Cambarus striatus Hay 1902

Cambarus (D.) striatus

E Cymocythere cyma (Hobbs and Walton, 1960a:18): Gordon (Hart and Hart, 1974:44)

Dactylocythere falcata (Hobbs and Walton, 1961:379): Whitfield (Hart and Hart, 1974:58)

Daclylocythere mecoscapha (Hobbs and Walton, 1960a:19): Walker (Hart and Hart, 1974:63)

Dactylocythere suteri: Murray (Hart and Hart, 1974:73)

Entocythere elliptica: Murray, Whitfield (Hart and Hart, 1974:88)

Entocythere internotalus: Dooly (Hart and Hart, 1974:90)

Uncinocythere simondsi: Carroll, Floyd, Murray, Walker (Hart and Hart, 1974:134)

Cambarus (Depressicambarus) striatus Hay

Camburus sp. [Ashland City, Tennessee],—Faxon, 1885b:358 [lapsus for Cambarus],

Cambarus latimanus striatus Hay, 1902a:437–439.

Cambarus (Bartonius) latimanus var. striatus.—Ortmann, 1905a: 119 [by implication],

Cambarus (Cambarus) latimanus striatus.—Fowler, 1912:341 [by implication],

Cambarus (Cambarus) bartoni striatus.—Ortmann, 1931:142, 143.

Cambarus (Cambarus) bartonii striatus.—Fleming, 1938:303.

?Cambarus latimanus.—Fleming, 1939:311 [erroneous spelling]

?Cambarus latimus.—Fleming, 1939:319 [erroneous spelling],

Cambarus floridanus Hobbs, 1941b: 113–118, figs. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 19, 22, 25, 31, 32 [holotype and allotype, USNM 79341 (I, ), and “morphotype,” USNM 79344 (II); paratypes, MCZ, USNM. Type-locality, 12 miles W of Tallahassee on St Rte 19, Leon County, Florida]; 1942a:356, pl 3: figs. 1, 5; 1942b:6, 9, 14, 20, 32, 156–159, 161, 162, figs. 191–195; 1945a, fig. 14; 1959:897; 1968b:K-16*.—Hobbs and Hart, 1959:148, 151, 159, 161, 164, 172*, 186–187*, fig. 24—Bouchard, 1978:27–29, 42.

Cambarus bartonii striatus.—Hobbs, 1942a:354 [by implication].—Hobbs and Shoup, 1942:637.

Cambarus bartoni striatus.—Rhoades, 1944:114, 142.

Cambarus striatus.—Hobbs, 1956b:61; 1968b:K-16*.—Hall, 1957:4, 22, 40, 41–47, 51–53, pl. 4, map 1.—Hobbs and Hobbs, 1962:41*.—Hobbs and Hall, 1969:293.—Anonymous, 1969a:C23, C24, C27–29, C31; 1970b: 161, 163–166, 168.—Bouchard, 1978:27–29, 40, 43–46.—Wharton, 1978:220*.

Cambarus sp.—Anonymous, 1967j, tab. 3.—Holsinger and Peck, 1971:30*.

Cambarus (Depressicambarus) striatus.—Hobbs, 1969a:(102, 104, 105, 118, 136, 138, fig. 8)*; 1972b: 115*, 147*; 1974b: 14* [the figures in these three publications are of C. (D.) grassoni],—Bouchard, 1978:30, 40–43*, figs. 2d,e, 10–14*.

Cambarus (Depressicambarus) floridanus.—Hobbs, 1969a: 104, 105, 136, 138, 144, 171, figs. 8*, 18d; 1972b:116, 146*, fig. 98b; 1974b: 12, fig. 34.

Cambarus latimanus.—Holsinger and Peck, 1971:30*.

Cambarus (Depressicambarus) sp.—Bouchard, 1972:91.—Hart and Hart, 1974:44*, 58, (63, 73, 88, 90, 134)*.

Cambarus species B—Hobbs and Hall, 1974:204.

The above includes all of the synonyms for the species but does not contain many references to its occurrence in other states. References to Georgia are indicated by asterisks.

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE PERTAINING TO GEORGIA.—The first indication of the presence of this crayfish in Georgia was in the unpublished thesis of Hall (1957). On his distribution map, he noted four localities in the northwestern part of the state in Chattooga and Floyd counties and near the Dade-Walker county line. The first published Georgia record was that of Hobbs and Hart (1959), who recorded Cambarus floridanus (a junior synonym) from a ravine adjacent to the east end of Woodruff Dam in Decatur County. In 1962 Hobbs and Hobbs reported it to have been collected with Cambarus (J.) conasaugaensis in the type-locality of the latter, 2 miles east of Chatsworth, Murray County. Not until 1969 were a number of localities cited for the species in the Conasauga Basin in Gordon, Murray, and Whitfield counties (Anonymous, 1969a, 1970b).

Holsinger and Peck (1971), on the basis of my misidentifications, recorded specimens of this species from Byers and Hurricane caves in Dade County as Cambarus latimanus and that from Bible Cave in Walker County as Cambarus sp. Hart and Hart (1974) cited it as Cambarus (Depressicambarus) sp. in several localities in the Coosa Basin and from the Chickamauga and Flint drainage systems, where it served as host to several entocytherid ostracods.

As pointed out in the above synonomy and in the discussion under the subgenus Depressicambarus, Cambarus (D.) floridanus is a junior synonym of C. (D.) striatus. Both Bouchard (1978), in reviewing the subgenus, and I, in preparing this summary of the crayfishes of Georgia, encountered difficulties in separating the two species; however, in view of the following remarks of Hobbs and Hart (1959:186) concerning the color of C. floridanus, both of us were hesitant to synonymize them.

All specimens except those collected at Torreya State Park, Liberty County, Florida, are purplish red dorsally fading to pinkish lavender along the lower lateral margins of the carapace. The chelipeds are also purplish red with dark tubercles. Specimens from Torreya State Park are concolorous, approximating the color of a boiled lobster.

The latter were described by Bouchard (1978:37) as C. (D.) pyronotus.

In order to determine whether such a difference in color exists between the two, I returned to the type-locality of C. (D.) floridanus and collected additional specimens, and, much to my chagrin, those obtained were brownish with conspicuous orange markings, particularly on the chelipeds. The only living specimen of C. floridanus that Hart and I saw during the preparation of our Apalachicola report was a small second form male from Decatur County, Georgia, and the statement was based on my faulty recollection of the color observed in specimens from the other localities cited.

Certainly the coloration of topotypes (Ochlockonee Basin) does not agree with my recollection, and specimens from the Apalachicola (especially the Chipola) Basin should be obtained to be certain that they are likewise drab olive brown and orange rather than purplish red! In view of this, Bouchard and I concur that C. (D.) floridanus is a synonym of C. (D.) striatus Hay.

Because of a lack of understanding of the identity of Cambarus striatus, all subsequent authors have followed the suggestion of Ortmann (1931:142) in considering C. (D.) graysoni Faxon (1914: 393) its junior synonym. Not until Bouchard (1978:28) discovered that two species were represented among specimens referred to C. striatus was Rhoades' (1944:142) synonomy questioned. Surprising was the discovery that both species occur in Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee, the type-locality of C. striatus, in the vicinity of which C. (D.) graysoni seems to be the more abundant of the two. Inasmuch as the only first form male cotype of C. striatus in the Smithsonian Institution is damaged, all of Hobbs' illustrations of this species were based on a supposed topotype that is now known to be a member of Cambarus (D.) graysoni! As a result the only illustrations of Cambarus striatus previously available are those of Bouchard (1978). For a full account of the confusion involved in the identity of these two species, the latter reference should be consulted. Included in it are redescriptions and illustrations of syntypes, a statement of its range, notes on variation (including illustrations) as well as on size, life history, and ecology. In addition, the species is treated in discussions of relationships and phylogeny of members of the subgenus Depressicambarus.

Most of the citations included in the above synonomy add nothing to our knowledge of the species. Hobbs and Hall (1974), utilizing data presented in Anonymous (1970b), indicated that Cambarus sp. B (=Cambarus striatus) is distinctly more tolerant to lower oxygen concentrations in the Conasauga River than are Cambarus sp. A (=Cambarus coosae) and Orconectes spinosus, occurring in a section of the stream where the concentration is only 1.6 mg/1.

DIAGNOSIS.—Eyes rather small. Rostrum without marginal spines or tubercles even in the young and seldom with inconspicuous median carina. Carapace without cervical spines (occasionally represented by small tubercle). Areola 7.8 to 78.0 (average 23.2) times as long as wide, constituting 35.7 to 44.3 (average 39.2) percent of entire length of carapace, 41.9 to 48.6 (average 45.7) percent of postorbital carapace length, and with 0 to 3 punctations in narrowest part. Suborbital angle obtuse to virtually obsolete (rarely subacute). Postorbital ridge terminating cephalically without spines and rarely tuberculiform. Antennal scale 2.4 to 2.6 times as long as wide, broadest distal to midlength. Palm of chela with 5 to 9 (usually 7) tubercles in mesialmost row. First pleopod of first form male with moderately long terminal elements; central projection tapering distally and rather strongly arched, shallow subapical notch seldom present, and tip reaching level proximal to position of caudal knob but not reaching so far caudally as mesial process; mesial process inflated, usually constricted in distal portion and frequently bearing 2 to 5 rounded or acute apical lobules, process disposed at angle of approximately 90 degrees to main shaft of appendage; caudal knob often well developed but occasionally reduced or absent. Mesial ramus of uropod with distomedian and distolateral spines. Carapace olive gray to tan; abdominal terga frequently with longitudinal stripes; rarely almost entirely dark blue. Female with first pleopod present.

COLOR NOTES (Figure 38c,d).—Hay (1902a: 438–439) described in some detail the color, noting two color phases (sage green and dark brown) as well as two patterns (with and without longitudinal stripes). Similar phases and patterns have been observed in specimens from Georgia; most of those collected by me exhibited the striped pattern, a description of which follows, based on a first form male from the Conasauga Basin in Gordon County.

Ground color of carapace and abdomen pale gray with tan and dark gray markings. Rostral margins orange tan, upper surface as well as dorsomedian gastric area suffused with tan; caudal gastric area with narrow transverse dark brown band adjacent to cervical groove, band broader on each side of median line but tapering rapidly and disappearing dorsolaterally. Hepatic region with almost white reticulations and tubercles and sparsely suffused with streaks of pale tan. Antennal area with almost white oblique spot. Areola grayish tan, its triangular cephalic area dark brown; dorsal region of branchiostegites with paired broad to narrow longitudinal dark brown stripes flanked ventrally by broader pale ones, latter irregular ventrally and adjacent dark coloration fading ventrally to almost white. Abdomen with median grayish tan stripe extending from cephalic extremity to base of telson (continuous with median grayish tan area on areola); this stripe flanked laterally by pair of slightly narrower dark grayish brown stripes continuing caudally from those on branchiostegites, stripes decreasing in width caudally and diverging on sixth abdominal tergum; caudal margin of each tergum edged with rust; bases of pleura with ventsally convex narrow dark stripes forming scalloped line from first to cephalic margin of sixth segment; each segment of stripe bleeding caudoventrally onto pleuron, cephaloventral portions of which very pale gray to white. Peduncles of antennule and antenna mostly pale gray with few darker markings, and antennal scale with longitudinal dark line laterally. Dorsal surface of cheliped from midlength of merus distally little different in color from dorsal surface of carapace, but much darker than proximolateral and ventral surfaces; carpus mostly dark brown with paletipped tubercles; chela with tan suffusion more intense on fingers than on palm; fingers light tan to cream preapically and with lateral costa of propodus and tubercles cream to white; apical spines orange to dark brown. Remaining pereiopods pale gray with slightly darker mottlings distal to midlength of merus.

Some individuals with tan and brown predominating rather than shades of gray but exhibiting same striped pattern. Others more nearly concolorous, ranging from pale gray to reddish brown, and only obvious pattern consisting of paired dark brown dorsolateral spots on abdominal terga and rather inconspicuous scalloped stripe along bases of pleura.

The color of other populations and that of “C. floridanus” are described by Bouchard (1978).

