Comprehensive Description
provided by Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology
Cambarus (Puncticambarus) extraneus Hagen
Cambarus extraneus Hagen, 1870:73, pl. 1: figs. 88, 89, pl. 3: fig. 156.
Cambarus extraneous.—Adams, 1901:849 [erroneous spelling].
Cambarus extranus.—Steele, 1902:7 [erroneous spelling].
Cambarus (Bartonius) extraneus.—Ortmann, 1905c:120.
Cambarus (Cambarus) extraneus.—Fowler, 1912:341 [by implication].
Cambarus extranius.—Unestam, 1969:203 [erroneous spelling].
Cambarus (Puncticambarus) extraneus.—Hobbs, 1969b:101, figs. 1b, 7, 13b, 14b, 17m; 1974b:21, fig. 71; 1981:247, figs. 21f, 89g, 93, 95, 224.
TYPES.—Syntypes, MCZ 175 (3 male II, 1 female), USNM 4957 (female). Hagen (1870:74) indicated that among the 6 specimens available there were “Male Form I, and II. Fem.” The first form male is no longer among the types and was missing from them when I examined the series in the early 1940s.
TYPE LOCALITY.—“Tennessee River, (near the borders of?) Georgia” (Hagen, 1870:74). The emendation offered by Ortmann (1931:97) must be rejected because Cambarus (P.) extraneus does not occur in the Coosa (Etowah) Basin. Ortmann confused C. (P.) coosae with Hagen's species.
RANGE.—Known only from the South Chickamauga Creek basin (Tennessee River drainage) in Catoosa, Walker, and Whitfield counties, Georgia, and in the same basin in Hamilton County, Tennessee (Bouchard, 1972b:58).
HABITAT.—Streams.
- bibliographic citation
- Hobbs, Horton Holcombe, Jr. 1989. "An Illustrated Checklist of the American Crayfishes (Decapoda, Astacidae, Cambaridae, Parastacidae)." Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology. 1-236. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.480
Comprehensive Description
provided by Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology
Cambarus (Puncticambarus) extraneus Hagen
Cambarus extraneus Hagen, 1870:32, 57, 58, 73–74*, 98*, 100*, 105, 107, pl. I: figs. 88, 89, pl. III: fig. 156.—Brocchi, 1875:27.—Faxon, 1884:119, 145* [in part]; 1885a:59, 79, (84–85, 160, 170, 174, 178, 179)* [in part]; 1885b:359*; 1914:422*.—Underwood, 1886:368* [in part].—Hay, 1899b:959, 966; 1902a:436.—Ortmann, 1902:277; 1918: 849* [in part].—Harris, 1903a:59*, 97*, 146, 152*, 154 (?), 156, 159, 161 [in part]; 1903b:602.—Newcombe, 1929: 279*, 280 [in part].—Fleming, 1938:299, 301, 302*.—Hobbs, 1956c:115, 119, 120* [in part]; 1959:896* [in part]; 1965:272; 1968b:K-15*, fig. 32g; 1976, fig. 1d.—Hobbs and Barr, 1960:14–15, 23.—Hobbs, Holt, and Walton, 1967:66.—Bouchard, 1972:17, 31, 43, 58, 71, 86, 91, 104, 106; 1976a:573; 1976b:585, 586.—Wharton, 1978:220*.
Cambarus extraneous.—Adams, 1901:849 [in part; erroneous spelling].
Cambarus extranus.—Steele, 1902:7 [erroneous spelling].
Cambarus (Bartonius) extraneus.—Ortmann, 1905a:116, 118, 120, 121*, 129, 130 [in part].—Stiles and Hassall, 1927:219*.—Creaser, 1931a:6 [by implication].
Cambarus (Cambarus) extraneus.—Fowler, 1912:341 [by implication].—Ortmann, 1931:95, 96, 97*−101*, 129 [in part].—Bouchard, 1972:103; 1976a:572.
Cambarus extranius.—Unestam, 1969:203*, tab. 1* [erroneous spelling].
Cambarus (Puncticambarus) extraneus.—Hobbs, 1969a: 101, 102, 129, 130*, 133*, 135*, 141, figs. 1b, 7*, 13b, 14b, 17m; 1972b:128*, 146*, figs. 90b, 111c; 1974a:11; 1974b:20, 21*, fig. 71.—Hobbs and Bouchard, 1973:41*, 49, 50.—Bouchard, 1972:58–59*; 1976a:572, 575; 1976b:595–596*.
The above is believed to be a complete list of all published references to this crayfish. Citations mentioning Georgia are noted by asterisks.
