Common name: Redlip Shiner

Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov

Identification: Page and Burr (1991); Jenkins and Burkhead (1994).

Size: 7.2 cm.

Native Range: Dan River (Roanoke River drainage) and Peedee River drainages, Virginia and North Carolina (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: Possible bait bucket releases. Richardson and Carnes (1964, in Jenkins and Burkhead 1994) speculated that it probably was introduced into the Little River system by bait fishermen. It was first discovered in the Little River system in 1963 (Richardson and Carnes 1964); in Big Chestnut Creek, Virginia, in 1976; and in the Deep River system, North Carolina, in 1985 (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).

Status: Established in North Carolina and Virginia. The Big Chestnut Creek population is "flourishing" (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).

Impact of Introduction: In the Dutchmans Creek subbasin of the Catawba River (Lincoln & Gaston Counties, NC) N. chiliticus hybridizes profusely with N. chlorocephalus. Limited sampling during the 90's, reported hybrids as abundant and "pure" chlorocephalus (based on appearance) as uncommon (Gerald Potten, personal communication). Some of these hybrids were nearly indistinguishable from N. lutipinnis, which (supposedly) doesn't occur in the Catawba River

Remarks: Lee et al. (1980 et seq.) and Page and Burr (1991) stated that it was recently introduced in New River drainage, North Carolina and Virginia. Hocutt et al. (1986) regarded it as introduced (but possibly native) in the Kanahwa above falls. In his summary table on North Carolina fishes, Menhinick (1991) listed this species as probably introduced into the New, the Catawba, and the Lumber and Waccamaw drainages. In their summary table on Virginia fishes, Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) regarded this species as introduced (but possibly native) in the New drainage and native (but possibly introduced) in the Roanoke drainage. Lee et al. (1980 et seq.) and Hocutt et al. (1986) considered it native to the Dan system in the Roanoke River drainage).  Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) agreed with that conclusion, but they also speculated that it may have been introduced there. These latter authors noted that its disjunctive distribution in the middle Dan and throughout the Smith, and its apparent absence in the lower Dan, may have resulted from separate introductions in upper portions of the system. Nevertheless, Jenkins and Burkhead concluded that the Dan system was scantily sampled prior to the 1950s and that the range of this species in the Dan can be deemed relictive (native). Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) noted that the upper New drainage has two tributary populations that are considered to be introduced, perhaps separately.

References: (click for full references)

Hocutt, C.H., R.E. Jenkins, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1986. Zoogeography of the fishes of the central Appalachians and central Atlantic Coastal Plain. 161-212 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, eds. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC.Menhinick, E. F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC.

Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. The Peterson Guide Series, vol. 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

Richardson, F.R., and W.C. Carnes. 1964. Survey and classification of the New River and tributaries, North Carolina. Final Report, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Job I-O, Project F-14-R. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC.

Other Resources:

Author: Leo Nico, and Matt Cannister

Peer Review Date: 11/30/2010

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.