I. M. 1972. The status and conservation of bears of the world — 1970.

in Bears — Their Biology and Management. I. U.C.N. Pubis, news series

N^. 23, pp. 343-367.
Glenn, L. P. 1972. Report on 1971 brown bear studies, Alaska Fish and Game

Reports, Vol. XIII, pp. i-109.
National Wildlife Federation. 1956. Our endangered wildlife, pp . 3-4.
Matthiessen, P. 1959. Wildlife in America . Viking , N .Y ., pp . 87-90 .
Palmer, R. S. 1954. The Mammal Guide; Mammals of North America North of

Mexico. Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y., pp. 83-88.
Rausch, R. L. 1953. On the status of some Arctic mammals . Arctic , 6(2): 91-148 .
. 1962 . Geographic variation in size in North American brown

bears. Canadian Jour . of Zoology, 41:33-45.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1964. Big game inventory for 1963. Wildlife

Leaflet 461, 4 pp.

246

I

BLACK-FOOTED FERRET Mustela nigripes (Audubon and Bachman)

Order: CARNIVORA Family: MUSTELIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A large weasel with black feet and face mask.

Present distribution: Western North and South Dakota to northern Montana and
Alberta, south to Texas and central New Mexico.

Former distribution: Great Plains, Alberta and Saskatchewan to Texas and Arizona,
to 10,500 feet in the Rockies; in association with prairie dogs.

Status: Very few observations have been reported . The species apparently never
was abundant.

Estimated numbers: Since 1955, confirmed sightings have been made in 26 counties in
South Dakota, one (Burleigh) in North Dakota, one in Nebraska, one in Texas, one in
Wyoming, and one (possibly two) in Colorado.

Breeding rate in the wild: Probably one litter of 4 to 5 young .

Reasons for decline: Significant data are not available on population history of the
black-footed ferret. If a decline is to be assumed, the following causes are likely:
elimination of natural prey and den holes; destruction of original grasslands; shot by
people hunting prairie dogs for sport; possibility of disease, particularily distemper;
since 1955 eleven road kills have been reported.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by law in some States. Life history and
ecology studies of individuals in the wild are underway by South Dakota Cooperative
Wildlife Research Unit and the National Park Service , and also by the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife. Prairie dog towns must be determined to be "ferret free" before
the Bureau undertakes damage suppression measures. "Sikes Act Agreement" signed
with South Dakota Department of Game , Fish and Parks and Defense Department to
protect ferrets on 42,000-acre Air Force Aerial Gunnery Range.

Measures proposed: Legal protection; preservation of grassland habitat and of prairie
dog towns where ferrets are present. Establishment in sanctuaries (Wind Cave National
Park, South Dakota; Theodore Roosevelt National Memorial Park, North Dakota; and
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range, Montana, have been suggested) . Attempt to
bring more into captivity for breeding purposes .

Number in captivity: Three; 2 males and 1 female (December 1972) .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Research into the animal's status, life history, and ecology is being conducted
by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife throughout its entire former range.

247

References:

Allen, G. M. 1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Western Hemisphere.

American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Spec. Publ . 11,

pp. 183-186.
Cahalane, V. H. 1954. Status of the black-footed ferret. Jour.Mamm., 33:418-424.
Charles, G. 1965. Our vanishing species: Will they survive? S. Dak. Conserv.

Digest, 32(2): 6-8.
Fortenbery, D. K. 1972. Characteristics of the black-footed ferret. Bureau

of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Resource Publ. 109. 8 pp.
Hall, E. R., and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America. Ronald

Press, N.Y., Vol. 2, pp. 914-916.
Henderson, B. 1966. Watching I Top Ta Sap A. S. Dak. Conserv. Digest,

33(5):16-18.
Henderson, F. R., P. S. Springer, and R. Adrian. 1969. Black-footed ferret

in South Dakota. S. Dak. Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks, Publ. No. 37.
Hillman, C.N. 1968. Field observations of black-footed ferret in South Dakota.

Trans. 33rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference,

pp. 433-443.
Homolka, C. L. 1964. Our rarest mammal? Audubon Magazine, 66(4): 244-246.
Sheet, R. G., R. L. Linder, andR. B. Dahlgren. 1972. Food habits of two

litters of black-footed ferrets in South Dakota . American Midland Naturalist

87(0:249-251.

248

SOUTHERN SEA OTTER Enhydra lutris nereis (Meriam)

Order: CARNIVORA Family: MUSTELIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Large marine otter, about 4 feet long, dark brown
with short stout tail .

Present distribution: Off California coast, Santa Barbara County to Santa Cruz County.

Former distribution: Pacific Coast, Washington to central Baja California.

Status: Once nearly extinct, but now recovering on California Coast; extirpated off
Washington and Oregon since 1876.

Estimated numbers: Official census (1957) reported 638 (Anon., 1964). In 1964 Kenyon
counted 396 and estimated a total of 500 in California waters . California Department of
Fish and Game estimated 1,200 animals in 1969 (M. Odemar pers . communication) .

Breeding rate in the wild: One pup per female per year.

Reasons for decline: Slaughtered for furs since latter half of 18th century, and later
poaching by Japanese and Russians .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by State law and Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972.

Measures proposed: Continued protection by California and Federal law . According
to Kenyon (personal communication) the sea otter does not range regularly beyond
3-mile limit off the coast of California.

Number in captivity: During 1972 California Fish and Game placed 4 at Sea World,
San Diego.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: Together with Alaska subspecies, total catch 1842-62 was about 26,000;
1881-90, total catch was about 48,000. By 1910 the total catch of a fleet of 16 schooners
was only 31. Rediscovered off Monterey County, California, 1939, and since have
extended south to Pt. Conception and probably the Channel Islands; one found to the
north of Santa Cruz County, 1940, and several at Ano Nuevo Island, San Mateo County,
1963.

References:

Allen, G. M. 1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Western Hemisphere.

American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Spec. Publ. 11,

pp. 417-424.
Anonymous . 1964 . Sea otter population determined by census . Commercial

Fisheries Review, 26(8):15.

249

Beard, D. B. 1942. pp. 67-74.

Boolootian, R. A. 1961. The distribution of the California sea otter.

California Fish and Game, 47(3): 287-292 .
Crandall, L. S. 1964. The management of wild animals in captivity . Univ. of

Chicago Press, pp. 345-348.
Fisher, E. M. 1939. Habits of the southern sea otter. Jour. Mamm . , 20:21-36.
Huser, V. 1970. The case of the southern sea otter. Defenders of Wildlife News,

45(1): 73-77.
Kenyon and Scheffer. 1955. pp. 3-5.
Kenyon, K. 1970. The sea otter in the eastern Pacific. North American Fauna

No. 68, 352 pp.
Murie, O. J. 1940. Notes on the sea otter . Jour. Mamm., 21:119-131.
National Wildlife Federation. 1956. Our endangered wildlife, pp. 7-8.
Odemar, M. W. and K. C. Wilson. 1970. Population studies of sea otters in

California. California Dept . of Fish and Game, MRR Ref. No. 70-3, Mimeo.
Orr and Poulter . 1964. Northward movement of the California sea otter.

California Fish and Game, 50(2): 122-124.

250

FLORIDA PANTHER Felis concolor coryi (Bangs)

Order: CARNIVORA Family: FELIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Large (total length up to 7 feet), long-tailed, unspotted
cat; upper parts — pale brown, under parts — dull white; tail tip, back of ears, and sides
of nose--dark brown or blackish.

Present distribution: Collier, Lee, Levy, Hendry, and Monroe Counties, Florida. One
killed (1968) for depredating stock in Citrus County. Sightings recorded in Leon County,
1969; Wakulla County, 1969; and Palm Beach County outside Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge on several occasions in 1969. One of the latter sightings was killed. Transient
animals sighted at Chassahowitzka, Ding Darling, and Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuges in 1969. One killed in Ocala National Forest, 1967. Sighted near Clermont,
Florida, 1968, and near Lake Talquin, southwest of Tallahassee, 1969. Regularly
reported by tourists and Park Service personnel in the Everglades National Park.

Significant new recordings of northern range from northwest Florida; one adult seen by
Pat Quinn, zoologist, on Perdido River, the common border of Florida and Alabama, 25
miles north of Pensacola. Larry Johnson of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission observed two panthers cross the road at the Yellow River, 5 miles due east
of Highway 85, south of Crestview, Florida, Santa Rosa County, in 1969. Additional
sightings at Eglin Air Force Base and Cory Field Naval Training Base in northwestern
Florida. These areas consist of large, unmolested habitats which support large popu-
lations of deer . The most northernly recent sightings of panthers in Georgia were made
by qualified observers from University of Georgia on three different occasions .
Dr . Ernie Provost of University of Georgia ascribes spread of panthers into Georgia to
an increased deer population.

