Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Frigid Ambersnail as Endangered, 44566-44569 [2011-18855]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44566
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Under section 4(b)(1) of the Act, we
must base our assessment of these
factors solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available.
V. What could happen as a result of our
review?
For each species under review, if we
find new information that indicates a
change in classification may be
warranted, we may propose a new rule
that could do one of the following:
(A) Reclassify the species from
threatened to endangered (uplist);
(B) Reclassify the species from
endangered to threatened (downlist); or
(C) Remove the species from the List
(delist).
If we determine that a change in
classification is not warranted, then the
species remains on the List under its
current status.
VI. Request for New Information
To ensure that a 5-year review is
complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we request new
information from all sources. See ‘‘What
Information Do We Consider in Our
Review?’’ for specific criteria. If you
submit information, support it with
documentation such as maps,
bibliographic references, methods used
to gather and analyze the data, and/or
copies of any pertinent publications,
reports, or letters by knowledgeable
sources.
Submit your comments and materials
to the appropriate U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service office listed under
‘‘VIII. Contacts.’’
Submit all electronic information in
Text or Rich Text format to FW3Midwest
Region_5YearReview@fws.gov. Please
send information for each species in a
separate e-mail. Provide your name and
return address in the body of your
message, and include the following
identifier in your e-mail subject line:
Information on 5-year review for [NAME
OF SPECIES].
VII. Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. Comments and materials received
will be available for public inspection,
by appointment, during normal business
hours at the offices where the comments
are submitted.
VIII. Contacts
Send your comments and information
on the following species, as well as
requests for information, to the
corresponding contacts. You may view
information we receive in response to
this notice, as well as other
documentation in our files, at the
following locations by appointment,
during normal business hours.
Species
Contact person, phone, e-mail
Contact address
Gray bat ...............................
Dr. Paul McKenzie, (573) 234–2132, extension 107,
paul_mckenzie@fws.gov.
Indiana bat ...........................
Mr. Andrew King, (812) 334–4261, extension 1216,
andrew_king@fws.gov.
Copperbelly water snake .....
Ms. Barbara Hosler, (517) 351–6326,
barbara_hosler@fws.gov.
Scaleshell mussel and Curtis
pearlymussel.
Mr. Andy Roberts, (573) 234–2132, extension 110,
andy_roberts@fws.gov.
Boltonia decurrens ...............
Ms. Jody Millar, (309) 757–5800, extension 202,
jody_millar@fws.gov.
Ms.
Catherine
Carnes,
(920)
866–1732,
cathy_carnes@fws.gov.
Columbia Missouri Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A, Columbia,
MO 65203–0007.
Bloomington Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 620 S. Walker Street, Bloomington, IN 47403–
2121.
East Lansing Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101, East Lansing,
MI 48823–6316.
Columbia Missouri Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A, Columbia,
MO 65203–0007.
Rock Island Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1511 47th Avenue, Moline, IL 61265.
Green Bay Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2661 Scott Tower Drive, WI 54229–9565.
Oxytropis campestris var.
chartacea.
IX. Authority
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
We publish this notice under the
authority of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Fish and Wildlife Service
Dated: June 14, 2011.
Lynn M. Lewis,
Assistant Regional Director, Ecological
Services, Midwest Region.
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
[FR Doc. 2011–18893 Filed 7–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R3–ES–2011–0025; MO 92210–0–
0008–B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List the Frigid Ambersnail
as Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list the frigid
ambersnail (Catinella gelida) under the
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:11 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After reviewing all
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing the
frigid ambersnail is not warranted
because currently living individuals that
were identified as frigid ambersnails do
not constitute a unique and valid,
currently living taxon; therefore, it is
not considered to be a listable entity
under the Act.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made July 26, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R3–ES–2011–0025. The complete
file for this finding is available for
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Rock Island
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Ecological Services Field Office, 1511
47th Avenue, Moline, IL 61265; phone
(309) 757–5800. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this species or this
finding to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody
Millar (see ADDRESSES).
Individuals who are hearing-impaired
or speech-impaired may call the Federal
Relay Service at 1–800–877–8337 for
TTY assistance, 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for
any petition to revise the Federal Lists
of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife
and Plants that contains substantial
scientific or commercial information
that listing a species may be warranted,
we make a finding within 12 months of
the date of receipt of the petition. In this
finding, we determine whether the
petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted,
(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but
immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to
determine whether species are
endangered or threatened, and
expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the
date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within
12 months. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register.
