— 2005. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 14(1 ):43—54 ORCONECTES (PROCERICAMBARUS) THEAPHIONENSIS (DECAPODA: CAMBARIDAE), THE SINKHOLE CRAYFISH, A NEW SPECIES OF CRAYFISH FROM SOUTHCENTRAL INDIANA Thomas Simon Anne Timm 2 and Charles C. Morris 'Aquatic Research 6440 South Fairfax Road, Bloomington, Indiana 47401 USA; 2 Hoosier National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, 248 15 Street. Tell City. Indiana 47586 USA P. 1 , E. 1 : , Center, Indiana Biological Survey, lh ABSTRACT. A new species of crayfish Orconectes (Procericambarus) theaphionensis is described from southcentral Indiana in the karst areas of the Lost River and Blue Creek drainages. The species occurs both above and below the Orangeville Rise and in Stampers Creek. The species is distinguished from other recognized members of the subgenus by its strong carina, rostrum deflected, non-serrate mandible, broad carapace, presence of setae just posterior to the cervical groove and the anterior portion of the areola, and distinct chelae tubercle formula. The rostrum is concave dorsally. terminating in an upturned acumen, median carina strong. Rostral margins thickened; edges distally converging providing a slightly convex appearance; terminating in spines. The dactyl formula ranges from 0. 4-8. I. 3 (5), while the propodus formula is 0, i, 3-6, I, (2) 3-4. The central projection diverges from the mesial process and the central projection length to total length of pleopod (mean = 44.86%, range = 34.4-56.3%) is intermediate between Orconectes cristavarius and O. putnami. Of the recognized members of the subgenus Procericambarus, it is most similar to Orconectes (P.) juvenilis, which is found in southeastern Indiana and Kentucky. The new form can be differentiated from O. (P.) juvenilis by the presence of a strong median carina, the suborbital angle obsolete, and a divergent central and mesial projection that is greater \ than 35% central projection length to total length of pleopod. Keywords: Taxonomy, Procericambarus, Cambaridae Taylor (2000) diagnosed the Orconectes jucomplex and provided empirical data that elucidated the taxonomic status of members of this group. The group belongs to the venilis crayfish subgenus Procericambarus (Fitzpat- which possesses a strong angular shoulder on the cephalic surface at the base of the form I male pleopod"s central projection, the central projection accounting for at least 35% of the total pleopod length. The Orconectes juvenilis complex as described by Taylor (2000) includes six species. Hobbs (1972) and Bouchard (1976) included in the rick 1987), complex, Orconectes juvenilis (Hagen 1870), Orconectes spinosus (Bundy 1877), and Orconectes putnami (Faxon 1884), while Taylor (2000) added Orconectes rusticus (Girard 1852), Orconectes ronaldi Taylor 2000, and Orconectes cristavarius Taylor 2000. All six species are native in the unglaciated Interior Plateau region of Kentucky, Indiana, West During studies of the crayfish fauna of crayfish species of the Procericambarus sub- genus. The taxonomic diagnosis by recent Taylor (2000) has provided an opportunity to reduce the complexity o( this group and validate other closely related taxa. Faxon ( 1SS5) recognized extreme variation in character combinations of species later assigned to state Prc>- cericambarus; while Hagen (1870). Ortmann SS4) recognized \ arietdes 193 ), and Faxon ( 1 ( of O. rusticus and 1 various combinations of synonymized species within O. juvenilis. Here we examine the morphological variation within an undescribed member cericambarus occurring Indiana. in o\ A.S Prothe southern unglaciated portions of Indiana are analyzed, character states neeessarx for distin- guishing species boundaries will likeh provide information neeessarx for description of new species Virginia, and Ohio, and inhabit rocky streams additional and rus complex. rivers. In- diana, the senior author has found several new in the Procericamba- PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 44 corneous canine-like tooth is often the first denticle found on the propodus. We denote this triangular tooth with a lower case Roman numeral series. Generally, the mid-point of both the dactyl and propodus has a large, spherical to oval, tubercle that is the largest in We denote this tubercle by an upper case Roman numeral. Finally, the tubercles that are proximal to the palm are denoted by Arabic numbers. Using this convention prothe series. vides a methodology to differentiate between corneous, triangular tubercles, denticles, and large tubercles. We have found these tubercle characters to be consistent and diagnostic of crayfish species in both Orconectes and Cam- barus genera (T.R Simon unpubl. data). Orconectes (Procericambarus) theaphionensis new species Sinkhole Crayfish Figs. 2, 3-12; Table 1 Cambarus rusticus. —Girard 1852:8; Faxon 1885: 108, pi. 9: figs. 8, 8', 8a, 8a' [in part]; 149 [in part]. Hay 1891: — Cambarus (Faxonius) rusticus. Ortmann 1905: 112 [in part]; Ortmann 1931:82 [in part]; Eberly 1955:182 [in part]. Faxonius (Faxonius) [in part]. Orconectus rusticus. [in part]. Figure . 