Former distribution: Eastern Texas or western Louisiana, and Lower Mississippi River
Valley east throughout the Southeastern United States .

Status: Seriously depleted, although population appears stable since 1966, when first
protected by law in Florida .

Estimated numbers: 150 to 300.

Breeding rate in the wild: Unknown .

Reasons for decline: Heavy trapping and hunting pressure; loss of prey and habitat
for this wilderness species .

Protective measures already taken: Fully protected by law in Florida. Additional
protection in national parks and wildlife refuges — Everglades, Loxahatchee, St. Marks,
etc .

Measures proposed: Locate existing populations , and if not on Government-controlled
land, purchase areas as refuges for panther. Purchase a few captive Florida panthers and
breed them for restocking former ranges taking care to maintain a genetically pure stock
in captivity. Conduct ecological studies of panther's habitat needs, food habits, spacing
and movements .

251

Number in captivity: Probably no more than 6 to 10 individuals in private zoos .

Breeding potential in captivity: Believed good.

Remarks : In 1969 two panthers were released from a roadside zoo into Everglades
National Park. Shortly thereafter they were killed in orchards near Homestead, Florida.
Species is widely distributed from Canada to South America and is not in danger of
extinction. Several other subspecies occur in the United States. Few population figures
available, but 1.100 to 1,200 estimated in Utah and 600 in California in 1970.

References:

Calahane, V. H. 1964. A preliminary study of distribution and numbers of

cougar, grizzly and wolf in North America. Published by New York Zoological

Society, Bronx, N.Y.
Eaton, R. L. 1970. Pilot-study on ecology of Florida panther . Unpubl . ms .
Smith, G. 1970. Mystery cat. Florida Wildlife .
Young, S. P., and E. A. Goldman. 1946. The puma, mysterious American cat.

Parts I and II. American Wildlife Institute, Wash. , D.C. pp. 358.

252

EASTERN COUGAR Felis concolor cougar (Kerr)

Order: CARNIVORA Family: FELIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A large, unspotted, long-tailed cat, with
coloration described as: "Body and legs a uniform fulvous or tawny hue. . .Ears
light colored within, blackish behind. . .Belly pale reddish or reddish-white. . .
Face sometimes with a uniform lighter tint than the general hue of the body. "
(De Kay, 1842). Goldman (Young and Goldman, 1946) says that it is similar to the
Florida cougar (F. c . coryi) but differs in cranial details . He also says that it is
similar to F\_ c_^ hippolestes of Wyoming , but is smaller , with skull differing in detail .

Present distribution: One specimen taken in New Brunswick in 1932; one taken in
Maine in 1938; one in Pennsylvania in 1967 (Wright, 1971). There is some question
as to whether the Pennsylvania specimen was an escapee from captivity . In addition
to the above, there have been hundreds of sightings reported from eastern Canada
to the Carolinas in recent years . Many of these sightings have been by reliable
observers (National Park rangers, zoologists, etc.) and have to be given credence.
On the basis of his analysis of these reports of sightings, Wright (1971) says:
" . , .the range of the supposedly extinct eastern panther runs across the Laurentians
from central Ontario to the Atlantic coast of Cape Breton Island, and between the
Mississippi and the Atlantic south to where it merges with the range of F\_ c_^ coryi. "

Former distribution: Eastern United States and Canada , as far north as Maine ,
southern Ontario and Quebec; inter grading to the southward with coryi (Young and
Goldman, 1946).

Status: Formerly regarded as extinct. Over the vast range where sightings now
indicate that the eastern panther may occur, Wright (1971) says: " . . .its numbers must
be the smallest fraction above the limit of survival and its gene pool must be the
smallest possible . "

Estimated numbers: No reliable estimates available . On the basis of sightings and
interviews, Cahalane (1964) indicated there may be about 25 eastern panthers in
New Brunswick.

Breeding rate in wild: According to Young and Goldman (1946), the gestation period
for the species is 96 days; number of young range from one to six, born at any time
of the year . Females breed once every two to three years . Nothing is known about
breeding in F\_ c_^ cougar , but presumably it does not differ from the species as a whole .

253

Reasons for decline: Hunted and trapped relentlessly as a "pest" species;
elimination of habitat through extensive deforestation; decline in numbers (until
comparatively recently) of primary prey species, the white-tailed deer.

Protective measures already taken: Protected by law in New Hampshire since 1967;
both North Carolina and Virginia passed laws in 1971 giving the panther complete
protection.

Measures proposed: Surveys should be conducted in areas with most reports of
sightings to ascertain if panthers actually do occur, and to make estimates of their
numbers and distribution . States not now offering protection to panthers should
be encouraged to do so.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Based on experience with other races of F .concolor ,
the breeding potential of F . c . cougar should be good .

References:

Cahalane, V. H. 1964. A preliminary study of distribution and numbers of

cougar, grizzly and wolf in North America. New York Zoological

Society, 12 pp .
De Kay, James E. 1842. Zoology of New York, or the New York fauna.

Albany, 146 pp.
Young, Stanley P., and Edward A. Goldman 1946. The puma, mysterious

American cat. American Wildlife Institute, 358 pp.
Wright, Bruce S. 1971. The recovery of the panther in eastern North America.

Paper presented at the International Symposium on the Ecology, Behavior

and Conservation of the World's Cats. Laguna Hills, California.

254

RIBBON SEAL Histriophoca fasciata (Zimmermann)

Order: PINNIPEDIA Family: PHOCIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Adults attain a length of up to 6 1/2 feet; coloration
of male — dark brown marked with well-defined yellowish-white band around the neck,
one around base of each forelimb, and one around rump; coloration of female--pale
grayish -yellow or grayish-brown, with whitish band across lower back.

Present distribution: In general, from Kurile Islands and Okhotsk Sea northward along
the coasts of Kamchatka and in the Bering Straits. Along the Alaska coast, from Point
Barrow to the Aleutian Islands .

Former distribution: Roughly the same .

Status: Small population.

Estimated numbers: No estimates .

Breeding rate in the wild: Young are born on the ice in March, April, and early May.
Females probably breed once every 2 years .

Reasons for decline: This species has apparently always existed in small numbers;
there probably has been no decline in recent years .

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: None at present.

Numbers in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

References:

Allen, G. M. 1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Western Hemisphere.

American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Spec. Publ . 11,

pp. 447-449.
Allen, J. S. 1880. History of North American pinnipeds; A monograph of the

walruses, sea lions, sea bears, and seals of North America. U.S. Dept.

of the Interior, U.S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories,

Misc. Publ. 12, pp. 676-682.
Brooks, J. W. 1963. Management and status of marine mammals in Alaska.

Trans. N. Amer. Wildl . &Nat. Res. Conf . , 28:314-326.
Kenyon, K. W., and V. B. Scheffer . 1955. The seals, sea lions, and sea otter

of the Pacific Coast; descriptions, life history notes, photographs, and

drawings. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 32, p. 23.
Scheffer, V. B. 1958. Seals, sea lions, and walruses. Stanford Univ. Press,

p. 103.

255

CARIBBEAN MONK SEAL Monachus tropicalis (Gray)

Order: PINNIPEDIA Family: PHOCIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Size to about 8 feet in total length; uniform brownish-
gray above; underparts pale yellow or yellowish white.

Present distribution: Not definitely known; two individuals were seen near Jamaica
in 1949, and it was known to occur in Jamaican waters as late as 1952. One was killed
in 1922 near Key West, Florida. Inhabited Seranilla Bank in the western Caribean
until at least 1952.

Former distribution: Shores and islands of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, from
Honduras eastward to Jamaica, Cuba, Florida Keys and the Bahamas. (Reports from
Texas are unauthenticated . )

Status: Either in extremely small numbers or extinct.

Estimated numbers: No estimate available .

Breeding rate in the wild: One pup , perhaps only in alternate years .

Reasons for decline: This seal is apparently sluggish, unsuspicious, and not easily
alarmed, allowing it to be readily approached and easily killed. It has been indis-
criminately slain since early Spanish days .

Protective measures already taken: None .

Measures proposed: A thorough aerial survey should be made of the Caribbean area to
determine if any still exist. If so, rigid international protective agreements should be
proposed . Establishment of a breeding colony at the Dry Tortugas (Fort Jefferson
National Monument) has been suggested .

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

Remarks: If not ailready extinct, this species is so decimated in numbers that there is
little hope for its continued survival .

References:

Allen, G. M. 1942. 452-455.

Burt, W. H. 1971. Antarctic Pinnipedia . Part of Antarctic Research Series ,

Vol. 18, Publ . by American Geophysical Union.
Elliot. 1904. 542-543.

Gilmore, R. 1959. Is the West Indian seal extinct? Sea Frontiers, 5(4): 225-236.
Gunter, G. 1947. Some records of the West Indian seal Monachus tropicalis

(Gray), from the Texas coast. Jour. Mamm., 28(3): 289-290.
Scheffer. 1958. 113-114.

256

HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL Monachus schauinslandi (Matschie)

Order: PINNIPEDIA Family: PHOCIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Similar to the Caribbean monk seal , but differs in several
cranial characters; coloration dark brown above, sides paler, and belly white or yellowish.
Female may attain a total length of about 7i feet and an estimated weight of 600 pounds;
males somewhat smaller .

Present distribution: Hawaiian archipelago, primarily the small northwestern islands
most of which lie within the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge . Observed
occasionally off main inhabited islands. Rare stragglers seen recently at Johnston Atoll.

Former distribution: The same except may not have occurred on Johnston.

Status: Not immediately threatened as long as national refuge remains inviolate from
unauthorized landings by fishermen and other mariners . Does not thrive on islands
where there is a human population. Beginning to reappear on Midway in very low
numbers where two decades ago it was common. Small population on Kure Atoll.
Predation by sharks , especially on weaned pups , may be limiting populations .

Estimated numbers: About 1 , 000 .

Breeding rate in the wild: Single pup per female probably in alternate years. Breeding
season, usually February through June. Solitary. Most important pupping areas are
on national refuge (French Frigate Shools, Laysan and Lisianski Islands and Pearl and
Hermes Reef) . Some at Kure and, a few at Midway.

Reasons for decline: Extreme exploitation in mid-19th century and almost exterminated.
Continual harassment at Midway in past.

Protective measures already taken: Establishment of Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife
Refuge in 1909. Increased patrol of refuge. Entry on refuge by permit only. Information
about prohibition of unauthorized entry included on official charts of archipelago and
U.S. Coast Pilot used by mariners. Protected by Federal and State law. Protected on
Kure and now by Navy at Midway. Life history research on refuge in progress. Publicity
on status of species and refuge .

Measures proposed: Continued stringent protection on refuge, Kure and Midway.
Continue research on refuge and publicity on status .

Number in captivity: One at Honolulu Aquarium.

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

257

References:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Administrative Reports.

Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Administrative Reports .

Kenyon, K. and D. W. Rice. 1959. "Life History of the Hawaiian Monk Seal,"

Pacific Science, July.
King, J. E. 1964. "The Monk Seal of the Pacific . " Zeitschs. Sauqetierk, 29(1): 37-42.
Rice, D. W. 1960. "Population dynamics of the Hawaiian Monk Seal," Jour. Mamm.,

41(3): 376-385.

258

GUADALUPE FUR SEAL Arctocephalus philippi townsendi (Merriam)

Order: PINNIPEDIA Family; OTARIIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small eared seal similar to the northern fur seal, but
snout long and pointed, described as "collie-like," and adult bulls much smaller.
Color — blackish- gray .

Present distribution: Guadalupe Island, Mexico, with occasional records from other
islands (one on San Nicolas Island, 1949; three at Cedros Island, 1965).

Former distribution: Islands off northern Baja California south to Cedros Island, the
Channel Islands of southern California, and perhaps on the Farallon Islands off
San Francisco .

Status: Occurs in small numbers; slowly increasing population in recent years.

Estimated numbers: About 1,000 individuals, January 1970; up from 600 in 1965.

Breeding rate in the wild: One pup per female per year .

Reasons for decline: No recent decline .

Protective measures already taken: Protected by the Mexican Government, although
permission to capture for zoos occasionally granted. Protected in general, like sea
lions, along California coast. Classed as rare and protected under California Fish and
Game Code .

Measures proposed: Acquisition and careful patrol by the Federal Government of islands
or parts of islands containing sea caves along the California coast .

Number in captivity: Three in San Diego Zoo and two in Mexico City Zoo during past
three years (1966) .

Breeding potential in captivity: None .

Remarks: This species was probably one of the least common mammals in North America.
For some years it was believed to be extinct. Sealing in the 1800's brought about its
great reduction in numbers .

References:

Bartholomew, G. A. , Jr. 1950. A male Guadalupe fur seal on San Nicolas Island,
California. Jour.Mamm., 31:175-180.

. 1952. Winter population of Pinnipedia about Guadalupe,
San Benito, and Cedros Islands, Baja California. Jour. Mamm . , 33:160-171.
Hubbs, C. L. 1956. The Guadalupe fur seal still lives. Zoonooz, 29, No. 12:6-9.
. 1956. Back from oblivion . Pacific Discovery , 9(6): 14-21.

259

Peterson, R. S., C. L. Hubbs , R. L. Gentry, and R . L. DeLong . 1968. The
Guadalupe fur seal; habitat, behavior, population size, and field identifi-
cation. Jour. Mamm. 49(4), pp. 665-675.

Rice, D. W., K. W. Kenyon, and D. B. Lluch. 1965. Pinniped populations at
Islas Guadalupe, San Benito, and Cedros, Baja California, in 1965. Trans,
of San Diego Society of Natural History, 14(7), pp. 73-84.

Scheffer, V. B. 1958. Seals, sea lions, and walruses . Stanford Univ. Press,
pp. 78-82.

260

FLORIDA MANATEE or FLORIDA SEA COW Trichechus manatus latirostris (Harlan)

Order: SIRENIA Family: TRICHECHIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Large (1,000 pounds) aquatic mammal, hindlimbs absent;
forelimbs modified as flippers; tail a rounded fluke.

Present distribution: Coastal areas of Florida; found along the edges of Everglades
National Park and at least occasionally throughout the Florida Keys . They persist
(in small numbers) in such heavily used boating areas of southeastern Florida as
Biscayne Bay, Miami River, and New River and occur northward as far as the St. Johns
River, Jacksonville.

Former distribution: Coastal waters and lagoons , North Carolina to southern Texas .

Status: Range greatly reduced.

Estimated numbers: No reliable estimate. According to Craig Phillips (personal
communication), the manatee may actually be more abundant than is believed at present,
due to the fact that it is one of the most difficult of all totally aquatic mammals to observe
in the wild. It is, however, considered herein to be of special concern because of the
lack of reliable estimates as to its numbers in Florida and because of its greatly reduced
range. Five manatees resident at the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge, 5 at the
J. N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge, and 15 at the Merritt Island National
Wildlife Refuge in 1969.

Breeding rate in the wild: A single calf per cow; no sure data as to gestation period
or frequency of breeding .

Reasons for decline: There is no evidence of recent decline (1966) . They declined in
the past for the following reasons: Hunting for flesh, oil, and skins; wanton slaughter
for "sport; " silting of coastal feeding grounds; freezing weather inducing pneumonia;
crocodiles and sharks, possibly taking a few very young animals; injuries received from
keels and propellers of powerboats .

Protective measures already taken: Legal protection throughout Florida. Everglades
National Park--the largest sanctuary for manatee in the country. Also occur at
Chassahowitzka, J. N. "Ding" Darling, and Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuges.

Measures proposed: Continue legal protection; establish sanctuary areas; impound
certain areas and experimentally stock.

Number in captivity: 1 animal at South Florida Museum, Bradenton, Fla.; 1 at Marineland,
St. Augustine, Fla.; 1 at Albany City Zoo, Albany, Ga.; 1 male and 1 female in Miami
Seaquarium (Pers . Comm . , 1971, USGMA Cole) . They have been successfully maintained
at a number of larger zoos .

Breeding potential in captivity: Unknown .

261

Remarks: The typical race (manatu ) persists in the West Indies and along the coasts
of central and northern South America . Recent discovery of its usefulness in controlling
aquatic vegetation in canals and irrigation ditches may encourage its protection.

References:

Allen, G. M. 1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Western Hemisphere.

American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Spec. Publ . 11,

pp. 538-547.
Anonymous. 1964. Manatee for weed control . Florida Wildlife, 18(3), pp. 29-30.
Beard, D. B. 1942. Fading trails: The story of endangered American wildlife.

Macmillan, N.Y., pp. 88-97.
Garfield, G. 1964. Nature's living herbicide . Outdoor America, 29(11): 9.
Matthiessen, P. 1959. Wildlife in America . Viking, N.Y ., pp. 40-41.
Moore, J. C. 1951. The status of the manatee in the Everglades National Park,

with notes on its natural history. Jour. Mamm . , 32(1): 22-36.
. 1951. The range of the Florida manatee. Quarterly Jour. Florida

Academy of Sciences . 14(1): 1-19.

. 1953. Distribution of marine mammals to Florida waters.

American Midland Naturalist, 49(1): 117-158 .
Palmer, R.S. 1954. The mammal guide; Mammals of North American north of
Mexico. Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y., pp. 323-325.

