Disclaimer:

The Nonindigenous Occurrences section of the NAS species profiles has a new structure. The section is now dynamically updated from the NAS database to ensure that it contains the most current and accurate information. Occurrences are summarized in Table 1, alphabetically by state, with years of earliest and most recent observations, and the tally and names of drainages where the species was observed. The table contains hyperlinks to collections tables of specimens based on the states, years, and drainages selected. References to specimens that were not obtained through sighting reports and personal communications are found through the hyperlink in the Table 1 caption or through the individual specimens linked in the collections tables.

---

Common name: Tautog

Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov

Identification: Manooch (1984); Robins and Ray (1986); Murdy et al. (1997).

Size: 91 cm, 10 kg.

Native Range: Marine; tautog are native to the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia to South Carolina (Robins and Ray 1986).

Interactive maps: Point Distribution Maps

Means of Introduction: Accidental in Nebraska, intentionally stocked in California.

Status: Extirpated in both Nebraska and California.

Impact of Introduction: The impacts of this species are currently unknown, as no studies have been done to determine how it has affected ecosystems in the invaded range. The absence of data does not equate to lack of effects. It does, however, mean that research is required to evaluate effects before conclusions can be made.

Remarks: DeKay (1842) wrote of stockings of this species in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. Reportedly the fish were taken from Rhode Island. Both DeKay (1842) and Goode (1884) stated that this was an attempt to expand the species' range southward, implying they did not already occur there. However, Jordan and Gilbert (1882) reported a specimen "Hiatula onitis" which was actually a tautog with a missing anal fin. The specimen was collected from Charleston, South Carolina, and sent to Linnaeus in the 1700s. Linnaeus named the fish Labrus hiatula in his work Systema Naturae in 1788. Therefore, the species must have been native to the Charleston area and is not considered introduced outside the native range in this location.

References: (click for full references)

DeKay, J.E. 1842. Natural history of New York. I. Zoology. Reptiles and fishes. Part IV - fishes. W.A. White and J. Visscher, Albany, NY.

Goode, G.B. 1884. The fisheries and fish industries of the United States. Section I: natural history of useful aquatic animals. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Jordan, D.S., and C.H. Gilbert. 1882. Synopsis of the fishes of North America. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum 16. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Manooch, C.S. 1984. Fisherman's guide, fishes of the southwestern United States. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC.

Murdy, E.O., R.S. Birdsong, and J.A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Robins, C.R., and G.C. Ray. 1986. A field guide to Atlantic Coast fishes of North America. The Peterson Guide Series, volume 32. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

Shebley, W.H. 1917. History of introduction of food and game fishes into the waters of California. California Fish and Game 3:3-12.

Smith, H.M. 1896. A review of the history and results of the attempts to acclimatize fish and other water animals in the Pacific States. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission for 1895, 15:379-472.

Other Resources:

Author: Fuller, P.

Peer Review Date: 1/31/2012

This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.