1 — Left Procambarus ehelae showing an example of the dactyl and propodus formula. Note: 0, 8, 1. I, 3; Propodus on the opposable margins of the dactyl and propodus. This formula does not include the corneous distal tip of either the dactyl or propodus. The formula is derived by counting the number of denticles on distal edge of the dactyl and propodus (see example in Fig. ). cles 1 noted. The first set is blade-like then a zero of denticles [in part]. figs. 74c, 75b,d; 1974:40, part]; Fitzpatrick is usually a area. — Greek theaphion of sulphur and brimeThe vernacular name, sinkhole crayfish, stone. refers to the Lost River watershed, perhaps among the largest cave systems in Indiana and North America. Diagnosis. Body and eyes pigmented. Rostrum concave dorsally, terminating in up- — turned acumen, median carina strong. Rostral margins thickened; edges distally converging providing a slightly convex appearance; terminating in lateral spines. Areola 29.0—40.2% = = SD = series of very small tubercles that slightly in- (x crease in size. These denticles can be in sev- of carapace, narrowest part rows on the dactyl. The denticles are reported as Arabic numbers. A small triangular. 39.4% eral — Hobbs fig. — Specimen measurements follow Taylor we develop for describing the number of tuber- this area rusticus. 1977:27 Etymology. The species is named for the sulphur springs that are prevalent in the study (2000). with the exception of a formula if —Dubois & Sharma —Huner 1978:4 1933:21 136 [in 1987:58 [in part]; Hobbs 1989 49 [in part]; Page & Mottesi 1995:109 [in part] Taylor 2000:138 [distribution map]; Simon 2001 107 [in part]. in METHODS is 1972:92 3. Generally, —Creaser Orconectes (Procericambarus) rusticus. two rows; dactyl tubercle formula: propodus tubercle formula: i, 5, (3 + 2), tubercles are rusticus. 34.2, n (x = as long as 100, 21.6, n = 1.63) of total length 100, at midpoint, 12.4- SD = 5.11) times wide with 3-5 punctations (mode — SIMON ET AL.— CRAYFISH DESCRIPTION Figure 2. 45 Orconectes theaphionensis new speeies. Total length t t" form I male, Half Moon Springs at Indiana County Road 200 E bridge. Township, Orange County, Indiana (USNM 1075206). = 4, n = 100, SD = 0.58). One corneous hepatic spine on each side of carapace. Post- angle obsolete. carapace 2.6 km Antenna midlength. thickened is 33.2 mm. Holotype \Y of Chambersburg, Paoli 1 lateral scale broadest at margin terminat- orbital ridges well-developed, terminating in ing in large corneous spine, [schia of third pe- upturned corneous spines. Suborbital reiopods of males with hooks: hooks over- slightly — PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 46 Orconectes theaphionensis new species. 3. Mesial view of first pleopod of form I male; pleopod of form II male; 5. Caudal view of first pleopods of form I male; 6. Lateral view of first pleopod of form I male; 7. Lateral view of first pleopod of form II male; 8. Epistomal zygoma; 9. Annulus ventralis; 10. Dorsal view of carapace; 1. Dorsal view of right antennal scale; 12. Dorsal view of left chela. 3, 6, 8, 10, 12 of holotype (USNM 1075206); 5. Paratype (INBS 841); 4,7. Figures 3-12. 4. Mesial view of first 1 Morphotype (USNM 1075208); 9,11, Allotype (USNM 1075207). — SIMON ET AL.— CRAYFISH DESCRIPTION Table 1. — Measurements (mm) 47 o\ Orconectes theaphionensis new species. Holotype Morphotype llotype Carapace: Total length 33.2 36.4 28.3 Postorbital length 26.3 27.5 20.9 Width 16.3 18.3 14.4 Height 15.4 18.1 1 1.6 Areola: Width Length 2.4 11.5 1 3.1 1.5 1.7 9.6 Rostrum: Width Length 3.5 4.1 3.0 6.9 9.0 7.4 7.0 Chela, right: Length, mesial margin of palm 10.1 7.3 Palm width 16.1 11.5 8.6 Length, lateral margin 35.9 24.6 21.9 Dactyl length 17.8 11.4 9.4 Abdomen: Width Length reaching basioischial articulation in form I males only. Chela with 2—3 rows of tubercles along mesial margin of palm, usually 6-10 tubercles in mesial most row, 4-8 in dorsomesial row, and occasionally present are a proximalmesial row of 3-9 weakly developed tubercles running to knob at base of dactyl; small tufts of setae on mesial margin of palm, dorsomesial and dorsolateral surfaces, and fingers; dorsal surfaces of fingers with well-de- veloped longitudinal ridges. First pleopods of I male symmetrical, extending to just past anterior edge of bases of second pereiopods when abdomen flexed. First pleopod of form I male with well-developed shoulder on cephalic surface at base of central projection; without strong 90° central