Conservation Genetics

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 1303–1309 | Cite as

Three deeply divided lineages of the freshwater mussel genus Anodonta in western North America

  • Jer Pin Chong
  • Jayne C. Brim Box
  • Jeanette K. Howard
  • David Wolf
  • Terry L. Myers
  • Karen E. Mock
Short Communication


The surprising diversity and recent dramatic decline of freshwater mussels in North America have been well documented, although inventory efforts to date have been concentrated in the eastern United States. Unlike their eastern counterparts, western freshwater mussels have received comparatively little attention. The accurate identity of western lineages is a necessary component for future inventory, monitoring, and ecological work involving these taxa. Here we initiate a study involving the most speciose genus (Anodonta) in western North America, incorporating information about type localities and type specimen morphology and describing the discovery of three highly divergent lineages among four western Anodonta species. In a limited phylogenetic analysis, we find (1) that A. californiensis/nuttalliana and A.oregonensis/kennerlyi are distinct, highly divergent clades, and (2) that A. beringiana is more closely allied with A. woodiana, an Asian species, than either of the other two western North American clades. We were largely unable to resolve the placement of these three clades with respect to other anodontines, and suggest the need for a broader phylogenetic framework. We recommend, however, that the existence of these three deeply divergent groups be considered in the development of regional monitoring, conservation and research plans despite the taxonomic uncertainty.


Anodonta Floater Freshwater mussel Mitochondrial DNA North America Unionid 



We are grateful to Ken P. Currens, David Close, and Gary James for their efforts in establishing the freshwater mussel research program of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). We also acknowledge the field assistance provided by Donna Nez (CTUIR) and Steven C. Smith (University of Alaska at Anchorage) as well as advice and comments provided by Art Bogan, North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, and Randy Hoeh, Kent State University.


  1. Bogan AE (1993) Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionoida): a search for causes. Am Zool 33:599–609Google Scholar
  2. Burch JB (1973) Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Call RE (1884) On the quaternary and recent Mollusca of the Great Basin, with descriptions of new forms. Bull US Geol Surv 11:358–421Google Scholar
  4. Campbell DC, Serb JM, Buhay JE, Roe KJ, Minton RL, Lydeard C (2005) Phylogeny of North American amblemines (Bivalvia, Unionoida): prodigious polyphyly proves pervasive across genera. Invertebr Biol 124:131–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter PP (1856) Monograph of the shells collected by T. Null, Esq., on the California coast, in the years 1834–5. Proc Zool Soc Lond 24:209–229Google Scholar
  6. Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W et al (1994) DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol 3:294–299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Henderson J (1929) Non-marine Mollusca of Oregon and Washington. Univ of Colorado Studies 17:47–111Google Scholar
  8. Hoeh WR (1990) Phylogenetic relationships among eastern North American Anodonta (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacol Rev 23:68–82Google Scholar
  9. Kat PW (1983) Genetic and morphological divergence among nominal species of North America Anodonta (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacologia 23:361–374Google Scholar
  10. King TL, Eackles MS, Gjetvaj B, Hoeh WR (1999) Intraspecific phylogeography of Lasmigona subviridis (Bivalvia: Unionidae): conservation implications of range discontinuity. Mol Ecol 8:S65–S78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol 16:111–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kumar S, Tamura K, Nei M (2004) MEGA3: integrated software for Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis and sequence alignment. Brief Bioinform 5:150–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lea I (1838) Description of new freshwater and land shells. Trans Am Philosoph Soc 6(N. S.):1–154 + plates i-xxivGoogle Scholar
  14. Lea I (1852) Descriptions of new species of the family Unionidae. Trans Am Philosoph Soc 10(N. S.):253–294 + plates 12–19Google Scholar
  15. Lea I (1860) Descriptions of seven new species of Unionidae from the United States. Proc Acad Nat Sci Philadelphia 12:306–307Google Scholar
  16. Lewis J (1875) Description of a new species of Anodonta. Field and Forest 1:26–27Google Scholar
  17. Lydeard C, Mayden RL (1995) A diverse and endangered aquatic ecosystem of the southeast United States. Conserv Biol 9:800–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lydeard C, Holznagel WE, Glaubrecht M, Ponder WF (2002) Molecular phylogeny and evidence for multiple origins of freshwater gastropods of the circum-global, diverse superfamily Cerithioidea (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda). Mol Phylogenet Evol 22:399–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lydeard C, Lindberg DR (2003) Challenges and research opportunities in molluscan molecular phylogenetics. In: Lydeard C, Lindberg DR (eds) Molecular systematics and phylogeography of mollusks. Smithsonian Books, Washington, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  20. Lydeard C, Cowie RH, Ponder WF et al (2004) The global decline of nonmarine mollusks. Bioscience 54:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Master LL, Stein BA, Kutnere LS, Hammerson GA (2000) Vanishing assets: conservation status of US species. In: Stein BA, Kutner LS, Adams JS (eds) Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 93–118Google Scholar
  22. Middendorff AT (1851) Bescreibung einiger neuer Mollusken-Arten, nebst einem Blicke auf den geographischen Charkter der Land- und Süsswasser-Mollusken Nord-Asiens. Bull Classe Physico-Math Acad Imp Sci St-Petersb 9:108–112Google Scholar
  23. Minton RL, Lydeard C (2003) Phylogeny, taxonomy, genetics and global heritage ranks of an imperiled, freshwater snail genus Lithasia (Pleuroceridae). Mol Ecol 12:75–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mock KE, Brim Box JC, Miller MP et al (2004) Genetic diversity and divergence among freshwater mussel (Anodonta) populations in the Bonneville basin of Utah. Mol Ecol 13:1085–1098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mullenbach R, Lagoda PL, Welter C (1989) An efficient salt-chloroform extraction of DNA from blood and tissues. Trends Genet 5:391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nei M, Kumar S (2000) Molecular evolution and pylogenetics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Neves RJ, Bogan AE, Williams JD et al (1997) Status of aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. In: Benz GW, Collins DE (eds) Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective, March-April 1994. Special Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA., pp 43–85Google Scholar
  28. Simpson CT (1914) A descriptive catalogue of the naiades, or pearly freshwater mussels. Bryan Walker, DetroitGoogle Scholar
  29. Stansbery DH (1971) Rare and endangered fresh-water mollusks in eastern United States. In: Jorgensen ES, Sharp RW (eds) Proceedings of a Symposium on Rare and Endangered Mollusks (Naiads) of the United States. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Department of the Interior, Twin Cities, Minnesota, pp 1–18f + 50 platesGoogle Scholar
  30. Turgeon DD, Quinn JE Jr., Bogan AE et al (1998) Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks, 2nd edn. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 26:ix-526Google Scholar
  31. Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M et al (1995) AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nuclei Acids Res 23:4407–4414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams JD, Mulvey M (1997) Recognition of freshwater mussel taxa: a conservation challenge. In: Meffe GK, Carroll CR (eds) Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 64–65Google Scholar
  33. Zanatta DT, Ngo A, Lindell J (2007) Reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships among Anodonta, Pyganodon, and Utterbackia (Bivalvia: Unionioda) using mutation coding of allozyme data. Proc Acad Nat Sci Philadelphia 156:211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jer Pin Chong
    • 1
  • Jayne C. Brim Box
    • 2
  • Jeanette K. Howard
    • 2
  • David Wolf
    • 2
  • Terry L. Myers
    • 3
  • Karen E. Mock
    • 1
  1. 1.Wildland Resources DepartmentUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian ReservationDepartment of Natural ResourcesPendletonUSA
  3. 3.Apache-Sitgreaves National ForestsSpringervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations