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: Central Stoneroller

Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov

Identification: Becker (1983); Page and Burr (1991); Etnier and Starnes (1993). Three subspecies are recognized.

Size: 22 cm.

Native Range: Widespread across most of eastern and central United States in Atlantic, Great Lakes, Mississippi River, and Hudson Bay (Red River) basins from New York west to North Dakota and Wyoming, and south to South Carolina and Texas; present in Thames River system (Great Lakes basin), Ontario; found in Gulf Slope drainages from Galveston Bay, Texas, to Rio Grande, Mexico; isolated population in southwestern Mississippi and eastern Louisiana. Generally absent on Piedmont and Coastal Plain (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. Probable bait bucket releases.

Status: Established in New Mexico near Albuquerque (Sublette et al. 1990). Reported from New York (Smith 1985), and North Carolina (Menhinick 1991), and Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Populations in the Gila drainage and near Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, apparently extirpated (Sublette et al. 1990). The Connecticut population found in the 1960s consisted of several age classes, but intensive sampling in 1987 and 1988 revealed that the species did not survive (Whitworth 1996).

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: According to Jenkins and Burkhead (1994), the two records of this species from the Pee Dee drainage of Virginia and North Carolina, although possibly native, are thought to be the result two separate introductions. Menhinick (1991) also concluded that the species was probably introduced into the Pee Dee drainage of North Carolina.

Voucher specimens: North Carolina (DU JRB 60-20), Virginia (RC-REJ 970).

References: (click for full references)

Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.

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

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

Other Resources:

Author: Fuller, P.

Peer Review Date: 5/25/2000

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.