MAMMALS: REVIEW OF STATUS IN PENNSYLVANIA
Janet Wright, Dickinson College
Gordon L. Kirkland, Jr., Shippensburg University
MAMMAL STATUS
Seventy-one species of mammals are native to Pennsylvania. These represent 7 orders and 16 families
(Appendix). As a group, mammals are only a small percentage of the state's native species of plants and
animals. However, because mammals are familiar to so many citizens of Pennsylvania, they are important as
symbols of the Commonwealth's native biological diversity.
Of the 71 native species, 11 appear to have been extirpated in historic times. Most of these are large
mammals, including the gray wolf1, mountain lion, lynx, bison, wolverine, moose, and marten (Williams et al.
1985). Three other large species that were once extirpated -- the beaver, elk, river otter, and most recently,
fisher -- have been successfully re-established. The only inconspicuous species that is presumed extirpated is
the marsh rice rat.
Four species, or subspecies, of mammals are state-listed as Endangered within the Commonwealth: Northern
flying squirrel, Indiana bat, Delmarva fox squirrel, and least shrew (Pennsylvania Game Commission 1995).
Another 3 are state-listed as Threatened: eastern small-footed bat, West Virginia water shrew, and Allegheny
woodrat. Both the Indiana bat and the Delmarva fox squirrel are also listed as Endangered under the Federal
Endangered Species Act (Refer to chapter by J. D. Hassinger in the present volume for distinctions between
Federal and state listings).
Despite the breadth of our knowledge of the mammals of Pennsylvania, a considerable amount of research
remains to be done in order to ascertain the status and distribution of many species. These include Threatened
and Endangered mammals, and those identified in a review by Kirkland and Krim (1990) as species or
subspecies "at risk" or "status undetermined". This set includes the least weasel, the New England cottontail,
several bat species, and the eastern spotted skunk.
EXOTIC SPECIES
Of the mammal species in Pennsylvania today, only 2 - Norway rat and house mouse - are exotic species. Two
previously introduced species - the European hare and black rat - apparently are now extirpated (Doutt et al.
1973).
THREATS
Historically, the greatest threat to mammals in Pennsylvania was habitat destruction as Pennsylvanians tamed
the wilderness during the 1800s and early 1900s. Unregulated hunting and trapping led to declines in the
numbers of most larger mammals, including the majority of those now extirpated. Only the passage and
enforcement of game laws provided the protection needed to prevent additional species from becoming
extirpated.
Today, the greatest threat to mammals in Pennsylvania involves loss and degradation of habitat, especially for
habitat specialists. When the habitat of a specialist is destroyed or degraded, the species may experience local
declines. Continual loss of large numbers of habitat patches can lead to the extirpation or extinction of those
species.
Bats provide a good example. Those social species that hibernate in caves and mines have very specific
requirements for suitable hibernacula. These species tend to congregate in large numbers in relatively few
sites. Destruction and degradation (including disturbance) of these hibernacula can have significant negative
effects on the overall population levels of some bat species, such as the federally Endangered Indiana bat.
Human manipulation has indirect effects on mammals as well. For example, the use of long-lived insecticides
on agricultural crops may lead to secondary poisoning of bats because of their dependence on flying insects.
Wetland mammals such as the river otter and possibly the water shrew may have suffered both the direct
effects of draining and channeling and the indirect effects of factors such as water pollution and reduction in
cover or prey diversity (Kirkland and Serfass 1989).
INVENTORYING AND MONITORING
In the late 1940s, the Pennsylvania Game Commission undertook a major field survey of mammals throughout
the Commonwealth, funded by the Pittman-Robertson project. The findings of the survey, submitted in a series
of Game Commission reports (still available from the Pennsylvania Game Commission) and later summarized
in a natural history volume by Doutt et al. (1973), formed the first systematic report on the geographic
distribution and status of mammals of Pennsylvania. Nothing of the scope of the mammal survey has been
attempted since. Instead, there have been numerous special-purpose inventories and some specialized longterm projects. Potentially, these data are extremely valuable for addressing questions of biodiversity. To a great
extent, however, this potential has been untapped. To understand the problem, and to envision the solution, it
is helpful to consider the ways that mammal data have been collected and recorded in the Commonwealth in
the past several decades.
PUBLISHED MAMMAL INVENTORIES
Perhaps the most accessible mammal diversity data came from Pennsylvania mammal studies that have been
reported in the scientific literature. Examples are surveys of all mammal species at one time period and a
specific locality, such as a state park or natural area (Brown and Ropski 1995). Although limited in scope, such
"snapshot" surveys allow concrete statements about mammal diversity at a particular place and time, for
comparison to other locations or times. A few published studies have explored the relationship between
mammal diversity and particular disturbance such as clearcutting, forest fragmentation, and other land
alterations (Kirkland 1978, Mastrota et al. 1990, Yahner 1992, Storm et al. 1993, McCay and Storm 1997).