SUMMARY OF LITERATURE.—Although the name Cambarus extraneus has appeared frequently in the literature since this crayfish was described, little is known concerning the species. Confusion relating to it began with the label accompanying the syntypes, “Tennessee River, Georgia.” In describing the species, Hagen (1870:74) pointed out that “no portion of the Tennessee River flows through Georgia,” and cited the locality “Tennessee River, (near the borders of?) Georgia.” Faxon (1884:145), by identifying the extraneus-like crayfish from the “Etowah River, Rome, Georgia” as Hagen's species, set the stage for repeated misidentifications for more than three-quarters of a century. The erroneous report of the occurrence of this crayfish in the Santee Basin, South Carolina (Faxon, 1885a: 178, apparently an error, for no specimens were cited by him earlier or in subsequent publications) and the record noted by him (1898:650) from the “Big Cahawba River, Alabama,” led to additional misunderstandings of the species. (Faxon's specimens have decayed and been discarded, but inasmuch as C. (P.) coosae is known to occur in the Cahaba River in Shelby County, in all probability his specimens belonged to that species.) Further ambiguity occurred when Ortmann (1905b:310–311) reported C. extraneus from the Rockcastle River, Kentucky, a record based on a crayfish that was recently described by Hobbs and Bouchard (1973:42) as Cambarus (P.) cumberlandensis. Ortmann's (1931:97–105) treatment of the species was rather generally accepted until Hobbs (1969a) suggested that four species were represented within the assemblage that Ortmann had assigned to C. extraneus. One of these, C. girardianus, was assigned to the subgenus Hiaticambarus and the others to the subgenus Puncticambarus: C. extraneus (in the South Chickamauga Creek basin), C. (P.) species A (= C. (P.) cumberlandensis in the Cumberland and Green river basins in Tennessee and Kentucky), and C. (P.) species B (= C. (P.) coosae in the Coosa Basin in Alabama and Georgia). All additional specific localities cited for the species in the literature subsequent to Hagen (1870), except “South Chickamauga Creek” (first cited by Hobbs and Bouchard, 1973), are based on misidentifications of one or more of the species just mentioned. The references not discussed here involve extractions from Hagen, Faxon, and/or Ortmann, contain discussions of relationships, and/or refer to remarks on its distribution.
DIAGNOSIS.—Body pigmented, eyes well developed. Rostrum with convergent margins, not thickened, and bearing marginal spines or tubercles. Areola 2.7 to 3.8 times as long as wide and comprising 30.3 to 33.4 percent of entire length of carapace (39.2 to 43.9 percent of postorbital carapace length) and bearing 8 to 10 punctations across narrowest part. Cervical spines weak to moderately strong. Suborbital angle basically obtuse but often with short acute tip. Postorbital ridge terminating cephalically in spine or acute tubercle. Antennal scale approximately 3 times as long as broad, with mesial and lateral margins subparallel near and at midlength; distomesial margin strongly sloping. Chela with almost entire dorsal surface studded with squamous tubercles and bearing 2 or 3 rows of tubercles along mesial margin of palm, mesialmost row consisting of 6 to 9, usually 8; lateral margin of fixed finger and distal third of palm strongly costate; both fingers with well-defined longitudinal ridges dorsally; fixed finger usually distinctly impressed at base; disregarding regenerated chelae, dactyl of first form male approximately twice as long as mesial margin of palm. Basis of third pereiopod with tubercle opposing hook on ischium. First pleopod of first form male with short terminal elements: corneous central projection not tapering distally, recurved at approximately 125 degrees to main shaft of appendage, bearing prominent subapical notch; and mesial process inflated, tapering, rounded to acute distally, and directed caudolaterally at angle of about 90 degrees to main shaft. Female with annulus ventralis shallowly embedded in sternum and slightly asymmetrical; first pleopod present. Carapace with narrow dark saddles anterior to cervical groove and on posterior margin, horns poorly developed, and abdomen with paired, longitudinal dark stripes dorsolaterally and along bases of pleura.
COLOR NOTES (Figure 89g).—Basic coloration occurring in two phases differing only in color; tan with brown markings and olive with black markings. A description of the latter follows. Ground color of carapace olive with slightly darker reticulate overlay; black saddle-like marking over gastric area immediately cephalic to cervical groove, its cephalolateral extensions becoming reticulate and dilute; saddle-like black mark also present on caudal part of carapace, median segment of saddle reduced to transverse line and ventrolateral portions broadened, somewhat paralleling horns of saddle on gastric region. Margins of rostrum and postorbital ridges dark orange basally, becoming almost black toward cephalic extremities. Abdomen with paired, longitudinal, broad, dorsolateral black stripes extending from base of dorsolateral horns of caudal saddle on carapace to base of telson, flaring on sixth tergum, and uniting on cephalic part of telson. Additional long black stripe extending along bases of second through fifth pleura; broad, very light cream stripe interposed between black stripes, and ventral parts of second through fifth pleura cream to white. Telson and uropods rather uniformly olive. Antennular and antennal peduncles olive with cream splotches; flagella of both very dark olive with black rings; lateral margin of antennal scale very dark, often black. Chela dark olive dorsally with cream to orange tubercles, swelling at dorsal articular condyle of dactyl vermilion; fingers fading to cream distally, and fixed finger and palm similarly fading laterally. Carpus and distal half of merus of cheliped dark olive dorsally, former with large black spot dorsomesially and latter almost black distally; tubercles and articular condyles olive cream. Remaining pereiopods with dorsal surface of distal part of merus, carpus, and propodus mottled with dark olive, otherwise pale olive to cream.
