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: Allegheny Pearl Dace

Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov

Identification: Scott and Crossman (1973), Becker (1983), Smith (1985), Page and Burr (1991); another name is Semotilus margarita. Two subspecies are currently recognized, M. m. margarita in the Allegheny region, and M. m. nachtriebi in the rest of the range (Page and Burr 1991).

Size: 16 cm.

Native Range: Atlantic, Hudson Bay, Great Lakes, and Mississippi River basins in southern Canada and northern United States from Atlantic Coast to southern Northern Territories, eastern British Columbia, and Montana; south to Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Isolated population in upper Missouri River basin, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming (Page and Burr 1991).

Alaska	Hawaii	Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands	Guam Saipan

Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe

Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) Explained
Interactive maps: Point Distribution Maps

Means of Introduction: Unknown. Possible bait bucket release.

Status: Reported from Connecticut. The Byram River drainage was sampled in 1987 and 1988 but no additional specimens were found. Consequently, Whitworth (1996) concluded that the species was no longer present.

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: In some areas this species is considered important as a bait minnow (Scott and Crossman 1973).

Other Resources:

Author: Pam Fuller, and Leo Nico

Peer Review Date: 3/22/2000

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.