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Previous Federal Actions
Federal action for the frigid
ambersnail began on July 30, 2007, after
we received a petition dated July 24,
2007, from Forest Guardians (now
WildEarth Guardians) requesting that
the Service: (1) Consider all full species
in our mountain-prairie region ranked
as G1 or G1G2 by the organization
NatureServe, except those that are
currently listed, proposed for listing, or
candidates for listing; and (2) list each
species as either endangered or
threatened (Forest Guardians 2007, pp.
1–37). We acknowledged the receipt of
the petition in a letter to the Forest
Guardians, dated August 24, 2007 (Slack
2007, p. 1). In that letter we stated,
based on preliminary review, that we
found no compelling evidence to
support an emergency listing for any of
the species covered by the petition.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
On March 19, 2008, WildEarth
Guardians filed a complaint (1:08–CV–
472–CKK) indicating that the Service
had failed to make 90-day petition
findings under section 4 of the Act for
the 206 mountain-prairie species,
including the frigid ambersnail. On
February 5, 2009, we published a 90-day
finding (74 FR 6122) for 165 of the 206
mountain-prairie species, which did not
include the frigid ambersnail. On March
13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth
Guardians filed a stipulated settlement
in the District of Columbia Court,
agreeing that the Service would submit
to the Federal Register a finding as to
whether WildEarth Guardians’ petition
presented substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted for 38 mountainprairie region species by August 9, 2009
(WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar 2009,
case 1:08–CV–472–CKK). On August 18,
2009, we published a 90-day finding (74
FR 41649) for 38 mountain-prairie
region species, and initiated status
reviews on 29 of those species,
including the frigid ambersnail.
On January 8, 2010, WildEarth
Guardians filed a complaint indicating
that the Service had failed to complete
a 12-month finding on the frigid
ambersnail, and on January 20, 2010,
they filed an amended complaint. On
June 29, 2010, this complaint was
consolidated in the District of Columbia
District Court along with 11 other
individual cases filed by WildEarth
Guardians, all related to multiplespecies petitions. This litigation is
currently unresolved.
This notice constitutes the 12-month
finding on the July 24, 2007, petition to
list the frigid ambersnail as endangered.
Range
The frigid ambersnail is a prehistoric
snail known from the Pleistocene
period, which spanned from 1.8 million
to approximately 10,000 years ago. The
species has an extensive fossil record.
Based on that fossil record, its historical
range included eight states: Iowa,
Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Ohio, and New York (Frest
1991, p. 17). Individuals, that at the
time were thought to be living
specimens of frigid ambersnails, were
subsequently found in the Black Hills of
South Dakota and south of Green Bay in
Wisconsin (Frest and Johannes 2002,
pp. 73–74). Current, putative
populations are only now known from
Iowa, the Black Hills National Forest of
South Dakota and, possibly, Wisconsin.
Currently, taxonomy regarding these
extant populations is unclear as to
whether these are frigid ambersnails (as
described from the prehistoric fossils) or
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44567
members of a different, likely more
common, taxon.
Taxonomy
Catinella gelida was initially
described as a widespread prehistoric
fossil. The genus Catinella belongs to
phylum Mollusca, class Gastropoda,
order Stylommatophora (terrestrial
snails and slugs), and family
Succineidae. Baker (1927, pp. 118–119)
first described the fossil shell of the
frigid ambersnail as a subspecies of
Succinea grosvenorii (Baker 1927).
Baker (1927) describes the fossil species
as having a small (less than 10 mm (0.4
inches), elongated shell. The whorls (a
single turn in the spiral of the shell) are
convex and separated by deep sutures—
the last whorl is small, flat-sided, and
slightly convex. The spire (the part of
the shell that consists of all of the
whorls, except the body whorl) is long
and acute with a rounded aperture
(main opening of the shell) that is about
half as long as the shell. The columella
(central column inside the shell) is
straight, gently curving to the parietal
wall (margin of the aperture and part of
the wall of the body whorl that is closest
to the columella), and does not form a
distinct angle. The slight callus
(thickened calcareous deposit which
may be present on the parietal wall of
the aperture of the adult shell) is spread
over the parietal wall. The sculpture
(ornamentation on the outer surface of
the shell) is fine with vertical striae
(thin, narrow grooves).