TYPES.—Syntypes, MCZ 175 (3II, ); USNM 4957 (). Hagen (1870:74) indicated that among the 6 specimens available there were “Male Form I. and II. Fem.” The first form male is no longer in this lot and was missing from it when I examined the series in the early 1940s.
TYPE-LOCALITY.—“Tennessee River, (near the borders of?) Georgia” (Hagen, 1870:74). The emendation offered by Ortmann (1931:97) must be rejected because Cambarus (P.) extraneus does not occur in the Coosa (Etowah) Basin. Ortmann confused C. (P.) coosae, new species, with Hagen's species. (See “Summary of Literature”.)
RANGE.—Cambarus (P.) extraneus is known only from the South Chickamauga Creek basin [Tennessee River drainage] in Catoosa, Walker, and Whitfield counties, Georgia, and in the same basin in Hamilton County, Tennessee (Bouchard, 1972:58).
GEORGIA SPECIMENS EXAMINED.—I have examined 156 specimens from the following localities. (1) type-locality, “Tennessee River, near border of Georgia,” syntypes, 3II, 2. Catoosa County: (2) South Chickamauga Creek at Rte S819 at Graysvilie, 1j, 26 Aug 1969, E. T. Hall, Jr., M. W. Walker, collectors; (3) East Fork of South Chickamauga Creek at Rte S2210, 6 mi SE of Ringgold, 2j, 26 Aug 1969, ETH, R. F. Holbrook; (4) South Chickamauga Creek 4.1 mi W of St Rte 71 on St Rte 2, 3I, 3II, 9, 1j, 9j, 2 May 1967, Torgny Unestam, HHH; (5) South Chickamauga Creek 10 mi NE of Lafayette, 2, 30 Aug 1929, E. P. Creaser; (6) Hurricane Creek on Co Rd off St Rte 151, 4.3 mi N of Ringgold, 5II, 3, 6j, 10j, 24 Apr 1968, ETH, HHH; 1, 1j, 25 Apr 1977, J. E. Pugh, HHH; (7) Peavine Creek approximately 2 mi upstream from St Rte 2 on Co Rd, 1II, 1, 3j, 23 Apr 1968, ETH, HHH; 1, 25 Apr 1977, JEP, HHH; (8) Peavine Creek at Rte S820, 1j, 25 Apr 1977, JEP, HHH; (9) Little Tiger Creek 2.5 mi W of Varnell on St Rte 2, 11I, 13II, 11, 11j, 14j, 24 Apr 1968, ETH, HHH; 1I, 6, 4j, 22 Oct 1976, T. A. English, Jr., HHH. Walker County: (10) creek 0.5 mi N of St Rte 143 on Rt 342, 1j, 1j, 23 Apr 1968, ETC, HHH; (11) South Chickamauga Creek 0.2 mi downstream from St Rte 143, 1II, 27 Aug 1969, ETH, MWW; (12) stream 9.8 mi E of Dade Co line on St Rte 143, 1, 2 May 1967, TU, HHH. Whitfield County: (13) East Fork of South Chickamauga Creek 7.1 mi SW of US Hwy 76 on St Rte 201, 1, 1j, 4 Sep 1953, R. L. Gibbs; 1II, 2, 4j, 5j, 16 Apr 1962, J. F. Fitzpatrick, Jr., HHH.
VARIATIONS.—The most conspicuous variations are in the degree of development of the cervical, rostral, and postorbital spines and in the size and conformation of the chela of the males. In general, the smaller the individual, the more conspicuous and proportionately elongate the spines, but occasional large individuals have spines that are as prominent as those usually characteristic of the smaller ones.
The variation in the size and conformation of the chela is puzzling. The adult males with reduced chelae occur in a larger proportion than would seem likely were the difference due to loss and regeneration in earlier instars. In relatively few of the large males is the usual dimorphism associated with sex obvious. Fewer than half of the chelae observed in the first form males are as well developed as that illustrated (Figure 95l).
SIZE.—The largest specimen available is a first form male with a carapace length of 44.5 (postorbital carapace length 34.6) mm. Corresponding lengths of the smallest first form male are 31.3 and 24.4 mm, and of the largest female, 39.6 and 31.2 mm, respectively. No ovigerous females have been collected.
- bibliographic citation
- Hobbs, Horton Holcombe, Jr. 1981. "The Crayfishes of Georgia." Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology. 1-549. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.318