projection corne- form ous, constituting 34.4-56.3% (x = 44.86%, n = 50, SD = 5.47) of total length of first pleopod, straight and tapering to a pointed tip; mesial process non-corneous and straight, distal end dorsally compressed and tapering to acute tip (see Variation), slightly subequal in length to central projection. First pleopod of form male noncorneous, extending to anedge of bases of second pereiopods when abdomen flexed; central projection straight, mesial process divergent from central projection, straight and subequal in length; terior II 14.4 17.2 33.0 37.3 1 1.9 29.6 both elements tapering to rounded tips. Annulus ventralus immovable, subcircular; cephalic half with wide median trough and two caudally-directed protuberances overhanging centrally located fossa; sinuate sinus running from center of fossa to caudal edge. Description of holotypic male, form I. Body slightly depressed dorsoventrally, carapace wider than abdomen (16.3 and 14.4 mm. respectively). Greatest width of carapace larger than height at caudodorsal margin o\ cervical groove (16.3 and 11.5 mm, respectively). Postorbital carapace length (26.3 mm) 79.2% of length o( carapace. Areola 20.9 times longer (11.5 mm) than wide (2.4 mm) with four punetations across narrowest part; 34.5% ot~ total length of carRostrum denseh covered with punetations. excavated, strong median carina preslength of areola apace. margins thickened, ent; and distal halves straight slightly converging, terminating in round- ed corneous spines, proximal halves slight!) convex. Acumen terminating m upturned corneous spine and reaching just distal of midpoint of antennular peduncle. Postorbital ridg- es well-developed, terminating in slightly upturned corneous spines. Suborbital angle obsolete. Cervical spines corneous: branchiostegal areas of carapace smooth to slighth PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 48 granular, dorsal surface with scattered punctations. Setae present posterior to the cervical groove and anterior area of the areola. Carapace length nearly equal in length to abdomen (33.2 and 33.0 mm, respectively). Cephalic section of telson with two immovable spines in each caudolateral corner extending over exopodite. Caudal margin of cephalic section of exopodite with numerous fixed spines (21) and one large movable spine in caudolateral corner. Cephalic and caudal sections of exopodite with prominent median ridge. Lateral margin of endopodite terminating in spine; endopodite with prominent median ridge terminating in premarginal spine. Dorsal surface of telson and uropods setiferous. Antennal scale broadest at midlength, thickened lateral margin terminating in large corneous spine. Right antennal scale 7.02 mm long. 2.43 mm wide. Mesial surface of palm of left chelae with rows of tubercles, eight tubercles in mesial most row, seven tubercles in dorsomesial row, and three small widely interspersed tubercles lateral to dorsomesial row, six basiodactyl punctations form a weak row running to knob at base of dactyl. Mesial and lateral surfaces of chela covered with numerous sethree tiferous punctations; ventral surface with scat- tered punctations. Dorsal surface of finger of propodus with submedian longitudinal ridges flanked by setiferous punctations; basal half of opposable margin with four small tubercles, a large prominent tubercle near midlength, five well-developed distal tubercles, and a small, triangular, corneous tubercle near distal edge (propodus tubercle formula: 0, 8, I, 4). Dorsal and ventral surfaces of dactyl with submedian longitudinal ridges flanked by setiferous punctations; basal half of opposable margin with four well-developed tubercles, a large prominent tubercle at midlength, and eight distal tubercles in two interdigitated row (dactyl tubercle formula: 0, i, 5, I, 4). Finger of propodus and dactyl with rounded subterminal corneous tip. Carpus with deep oblique furrow dorsally; mesial margin with a single large corneous procurved spine at midlength and three small corneous spines along distomesial margin; ventral surface with a single corneous spine just mesial to mid-length of distal margin, dis- toventrolateral corner enlarged and globular with a single small corneous spine overhang- merus with corneous spines; ventral surface with two large corneous spines and a single tubercle at midlength of ventrolateral margin and lateral to mesial row of seven spines, some corneous; row terminating in large corneous ing chelae. Dorsodistal surface of three spine; small tubercle at distolateral corner. Is- chium with a single tubercle just proximal to midlength of mesial margin and a single noncorneous spine on distal end of mesial margin. Hook on ischium of third pereiopod only; hook simple, overreaching basioischial articulation and opposed by large