262

TULE ELK OR DWARF ELK Cervus nannodes (Merriam)

Order: ARTIODACTYLA Family: CERVIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Slightly smaller, paler, and with more narrow rump-
patch than Rocky Mountain elk.

Present distribution: Three major, well-separated populations in California. Two of
these--one in the Cache Creek area (Colusa, Lake, and Yolo Counties) and one in Owens
Valley (Inyo County)--are free-roaming. The third herd is fenced in the Tule Elk State
Park near Tupman (Kern County) . Five main herds in the Owens Valley.

Former distribution: Common prior to 1860 in nearly the entire San Joaquin and
Sacramento Valleys, California (Butte to Kern Counties); restricted to the Buttonwillow
Ranch, western Kern County, by 1905; total in 1932, 170.

Status: The herd in the Cache Creek area has remained fairly stable . The Owens Valley
population regularly increases beyond the capacity of its habitat.

Estimated numbers: In 1970, the California Fish and Game Department maintained the
Owens Valley herds at between 250 and 300 animals and about 140 in the Cache Creek
area, Yolo County. Game Department's (1971) policy set 490 elk for Inyo County's 5 herds.

Breeding rate in the wild: One (rarely two) calves per cow annually. Gestation
period approximately 250 days .

Reasons for decline: Hunted for meat and hides during Gold Rush of mid 1800's; total
population about 28 in 1885. Encroachment of civilization and cultivation have reduced
available range , and cattlemen and farmers claim competition with stock and damage to
crops and fences .

Protective measures already taken: Herds are carefully managed and protected from
indiscriminate hunting by State law. Establishment of Tule Elk State Park. Organization
of the Committee for the Preservation of the Tule Elk, dedicated to the protection of this
species. Livestock grazing on portion of Inyo National Forest used by Goodale segment
of Owens Valley herd restricted since 1965 . Five tule elk from Tupman herd transplanted
to Whitney area in January, 1972 to establish new herd. State law prohibits hunting tule
elk until numbers reach 2 , 000 . Inter-agency committee formed to evaluate proposed
transplant sites .

Measures proposed: The Committee for the Preservation of the Tule Elk is attempting
to set aside 240 square miles in Owens Valley (owned by the city of Los Angeles, but
leased to cattlemen) as a refuge . Initiate studies to determine the optimum numbers of
elk that a given habitat can support . Transplant planned for San Luis National Wildlife
Refuge in San Joaquin Valley.

Number in captivity: In semi-domestic state, in 1970, are 45 on the Tule Elk Reserve,
Kern County; California Fish and Game Department considers 32 optimum. In addition,
35 were in three American zoos and 2 in Germany in 1972.

263

Breeding potential in captivity: Good .

Remarks: Transplants to Sequoia National Park (1904), Yosemite Valley, and Monterey
County in California and to the Alvord Ranch, Harney County, Oregon, were abandoned
because of low calving percentages. Transplant to Owens Valley (1933) succeeded.
Today supplemental feeding of hay pellets is necessary on the Tule Elk Reserve, and
10 or 15 elk are shot yearly or given to zoological parks to guard against overpopulation;
since 1943, in the Owens Valley, legal hunting has cropped the surplus over 300,
regarded as the maximum the range can support. The Cache Creek herd, while low
in numbers, periodically causes depredation on several large ranches within its range.

References:

Allen, CM. 1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Western Hemisphere.

American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Spec. Publ. 11,

pp. 273-275.
Amaral. A. A. 1964. Struggle in Owens Valley . Amer. Forests, 70(8): 26-36,

53-55.
Forest Service , U . S . Department of Agriculture . 1966 . Wildlife habitat

management plan for the Inyo National Forest.
Hall, E. R. , and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America.

Ronald Press, N.Y., Vol. 2, p. 1003.
McCullough, D. R. 1971. The tule elk. Univ. of Calif . Press .
Rintoul, W. T. 1964. Last of the ghost herd. Westways, 56(1): 8-9 .

264

KEY DEER Odocoileus virginianus clavium (Barbour and Allen)

Order: ARTIODACTYLA Family: CERVIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Smallest of the white-tailed deer, under 110 pounds,
29 inches at shoulder, small antlers; color — pale.

Present distribution: Little Pine Key to Cudjoe Key, Monroe County, Florida.

Former distribution: Most of the southern Florida Keys; readily swims between them.

Status: Very small range and numbers of animals, but slowly increasing.

Estimated numbers: About 300 in 1964; about 600 in 1972 .

Breeding rate in the wild: 1 or 2 fawns per doe annually .

Reasons for decline: Development and occupation of islands by man; disastrous effects
of hurricanes and fires; overhunting with dogs and jacklights. About 9 per year killed
by motor vehicles (52 killed on highway during first 10 months of 1971) . Hunting has
now been effectively controlled; habitat destruction and road kills are the most critical
problems .

Protective measures already taken: National Key Deer Refuge (established in 1963)
consists of about 7,321 acres, of which 3,586 are federally owned and 3,735 were leased
as of November 1970. Land acquisition is essentially complete.

Measures proposed: Protection of habitat from fire or destruction. Continued legal
protection with patrols . Allow reliable individuals and zoos to obtain animals for
breeding in captivity .

Number in captivity: Unknown .

Breeding potential in captivity: Based on breeding results of other white-tailed deer
in captivity , the breeding potential of the Key deer should be very good .

Remarks: In 1949 population was down to about 30 deer. With present protection con-
tinued, the Key deer's survival seems promising.

References:

Allen, CM. 1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Western Hemisphere.

American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Spec. Publ . 11,

p. 288.
Klimstra, W. D., J. Hardin and N. Silva. 1969. Key Ddeer investigations. Annual

Report 1968-1969. Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois

University, Carbondale, Illinois. September 30, 1969.
Matthiessen, P. 1959. Wildlife in America . Viking , N .Y ., pp . 65-67 .
National Wildlife Federation. 1956. Our endangered wildlife, pp. 11-12.

265

COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED DEER Odocoileus virginianus leucurus (Douglas)

Order: ARTIODACTYLA Family: CERVIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A medium-size, white-tailed deer with small, erect
antlers and long tail.

Present distribution: Remnant populations in Columbia River lowlands and on islands
near Skamokawa, Washington, and Clatskanie, Oregon. A few left near Roseburg, Oregon;
believed to be genetically impure from inbreeding with the black-tailed deer .

Former distribution: All lower Columbia, Willamette, and Cowlitz River bottoms.
Status: Seriously depleted.

Estimated numbers: About 100 in Oregon along the Columbia River; about 150-200 in
Washington in 1971.

Breeding rate in the wild: Normal white-tail production .

Reasons for decline: Loss of habitat. Bottom lands being cleared for intensified
agriculture and industry.

Protective measures already taken: Areas in which Columbian white-tailed deer occur,
along Columbia River, closed to deer hunting in 1970-71 by States of Washington and
Oregon. National Wildlife Refuge established in 1972 in key habitat along Columbian River
for the purpose of preserving and restoring habitat.

Measures proposed: Complete acquisition of lands for the National Wildlife Refuge described
above. Determine if reintroduction of the deer to selected formerly occupied habitats
is feasible, and if so proceed with it.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Possible .

Remarks: The Columbian white-tailed deer has been isolated from other races of white-
tailed deer by both its geographical range and special habitat adaptions . It is now
jeopardized by habitat destruction. Its future is in jeopardy throughout its limited range.

References:

Cowan, I. 1936. Distribution and variation in deer of the Pacific Coastal Region

of North America . Calif. Fish and Game, Vol. 22, No. 3.
Scheffer, V. B. 1940. A newly located herd of Pacific white-tailed deer. Jour.

Mamm. , Vol. 21, No. 3.
See Lewis and Clark's Journals for early distribution of this deer.

266

SONORAN PRONGHORN Antilocapra americana sonoriensis (Goldman)

Order: ARTIODACTYLA Family: ANTILOCAPRIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small, pale pronghorn, similar to the Mexican
pronghorn (A . a . mexicana) , but considerably smaller and differing in cranial details .
Smaller and paler than either A . a . americana and A . a . peninsularis .

Present distribution: Found in the United States only in a limited portion of the Cabeza
Prieta Game Range and the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Present
Mexican range is unknown, but believed to be confined to northwest Sonora from about
100 miles northwest of Hermosillo north to the Pinacate region.

Former distribution: Desert plains of central western Sonora and north to southern
Arizona .

Status: Reduced in range and numbers; possibly holding its own in Arizona, but
probably rapidly decreasing in Sonora.

Estimated numbers: In 1968, about 60 on the Cabeza Prieta Game Range and 15 on
Organ Pipe Cactus Monument. According to Bernardo Villa R. , following a survey in
1957, about 1,000 were then left in Mexico.

