Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

9-29-07 Kankakee River

Started by Guest_teleost_* , Sep 29 2007 11:59 PM

Next

Reply to this topic

37 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_teleost_*

Guests

Posted 29 September 2007 - 11:59 PM

I had really great time today despite the low species count (fish). The weather was perfect and the water was crystal clear. I felt lucky to be invited along this trip.

Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller
Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin Shiner
Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped Shiner
Nocomis biguttatus Hornyhead Chub
Notropis percobromus Carmine Shiner
Pimephales notatus Bluntnose Minnow
Hypentelium nigricans Northern Hog Sucker
Moxostoma spp
Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead
Noturus flavus Stonecat
Labidesthes sicculus Brook Silverside
Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow
Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass
Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish
Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass
Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass
Etheostoma caeruleum Rainbow Darter
Etheostoma nigrum Johnny Darter
Etheostoma zonale Banded Darter

Within the sampling party was a person licensed to collect mussels as vouchers. 15 total mussel species were found here. I must say this really blew my mind. I can only list a few of the species found as I'm not quite up to speed on mussels. I found the discussion surrounding mussels fascinating.

Alasmidonta marginata Elktoe
Lasmigona complanata White Heelsplitter
Amblema plicata Threeridge
Fusconaia flava Wabash Pigtoe
Quadrula metanevra Monkeyface
Lasmigona costata Flutedshell
Leptodea fragilis Fragile Papershell
Ligumia recta Black Sandshell
Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket

#2 Guest_bullhead_*

Guests

Posted 30 September 2007 - 12:32 AM

I count 19 fish, hardly a "low" count. And 15 mussels! Were you in Illinois or Indiana?

#3 Guest_dredcon_*

Guests

Posted 30 September 2007 - 09:36 AM

Sound like you had agood day. Great pics as always.

#4 Guest_sandtiger_*

Guests

Posted 30 September 2007 - 10:51 AM

That's a low species count? I'm lucky if I get five species on my trips. Thanks for sharing, nice list you got there and fantastic photographs.

#5 Guest_teleost_*

Guests

Posted 30 September 2007 - 11:43 AM

Low species count being relative to previous sampling endeavors.

Lepisosteus, Dorosoma, Lythrurus, Ictalurus and Esox would have usually been sampled as well as additional Cyprinella, Notropis, Pimephales and Percina species.

#6 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guests

Posted 30 September 2007 - 08:25 PM

Great stuff, as always Uland! The "wow's" have only begun, my friend. Wait until you see one of the lure displaying species. Well heck, since I've got your attention:

http://unionid.missouristate.edu/

Do you remember anything called a plain pocketbook or wavy rayed lampmussel? I don't see them in the picture. Looks like there's a purple wartyback. If you can send me a larger image, I may be able to tell what some of the mussels are, if you're curious. Ellipse? Buttefly? Do either of those ring a bell?

How deep was the water and how did you sample for mussels? Were all these species found live, or just by relict shells?

We could probably get away with the view buckets here this spring, if you really want to see some sweet stuff. Actually, you should snorkel it once it warms up. That's a great mussel fauna (you don't often see monkeyface), now you've really got my attention.

Actually, you guys have to check these buckets out. You can always make a cheap version using a white 5 gallon bucket and some plexi glass, but these are really nice and come in 3 pieces so they pack nice too:

http://www.nuovarade...ghy/800_big.jpg

http://www.marisafe....mp;CID=20305000
(about $50 a piece once you figure in the shipping)

We've been using them in our shallow water surveys, and they work very well. They're a snorkellers delight in too-cold-to-snorkel water. In clear water, you can see all the fish you want. Even in murkier water, you'll see stuff you'd never see without getting under the water.

A couple days sampling with these on Swan Creek:

Todd

#7 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guests

Posted 30 September 2007 - 08:40 PM

Everything in the picture looks to correctly match up with the list. It kinda hurts to stand on your head though and orient the shells properly :grin:

. It almost makes the far left middle shell look olivaria'ish.