Thirty-six years after Baker (1927)
first described the species, the fossil
form was reclassified as distinct from
Succinea grosvenori and retained as a
separate species named Catinella gelida
by Leslie Hubricht (Hubricht 1963, pp.
137–138). As Hubricht (1963, p.137)
stated: ‘‘This species [Succinea
grosvenori gelida], is certainly not
related to Succinea grosvenori as now
understood. Some shells resemble a
slender Catinella vermeta (Say), and
others resemble shells of Catinella
wandae (Webb) from Grand Teton
National Park, Teton County, Wyoming,
and it is possible that the name gelida
has been applied to more than one
species. In view of the impossibility of
demonstrating the relationship to either
of the above species by anatomical
studies, Catinella gelida is here retained
as a separate species.’’ As Hubricht
states, identification of the fossil form
used fossil shell characterics only.
In 1985, Terrence Frest (1985, p. 4)
described what was thought to be the
first live specimen of the frigid
ambersnail from the carbonate cliffs of
Iowa. The basis for his identification
was geologic location and shell
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
44568
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
morphology. Prior to this, the species
was thought to only occur in fossil form.
What were thought to be additional relic
populations were then identified in the
Black Hills of South Dakota and south
of Green Bay in Wisconsin (Frest and
Johannes 2002, pp. 73–74).
Frest’s (1991, p. 16) described the
physical appearance of individuals in
those relic populations by expanding on
Baker’s (1927, pp. 118–119) description
of the fossil form of frigid ambersnail.
However, Frest’s (1991, p. 16)
description still provides information
on the shell only, stating that ‘‘Live
specimens are slightly smaller on
average than fossil (e.g., average length
7.0 rather than 7.0–8.0 mm), but
otherwise identical. In life the color is
a peculiar light yellow-green; the body
is dark grey to nearly black. The
sculpture on both fossil and recent
specimens is rather stronger than in
most Succineidae.’’
A number of researchers (e.g.,
Patterson 1971, p. 133; Grimm 1996, p.
1; Coles and Walsh 1999, p. 32; Pigati
et al. 2010, p. 5) have suggested that for
accurate identification of species of
living land snails within the
Succineidae family, supporting
anatomical information is critical in
addition to morphological information.
Patterson (1971, p. 133) stated the
following in his taxonomic studies of
the land snail’s family Succineidae,
‘‘The taxonomic placement of most
species of the Succineidae is still based
largely on shell characters, which,
because of little diversity and
considerable convergence, give only
fragmentary or unreliable aid in
systematic analyses. Currently, features
of the male and female reproductive
tract, the radula and jaw, and to some
extent, patterns of pigmentation, are
being used to characterize some genera
and species. However, to date, only a
very few species have been studied with
regard to such morphological characters,
which leaves the systematics of the
Succineidae in an inadequate and
confused state.’’
Grimm (1996, p. 1) and Coles and
Walsh (1999, p. 32) also considered the
use of additional anatomical features,
such as genitalic structure, to be crucial
for the accurate identification of extant
Catinella species. Pigati et al. (2010, p.
5) recently described the need for
additional morphological characteristics
to distinguish among species for the
Succineidae family and the genus
Catinella: ‘‘In the fossil record, specieslevel identification of fossil shells is
possible for most small terrestrial
gastropods and, therefore, the results of
our investigation of modern gastropods
can be applied directly to the fossil
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
record. An exception is the Succineidae
family, which is composed of three
genera (Catinella, Oxyloma, and
Succinea) that are difficult to
differentiate in modern faunas. Their
simple shells exhibit few diagnostic
characteristics and, therefore, specieslevel identification is based on soft-body
reproductive organ morphology, which
is rarely preserved in the fossil record.’’
In 2002, Frest and Johannes
acknowledged the difficulty of using a
fossil form as the originally described
specimen of frigid ambersnail to
identify living individuals. However,
they continued to support the species
classification, stating that, ‘‘as it
happens, shell characters of C. gelida
are sufficiently distinctive as to make it
unlikely to be confused with other
described North American succineids.