TYPES.—Syntypes, USNM 25019 (I, 3II, 4), MCZ 7348 (I, II, 3).

TYPE-LOCALITY.—Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee.

RANGE.—This crayfish ranges from the upper Savannah, Altamaha, and Coosa basins in Georgia and the Ochlockonee basin in Florida through much of Alabama and Mississippi, across Tennessee west of the Blue Ridge, and as far north as the Green watershed in Kentucky (see Bouchard, 1978:37). In Georgia, it is one of the dominant species in the northwestern part of the state, where it is abundant in tributaries of the Coosa River, especially in the Conasauga system and in the Coosawattee River basin below Carter's Reservoir. It is also present in the watersheds of Chickamauga and Lookout creeks. In the Etowah, Tallapoosa, Chattahoochee, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee basins, it is less frequently encountered, but in the latter four it has become established on the upper part of the coastal plain as well as in the piedmont. Thus in Georgia, it ranges from the Appalachian Plateau and Ridge and Valley provinces onto the Dougherty Plain but appears to be absent from the Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, and Ogeechee river basins.

GEORGIA SPECIMENS EXAMINED.—Approximately 800 specimens have been examined by me from about 100 localities. A few of the localities are so close together that all could not be indicated on the accompanying map (Figure 53).

VARIATIONS.—Most conspicuous among the variations noted in the Georgia representatives of this species are the rather marked differences in the relative length and width of the areola. The extremely short ones (less than 37 percent of the total length of the carapace) occur in only 8 percent of the specimens measured, and those individuals with an areola length less than 44 percent of the postorbital carapace length comprise less than 17 percent of those measured. The extremely broad areola (less than 9.5 times longer than broad) occurs in less than two percent of the specimens measured. Those with such comparatively short and broad areolae to some extent appear to be limited to a restricted area of the range; most of those observed were collected in the Conasauga Basin in Murray and Whitfield counties, where few individuals have areolae with relative lengths as great as the average for the species in the state. The only other specimens with areolae of similar relative lengths are single individuals from the Catoosa and Chickamauga basins in Walker County and a single one from the Flint Basin in Pike County. Collected with the latter specimen was one with a longer (38.8 percent of the total length of the carapace) but comparatively broad (9.6 times as long as broad) areola.

The rostra of most of the specimens from the Conasauga Basin are broader and more obviously concave than in most individuals from elsewhere.

One of the most distinctive populations is that from the Alcovy River floodplain in Newton County, where the entire colony is apparently restricted to burrows, none having been found in the river. The areola is very narrow (Figure 55q), ranging from 29 to more than 70 (average about 52) times as long as broad and constituting 40.0 to 43.4 (average 42.8) percent of the total length of the carapace, 45.3 to 50.7 (average 47.8) percent of the postorbital carapace length. (The comparable ratios for all the specimens measured from elsewhere in Georgia are 7.8 to 48.5 (18.0); 35.7 to 44.3 (38.5); and 41.9 to 48.6 (45.4).) The rostra are distinctly shorter and the margins more convergent than in specimens from the Conasauga, and there are few specimens from elsewhere in which the rostrum is as short.

The range of differences existing in the pleopods of first form males available is illustrated in Figure 55. Some of the specimens from Gordon County bear plumose setae on the proximomesial surface of the mesial process (Figure 55a). In the specimens from the Coosa Basin (Figure 55b–h), the caudal knob may be strongly developed (Figure 55c) or obsolete (Figure 55b,f), and there is almost as much variation in the curvature of the central projection as is known to occur outside of the basin elsewhere in Georgia. A moderately well defined subapical notch is present on the central projection of the single first form male available from Harris County (Figure 55j), and a conspicuous one is present in specimens from Dawson and Wilkinson counties (Figure 55f,l).

The shorter rostrum, obliterated areola, and the tuft of setae at the opposable base of the fixed finger of the chela in specimens from Miller County (Spring Creek, 0.6 miles west of Colquitt) and Early County (Big Ditch, 0.7 mile east of Blakely on St Rte 62) make them stand quite apart from most of the seemingly more typical representatives of the species elsewhere in Georgia.

Variations in color have been pointed out in the paragraphs devoted to color notes.