#8 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guests

Posted 30 September 2007 - 08:46 PM

Yeah, that messed me up too

#9 Guest_teleost_*

Guests

Posted 30 September 2007 - 09:11 PM

Ohhhh Todd. I know the wow's have only begun. I need to get a few books before I can really start to grasp this whole thing.
I don't believe we found any plain pocketbook and I'm pretty certain we didn't see any wavy rayed lampmussel. I must tell you that only one person (with permits) was removing mussels from beds but a good amount of time was spent educating the group. I'm certain purple wartyback were found. I'm not sure why I didn't list them. In fact purple wartyback have been so common in the past we'd see huge piles of their shells from what I thought must be otters. I've since learned this was likely due to muskrats. Whoa! Another mind blower. I'll post a full size image. I'd like a complete list for curiosity sake.

The water was so clear I was able to see all the goings on without any equipment. I was able to see lures and one with dark tentacles! (sorry total newb here). I will be snorkeling next year without a doubt. I know many mussels were about cheek deep while most were in 12" of water. I believe two of the smaller species photographed were the only two not found alive. Muckets are here by the millions.

The collector seemed to have a good idea of the species before removal and only required one of each as a specimen.

Those viewing devices look like the ticket in cool water. I'm going to have roughly 3 million questions in the near future :tongue:

Oh, I have a photo or two of each individual mussel but here's the group at full size.

#10 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guests

Posted 30 September 2007 - 10:10 PM

Here's a start for you:

Millions of muckets is a VERY good thing. It was once a tremendously abundant mussel and exists in this manner in only a few places now. That's usually a sign of very high quality.

Black tentacles... Hmm... Maybe that was a black sandshell where your angle prevented seeing the white. I've never seen one display in the wild, only in Barnhart's video. Rainbow would have black tentacles too. I wish we would run across one while doing this Swan Creek survey. They're obviously reproducing

It's a shame that the Mussels of TN isn't on sale for $13 any more (when they did the FoTN) but it's worth every penny. The Cummings Mayer book is nice for our region (and inexpensive), but you really need to be able to see teeth in the pics, and the Parmalee book addresses this. And, you can look at the Cummings Mayer book online. Another to watch for used is Oesch's Missouri Naiads. The line drawings are excellent.

I did a program a week ago on mussels. It's always something to see people's shock at HOW interesting this story is. It's just some clams crawlin' around in the muck, right? Ha!

Todd

#11 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 30 September 2007 - 10:26 PM

One of the most amazing species is the washboard if you find big ones, the size of dinner plates. They still exist in the Tennessee. At that size they're easy to tell from all of the elephant-ears that dominate parts of the mid-Tennessee. I'm glad you found that diversity of shells without making a major effort.

#12 Guest_teleost_*

Guests

Posted 01 October 2007 - 12:23 AM

I'm sorry Bullhead, I missed your question. We were in Illinois (Will county).

I had problems differentiating between washboard and threeridge so I snapped a photo of it's backside.

The collector believed the one above the black sandshell was a different species.
I'm not sure if this is a photo of the black sandshell or not.

Better shots of the lil' one.

I'll be sure and request a complete list and post it. Thanks for all of your help! I really look forward to learning more.

So Todd, is this a good enough reason to get your butt out this way?

#13 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guests

Posted 01 October 2007 - 07:32 AM

Todd I think you hit it with that rayed bean. When the picture was upside down I couldn't tell if it was a valve or just a glob of wet sand. Man the orientation sure helps. I think you're right on the creeper too and round hickorynut. I think the not enough info is the fragile papershell. After further examination, while not on my head, I'd like to call that a yellow sandshell too and not a black. Ulands photo of the beak and Todd's explination can be one of the best ways to distinguish between a three ridge and washboard. The custations/beak sculpturing is present on a washboard. Even when it is eroded, the way it typically erodes shows you where the sculptures were, while a three ridge will just erode uniformally. It'd be nice if the Mucket on the left middle also was inside out to look at its teeth, it's got me curious still.

#14 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 01 October 2007 - 08:50 AM

I would support the ID of black sandshell in the most recent series of photos. It's another formerly common species that's disappearing.