Preliminary dissections of specimens
from the Iowa-Minnesota colonies
confirm placement of those specimens
in Catinella. The body color is unlike
any other described species. The few
live South Dakota specimens seen
appear identical in morphology to those
from Iowa’’ (Frest and Johannes 2002, p.
70). Although Frest and Johannes (2002,
p. 7) have stated that fossil shell
morphological characteristics alone
were adequate to classify a living
specimen, current researchers (such as
Anderson (2005) and Nekola (2009,
2010) (see below)) do not support this
assertion.
Anderson (2005) examined Catinellalike shells in Wind Cave National Park,
South Dakota. In her analysis, she
identified the Catinella specimens to
genus level only, noting the conflicting
opinion on the use of shell
characteristics for identification to
species level (Anderson 2005, p. 189).
She cites Burch (1962) and Hoagland
and Davis (1987) as cautioning against
using such characteristics alone in
identifying species in this taxonomic
family.
Jeffrey Nekola is a professor with the
University of New Mexico and is
considered an expert in land snails, has
authored numerous publications on the
topic, and has field experience with
fauna of the carbonate cliffs of Iowa and
the surrounding area. Nekola indicated
several issues with the classification of
the living frigid ambersnail in response
to our publication of a 90-day finding
(74 FR 41649) and initiation of status
review on a petition to list the frigid
ambersnail (Catinella gelida) as
endangered. Nekola (2010, pers. comm.)
stated that there is not a published
account of a dissection of the frigid
ambersnail. Nekola has examined living
snail soft body parts from ambersnails
(from Nekola 1998 and 2003) that met
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the description of the fossil frigid
ambersnail (as described by Frest 1991).
He (Nekola pers. comm. 2010)
subsequently analyzed this material and
found the soft body parts to be similar
to those found in the slope ambersnail
(C. wandae). In addition, Nekola (2009,
p. 103) questions the validity of using
soft body parts for the taxonomic
identification of species in this genus.
He notes that the structure of the
genitalia in this group of snails is highly
variable and that, looking at genitalia,
individuals may resemble different
species as they pass through various
stages of development from embryo to
adult (Nekola 2009, p. 103). This is
supported by Coles (2010, pers. comm.),
who stated that based on his own work,
the relative size and development of the
male Catinella genital appendix can
vary with age.
Because of the difficulty in defining
characteristic soft parts, Nekola now
believes that the only positive way to
distinguish species in Catinella’s group
is to look at genetic data within and
between populations, at the species and
genus levels (Nekola 2009, p. 103).
Ostlie (2009, p. 51) supports obtaining
additional information, such as analysis
of DNA, to confirm identification of the
species.
Based on the best available current
scientific information, the validity of the
frigid ambersnail as an extant species
has reasonably been questioned. The
frigid ambersnail (Catinella gelida) is
not recognized as a valid extant species
or subspecies by the Integrated
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS
2011) or the Council of Systematic
Malacologists and the American
Malacological Union (Turgeon et al.
1998, p. 143). Uncertainties regarding
taxonomic classification remain not
only for the genus Catinella, but also for
members of the snail family
Succineidae. In recent analyses, species
designation for members of this family
has been determined to be too
questionable to differentiate the species
using shell appearance and location
alone (Burch 1962, p. 67; Hoagland and
Davis 1987, pp. 518–519; Anderson
2005, p. 189; Nekola 2003b, p. 8; Barthel
and Nekola 2000, p. 24). Furthermore,
using soft body parts to identify species
in this snail family also appears
questionable, especially as the
characteristics of those body parts
change as the individuals mature
(Nekola 2009, p. 103; Coles 2010, pers.
comm.).
In summary, the taxonomic identity of
the extant snails that have been referred
to as the ‘‘frigid ambersnail’’ has been
substantially questioned in recent years.
While some individual researchers
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
continue to recognize currently living
individuals of ambersnail as Catinella
gelida, this entity is not widely
recognized as an extant species or
subspecies by the scientific community
at this time. The type of additional
information that may permit a formal
description may include a more
thorough description of an extant type
specimen, an evaluation of various lines
of evidence (morphological, ecological,
biogeographical, genetic) relevant to its
taxonomic status, resolution of any
discrepancies in taxonomic
nomenclature, or a combination of these
(e.g., Weaver 2006, pp. 49–65), and that
the taxon be accepted as valid by widely
recognized sources (e.g., Turgeon et al.