rounded tubercle on basis. First pleopod as in Diagnosis above, central projection constituting 47.7% of total length of first pleopod. Description of allotypic female. Differing from holotype as follows. Areola constituting 32.1% of length of carapace and 3.8 times longer than wide. Postorbital carapace length 75.4% of length of carapace. Acumen with upturned corneous spine at distal tip. Mesial row of tubercles along palm of left chela with eight tubercles, dorsomesial row with seven, and distal dorsomesial row with three tubercles. Propodus with tuft of long setae at base of finger of opposable propodus with four well-developed tubercles proximal to palm, a prominent large tubercle at midlength, and five small distal tubercles in two interdigitated rows, with a single small, corneous, triangular, hooked tubercle at distal edge (propodus tubercle formula: 0, i, 5, I, 4). Opposable margin of dactyl with four welldeveloped tubercles, a single prominent tubercle at midlength, and five distal tubercles — (dactyl tubercle formula: 0, 5, at I, 4). Ventral merus with two corneous spines midlength and lateral row of tubercles along surface of left mesial margin. Sternum between third and fourth pereipods V-shaped. Postannular sclerite as wide as annulus ventralis. Annulus ventralis described in Diagnosis. First pleopods uniramous, barely reaching caudal margin of annulus when abdomen flexed. narrowly Description of morphotypic male, form II.— Differing from holotype as follows. Areola constituting 33.9% of length of carapace and 6.4 times longer than wide. Postorbital carapace length 73.7% of length of carapace. Acumen with upturned corneous spine at distal tip. Mesial row of tubercles along palm of left chela with eight tubercles, dorsomesial SIMON ET AL.— CRAYFISH DESCRIPTION 4<; row with five tubercles, and distal dorsomesial row with five tubercles. Dorsodistal surface of left merus with two corneous spines. Ventral surface of left merus with a single corneous spine and another single tubercle at midlength and lateral to row of tubercles along mesial margin. Forest and land use adjacent in the stream al channel pasture and forest. is Disposition of types. Museum tional Hook on ischium of third pereiopod not basioischial articulation. First holotype, alloat the Na- of Natural History. Smithson- ian Institution, Washington. D.C. (L'SNM 1075207. and L'SNM USNM 1075206, overreaching —The and morphotype are deposited type, 1075208, respectively). Paratypes consisting of 12(51, 306*11, 2juv^; 429. 7juvS (DSTBS pleopod without well-developed divergent mesial projection, instead blunt and blade- 841) are deposited at the Indiana Biological Survey, Aquatic Research Center. Crustacean shaped, as described in Diagnosis. Collection, specimen examined 39.2 mm total carapace length (CL) form I male. Females (n = 25) ranging in size from 22.836.4 mm CL. Form I males (n = 50) ranging from 21.4-39.2 mm CL. Form II males (n = 25) ranging in size from 19.4-36.5 mm CL. Color. Dorsal and lateral surfaces of cephalothorax, pereiopods, and tail fan light brown to olive green. Dorsum with one large laterally elongate dark brown patch just an- MI, Size. — Largest — terior to brown ed Cephalothorax areola. with dark U-shaped saddle connectcaudal margin and extending to just pos- at terior dorsolateral of midlength of lateral surfaces. Dorsal surfaces of abdominal segments 1-5 with dark brown patches, patches forming solid dark brown bar running from posterior edge of carapace to fifth abdominal segment when abextended. Lateral surfaces of abdominal segments light orange, followed laterally by dark brown patches at edges. Dorsal and lateral surfaces of chelae, carpus, and merus olive green; dorsal surface of chelae covered with small dark flecks. Fingers of chelae with orange tips, followed proximally by wide black bands. Ventral surfaces of chelae, ceph- domen alothorax, and Type bridge km W abdomen cream locality. at — Half to white. Moon Indiana County of Chambersburg, Springs Road 200 Paoli at E, 2.57 Township, Bloomington. Indiana: paratypes and 1$ (OSUMC 5972) are' de- 1(511, posited at the Ohio State University types 1 (51, 1 (511, and 1 9 above and below the Orangeville Rise, including Stampers Creek and other sinkholes, and adjacent Blue Creek (East Fork White River drainage) in south central Indiana (Fig. The Lost River originates County flowing northeast At the time of collection. Half Moon Spring was 2.7 m wide with an average depth of 0.4 m. Substrate at the type locality was limestone bedrock with slab cobble and boulders. The stream is located in Hoosier Nation- 13). Orange for about 57.3 km Stampers Creek is a disjunct stream chanis connected to the Lost River through sinkhole connections. Blue Creek occurs directly west of the Lost River entering