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: Logperch

Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov

Identification: Becker (1983); Page (1983); Page and Burr (1991); Etnier and Starnes (1993); Jenkins and Burkhead (1994); three subspecies are recognized.

Size: 18 cm.

Native Range: St. Lawrence-Great Lakes, Hudson Bay, and Mississippi River basins from eastern Quebec to Saskatchewan and south to Gulf; Atlantic Slope drainages from Hudson River, New York, to Potomac River, Maryland; Gulf Slope drainages from Alabama to Mississippi River, Louisiana. P. c. semifasciata in Canada and northern states; P. c. fulvitaenia in tributaries of Missouri and Arkansas rivers in Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma, and in Blue River, Oklahoma; P. c. caprodes throughout rest of range (Page and Burr 1991). The Florida population was described by Thompson (1995) as P. austroperca.
 

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: The introduction in Utah was probably the result of stocking for forage.

Status: Established in Utah (Sigler and Sigler 1996), and West Virginia.

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: Reports in the literature of this species being introduced to California (Shapovalov et al. 1959; McKechnie 1966c; Farley 1972; and Moyle et al. 1974a), actually refer to P. macrolepida. Although this species was reportedly introduced into Colorado, the species was later re-identified as P. macrolepida (Behnke, personal communication via S. Flickinger). The Utah introduction may also be P. macrolepida; specimens should be re-examined.

Other Resources:

Author: Fuller, P.

Peer Review Date: 4/20/2006

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.