1998, entire; ITIS 2010).
Therefore, we find based on the best
information available, that Catinella
gelida is not a modern living (extant)
species. Catinella gelida was described
from a fossil, and the most current
information now indicates that the
currently living specimens that were
classified as frigid ambersnail were
likely misclassified, and are likely not
Catinella gelida. The taxonomy of these
living ambersnails is uncertain.
Catinella gelida itself, as described from
the fossil specimen, likely exists only in
fossil form, and the currently living
individuals likely belong to a different
taxon. Therefore, we find that the
currently living specimens, that were
previously thought to be frigid
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
ambersnail, are not valid taxonomically.
Although additional study could affect
the taxonomic conclusion of this
finding, the taxonomic identity of the
modern living (extant) frigid ambersnail
has not been confirmed as of this date
by current species experts.
Finding
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the taxonomic status
of the frigid ambersnail (Catinella
gelida). We reviewed the petition,
available published and unpublished
scientific and commercial information,
and information submitted to us during
the information collection period on our
status review following our 90-day
finding. We also consulted with
recognized experts. The frigid
ambersnail is not recognized as an
extant species or subspecies by the
scientific community, and the
taxonomic status of extant specimens is
currently uncertain. The named
petitioned entity, Catinella gelida, is
extinct and only exists in fossil form.
Modern, existing populations, that were
originally described as C. gelida, are not
C. gelida, and their taxonomic identity
remains uncertain. Consequently, the
Service does not at this time consider
the petitioned entity, the frigid
ambersnail, to be a listable entity under
section 3(16) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). The Service encourages
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
44569
additional scientific investigations that
will resolve the significant uncertainties
concerning the taxonomy of frigid
ambersnail. Because we have concluded
the frigid ambersnail is not a listable
entity, we will not further evaluate this
ambersnail under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act. On the basis of this review, we find
that listing the frigid ambersnail as
endangered or threatened is not
warranted because the frigid ambersnail
does not meet the definition of a
‘‘species’’ under the Act.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the Field Supervisor at the
Rock Island Ecological Services Office
(see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Rock Island
Ecological Services Field Office, Moline,
Illinois (see ADDRESSES section).
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 13, 2011.
David Cottingham,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–18855 Filed 7–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44566-44569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18855]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R3-ES-2011-0025; MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Frigid Ambersnail as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-
month finding on a petition to list the frigid ambersnail (Catinella
gelida) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
After reviewing all available scientific and commercial information, we
find that listing the frigid ambersnail is not warranted because
currently living individuals that were identified as frigid ambersnails
do not constitute a unique and valid, currently living taxon;
therefore, it is not considered to be a listable entity under the Act.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made July 26, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R3-ES-2011-0025. The complete
file for this finding is available for inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Rock Island
[[Page 44567]]
Ecological Services Field Office, 1511 47th Avenue, Moline, IL 61265;
phone (309) 757-5800. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning this species or this finding to the
above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Millar (see ADDRESSES).
Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call
the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing a species may be warranted, we make
a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In
this finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Previous Federal Actions
Federal action for the frigid ambersnail began on July 30, 2007,
after we received a petition dated July 24, 2007, from Forest Guardians
(now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service: (1) Consider all
full species in our mountain-prairie region ranked as G1 or G1G2 by the
organization NatureServe, except those that are currently listed,
proposed for listing, or candidates for listing; and (2) list each
species as either endangered or threatened (Forest Guardians 2007, pp.
1-37). We acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to the
Forest Guardians, dated August 24, 2007 (Slack 2007, p. 1). In that
letter we stated, based on preliminary review, that we found no
compelling evidence to support an emergency listing for any of the
species covered by the petition.
On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint (1:08-CV-
472-CKK) indicating that the Service had failed to make 90-day petition
findings under section 4 of the Act for the 206 mountain-prairie
species, including the frigid ambersnail. On February 5, 2009, we
published a 90-day finding (74 FR 6122) for 165 of the 206 mountain-
prairie species, which did not include the frigid ambersnail. On March
13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated
settlement in the District of Columbia Court, agreeing that the Service
would submit to the Federal Register a finding as to whether WildEarth
Guardians' petition presented substantial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted for 38 mountain-prairie region
species by August 9, 2009 (WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar 2009, case
1:08-CV-472-CKK). On August 18, 2009, we published a 90-day finding (74
FR 41649) for 38 mountain-prairie region species, and initiated status
reviews on 29 of those species, including the frigid ambersnail.