the East Fork White River near Shoals. Both watersheds drain interbedded limestones, sandstones, and shale deposits of middle Penns\l- er. nel that vanian age. The species may be present in Blue River (Harrison County; C.A. Taylor pers. comnuin.) and Indian Creek (Harrison County; TPS. unpubl. data): however, further genetic analysis of these two drainage terms may be necessary since our morphometric and pigmentation data suggest that the) are new from a lection. in eastern before emptying into the East Fork White Riv- ined from 42 locations habitats in close proximity to the holotype col- are de- Crustacean Collection. Champaign. Illinois. Range. Orconectes theaphionensis new species, is found in the Lost River drainage. species. on limestone bedrock in midchannel, about 20 m upstream of the bridge. The allotype, morphotype, and paratypes were collected from cobble and slab bolder riffle (INHS 9552) posited at the Illinois Natural History Survej Orange County, Indiana; 38.5207348 °N, 86.4229192 °W. The holotype was collected riffle Museum of Biodiversity, Columbus. Ohio: and para- A total collection are listed of 1354 specimens has been examin Indiana. Museum numbers and counties for these sites in the Material Examined section. below. OrconecHabitat and life-history notes. theaphionensis new species, occurs in creeks and small rivers with substrates of limestone bedrock, slab boulder and cobble rubble, and large gravel. The species is most tes commonly encountered along rock substrates PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 50 f S tarn p e rs Creek W ashing ton East Fork W h ite River H a Figure 13. — Distribution of Orconectes theaphionensis new species, throughout its r ris o n known range in the Lost River, Stampers Creek, and Blue Creek drainages, Indiana. in shallow riffle areas or among slowly-flow- ing runs. Table 2. — Seasonal data showing by month num- bers of individuals of each sex including sex ratios Orconectes (Procericambarus) theaphionensis, species. a = Female with eggs collected during h = Female with eggs and young colthis month. lected during this month. for new Form I males have been collected in all months sampled March-October, and we have not sampled during November to January (Table 2). No males were collected during February. Juveniles have been collected in June and July. Ovigerous females were collected on 25 March 1999 and 18 May 2004. One 26.7 mm CL female was carrying 3 eggs that averaged .20 mm in diameter, whereas a 28.9 1 Male Male I II Sex Females 4 February March 8 April 3 2 ratio — 16' 1/1.6 18 0.17/1 1 1 mm CL individual carried 121 eggs that averaged 1.18 in diameter. Crayfish associates. The following species were collected from habitat containing O. theaphionensis new species: Cambarus (Erebicambarus) tenehrosus Hay 1902 (formerly mm — May 138 46 214" 1/2.5 June 44 178 1/1.5 July 12 31 334 50 1/1.16 Cambarus (Erebicambarus) 4 12 23 1/1.4 55 43 142 1/1.4 18 23 21 1/1.5 immu(Hagen 1870); Cambarus (Lacunicambarus) sp. "B"; Cambarus (Lacunicambarus) August September October 1 1 laevis 1914); and Orconectes (Trisellescens) nis Faxon ' SIMON ET AL.—CRAYFISH DESCRIPTION 51 J. "C"; sp. Cambarus (Tubericambarus) sp. y "53 — Ontogenetic variation is obVariation. served in Orconectes theaphionensis new species, none of which shows any geographic patterns of distribution. Weakly developed . ^ O CJ P Q i; y" 7- a. (U (D ^r on the branchiostegal area. The pleopod in most form II male individuals has a mesial -' is the distal one-third mulas show distinct patterns, but the largest individuals have slightly more tubercles, such as the holotype. The dactyl formula range is 4-8 two rows), (usually in I, 3-4 while the propodus formula is, (rarely 2) 3-4. Some increase 0, in 3-6, ^ 1> Qj 7Z X o <-" 7Z 3 u ,o — — > ~o margin Comparisons. sis new — Orconectes species, differs from y <D u u X) 3 carapace £ .£ -—. — s >-. 2 ^J ~ >c ^ q > £; 1! '£ ~ <0 0) l^ J. D. ^J c "~ ^ . , &5 12 mem- >, X J5 3 v^ >~ C; ^ C on qj 2 15 !j II '«. > 5! o c ^ WO 2 c ^ ri c r- cs >-> 1 ^ m k, Aj XI males. range = 34.4-56.3%) is intermediate between Orconectes cristavarius and O. putnami (Taylor 2000). In addition to O. theaphionensis, within the subgenus Procericambarus, only O. luteus (Creaser 1933) has a deflected central projection, but O. theaphionensis lacks a deflected mesial projection as O. luteus. The mandible is unserrated, and the chelae has three rows of mesial tubercles. The new form differs from O. juvenilis and O. rusticus by the presence of the strong median carina, suborbital angle obsolete, a divergent central and mesial projection that is greater than 35% central projection length to total length of pleopod. Relationships. The form I male pleopod of O. theaphionensis is most similar in length and general