#15 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guests

Posted 01 October 2007 - 09:19 AM

Ah yes, I didn't notice it was also one in the same as in the HUGE picture, I was just using the rotated shot of all. No waxy periostracum, probably not a yellow and a black instead.

#16 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guests

Posted 01 October 2007 - 09:46 AM

It just looks too truncate and inflated to be a black sandshell.

FWIW, I've seen the fine sculpture on threeridge in the Great Lakes where washboard are not found. I look more at the percentage of the anterior end that's sculptured. But for a positive ID, I look at the orientation of the teeth and interdentum, which the difference, I need to remind myself with MoTN. In seeing the beak shot of the last photo, that's crazy sculpted, and I lean more toward washboard on this specimen.

Folks, if you thought fish Id's were tough, welcome to HELL. These aren't even any of the TOUGH species lol

Uland, it was never a matter of interest, it's been a matter of time. But now I am officially hopping up and down excited to get out there, when I finally have the opportunity to get out there

Todd

#17 Guest_NateTessler13_*

Guests

Posted 01 October 2007 - 10:12 PM

Uland, you've got to fill Brian and I in on this one...What is a Carmine Shiner? We're thinking it's the same thing as a Roseyface Shiner (Notropis rubellus). Could you show us a range map? Was there a recent split of the Roseyface and the Carmine? Is a Carmine Shiner an older name for the Roseyface?

#18 Guest_teleost_*

Guests

Posted 02 October 2007 - 04:37 PM

Uland, you've got to fill Brian and I in on this one...What is a Carmine Shiner? We're thinking it's the same thing as a Roseyface Shiner (Notropis rubellus). Could you show us a range map? Was there a recent split of the Roseyface and the Carmine? Is a Carmine Shiner an older name for the Roseyface?

Golly, I'm sorry. I used the NANFA list in conjunction with nutureserve to make this list up. I assume Carmine is a split of rosyface. I sure hope this post will shed some light on this. I posted some time ago about this....maybe I should check up on my post.

Notropis percobromus
Posted Image

Notropis rubellus
Posted Image

I tend to simply accept splits if both the NANFA list and narureserve accept them. Who am I to refute such splits??? Like how I refer to the NANFA list as a living, breathing being :tongue:

#19 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guests

Posted 02 October 2007 - 05:33 PM

See now that is EXACTLY why I thought yellow sandshell. It shows all the traits of just how dimorphic that species can be. I guess it is just THAT old. I didn't want to call it black origionally, and not the second time around either.

Yeah I guess I should have been more specific about the sculpturing. I ment on the anterior end also. I've got a couple really small washboards that are insane. Just bumps everywhere. There was no doubt that large sculpture was a washboard to me for the reasons you and I are both thinking of.

I still think that large mucket, middle left, isn't a mucket. The beak is way too high above the hinge line and inflated for my taste. VERY truncated anterior end, almost squared off. Look at how far the shadow is projected away too. Must be a pretty heavily inflated mussel....

It just looks too truncate and inflated to be a black sandshell.

FWIW, I've seen the fine sculpture on threeridge in the Great Lakes where washboard are not found. I look more at the percentage of the anterior end that's sculptured. But for a positive ID, I look at the orientation of the teeth and interdentum, which the difference, I need to remind myself with MoTN. In seeing the beak shot of the last photo, that's crazy sculpted, and I lean more toward washboard on this specimen.

Folks, if you thought fish Id's were tough, welcome to HELL. These aren't even any of the TOUGH species lol

Uland, it was never a matter of interest, it's been a matter of time. But now I am officially hopping up and down excited to get out there, when I finally have the opportunity to get out there

Todd

#20 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guests

Posted 02 October 2007 - 06:25 PM

Now that you mention it... That does look more pocketbookish, doesn't it?

I still think that large mucket, middle left, isn't a mucket. The beak is way too high above the hinge line and inflated for my taste. VERY truncated anterior end, almost squared off. Look at how far the shadow is projected away too. Must be a pretty heavily inflated mussel....

Uland, I remember the thread, and again, I've been thwarted from finding anything about it, other than the fact that Canada is concerned about it, and Kansas at least recognizes it. The Natureserve maps can't be correct, they're showing the synonymy probably.

Todd