On January 8, 2010, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint
indicating that the Service had failed to complete a 12-month finding
on the frigid ambersnail, and on January 20, 2010, they filed an
amended complaint. On June 29, 2010, this complaint was consolidated in
the District of Columbia District Court along with 11 other individual
cases filed by WildEarth Guardians, all related to multiple-species
petitions. This litigation is currently unresolved.
This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 24, 2007,
petition to list the frigid ambersnail as endangered.
Range
The frigid ambersnail is a prehistoric snail known from the
Pleistocene period, which spanned from 1.8 million to approximately
10,000 years ago. The species has an extensive fossil record. Based on
that fossil record, its historical range included eight states: Iowa,
Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and New York
(Frest 1991, p. 17). Individuals, that at the time were thought to be
living specimens of frigid ambersnails, were subsequently found in the
Black Hills of South Dakota and south of Green Bay in Wisconsin (Frest
and Johannes 2002, pp. 73-74). Current, putative populations are only
now known from Iowa, the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota
and, possibly, Wisconsin. Currently, taxonomy regarding these extant
populations is unclear as to whether these are frigid ambersnails (as
described from the prehistoric fossils) or members of a different,
likely more common, taxon.
Taxonomy
Catinella gelida was initially described as a widespread
prehistoric fossil. The genus Catinella belongs to phylum Mollusca,
class Gastropoda, order Stylommatophora (terrestrial snails and slugs),
and family Succineidae. Baker (1927, pp. 118-119) first described the
fossil shell of the frigid ambersnail as a subspecies of Succinea
grosvenorii (Baker 1927). Baker (1927) describes the fossil species as
having a small (less than 10 mm (0.4 inches), elongated shell. The
whorls (a single turn in the spiral of the shell) are convex and
separated by deep sutures--the last whorl is small, flat-sided, and
slightly convex. The spire (the part of the shell that consists of all
of the whorls, except the body whorl) is long and acute with a rounded
aperture (main opening of the shell) that is about half as long as the
shell. The columella (central column inside the shell) is straight,
gently curving to the parietal wall (margin of the aperture and part of
the wall of the body whorl that is closest to the columella), and does
not form a distinct angle. The slight callus (thickened calcareous
deposit which may be present on the parietal wall of the aperture of
the adult shell) is spread over the parietal wall. The sculpture
(ornamentation on the outer surface of the shell) is fine with vertical
striae (thin, narrow grooves).
Thirty-six years after Baker (1927) first described the species,
the fossil form was reclassified as distinct from Succinea grosvenori
and retained as a separate species named Catinella gelida by Leslie
Hubricht (Hubricht 1963, pp. 137-138). As Hubricht (1963, p.137)
stated: ``This species [Succinea grosvenori gelida], is certainly not
related to Succinea grosvenori as now understood. Some shells resemble
a slender Catinella vermeta (Say), and others resemble shells of
Catinella wandae (Webb) from Grand Teton National Park, Teton County,
Wyoming, and it is possible that the name gelida has been applied to
more than one species. In view of the impossibility of demonstrating
the relationship to either of the above species by anatomical studies,
Catinella gelida is here retained as a separate species.'' As Hubricht
states, identification of the fossil form used fossil shell
characterics only.
In 1985, Terrence Frest (1985, p. 4) described what was thought to
be the first live specimen of the frigid ambersnail from the carbonate
cliffs of Iowa. The basis for his identification was geologic location
and shell
[[Page 44568]]
morphology. Prior to this, the species was thought to only occur in
fossil form. What were thought to be additional relic populations were
then identified in the Black Hills of South Dakota and south of Green
Bay in Wisconsin (Frest and Johannes 2002, pp. 73-74).
Frest's (1991, p. 16) described the physical appearance of
individuals in those relic populations by expanding on Baker's (1927,
pp. 118-119) description of the fossil form of frigid ambersnail.
However, Frest's (1991, p. 16) description still provides information
on the shell only, stating that ``Live specimens are slightly smaller
on average than fossil (e.g., average length 7.0 rather than 7.0-8.0
mm), but otherwise identical. In life the color is a peculiar light
yellow-green; the body is dark grey to nearly black. The sculpture on
both fossil and recent specimens is rather stronger than in most
Succineidae.''