shape to members of the subgenus Procericambarus, and we assign O. theaphionensis to that subgenus. Until either molec- y *- / ~ '1 to total - 09 <U 6<5 S The central projection length of pleopod (mean = 44.86%, I X ^ $ II ~ bers of the genus Orconectes by possessing a jection in form -t ^>v •^ ' unique combination of form I male pleopod, mandible, rostral carina, and chelae characters (Table 3). Only O. theaphionensis has a slightly caudally-divergent central and mesial pro- rr 'r. theaphionenother j> Q (_, 0) "^ all •«- Si £r o Q y is straight. so — (0 rostral r-- E .2 I, width was observed in populations from Sulphur Creek; however, we view this variability as an ecomorph due to the prevalent cool temperatures (< 17 °C year round). In many smaller individuals, the entire length of the n 5 i« X (rarely 5), i, v: "O ~ spatulate due to a dorsoventral compression of the process. The dactyl and propodus for- ij o process that tapers to a sharply pointed distal some specimens *j a <+h but in 'sj o granular tubercles are occasionally apparent tip, g ^ <J *) TD •_ r$ ^ ^ rv o 5 i >~ 3 , ~ y c<3 c <D A E CJ O cti 3 JZ. C -d Q § S£ K c ~? = ^ "V ^ n£J ! I ^ r*" — x N vC ^f I a. JU a. tS '"' bfl c 3 y CJ b 15 E- — ^ 3 II n CO ~ V x" 1 Z cs ^ i — — — " — •^ <— ~ - - y. X CJ • IO <D >- y — y: X U y u -C — .a - y fi 0! U y g /- J iri IT", <L> 3 — ~ — — _* — — J: (N Q. o > C ^ 0) 5 JJ § ri , \r. rr tj- ri PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 52 from O. theaphi- ular or morphological data onensis can be we analysis, included refrain phylogenetic a in from inferring the position of O. theaphionensis within the subgenus. — Material examined. Number, sex, and form of specimens examined are in parentheses. Asterisks (*) denote samples from which specimens were obtained for the statistical analyses; females and form II males were limited to 25 specimens. Data for monthly sex ratios (Table 2) was from the data below and from monthly repeat visits to the type locality. Form I male is indicated by MI, Mil = form II male by Mil, F = female, and juv = juvenile. CR = County Road, SR = State Road, = West N = North, S = South, E = East, and combinations. Collector(s) names are ab- W breviated after first INBS = use. Indiana Bi- ological Survey Crustacean Collection. Orconectes theaphionensis INDIANA: Martin County: Tributary to Big Creek, fire road. 4.8 km N Natchez, Halbert Twp, 38.64704 N, 86.70642 W, (Thomas R Simon, Erin R. Lawrence, Stephanie L. Worden, Jake L. Burskey), 17 May 2004, (* 3 MI, 6 Mil, 20 F), INBS 835. Big Creek, Natchez, Halbert US 150 bridge, 1.3 km Twp. 38.61883 N, 86.72565 W, (TPS, ERL, SLW. JLB). 17 May 2004 (* 2 MI), INBS 836. Unnamed tributary Lost River, .0 km N on CR 191, 1.8 km N Roland, Halbert Twp, 38.60868 N, 86.68498 W, (TPS, SLW), 1 September 2004, (* MI, 6 Mil, 3 F), INBS 859. W 1 1 Unnamed 3.7 km S tributary Lost River, CR 198 bridge, Roland, Lost River Twp, 38.56330 N. 86.68717 W, (TPS), 12 July 2004, (* 2 Mil, 8 F. 65 juv), INBS 861. Unnamed tributary Lost River, CR 4 bridge, 3.5 km S Roland, Lost River Twp, 38.56534 N. 86.68970 W, (TPS). 12 July 2004, (5 juv), INBS 862. Unnamed tributary Lost River, CR 195 bridge, 1 .0 NNW km Natchez, Halbert Twp, 38.62 70 1 N, 86.72446 W. (TPS). Mil. I F). 1 bridge. 3.5 86.74278 38.53398 N, 2004. juv). ( 1 1 1 July 2004, (5 MI. 4 INBS 863. Blue Creek, CR 900 E km SE Rusk, Lost River Twp, INBS W. (TPS), 14 864. Blue Creek. km N July CR 5 Yenne. Lost River Twp, 38.54859 N. 86.79698 W. (TPS. JLB). 12 July 2004, (6 Mil, 2 F, 41 juv), INBS 865. Blue Creek. CR 37 bridge. .3 km Yenne, Lost River Twp. 38.54683 N. 86.80775 W, (TPS, SLW), September 2004. (1 *I, 36 MIL 37 0.2 bridge. W 1 I 1 F). INBS CR 866. Unnamed tributary Lost River, km SE Yenne, Lost River 177 bridge, 2.7 Twp, 38.53297 N, 86.76574 W, (TPS), 14 July 2004, (3 juv), INBS 867. Qualkenbush Spring, Natchez, Halbert Twp, CR 7, 3.5 km 38.60410 N, 86.75406 W, (TPS, JLB, ERL, SLW), July 2004, (*2 MI, *3 Mil, *4 F), INBS 868. Orange County: Carters Creek, CR 650 E bridge, 3.2 km SE Leipsic, North East Twp, 38.64843 N, 86.33554 W, (TPS, Brant WSW 1 E. Fisher, Katherine Gremillion-Smith), March 1999, (12 MI, 6 Mil, 5 F), INBS 18 828. Lost River, CR 650 E bridge, 3.2 km N Bromer, North East Twp, 38.62109 N, 86.33545 W, (TPS, BEF, KGS), 18 March 1999, (19 MI, 3 Mil, 12 F), INBS 829. Carters Creek, Sutter Lane bridge, 4.8 km ESE Leipsic, North East Twp, 38.65931 N, 86.30991 W, (TPS, BEF, KGS), 18 March 1999, (7 MI, 1 Mil, 10 F), INBS 830. Tributary to Halfmoon Springs, US 150 bridge, 3.2 km SE Paoli, Paoli Twp, 38.54503 N, 86.44936 W, (TPS, ERL), 16 June 2004, (1 MI, 1 F, 12 juv), INBS 833. Tributary to Halfmoon Springs, US 150 bridge, 0.3 km Chambersburg, Paoli Twp, 38.51769 N, 86.39197 W, (TPS, ERL, SLW, NW JLB), 17 June 2004, (*1 MI, 1 Mil, 4 F), INBS 834. Stampers Creek, SR 56 bridge, 0.5 km SE Millersburg, Stampers Creek Twp, 38.55731 N, 86.33351 W, (TPS), 21 June 2004, (2F), INBS 837. Stampers Creek, CR 500 E bridge, 2.6 km NE Millersburg, StampCreek Twp, 38.58821 N, 86.36446 W, ers (TPS, ERL, SLW, JLB), 21 June 2004, (19 Mil, 29 F, 12 juv), INBS 838. Lick Creek, CR 350 S bridge, 2.6 km Chambersburg, WSW Twp, 38.50657 N, 86.41743 W, (TPS, SLW), 13 September 2004, (*1 MI, Mil, 9 F. 3 juv), INBS 839. Halfmoon Springs, CR 200 E bridge, 5.2 km Chambersburg, Paoli Twp, 38.52073 N, 86.42292 W, (TPS), 21 Paoli 1 1 W June 2004, (29 Mil, 81 F, 31 juv), INBS 840. Unnamed tributary Lick Creek, Spring Mill WNW bridge, 2.3 km Chambersburg, Twp, 38.52488 N, 86.41997 W, (TPS, SLW), 13 September 2004, (*16 MI, *34 Mil, *46 F, 9 juv), INBS 841. Willow Creek, CR 125 W, 4.8 km SSW Paoli, Paoli Twp, 38.50398 N, 86.45630 W, (TPS, SLW), 13 September 2004, (16 MI, 2 MIL 10 F), INBS Road Paoli 842. Lick Creek, S Elm Street bridge, 1 .9 km W Paoli, Paoli Twp, 38.55585 N, 86.47484 W, (TPS), 24 June 2004, (2 MI, 18 Mil, 22 F, 6 INBS 843. Log Creek, Log Creek Road, juv), SIMON ET AL.— CRAYFISH DESCRIPTION 53 km SW Paoli, Paoli Twp, 38.54277 N, 86.52128 W, (TPS), 24 June 2004, (4 juv), INBS 844. Log Creek, Log Creek Road, 4.5 Paoli, Paoli Twp, 38.56097 N, km 86.52625 W, (TPS, Anne E. Timm, JLB, ERL, SLW), 30 June 2004, (*13 MI, *26 Mil, *53 F, 47 juv), INBS 845. Unnamed tributary Lick bridge, 6.1 mi NE West Creek, CR 500 Baden Springs, Orangeville Twp, 38.59293 N, 86.55263 W, (TPS), 24 June 2004, (*10 MI, *21 Mil, *22 F, 2 juv), INBS 846. Lick Creek, US 150 bridge, 2.7 km NE West Baden Springs, French Lick Twp, 38.5061 N, 86.57680 W, (TPS, SLW), 13 September 2004, (1 MI, 2 Mil, 1 F), INBS 847. Upper Sulphur Creek, CR 100 S bridge, 4.0 km E French Lick, French Lick Twp, 38.54200 N, 86.56122 W, (TPS, JLB), 28 June 2004 ( MI, 9 Mil, 37 F, 34 juv), INBS 848. Upper Sulphur Creek, Abydel Road bridge, 2.3 km E West Baden Springs, French Lick Twp, 38.57078 N, 86.58461 W, (TPS), 29 June Mil, 2 F), INBS 849. French 2004, (2 MI, Lick Creek, CR 410 S bridge, 6.3 km SSE French Lick, Jackson Twp, 38.49564 N, 86.601 19 W, (TPS, ERL, SLW, JLB), 28 June 2004, (5 Mil, 4 F, 4 juv), INBS 850. Unnamed tributary French Lick Creek, CR 625 bridge, 5.5 km SE French Lick, French Lick Twp, 38.51430 N, 86.57527 W, (TPS), 28 June 2004 (4 MI, 13 Mil, 24 F, 3 juv), INBS 851. French Lick Creek, SR 145 bridge, 6.1 km SSE French Lick, Jackson Twp, 38.49571 N, 86.60317 W, (TPS, SLW), 2 September 2004, (5 MI, 10 Mil, 25 F), INBS 852. French Lick Creek, CR 300 S bridge, 4.3 km S French Lick, French Lick Twp, 38.51249 N, 86.61496 W, (TPS, ERL, JLB, SLW), 28 June 2004, (*1 MI, 9 Mil, 13 F, 5 juv), INBS 853. French Lick Creek, Old SR 145, 2.7 km S French Lick, French Lick Twp, 38.53062 N, 86.61094 W, (TPS, SLW), 2 September 2004, Mil, F), INBS 854. Unnamed trib(4 MI, utary French Lick Creek, CR 75 S bridge. .3 km SE French Lick, French Lick Twp, 38.54354 N, 86.60658 W, (TPS), 29 June 2004, (3 F), INBS 855. French Lick Creek, West Baden Sinclair Street bridge, 0.8 km Springs, French Lick Twp, 38.56346 N. 86.60555 W, (TPS), 19 July 2004, (6 Mil. 12 F), INBS 856. French Lick Creek. West Baden Springs Hotel driveway bridge. West Baden Springs, French Lick Twp 38.56702 N. 86.61398 W, (TPS), 19 July 2004. (5 Mil. 3 4.8 W W 1 Sulphur Creek. CR 500 N Bonds. Northwest Tup. 38.62035 N, 86.63228 W. (TPS. AT. JLB. ERL, SLW), 30 June 2004. (4 Ml. *21 Mil. *10 F, 8 juv), INBS 858. Unnamed tributarj Lost River, CR 1125 bridge. 4.3 km French Lick, French Lick Twp. 38.54475 N. 86.67119 W, (TPS), 12 July 2004. (4 MI. 5 Mil, 10 F, 2 juv), INBS 860. Unnamed tributary Lost River, CR 425 N bridge. 2.6 km Orangeville, Orangeville Twp. 38.62129 N, 86.58393 W, (TPS, JLB. ERL. SLW), 29 June 2004, (1 MI, 13 juv). INBS 869. Washington County\- Lost River. Vernon School Road bridge, 2 mi SE Claysville. Vernon Tup. 38.59304 N, 86.27104 W. (TPS. BEF. KGS). 18 March 1999, (2 MI, Mil. 3 F). INBS 831. Lost River (including unnamed tributary mouth), Satillo-Livonia Road bridge. 2.5 mi Livonia, Vernon Twp. 38.59349 N. 86.29107 W, (TPS, BEF. KGS). 18 March F), INBS 1 1 1 km SSW W W WSW 1 NW INBS 1999, (4 F), 832. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 W 857. bridge, 2.6 The authors appreciate Worden, field assistance from Burskey. E.R. Lawrence, K. Gremillion-Smith, and B.E. Fisher. We thank S.L. J.L. C.A. Taylor, INHS, and R.F. Thoma (OSU for assistance and professional courtesies. R.F. Thoma provided an initial review of this manuscript and two anonymous reviewers improved the submitted manuscript. We appreciate the assistance of K. Reed and G. Keel for providing records from the USNM and collection number assignments for t\ pe specimens. R.F. Thoma (OSUMC). and C.A. Taylor (INHS) provided collection number assignments for paratypes from their respective I institutions. We are grateful to S.L. Worden specimen examined list. Line drawn illustrations in figs. 3-12 were prepared by B. Simon, the color photograph in Fig. 2 was taken b\ TPS, and CCM (INBS) for preparing the prepared the map in Fig. 13. No opinions, ex- 1 W 1 ", pressed or implied, should he considered an endorsement by the U.S. Forest Service. This study was funded b\ U.S. Forest NFl'M012x^)-09i: to LITERATI Bouchard. R.YV. Sen tee grant TPS. RI: CI PHD Geography and ecologj of Cumberland Plateau and Cum- 1976. crayfishes of the berland Mountains, kentuck\. Virginia, Tennes- and Alabama. Pan 1: Phe genera Procambarus and Orconectes. Pp. 563—584, In see. Georgia, . PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 54 (J.W. Avault, ed.), Jr., Freshwater Crayfish. Lou- isiana State University Division of Continuing Education, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Bundy, W.F 1877. On the Cambari of northern diana. Proceedings of the Academy In- of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 29:171-174. Creaser, E.R poorly Descriptions of 1933. known species of North some new and American cray- Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 275. 21 pp., 2 pi. fishes. Dubois, J. & M.L. Sharma. 1977. An investigation of the enzymes during degradation in the fresh- water crayfish Orconectes rusticus, on acclimation to 50% seawater. Science Studies, St. Bonaventure University 32:27-34. Eberly. W.R. Summary 1955. of the distribution of new state and counProceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 64:281-283. Faxon, W. 1884. Descriptions of new species of Cambarus, to which is added a synonymical list Indiana crayfishes, including ty records. known species of Cambarus and Astacus. Proceedings of the American Academy of Sciences 20:107-158. of the Faxon, W. A 1885. revision of the Astacidae, Part The genera Cambarus and Astacus. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at HarI: vard College 10:/-W, 1-186. Faxon, W. 1914. Notes on the crayfishes in the United States National Museum and the Museum of Comparative Zoology with descriptions of new species and subspecies to which a catalogue of the known is appended species and subspecies. the Museum of Comparative ZoolHarvard College 40(8):35 1-427, 13 pi. Fitzpatrick, Jr.. J.F. 1987. The subgenera of the crawfish genus Orconectes (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 100:44-74. Girard, C. 1852. A revision of the North American Astaci, with observations on their habits and Memoirs of ogy at geographical Academy distributions. Proceedings of the of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 6: 87-9 Hagen, H.A. 1870. Monograph of the North Amer- Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College 3:viii + 109 pp., 11 pi. Hay, W.R 1891. The crustacean fauna of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1891:147-150. Hay, W.R 1902. Observations on the crustacean fauna of Nickajack Cave. Tennessee, and vicinity. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 25:417-439. Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1972. Crayfishes (Astacidae) of North and Middle America. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, Identification Manual 9. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Pp. ix, 1-173. Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1974. A checklist of the North and Middle American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae and Cambaridae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 166:1-166. Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480:1-236. Huner, J.B. 1978. Exploitation of freshwater cray- North America. Fisheries 3(6):2-5. Ortmann, A.E. 1905. The mutual affinities of the species of the genus Cambarus, and their dispersal over the United States. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 44:91-136. Ortmann, A.E. 1931. Crawfishes of the southern Appalachians and the Cumberland Plateau. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 20:61-160. Page, L.M. & G.B. Mottesi. 1995. The distribution and status of the Indiana crayfish, Orconectes indianensis, with comments on the crayfishes of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 104:103-111. Simon, T.R 2001. Checklist of the crayfish and freshwater shrimp (Decapoda) of Indiana. Profishes in ceedings of the Indiana 110:104-110. Academy of Science Taylor, C.A. 2000. Systematic studies of the Orconectes juvenilis complex (Decapoda: Cambaridae), with descriptions of two new species. Journal of Crustacean Biology 20(1 ): 132-152. 1 ican Astacidae. In Illustrated Catalogue of the Manuscript received 20 2005. May 2005, revised 10 June