These not only list species for particular localities but also provide a basis for predictions about biodiversity
elsewhere in the face of similar disturbance.
Despite the fact that scientific literature can be retrieved by anyone, the information in these reports may not
readily lend itself to other applications, because the raw data are seldom included. One report may give a
species list without abundance data, another may give only a relative measure of abundance such as catchper-unit-effort, and a third may report a quantitative diversity index without listing species. From these disparate
formats it may be impossible to re-compile the data in a meaningful way to develop an overall picture of
biodiversity.
MAMMAL COLLECTIONS
Less readily accessible to the public, yet still in the form of official, institutional records, are mammal data from
museum collections. Although several museum collections of mammals have existed historically in
Pennsylvania, only 2 collections are actively curated now, one at the Vertebrate Museum of Shippensburg
University and the other at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Both are designated repositories for
specimens for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, but only the Shippensburg Museum routinely accepts new
Pennsylvania specimens. The Carnegie houses approximately 25,000 specimens of Pennsylvania mammals,
and Shippensburg approximately 13,000. Most of these are preserved as skins and skulls; smaller numbers are
skeletons or preserved in fluid. The mammal collection of the Carnegie Museum also has some frozen tissue
specimens, plus records for Pennsylvania specimens housed in museums outside the state.
From a biodiversity standpoint, museum collections are irreplaceable "reference libraries" of the actual
biological material required to plot geographic variation and changes through time, and to identify new
specimens precisely. Appropriately preserved and documented, museum specimens can also be used for
studies of reproduction, food habits, and exposure to toxins. The precise locality and date recorded for each
specimen can allow detailed mapping of species occurrence in particular time periods. All these uses would
greatly aid biodiversity planning in Pennsylvania. Currently, however, museum data are used much less than
they could be. Although most records for both collections are computerized, they are generally released only
upon specific approved request. Most of the locality data have yet to be converted to latitude-longitude
coordinates for use by computerized mapping systems. There are concerns that information might be abused,
for example to locate rare species for unauthorized collecting, if access to the data is unrestricted. These are
obstacles faced by museum collections nationwide, and solutions are being worked out in other states.
Pennsylvania's 2 major mammal collections need to be part of these discussions and need to acquire the
resources to make their extremely valuable data available for research and decision making.
GAME COMMISSION DATA
Another large set of mammal inventory and monitoring data resides in databases held by the Wildlife
Management Bureau of the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC). The Wildlife Diversity Branch of this
Bureau has been very active in recent years in compiling databases relevant to species of special concern. A
Bat Hibernaculum Survey contains estimated species counts from major bat wintering sites since the mid
1980s. A Bat Summer Breeding Colony survey, and a Bat House database to document the success of PGC
artificial bat houses, have existed since the early 1990s. An Allegheny woodrat database contains assessments
of woodrat status at over 500 sites statewide, based on direct observation by PGC personnel. A terrestrial
mammal database contains research data collected by the PGC for special-status species other than bats.
Besides these databases for non-game species, the PGC compiles a number of other data sets including data
for tagged bears, road kill reports of selected furbearers, an annual ground survey of beaver populations by
field personnel, and radio-tracking records for reintroduced otter and fisher.
Though organized various ways and for different initial purposes, all the PGC surveys are based on original
records (that is, records for individual specimens with specific locality and date) and are potentially valuable for
our understanding of biodiversity. Most of these records have been entered into computer files. They are
available by request in hard copy, but they are not yet accessible on-line, and there is no central repository or
standard format that would allow them to be coordinated. As a result, their use is very restricted. PGC data
represent a large public-fund investment in the mammal fauna of the Commonwealth, and a large interest in
the status of mammals. Making these data more accessible for biodiversity analysis should be a high-priority
goal.
