Four new darters described

The NANFA online checklist has been updated:

http://nanfa.org/checklist.shtml

A new species of Percina (Perciformes: Percidae) from the Apalachicola River
drainage, southeastern United States

MARY C. FREEMAN, BYRON J. FREEMAN, NOEL M. BURKHEAD & CARRIE A. STRAIGHT
Zootaxa 1963: 25-42
http://www.mapress.c...zt01963p042.pdf

Percina crypta, the Halloween Darter, is described as a new species endemic to the Chattahoochee and Flint River systems
in Georgia and Alabama. Percina crypta differs from sympatric Percina nigrofasciata in having narrowly separated
dorsal saddles (inter-saddle spaces typically less than or equal to saddle width, compared to frequently wider than saddle
width in P. nigrofasciata), in usually possessing a single modified scale between the pelvic bases (compared to two or
more in P. nigrofasciata), and in having dark wide bands on pectoral-fin rays (versus pectoral fin clear, or with irregular
dark marks or weak tessellations on fin rays in P. nigrofasciata). Phylogenetic relationships of P. crypta to other species
of Percina are obscure. Percina crypta occurs in shoal and riffle habitats in the Chattahoochee and Flint River mainstems
and in a few tributary systems, with the known extant range comprising four disjunct areas separated by mainstem
impoundments and altered river reaches.



Three new darter species of the Etheostoma percnurum species complex
(Percidae, subgenus Catonotus) from the Tennessee and Cumberland
river drainages

REBECCA E. BLANTON & ROBERT E. JENKINS
Zootaxa 1963: 1-24
http://www.mapress.c...z01963p024f.pdf

The federally endangered Duskytail Darter, Etheostoma percnurum Jenkins, is known from only six highly disjunct populations
in the Tennessee and Cumberland river drainages of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Only four are extant.
Variation in morphology including meristics, morphometrics, and pigmentation was examined among the four extant
populations and limited specimens from the two extirpated populations (Abrams Creek and South Fork Holston River).
Analyses of these data found each of the extant populations is morphologically diagnosable. The few specimens available
from Abrams Creek and South Fork Holston River prevented thorough assessment of variation, and these were
grouped with their closest geographic counterparts, Citico Creek, and Little River, respectively. Three new morphologically
diagnosable species are described: E. sitikuense, the Citico Darter, from Citico Creek, Abrams Creek, and Tellico
River (Tennessee River system); E. marmorpinnum, the Marbled Darter, from the Little River and South Fork Holston
River (Tennessee River system); and E. lemniscatum, the Tuxedo Darter, from the Big South Fork (Cumberland River
system). Each species warrants federal protection as an endangered species.

If the former species is already federally protected, wouldn't each species described from the complex retain federal listing? As long as they are recognized on the federal register as the former species they should still recieve protection, correct? Asking anyone, not just Chris directly.

Good question!

I asked Rebecca Blanton, who forwarded to me a long e-mail between biologists and the USFWS asking and answering the same question.

Basically, the new species will be protected under E. percnurum until the Service formally decides to accept the new taxonomy. At which point in time, each of the newly described species would have to go through the whole process again to be listed. This may seem unnecessary, but some of the new species may warrant listing as Threatened rather than as Endangered species. (E. percnurum is listed as Endangered.)

I will adjust the NANFA online Checklist to show that the new species are protected by the ESA.

If the former species is already federally protected, wouldn't each species described from the complex retain federal listing? As long as they are recognized on the federal register as the former species they should still recieve protection, correct? Asking anyone, not just Chris directly.

Edited by kalawatseti, 15 December 2008 - 08:08 PM.

Wha? The complex as one species was endangered, but as three species some could be downlisted? How does that happen? The number of populations for each "new" species is less than what warranted endangered status for populations of one species. Even with the success of the captive reintroductions their abundance alone surely does not warrant a downlisting when it represents half of the former total populations (3 of 6 if you consider all and 2 of 4 if you consider extant).

If and when the service accepts the new taxonomy, how realistic can it be to think the species will be reviewed within a year let alone more? The Cookeville office has a backlog, I'd imagine the rest of the SE region is at least the same. The last Noturus crypticus listing petition basically says we have no money to consider additional species for lisitng, even when of high priority, because all our time and money is locked up in consultation and litigation (i.e. everyone is suing us). If a species found barely a dozen times, primarily from one riffle in a not very great stream, can't get listed within a year, well you can see where I'm going. Does the species just sit without protection because it's recognized, but USFWS can't go through the listing process, or do they just not accept the name to keep the protection in place? Either way they will get sued. I think this really highlights the point Todd brought to light a week or so ago about what this really means for conservation, especially resource managers. It also points out how the ESA has been left in the dust by advances in science.

Wha? The complex as one species was endangered, but as three species some could be downlisted? How does that happen? The number of populations for each "new" species is less than what warranted endangered status for populations of one species.

Sorry, I misread the e-mail I received. That was just a hypothetical that should have been the other way around -- if the split of a threatened species creates one or more endangered new taxa.

I doubt that the USFWS would give this any immediate attention. As rates of imperilment escalate, the Service's listing budget gets slashed. The recognition of cryptic diversity add to the complexity and workload.

Ahhhh okay, makes more sense.

I don't think it's a matter of would give listing attention. It's a matter of could, and as we know, they can't, even without the cryptic biodiversity.

I doubt that the USFWS would give this any immediate attention. As rates of imperilment escalate, the Service's listing budget gets slashed. The recognition of cryptic diversity add to the complexity and workload.

Uh oh, this sounds like a political question as well as a technical question. Who is against giving USFWS more resources to carry out this kind of assessment more quickly and better? I'd guess the answer is, "Round up the usual suspects.".

Is it just me? I only get the first page of REBECCA E. BLANTON & ROBERT E. JENKINS' paper when I try to download it.

Brian

It's a certified mess

I only get the first page as well Brian. I'll see if I can get the whole thing when I get on the network at school.

Todd

It's a subscription article (some are free, some are subscription based), so this first page is how they give you the abstract. I imagine the authors pay to have it freely available.

Todd

Here's a really wonderful idea (if I do say so myself ) for anyone who has some time to kill (yeah, right!): Every time one of these new species gets described, someone should put up a very simple, amateur friendly page with maybe nothing more than a color photo of the fish and a range map. Maybe on the NANFA web site. Everything in one easy location so we can make quick reference to it as we make preparations to explore a particular region. One has to be really devoted to keep track of all these new species, let alone even be notified that they have been described. This is not to in any way denigrate the excellent contributions of many members here and in AC to keep us all updated. Is someone already doing this somewhere, or how do the pros keep track of all this stuff? I suppose if you're really immersed in it, you just pick it up along the way. But with such a flood of new species, us amateurs are really left behind even if we have all the applicable books. They're all being rapidly made obsolete! Seems like linking a brief descriptive page to each of the entries in the NANFA checklist, even if it's just for the new species, would be the perfect solution and a very valueable resource to anyone who is interested in our natives. If someone will shoot me the photos and maps, I can easily paste them into web pages. Although, what with the volume of new species already out there, I should probably not be speaking up

Mark