Breeding rate in the wild: Usually 1 kid per doe annually; sometimes 2.

Reasons for decline: Competition from domestic cattle and horses . Overshooting and
poaching, especially in Mexico in recent years. Predation on its reduced numbers.

Protective measures already taken: Establishment of Cabeza Prieta Game Range and
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Mexican Government is taking protective
measures .

Measures proposed: Establishment of an international game range . Research into the
animal's ecologic needs.

Number in captivity: None .

Breeding potential in captivity: Probably fair .

Remarks: Small numbers on American side are dependent for survival on the existence
of a larger nucleus on the Mexican side; in some years, none are found on the American
side. This makes it a mammal of international interest, and its management must depend
on international cooperation .

References:

Narrative reports of the Cabeza Prieta Game Range (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and

Wildlife files), 1939— present .
Goldman, E. A. 1945. A new pronghorn antelope from Sonora. Proc . Biol. Soc . ,

Washington, Vol. 58, p. 3.
Villa R . , Bernardo . 1958 . Informal report on studies of bighorns and antelope

in northern Mexico . Institute de Biologia, Mexico, D.F.

267

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN Ovis canadensis californiana (Douglas)

Order: ARTIODACTYLA Family: BOVIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: Similar in size to the Rocky Mountain bighorn
(Ovis c. canadensis) but differs in being somewhat darker in coloration and in having
the horns smaller and more slender, the tips not usually being blunted as severely as
in canadensis .

Present distribution: In the United States, free roaming populations apparently confined
to eastern Oregon and the high Sierra Nevada of California . The maincrest of the mountains
and lateral ridges running west are occupied in the summer months and the lower east-
facing slopes during the winter. In Canada, there are herds in southern British Columbia,
some of which may migrate into Washington during the summer.

Former distribution: From Chilcotin River, British Columbia, south through Cascades
of Washington and Oregon and Sierra Nevada of California to vicinity of Mount Whitney;
and western Nevada south probably to Mineral County .

Status: Jones (1950) concluded that the trend in population in the Sierra Nevada was
upward. Declared rare by California Fish and Game Commission.

Estimated numbers; Less than 200 in California; 1,200 in British Columbia (Buechner,
1960: 73); 250 in Oregon; 18 in Nevada.

Breeding rate in the wild: One (occas . 2) lambs per ewe annually.

Reasons for decline: Indiscriminate hunting and scabies , presumably contracted from
domestic sheep, were evidently the principal causes for decline. Possibly direct
competition with domestic livestock for adequate range predisposed the bighorn sheep
population to disease .

Protective measures already taken: The California bighorn is fully protected by State
law in California. In addition, an effort is underway to establish permanent natural
populations of the subspecies in Washington with animals imported from British Columbia.
Transplants to Hart Mountain Antelope Refuge and Steens Mountain, Oregon successful.
Transplants to Sheldon Antelope Range, Nevada, and to Lava Beds National Monument,
California recently made. In key bighorn sheep areas in California the U.S. Forest Service
and National Park Service have restricted human use. In Sierra Nevada Range a 41,000
acre zoological area to protect two herds established on Inyo National Forest.

Measures proposed: Continue efforts to introduce animals into areas from which they
were extirpated; attempt to improve forage conditions through reduction of competing
domestic livestock, elk, and deer.

Number in captivity: Not known. Total of 30 in enclosures at Lava Beds National
Monument and Sheldon Antelope Range .

268

Breeding potential in captivity: Good .

References:

Buechner, H. K. 1960. The bighorn sheep in the United States. Wildlife

Monogr. No. 4:1-174.
Dunaway, D. S. 1971. Bighorn sheep habitat management on Inyo National Forest,

a new approach. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions, Vol. 15, p. 18-23.
. 1971 . Human disturbance as a limiting factor of Sierra Nevada

bighorn sheep. Transactions North American Wildsheep Conference, Vol 1,

p. 165-173.
Jones, F. L. 1950. A survey of the Sierra Nevada bighorn. Sierra Club

Bulletin, 35(6): 29-76.
Jorgensen, P. D. and D. B. Schaup . 1972. California bighorn sheep survey —

Mt. Langley Herd Unit. Dept. of Fish and Game Report. Mimo.
Leach, H. R. and L. O. Fisk. 1972. At the crossroads — A report on California's

Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife. Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game.
Weaver, R. A. 1972. California bighorn in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range.

Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game, Wildlife Management Administrative Report No. 72-7.
. 1972. Conclusion of bighorn investigations in California. Desert

Bighorn Council Transactions Vol. 16, inprint.
Welles, R. E. and F. B. 1961. The bighorn of Death Valley . Fauna Series No. 6,

Fauna of the National Parks of the United States .

269

PENINSULAR BIGHORN Ovis canadensis cremnobates (Elliot)

Order: ARTIODACTYLA Family: BOVIDAE

Distinguishing characteristics: A small, desert-inhabiting, bighorn sheep, similar to the
Nelson bighorn, but even paler in coloration; horns in males, and over-all size of males
and females, larger than Nelson bighorn.

Present distribution: Santa Rosa Mountains and other parts of extreme southern California ,
south into northern Baja California, Mexico.

Former distribution: Same .

Status: Buechner (I960: 64) says that the race seems secure in the mountains of southwestern
California, including the Santa Rosa Mountains. However, it is now known some habitat in
private ownership may be developed as home sites.

Estimated numbers: 971 estimated by California Department of Fish and Game in 1971 .

Breeding rate in the wild: One (occasionally 2) lambs per ewe annually. Lamb mortality
is around 90 percent.

Reasons for decline: Heavy hunting pressure, particularly in Baja California despite the
decree of total closed season that has existed there for over 40 years, plus drought.

Protective measures already taken: Taking and possession prohibited by California law
in Baja California.

Measures proposed: Strict enforcement of game laws in Baja California to reduce poaching
pressure. Buechner (1960: 64) states: "The entire peninsula area ought to be studied
carefully to determine the distribution of bighorn sheep and the magnitude of the poaching
problem before herds become further decimated as human populations increase . "

Number in captivity: Unknown . One male at University of California at Riverside Deep
Canyon Research Center.

Breeding potential in captivity: Good.

Remarks: This subspecies intergrades with the desert bighorn, Ovis c . nelsoni, in extreme
southern California, and it is often impossible to assign individual specimens from that area
to either subspecies.

References:

Buechner, H. K. 1960. The bighorn sheep in the United States. Wildlife Monogr.

No. 4:1-174.
Menez, A. Z. 1961. Present conditions of the bighorn mountain sheep in the State
of Baja California, Mexico. Fifth Annual Meeting, Desert Bighorn Council,
April 4-7, 1961, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico, pp. 13-16.

270

Russo, J. P. 1960. The desert bighorn sheep in Arizona. Wildlife Bull. No. 1,

Ariz. Game & Fish Dept. , 153 pp.
Wauer, R. H. 1964. The unpredictable Nelson bighorn. National Parks Mag.,

38:10-11.
Weaver, R. A. 1972. Conclusion of bighorn investigations in California. Desert

Bighorn Council Transactions , Vol. 16.
and J. L. Mensch . 1970. Bighorn study in Southern Riverside

County. Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, Wildlife Management Administrative

Report No. 70-5.
, J. L. Mensch and W. V. Felt. 1968. A survey of desert bighorn

in San Diego County. Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game Office Report.

271

PERIPHERAL MAMMALS

A peripheral species or subspecies is one whose occurrence in the United States is at the
edge of its natural range and which is threatened with extinction within the United States
although not in its range as a whole. Special attention is necessary to assure retention
in our Nation's fauna.

Coatimundi or Chula, Nasua narica molaris

Southern Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Subject to epidemics and periodic
fluctuations in population.

Jaguar, Felis onca veraecrucis

Eastern and southeastern Mexico north to central Texas.

Jaguarundi , Felis yagouaroundi cacomitli

Tampico, Tamaulipas, Mexico, north to extreme southern Texas. Reported
seen at Piatt National Park in Oklahoma.

Ocelot, Felis pardalis albescens

Northeastern Mexico into northern Texas.

Margay, Felis wiedii cooperi

Northeastern Mexico into southeastern Texas .

Woodland caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou

Northern Great Lakes States to Hudson Bay, Canada.

Mountain caribou, Rangifer tarandus montanus

Pacific Northwest, United States, to British Columbia, Canada. A transient
group of 25 to 100 in extreme northern Idaho and Washington.

272

STATUS-UNDETERMINED MAMMALS

A status-undetermined species or subspecies is one that has been suggested as possibly
threatened with extinction, but about which there is not enough information to determine
its status. More information is needed.