A number of researchers (e.g., Patterson 1971, p. 133; Grimm 1996,
p. 1; Coles and Walsh 1999, p. 32; Pigati et al. 2010, p. 5) have
suggested that for accurate identification of species of living land
snails within the Succineidae family, supporting anatomical information
is critical in addition to morphological information. Patterson (1971,
p. 133) stated the following in his taxonomic studies of the land
snail's family Succineidae, ``The taxonomic placement of most species
of the Succineidae is still based largely on shell characters, which,
because of little diversity and considerable convergence, give only
fragmentary or unreliable aid in systematic analyses. Currently,
features of the male and female reproductive tract, the radula and jaw,
and to some extent, patterns of pigmentation, are being used to
characterize some genera and species. However, to date, only a very few
species have been studied with regard to such morphological characters,
which leaves the systematics of the Succineidae in an inadequate and
confused state.''
Grimm (1996, p. 1) and Coles and Walsh (1999, p. 32) also
considered the use of additional anatomical features, such as genitalic
structure, to be crucial for the accurate identification of extant
Catinella species. Pigati et al. (2010, p. 5) recently described the
need for additional morphological characteristics to distinguish among
species for the Succineidae family and the genus Catinella: ``In the
fossil record, species-level identification of fossil shells is
possible for most small terrestrial gastropods and, therefore, the
results of our investigation of modern gastropods can be applied
directly to the fossil record. An exception is the Succineidae family,
which is composed of three genera (Catinella, Oxyloma, and Succinea)
that are difficult to differentiate in modern faunas. Their simple
shells exhibit few diagnostic characteristics and, therefore, species-
level identification is based on soft-body reproductive organ
morphology, which is rarely preserved in the fossil record.''
In 2002, Frest and Johannes acknowledged the difficulty of using a
fossil form as the originally described specimen of frigid ambersnail
to identify living individuals. However, they continued to support the
species classification, stating that, ``as it happens, shell characters
of C. gelida are sufficiently distinctive as to make it unlikely to be
confused with other described North American succineids. Preliminary
dissections of specimens from the Iowa-Minnesota colonies confirm
placement of those specimens in Catinella. The body color is unlike any
other described species. The few live South Dakota specimens seen
appear identical in morphology to those from Iowa'' (Frest and Johannes
2002, p. 70). Although Frest and Johannes (2002, p. 7) have stated that
fossil shell morphological characteristics alone were adequate to
classify a living specimen, current researchers (such as Anderson
(2005) and Nekola (2009, 2010) (see below)) do not support this
assertion.
Anderson (2005) examined Catinella-like shells in Wind Cave
National Park, South Dakota. In her analysis, she identified the
Catinella specimens to genus level only, noting the conflicting opinion
on the use of shell characteristics for identification to species level
(Anderson 2005, p. 189). She cites Burch (1962) and Hoagland and Davis
(1987) as cautioning against using such characteristics alone in
identifying species in this taxonomic family.
Jeffrey Nekola is a professor with the University of New Mexico and
is considered an expert in land snails, has authored numerous
publications on the topic, and has field experience with fauna of the
carbonate cliffs of Iowa and the surrounding area. Nekola indicated
several issues with the classification of the living frigid ambersnail
in response to our publication of a 90-day finding (74 FR 41649) and
initiation of status review on a petition to list the frigid ambersnail
(Catinella gelida) as endangered. Nekola (2010, pers. comm.) stated
that there is not a published account of a dissection of the frigid
ambersnail. Nekola has examined living snail soft body parts from
ambersnails (from Nekola 1998 and 2003) that met the description of the
fossil frigid ambersnail (as described by Frest 1991). He (Nekola pers.
comm. 2010) subsequently analyzed this material and found the soft body
parts to be similar to those found in the slope ambersnail (C. wandae).
In addition, Nekola (2009, p. 103) questions the validity of using soft
body parts for the taxonomic identification of species in this genus.
He notes that the structure of the genitalia in this group of snails is
highly variable and that, looking at genitalia, individuals may
resemble different species as they pass through various stages of
development from embryo to adult (Nekola 2009, p. 103). This is
supported by Coles (2010, pers. comm.), who stated that based on his
own work, the relative size and development of the male Catinella
genital appendix can vary with age.