SIZE.—The largest specimen collected in Georgia is a female from the Coosa Basin in Murray County that has a carapace length of 60.1 (postorbital carapace length 52.8) mm (see Bouchard, 1978:43). The corresponding lengths of the smallest and largest first form males are 31.5 (28.7) and 45.0 (38.1) mm.

Cambarus (Depressicambarus) striatus Hay

Camburus sp. (Ashland City, Tennessee) Faxon, 1885c:358 [lapsus for Cambarus].

Cambarus latimanus striatus Hay, 1902b:437.

Cambarus graysoni Faxon, 1914:393. [Types, MCZ 3593 (II, 3). Type-locality, Bear Creek, a tributary of Green River, Grayson Springs, Grayson County, Kentucky.]

Cambarus (Cambarus) bartoni striatus.—Ortmann, 1931:140.

Cambarus (Cambarus) bartonii striatus.—Fleming, 1938:303.

Cambarus latimanus.—Fleming, 1939:311 [erroneous spelling].

Cambarus latimus.—Fleming, 1939:319 [erroneous spelling].

Cambarus bartonii striatus.—Hobbs, 1942a: 354 [by implication].

Cambarus bartoni striatus.—Rhoades, 1944a: 114.

Cambarus striatus.—Hobbs, 1956b:61.

Cambarus (Depressicambarus) striatus.—Hobbs, 1969b: 104, figs. 8, 18j.

TYPES.—Syntypes, USNM 25019 (I, 3 II, 4 ), MCZ 7348 (I, II, 3 ).

TYPE-LOCALITY.—Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee.

RANGE.—Southern Kentucky and central Tennessee.

HABITAT.—Small streams, springs, and burrows (secondary burrower).

Erebicambarus Hobbs, 1969b:99. [Type-species by original designation, Cambarus bartoni tenebrosus Hay, 1902a:232. Gender: masculine.]

Cambarus (Depressicambarus) striatus Hay

Camburus sp. [Ashland City, Tennessee].—Faxon, 1885c:358 [lapsus for Cambarus].

Cambarus latimanus striatus Hay, 1902b:437.

Cambarus (Bartonius) latimanus var. striatus.—Ortmann, 1905c:119 [by implication].

Cambarus (Cambarus) latimanus striatus.—Fowler, 1912:341 [by implication].

Cambarus (Cambarus) bartoni striatus.—Ortmann, 1931:140.

Cambarus (Cambarus) bartoni striatus.—Fleming, 1938:303.

Cambarus latimanus.—Fleming, 1939:311 [erroneous spelling].

Cambarus latimus.—Fleming, 1939:319 [erroneous spelling].

Cambarus (Cambarus) floridanus Hobbs, 1941b:114, figs. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 19, 22, 25, 31. 32. [Holotype and allotype: USNM 79341. “Morphotype”: USNM 79344. Paratypes: USNM, MCZ, FSBC. Type locality: 12 miles (19.2 km) west of Tallahassee on State Route 19, Leon County, Florida]

Cambarus bartonii striatus.—Hobbs, 1942a:354 [by implication].

Cambarus floridanus.—Hobbs, 1942a:356; 1942b:161, pl. 11: figs. 191–195.

Cambarus bartoni striatus.—Rhoades, 1944a:114.

Cambarus striatus.—Hobbs, 1956b:61.

Cambarus (Depressicambarus) striatus.—Hobbs, 1969b:102, fig. 18j; 1974b:14 [not fig. 38, see C. (D.) graysoni herein]; 1981:127, figs. 23g, 38c, d, 39i, 53–55, 204.—Bouchard, 1978a:40, figs. 2d, e, 10–14.

Cambarus (Depressicambarus) floridanus.—Hobbs, 1969b:104, figs. 8, 18d.

TYPES.—Syntypes, USNM 20519 (male I, 3 male II, 4 female), MCZ 7348 (male I, male II, 3 female).

TYPE LOCALITY.—Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee.

RANGE.—From the Savannah and Ochlockonee basins in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida westward into Mississippi and northward through Tennessee into the Green watershed in Kentucky.

HABITAT.—Streams and burrows (primary burrower in the southern part of the range).