Arizona prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus arizonensis (Mearns)

Southeastern Arizona, southern and central New Mexico, southwestern Texas.

Chiricahua squirrel, Sciurus nayaritensis chiricahuae (Goldman)
Chiricahua Mountains of southeast Arizona.

Apache fox squirrel, Sciurus nayaritensis

Chiricahua Mountains of southeast Arizona and adjacent areas in Mexico.

Eastern fox squirrel , Sciurus niger vulpinus

Southern Pennsylvania, eastern West Virginia, northern Virginia, and
Maryland exclusive of the Eastern Shore .

Texas kangaroo rat, Dipodomys elator

North-central Texas and southwestern Oklahoma.

Big-eared kangaroo rat, Dipodomys elephantinus
Central California .

Guadalupe mountain vole, Microtus mexicanus guadalupensis

El Paso County, Texas, and Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico.

Louisiana vole, Microtus ludovicianus

Southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana.

Florida water rat or round-tailed muskrat, Neofiber alleni

Bogs and marshes of Florida and extreme southern Georgia.

Northern swift fox, Vulpes velox hebes

North Dakota, South Dakota, eastern Montana, Wyoming, and adjacent areas
in Canada. One taken in North Dakota in 1970--first since 1915.

Polar bear , Thalarctos maritimus

Circumpolar; in Western Hemisphere, northern Alaska, Canada, and Greenland.
International research program is underway to determine status.

Pine marten, Martes americana

Alaska and Northern United States , south in mountains to central California and
northern New Mexico. Reintroduced in Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire.
Protected by law in Michigan.

Sierra red fox, Vulpes fulva necator

Sierra Nevada Mountains, California.

273

Fisher, Martes pennanti

Northern United States. Reintroduced in Idaho, Oregon, Michigan, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin. Increasing in recent years in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
northern New York . Protected by law in Michigan and Washington .

Everglades mink, Mustela vison evergladensis

Mangrove and cypress swamps of Florid Everglades and the Ten Thousand Islands .

Wolverine, Gulo luscus

Alaska and northern United States, south in mountains to central California,
Utah, and Colorado. Rare in Idaho. Completely protected in California,
Colorado, and Washington . Increasing in Washington.

Canada lynx. Lynx canadensis

Alaska, Canada, and Northern States. Rare in Idaho; making a comeback in
northern Michigan; protected in Wisconsin and Michigan; still carries a $20
bounty in New Hampshire. About 300 in Washington. About 10 taken per
year by trappers in Washington.

Elephant seal , Mirounga angustirostris

Alaska southward to Baja California, Mexico; breeding from Ano Nuevo Island,
California , southward .

274

Appendix A
Office of Endangered Species and International Activities and Regional addresses,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Pertinent Addresses--The conservation of Endangered Species requires a high degree
of cooperation and communication between interested persons and agencies . Moving
the right information to the right person at the right time may be all that is needed to
prevent the loss of an endangered species or to keep an animal from becoming
endangered. The following is provided to facilitate the flow of such information.

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife — This unit of the U.S. Department
of the Interior has been delegated the responsibility for coordinating national
efforts on behalf of Endangered Species.

Washington, D.C .--Inquiries should be addressed to:

Office of Endangered Species and International Activities
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Telephone: 202/343-5687

Regional- -The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife is comprised of
six Regional Offices and an Alaska Area Office.

Each of these offices has a senior official who has been designated as a
Regional Endangered Species Coordinator. Problems of a local or
regional nature should be referred to these offices .

275

1. Alaska Area Director

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
813 D Street

Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: 907/265-4864

1. Regional Director

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
1500 Northeast Irving Avenue
P.O. Box 3737
Portland, Oregon 97208
Telephone: 503/234-3361

2. Regional Director

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Federal Building
U.S. Post Office and Courthouse
500 Gold Avenue, S.W.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
Telephone: 505/843-2321

3. Regional Director

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Federal Building, Fort Snelling
Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
Telephone: 612/725-3500

4. Regional Director

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Peachtree-Seventh Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
Telephone: 404/526-5100

5 . Regional Director

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
U.S. Post Office and Courthouse
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Telephone: 617/223-2961

6. Regional Director

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
10597 West Sixth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80215
Telephone: 303/234-2209

The geographic area covered by each region is outlined on the

following map .

276

277

Appendix B
State Conservation Agency addresses; list of native endangered species by States.
The various State natural resource agencies play a vital role in the conservation of
endangered species . Problems of a local or State nature should be referred to these
agencies .

STATE FISH AND GAME ADDRESSES

Commissioner

Department of Conservation

and Natural Resources
64 North Union Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
(A.C. 205-269-7221)

Commissioner

Department of Fish and Game

Subport Building

Juneau, Alaska 99801

(A.C. 907- 586-3392)

Director

Game and Fish Department
2222 West Greenway Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85023
(A.C. 602-942-3000)

Director

Game and Fish Commission
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(A.C. 501-371-1145)

Director

Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
(A.C. 916-445-3531)

Director,

Division of Game, Fish and Parks

6060 Broadway

Denver, Colorado 80216

(A.C. 303-825-3356)

Director

Board of Fisheries and Game
State Office Building
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
(A.C. 203-566-3356)

Secretary

Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Control
P.O. Box 457
Dover, Delaware 19901
(A.C. 302-678-4403)

Director

Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

Trinity-Washington Bldg. , 7th Floor

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

(A.C. 404-656-3500)

Director

Division of Fish and Game

Department of Land and Natural Resources

530 South Hotel Street

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

(A.C. 808-548-4000)

Director

Fish and Game Department

600 South Walnut Street

P.O. Box 25

Boise, Idaho 83707

(A.C. 208-344-8471)

Director

Department of Conservation

State Office Building

400 South Spring Street

Springfield, Illinois 62706

(A.C. 217-525-6302)

278

Director

Department of Natural Resources
608 State Office Building
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(A.C. 317-633-6344)

Director

Department of Natural Resources
Stevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, Michigan 48926
(A.C. 517-373-1220)

Director

State Conservation Commission

State Office Building

300 - 4th Street

Des Moines, Iowa 50319

(A.C. 515-281-5384)

Commissioner

Department of Natural Resources

Centennial Office Building

658 Cedar Street

St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

(A.C. 612-221-2549)

Director

Forestry, Fish and Game Commission

Box F

Pratt, Kansas 67124

(A.C. 316-472-4474)

Commissioner

Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

State Office Building Annex

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

(A.C. 502-564-3400)

Director

Wild Life and Fisheries Commission

400 Royal Street

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

(A.C. 504-527-5126)

Commissioner

Department of Inland Fisheries and Game

State Office Building

Augusta, Maine 04330

(A.C. 207-289-3371)

Director

Fish and Wildlife Administration

State Office Building

P.O. Box 231

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

(A.C. 301-267-5033)

Executive Director

Game and Fish Commission

Game and Fish Building

402 High Street

Jackson, Mississippi 39205

(A.C. 601-354-7333)

Director

Department of Conservation

P.O. Box 180

Jefferson City , Missouri 65101

(A.C. 314-893-2626)

Director

Department of Fish and Game

Mitchell Building

Helena, Montana 59601

(A.C. 406-449-3186)

Director

Game and Parks Commission
State Capitol Building
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
(A.C. 402-434-0641)

Director

Department of Fish and Game

Box 10678

Reno, Nevada 89510

(A.C. 702-784-6214)

Director

Division of Fisheries and Game
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
(A.C. 617-727-3151)

Director

Fish and Game Department

34 Bridge Street

Concord, New Hampshire 03301

(A.C. 603-271-3421)

279

Director

Division of Fish, and Game, and

Shellfisheries
Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 1809

Labor and Industry Building
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(A.C. 609-292-2965)

Director

Department of Game and Fish

State Capitol

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

(A.C. 505-827-2651)

Director

Division of Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Department Building

State Office Building Campus

50 Wolf Road

Albany, New York 12201

(A.C. 518-457-5690)

Commissioner

Department of Environmental Conservation

Conservation Department Building

State Office Building Campus

50 Wolf Road

Albany, New York 12201

(A.C. 919-829-3391)

Executive Director

Wildlife Resources Commission

P.O. Box 2919

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

(A.C. 919-829-3391)

Director

Department of Wildlife Conservation

P.O. Box 53465

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

(A.C. 405-521-3851)

Director

State Game Commission

P.O. Box 3503

Portland, Oregon 97208 '

(A.C. 503-229-5407)

Executive Director

Fish Commission

P.O. Box 1673

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

(A.C. 717-787-6593)

Executive Director

Game Commission

P.O. Box 1567

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

(A.C. 717-787-3633)

Director

Department of Natural Resources

83 Park Street

Providence, Rhode Island 02903

(A.C. 401-277-2773)

Director

Division of Game and Freshwater Fisheries

1015 Main Street

P.O. Box 167

Columbia, South Carolina 29202

(A.C. 803-758-2561)

Commissioner

State Game and Fish Department
2121 Lovett Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
(A.C. 701-224-2180)

Director

Department of Game, Fish and Parks

State Office Building

Pierre, South Dakota 57501

(A.C. 605-224-3387)

Director

Department of Natural Resources

907 Ohio Departments Building

Columbus, Ohio 43215

(A.C. 614-469-3770)

Director

Game and Fish Commission

P.O. Box 40747

Ellington Building, Agricultural Center

Nashville, Tennessee 37220

(A.C. 615-741-1431)

280

Executive Director

Parks and Wildlife Department

Reagan State Building

Austin Texas 78701

(A.C. 5 2-475-2087)

Secretary

Department of Agriculture

Box 10163, Santuce

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908

(722-2120)

Director

Fish and Game Division
1596 West North Temple
Salt Lake City. Utah 84116
(A.C. 801-328-5081)

Commissioner

Department of Conservation and Cultural

Affairs
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801

Commissioner
Fish and Game Department
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
(A.C. 802-223-2311 x-477)

Executive Director

Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries

4010 West Broad Street

P.O. Box 11104

Richmond, Virginia 23230

(A.C. 703-770-4974)

Governor of Guam
Agana, Guam 96910

Governor of American Samoa
Pago Pago, Tutuila
American Samoa 96920

Director

Department of Game
699 North Capitol Way
Olympia, Washington 98501
(A.C. 206-753-5700)

Director

Department of Natural Resources
State Office Building No . 3
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
(A.C. 304-348-2754)

Secretary

Department of Natural Resources

Box 450

Madison, Wisconsin 53701

(A.C. 608-266-2121)

Commissioner

Game and Fish Commission

Box 1589

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

(A.C. 307-777-7631)

281

Appendix B (continued)
Partial Listing by State or Territory of Endangered Wildlife in the United States .

State-Territory

Common Names

Alabama Watercress darter

American alligator

* Southern bald eagle

* Bachman's warbler
Florida panther

Alaska Aleutian Canada goose

^American peregrine falcon

* Arctic peregrine falcon

Arizona Arizona (Apache) trout

Humpback chub
Colorado squawfish
Mexican duck
Southern bald eagle
American peregrine falcon
Masked bobwhite
Yuma clapper rail
Sonoran pronghorn antelope

Arkansas Southern bald eagle

American alligator

California Lahontan cutthroat trout

Paiute cutthroat trout
Tecopa pupfish
Owens pupfish

Unarmored threespine stickleback
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
San Francisco garter snake
Santa Cruz long-toed salamander
California brown pelican
Aleutian Canada goose
California condor
Southern bald eagle

* Migratory species whose ranges are not fully given by State; refer to individual
species data sheets for the Southern bald eagle, American peregrine falcon, Arctic
peregrine falcon. Whooping crane, Eskimo curlew, Bachman's warbler, Kirtland's
warbler and Indiana bat.

282

American peregrine falcon
Yuma clapper rail
California clapper rail
Light-footed clapper rail
California least tern
Morro Bay kangaroo rat
Salt-Marsh harvest mouse
San Joaquin kit fox

Colorado

Greenback cutthroat trout
Colorado squawfish
American peregrine falcon
Black-footed ferret

Delaware
Florida

Southern bald eagle

Shortnose sturgeon
Eastern brown pelican
Florida Everglade kite
Southern bald eagle
Dusky seaside sparrow
Cape Sable sparrow
Florida panther
Florida manatee
Key deer

Georgia

American alligator
Eastern brown pelican
Southern bald eagle
Florida panther

Great Lakes area

Hawaii

Longjaw cisco
Blue pike

Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel (uau)

Hawaiian goose (nene)

Laysan duck

Hawaiian duck (koloa)

Hawaiian hawk (io)

Hawaiian gallinule (alae ula)

Hawaiian coot (alae keokeo)

Hawaiian stilt (aeo)

Hawaiian crow (alala)

Small Kauai thrush (puaiohi)

Large Kauai thrush (kauai omao)

Molokai thrush (olomau)

Nihoa millerbird

Kauai oo (oo aa)

Crested honeycreeper (akohekohe)

Akiapolaau

283

Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky

Kauai akialoa

Kauai nukupuu

Maui nukupuu

Hawaii akepa (akepa)

Maui akepa (akepuie)

Oahu creeper (alauwahio)

Molokai creeper (kakawahie)

Maui parrotbill

Ou

Laysan finch

Nihoa finch

Palila

Hawaiian hoary bat

American peregrine falcon

*Indiana bat

Indiana bat

Indiana bat

Louisiana

Maryland

Michigan

American alligator

Southern bald eagle

American ivory-billed woodpecker

Maryland darter

Southern bald eagle

Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel

*Kirtland's warbler
Eastern timber wolf

Minnesota
Mississippi

Missouri
Montana

Eastern timber wolf

American alligator
Southern bald eagle

Indiana bat

American peregrine falcon
Black-footed ferret

Nebraska
Nevada

Black-footed ferret

Lahontan cutthroat trout

Pahranagat bonytail

Moapa dace

Cui-ui

Devil's Hole pupfish

284

New Jersey

Warm Spring pupfish
Pahrump killifish
American peregrine falcon

Southern bald eagle
* Eskimo curlew

New Mexico

New York
North Carolina

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Gila trout
Mexican duck
Southern bald eagle
American peregrine falcon

Shortnose sturgeon

American alligator
Eastern brown pelican
Southern bald eagle

Black-footed ferret

American alligator

California brown pelican
Aleutian Canada goose
American peregrine falcon
Columbia white-tailed deer

South Carolina

American alligator

Eastern brown pelican

Southern bald eagle

Eskimo curlew

American ivory-billed woodpecker

Bachman's warbler

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Black-footed ferret

Southern bald eagle

Comanche Springs pupfish
Clear Creek gambusia
Pecos gambusia
Fountain darter
American alligator
Texas blind salamander
Houston toad
Eastern brown pelican
Mexican duck
Southern bald eagle
Attwater's prairie chicken
* Whooping crane

285

Eskimo curlew

American ivory-billed woodpecker

Red wolf

Black-footed ferret

Utah

Virginia
Washington

Humpback chub
Woundfin

Colorado squawfish
American peregrine falcon

Southern bald eagle
Bachman's warbler

Aleutian Canada goose
American peregrine falcon
Columbian white-tailed deer

Wisconsin
Wyoming

Eastern timber wolf

Humpback chub
Kendall Warm Springs dace
American peregrine falcon
Black-footed ferret

Puerto Rico

Virgin Islands

Puerto Rican boa

Puerto Rican plain pigeon

Puerto Rican parrot

Puerto Rican boa

286

APPENDIX C

The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (83 Stat 275) provides authority
for the Federal Government's endangered species conservation program.

Among othei- things , this Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish in the
Federal Register and periodically to modify lists of species or subspecies of vertebrates,
mollusks or crustaceans he has determined to be threatened with extinction . Two such
lists are maintained: The List of Endangered Foreign Fish and Wildlife, which names
animals threatened with worldwide extinction; and the List of Endangered Native Fish
and Wildlife, which names those threatened with extinction within the territory of the
United States .

The current version of this second list is set forth below and includes all revisions thru
those published in the June 4, 1973 issue of the Federal Register (Vol. 38, No. 106) .
Further modification will be made at irregular intervals as warranted by changes in the
status of the various species or other factors . Persons who need to know the status of
this list at any given time should contact the Office of Endangered Species and Internation
Activities, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C., 20240.

These pages supercede and replace pages 287 thru 289 of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife's Resource Publication #114, Threatened Wildlife of the United States , dated
March 1973. Of the animals discussed in this publication, only those named below or
those subsequently added to this list by publication of their names in the Federal Registei
are considered to be "endangered" as provided for by the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969 .