THE PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL DIVERSITY INVENTORY AND CENTRALIZED DATA MAINTENANCE
Yet another repository for mammal inventorying and monitoring data is the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity
Inventory (PNDI). Mammal records represent only a small fraction of the PNDI's database, but at least some of
the PGC's records (such as the Allegheny woodrat database) are periodically incorporated into PNDI. Because
of format differences, data shared in this way must be re-entered by hand. Data-entry backlogs, and emphasis
on species of concern rather than all species, hamper PNDI's usefulness as a biodiversity resource. Although
PNDI's structure (a partnership among the Bureau of Forestry of the Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, The Nature Conservancy, and the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy) is peculiar to
Pennsylvania, its database is analogous to Heritage databases in other states. Some of these have on-line
access for approved subscribers. The PNDI is not currently operating on a scale to provide that service, but it is
the most logical organization to do so. Resources should be provided to allow PNDI to act as the central
clearinghouse for mammal biodiversity records from PGC and other sources, with the goal of having both entry
and access of data as on-line processes. In addition to scientific literature, museum collection, Game
Commission, and PNDI databases, other monitoring and inventory data for Pennsylvania mammals exist in
various places. Various national parks and the Allegheny National Forest keep their own mammal occurrence
data. Powdermill Nature Reserve, of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, has a data set for small mammal
dynamics in relation to environmental variables that spans 18 years and includes 38,000 entries (J. Merritt,
pers. comm.). Mammalogists at academic institutions have their own research data. A central, internetaccessible PNDI would act as a magnet for such data. Most agencies and researchers would be eager to have
their data receive wider use in support of biodiversity conservation. The main necessary step to take is to make
the coordination simple and convenient -- that is, put it on-line.
A centralized database for mammal inventory and monitoring data would have many uses, but 2 projects
illustrate its potential. One major project now in progress among ornithologists is the Important Bird Areas
Project, initiated by the National Audubon Society and coordinated in Pennsylvania by the Ornithological
Technical Committee (OTC) of the Pennsylvania Biological Survey. The Important Bird Areas Project seeks to
identify public and private sites of special value for bird diversity, both to promote their conservation and to
make wider appropriate use of these sites. In designating Important Bird Areas, the OTC is able to draw on
excellent databases from Christmas bird counts, breeding bird surveys, and the like (see chapter by D. A.
Gross in the present volume). The OTC's counterpart, the Mammal Technical Committee (MTC), has been
developing plans for an Important Mammal Areas Project with similar goals, but MTC lacks the rich data
resources to aid in selecting Important Mammal Areas. The choice of these areas must at this point rest on
more anecdotal information. A centralized biodiversity database could make this project more solidly based and
much simpler to conduct.
A second project being developed within the Pennsylvania Biological Survey is a Biodiversity Monitoring
Network for Pennsylvania. The general plan for this network is to designate a set of monitoring sites that will be
sampled annually, at several taxonomic levels and with standardized protocols, by teams of students
supervised by college-level instructors or other professionals. With careful choice of sites and sampling
protocols, the data from this network would reveal long-term biodiversity trends and would be the basis for
biodiversity decisions statewide. A centralized biodiversity database not only would make the choice of sites
and species to sample much more straightforward, but such a database will be essential as a repository for the
data that result from the monitoring.
Fortunately, Pennsylvania mammalogists and conservationists need not start from scratch to solve the
problems of centralizing their biodiversity data. Efforts are already under way at the national level to coordinate
and standardize the many sorts of ecological data collected at biological field stations and long-term ecological
study sites (Michener et al. 1996). The National Center for Environmental Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS),
based at the University of California, Santa Barbara, plans to act as an organizational body for such data.
Guidelines being developed at the national level should be an important ingredient in Pennsylvania's
coordination of mammal biodiversity data.
SUMMARY
Compared to other taxonomic groups, the status of most mammal species in Pennsylvania can be relatively
well understood with data that already exist. There are some inventorying gaps to fill, and it will be important to
continue monitoring both overall mammal diversity and the dynamics of select species in relation to
environmental variables. Immediately, however, a very high priority for mammal biodiversity is to preserve,
coordinate, and make accessible the valuable information hidden away in agency and research databases, the
PNDI, and our major museum collections. Current efforts by the Pennsylvania Biological Survey, including the
Important Mammal Areas Project and a developing Biodiversity Monitoring Network, highlight the importance of
accessible databases. With increasing consensus about the importance of such resources, and newly
emerging practical guidelines to build them, there is good reason to be optimistic about the stewardship of
mammal biodiversity in Pennsylvania's future.
REFERENCES
Brown, E., and S.J. Ropski. 1995. A survey of the mammals of the Wattsburg Fen Natural Area and the Titus
Bog Preserve. J. Pa. Acad. Sci. 69:111-114.
Doutt, J. K., C. A. Heppenstall, and J. E. Guilday. 1973. Mammals of Pennsylvania, Third ed. Pennsylvania
Game Comm., Harrisburg, Pa.
Genoways, H. H. and F. J. Brenner, ed. 1985. Species of special concern in Pennsylvania. Special Publication
Number 11, Carnegie Mus. of Natural History.
Gifford, C. L., and R. Whitebread. 1951. Mammal survey of south central Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game
Commission, Harrisburg, Pa. 67pp.