Because of the difficulty in defining characteristic soft parts,
Nekola now believes that the only positive way to distinguish species
in Catinella's group is to look at genetic data within and between
populations, at the species and genus levels (Nekola 2009, p. 103).
Ostlie (2009, p. 51) supports obtaining additional information, such as
analysis of DNA, to confirm identification of the species.
Based on the best available current scientific information, the
validity of the frigid ambersnail as an extant species has reasonably
been questioned. The frigid ambersnail (Catinella gelida) is not
recognized as a valid extant species or subspecies by the Integrated
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2011) or the Council of Systematic
Malacologists and the American Malacological Union (Turgeon et al.
1998, p. 143). Uncertainties regarding taxonomic classification remain
not only for the genus Catinella, but also for members of the snail
family Succineidae. In recent analyses, species designation for members
of this family has been determined to be too questionable to
differentiate the species using shell appearance and location alone
(Burch 1962, p. 67; Hoagland and Davis 1987, pp. 518-519; Anderson
2005, p. 189; Nekola 2003b, p. 8; Barthel and Nekola 2000, p. 24).
Furthermore, using soft body parts to identify species in this snail
family also appears questionable, especially as the characteristics of
those body parts change as the individuals mature (Nekola 2009, p. 103;
Coles 2010, pers. comm.).
In summary, the taxonomic identity of the extant snails that have
been referred to as the ``frigid ambersnail'' has been substantially
questioned in recent years. While some individual researchers
[[Page 44569]]
continue to recognize currently living individuals of ambersnail as
Catinella gelida, this entity is not widely recognized as an extant
species or subspecies by the scientific community at this time. The
type of additional information that may permit a formal description may
include a more thorough description of an extant type specimen, an
evaluation of various lines of evidence (morphological, ecological,
biogeographical, genetic) relevant to its taxonomic status, resolution
of any discrepancies in taxonomic nomenclature, or a combination of
these (e.g., Weaver 2006, pp. 49-65), and that the taxon be accepted as
valid by widely recognized sources (e.g., Turgeon et al. 1998, entire;
ITIS 2010).
Therefore, we find based on the best information available, that
Catinella gelida is not a modern living (extant) species. Catinella
gelida was described from a fossil, and the most current information
now indicates that the currently living specimens that were classified
as frigid ambersnail were likely misclassified, and are likely not
Catinella gelida. The taxonomy of these living ambersnails is
uncertain. Catinella gelida itself, as described from the fossil
specimen, likely exists only in fossil form, and the currently living
individuals likely belong to a different taxon. Therefore, we find that
the currently living specimens, that were previously thought to be
frigid ambersnail, are not valid taxonomically. Although additional
study could affect the taxonomic conclusion of this finding, the
taxonomic identity of the modern living (extant) frigid ambersnail has
not been confirmed as of this date by current species experts.
Finding
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the taxonomic status of the frigid
ambersnail (Catinella gelida). We reviewed the petition, available
published and unpublished scientific and commercial information, and
information submitted to us during the information collection period on
our status review following our 90-day finding. We also consulted with
recognized experts. The frigid ambersnail is not recognized as an
extant species or subspecies by the scientific community, and the
taxonomic status of extant specimens is currently uncertain. The named
petitioned entity, Catinella gelida, is extinct and only exists in
fossil form. Modern, existing populations, that were originally
described as C. gelida, are not C. gelida, and their taxonomic identity
remains uncertain. Consequently, the Service does not at this time
consider the petitioned entity, the frigid ambersnail, to be a listable
entity under section 3(16) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Service
encourages additional scientific investigations that will resolve the
significant uncertainties concerning the taxonomy of frigid ambersnail.
Because we have concluded the frigid ambersnail is not a listable
entity, we will not further evaluate this ambersnail under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. On the basis of this review, we find that listing
the frigid ambersnail as endangered or threatened is not warranted
because the frigid ambersnail does not meet the definition of a
``species'' under the Act.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Field
Supervisor at the Rock Island Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Author
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Rock Island Ecological Services Field Office, Moline, Illinois (see
ADDRESSES section).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 13, 2011.
David Cottingham,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-18855 Filed 7-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