Common Name

Scientific Name

Page

FISHES

Bonytail, Pahranagat
Chub, humpback
Chub , Mohave
Cisco, long jaw
Cui-ui

Dace, Kendall Warm Springs
Dace , Moapa
Darter, fountain
Darter , Maryland
*Darter, Okaloosa

Gila robusta jordani
Gila cypha

Siphateles mohavensis
Coregonus alpenae
Chasmistes cujus
Rhinichthys osculus thermalis
Moapa coriacea
Etheostoma fonticola
Etheostoma sellare
Etheostoma okaloosae

30

29

31

9

39
36
33
58
63
61

♦Added to the United States List of Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife, Federal
Register , Vol. 38, No. 106--Monday, June 4, 1973.

k

287
(Revised July 27, 1973)

Darter, watercress

Gambusia, Big Bend

Gambusia, Clear Creek

Gambusia, Pecos

Killifish, Pahrump

Pike, blue

Pupfish, Comanche Springs

Pupfish, Devil's Hole

Pupfish, Owens River

Pupfish, Tecopa

Pupfish, Warm Springs

Squawfish , Colorado River

Stickleback, unarmored threespine

Sturgeon, shortnose

Topminnow , Gila

Trout, Arizona (Apache)

Trout, Gila

Trout, greenback cutthroat

Trout, Lahontan cutthroat

Trout, Paiute cutthroat

Woundfin

Etheostoma nuchale

Gambusia gaigei

Gambusia heterochir

Gambusia nobolis

Empetrichythys latos

Stizostedion vitreum glaucum

Cyprinodon elegans

Cyprinodon diabolis

Cyprinodon radiosus

Cyprinodon nevadensis calidae

Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis

Ptychocheilus lucius

Gasterosterus aculeatus williamsoni

Acipenser brevirostrum

Poeciliopsis occidentalis

Salmo sp .

Salmo gilae

Salmo clarki stomias

Salmo clarki henshawi

Salmo clarki seleniris

Plagopherus argentissimus

60
48
49
50
47
66
42
41
46
43
45
35
53
6

52
24
23
19
16
18
34

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Alligator, American
Boa, Puerto Rican
Lizard, blunt-nosed leopard
*Salamander, desert slender
Salamander, Santa Cruz long-toed
Salamander, Texas blind
Snake , San Francisco garter
Toad, Houston

Alligator mississippiensis
Epicrates inornatus
Crotaphytus silus
Batrachoseps aridus
Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum
Typhlomolge rathbuni
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia
Bufo houstonensis

88

96

94

75

74 I

81

97

85

BIRDS

Akepa, Hawaii (akepa)
Akepa, Maui (akepuie)
Akialoa, Kauai
Akiapolaau
Bobwhite, masked
Condor, California
Coot, Hawaiian
*Crane, Mississippi sandhill

Loxops coccinea coccinea
Loxops coccinea ochraceu
Hemignathus procerus
Hemignathus wilsoni
Colinus virginianus ridgwayi
Gymnogyps californianus
Fulica americana alai
Grus canadensis pulla

184
185
179
183
136
118
148
141

*Added to the United States List of Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife, Federal
Register , Vol. 38, No. 106--Monday, June 4, 1973.

288

Crane, whooping
Crow, Hawaiian (alala)
Creeper, Molakai (kakawahie)
Creeper , Oahu (alauwahio)
Curlew, Eskimo
Duck, Hawaiian (koloa)
Duck, Laysan
Duck, Mexican
Eagle , Southern bald
Falcon, American peregrine
Fcilcon, Arctic peregrine
Finches, Laysan and Nihoa
Gallinule, Hawaiian
Goose , Aleutian Canada
Goose, Hawaiian (nene)

Hawk, Hawaiian (io)

Kite, Florida Everglade (snail kite)

Honeycreeper, crested (akohekohe)

Millerbird, Nihoa

Nukupuus , Kauai and Maui

Oo , Kauai (oo aa)

Ou

Palila

Parrot, Puerto Rican

Parrotbill, Maui

Pelican, brown

Petrel, Hawaiian dark-rumped

Pigeon , Puerto Rican plain

Prairie Chicken, Attwater's greater

Rail, California clapper

Rail, light-footed clapper

Rail, Yuma clapper

Sparrow, Cape Sable

Sparrow, dusky seaside

*Sparrow , Santa Barbara song
Stilt, Hawaiian

Tern, California least
Thrush, large Kauai
Thrush, Molokai (olomau)
Thrush, small Kauai (puaiohi)
Warbler, Bachman's
Warbler, Kirtland's

*Whip-poor-will , Puerto Rican
Woodpecker , ivory-billed
Woodpecker , red-cockaded

Grus americana

Corvus tropicus

Loxops maculata flammea

Loxops maculata maculata

Numenius borealis

Anas wyvilliana

Anas laysanensis

Anas diazi *

Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus

Falco peregrinus anatum

Falco peregrinus tundrius

Psittirostra cantans

Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis

Branta canadensis leucopareia

Branta sandvicensis

Buteo solitarius

Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus

Palmeria dolei

Acrocephalus kingi

Hemignathus lucidus

Moho braccatus

Psittirostra psittacea

Psittirostra bailleui

Amazona vittata

Pseudonestor xanthorphrys

Pelecanus occidentalis

Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis

Columba inornata wetmorei

Tympanuchus cupido attwateri

Rallus longirostris obsoletus

Rallus longirostris levipes

Rcillus longirostris yumanensis

Ammospiza mirabilis

Ammospiza nigrescens

Melospiza melodia graminea

Himantopus himantopus knudseni

Sterna albifrons browni

Phaeornis obscurus myadestina

Phaeornis obscurus rutha

Phaeornis palmeri

Vermivora bachmanii

Dendroica kirtlandii

Caprimulgus noctitherus

Campephilus principalis

Dendrocopus borealis

138
166
187
186
149
114
113
116
124
127
129
190,191
147
109
108
123
120
178
171
180.181
172
189
192
156
188
102,104
101
155
133
142
144
145
197
195

151

153

168

170

167

173

175

161

164

162

*Added to the United States List of Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife, Federal
Register, Vol. 38, No. 106— Monday, June 4, 1973.

289
(Revised July 27, 1973)

MAMMALS

Bat, Hawaiian hoary

Bat, Indiana
*Cougar, Eastern

Deer, Columbian white-tailed

Deer , Key

Ferret, black-footed

Fox, San Joaquin kit

Manatee, Florida (sea cow)

Mouse , salt marsh harvest

Panther, Florida
*Prairie Dog , Utah

Pronghorn, Sonoran

Rat, Morro Bay kangaroo

Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsiila fox

Wolf, Eastern timber
*Wolf , Northern Rocky Mountain

Wolf, red ' . ,

Lasiyirus cinereuq semotus
: Wyotis sodalis
Felis concolor cougar
Odocoileus virgini^'.nus leucurus
Odocoileus virginianus cl avium
Mustela nigripes
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Trichechus manatus latirostris
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Felis concolor coryi
Cynomys parvidens
Antilocapra americana sonoriensis
Dipodomys heermanni morroensis
Sciurus niger cinereus
Canis lupus lycaon
Canis lupus irremotus
Canis rufus

214
209
253
266
265
247
243
261
226
251
217
267
224
220
237
235
241

♦Added to the United States List of Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife , Federal Register,
Vol. 38, No. 106--Monday, June 4, 1973.

Created in 1849, the Department of the Interior is concerned with the management,
conservation, and development of the Nation's water, fish, wildlife, mineral, forest, and
park and recreational resources . It also has major responsibilities for Indian and
Territorial affairs .

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department works to assure
that nonrenewable resources are developed and used wisely, that park and
recreational resources are conserved for the future , and that renewable resources
make their full contribution to the progress, prosperity, and security of the United
States — now and in the future.

289A
(Revised July 27, 1973)

INT: 745- 73

Kirtland's warbler
Dusky sea Jf'- sparrow
Cape SabI _>parrow

Oenc'/'' 'ca kirtlandii
'ilBmospi/a nigrescens
/-immospiza mirabilis

MAMMALS

Hawaiian hoary ba*

Indiana bat

Delmarva Peninsula i^; squirrel

Morro Bay kangaroo rat

Salt marsh harvest mouse

Eastern timber wolf

Red wolf

San Joaquin kit fox

Black-footed ferret

Florida panther

Florida manatee (sea cow)

Key deer

Columbian white-tailed deer

Sonoran pronghorn

Lasiurus cinereus sem '* ■■■-■ ■

Myotis sodalis

Sciurus niger ciner-- '

Dipodomys heerma" u_ raar oensis

Reithrodontomys ' - i^eriy-is

Canis lupus lyca

Canis rufus

Vulpes macroti s mutica

Mustela nigrifr^.iS

Felis concolc coryi

Irichechus

xi-doa.'

tus lat

irosti

21

Odocoileus

virgin aaus

c ' ■( v:

um

Odocoileus

■-■:'run.-

I'.'i.nus

■ ■ iS

Antilocapra

anr.ei-

'cana i

SO''':

. Sis

Created in 1849, the Department of the Interior is concerned with the management,
conservation, and development of the Nation's water, fish, wildlife, mineral, forest,
and park and recreational resources. It also has major responsibilities for Indian
and Territorial affairs .

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department works to assure that
nonrenewable resources are developed and used wisely, thai park and recreational
resources are conserved for the future , and that renewable resources make their full
contribution to the progress, prosperity, and security of the United States — now and
in tlie future .

289