Grimm, W. C., and H. A. Roberts. 1950. Mammal survey of southwestern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game
Comm., Harrisburg, Pa. 99pp.
Grimm, W. C., and R. Whitebread. 1952. Mammal survey of northeastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game
Comm., Harrisburg, Pa. 82pp.
Kirkland, G. L., Jr. 1978. Initial responses of small mammals to clearcutting of Pennsylvania hardwood forests.
Proc. Pa. Acad. Sci., 52:21-23.
Kirkland, G. L., Jr. 1986. Small mammal species of special concern in Pennsylvania and adjacent states: an
overview. Pages 252-267 in S. K. Majumdar, F. J. Brenner, and A. F. Rhoads, eds. Endangered and
Threatened Species Programs in Pennsylvania and other States: Causes, Issues, and Management. Pa. Acad.
Sci., Easton, Pa.
Kirkland, G. L., Jr., and P. M. Krim. 1990. Survey of the statuses of the mammals of Pennsylvania. J. Pa. Acad.
Sci., 64:33-45.
Kirkland, G. L., Jr., and T. L. Serfass. 1989. Wetland mammals of Pennsylvania. Pages 216-230 in S. K.
Majumdar, R. B. Brooks, F. J. Brenner, and R. W. Tiner, Jr., eds. Wetlands Ecology and Conservation:
Emphasis in Pennsylvania. Pa. Acad. Sci., Easton, Pa.
Mastrota, F. N., R. H. Yahner, and G. L. Storm. 1990. Autumnal microhabitat use by small mammals in a
mixed-oak forest irrigated with wastewater in central Pennsylvania. J. Pa. Acad. Sci. 64:73-77.
McCay, T. S., and G. L. Storm. 1997. Masked shrew (Sorex cinereus) abundance, diet and prey selection in an
irrigated forest. Am. Midl. Nat. 138:268-275.
Merritt, J. F. 1987. Guide to the mammals of Pennsylvania. Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Michener, W. K., J. W. Brunt, J. J. Helly, T. B. Kirchner, and S. G. Stafford. 1997. Nongeospatial metadata for
the ecological sciences. Ecol. Applic. 71:330-342.
Pennsylvania Game Commission. 1995. Endangered and Threatened species of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania
Game Comm., Harrisburg, Pa.
Richmond, N. D., and H. R. Roslund. 1949. Mammal survey of northwestern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania
Game Comm., Harrisburg, Pa. 67pp.
Roberts, H. A., and R. C. Early. 1952. Mammal survey of southeastern
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game Comm., Harrisburg, Pa. 70pp.
Roslund, R. 1951. Mammal survey of northcentral Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game Comm., Harrisburg, Pa.
55pp.
Storm, G. L., R. H. Yahner, and E. D. Bellis. 1993. Vertebrate abundance and wildlife habitat suitability near the
Palmerton zinc smelters, Pennsylvania. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 25:428-437.
Thorne, S. G., K. C. Kim, K. C. Stiener (co-directors), and B. J. McGuinness (editor). 1995. A Heritage for the
21st century: Conserving Pennsylvania's native biological diversity. Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Comm.,
Harrisburg, Pa.
Williams, S. L., S. B. McLaren, and M. A. Burgwin. 1985. Paleo-archaeological and historical records of
selected Pennsylvania mammals. Ann. Carnegie Mus. 54:77-188.
Yahner, R. H. 1992. Dynamics of a small mammal community in a fragmented forest. The Am. Midl. Nat.
127:381-391.
Appendix.
Mammal
Checklist
Status
Habitat
Behavior
C
G
N,C
masked shrew,
Sorex cinereus
C
M,B,
N,C
water shrew,
Sorex palustris
R,T
M,S
A
smokey shrew,
Sorex fumeus
C
M
A
long-tailed shrew,
Sorex dipar
I
M,R
U
pygmy shrew,
Sorex hoyi
S
G
A
northern shorttailed shrew,
Blarina
brevicauda
C
G
A
least shrew,
Cryptotis parva
E
A,N
A
hairy-tailed mole,
Parascalops
breweri
C
G
A,Y
eastern mole,
Scalopus
aquaticus
C
G,R
A,Y
star-nosed mole,
Condylura
cristata
C
W,S
A,Y
Marsupials:
Marsupialia
new world
opossums:
Didelphidae
Virginia opossum,
Didelphis
virginiana
Insectivores:
Insectivora
shrews:
Soricidae
moles:
Talpidae
bats:
Chiroptera
plain-nosed bats:
Vespertilionidae
little brown bat, Myotis
licifugus
C
C,S
H
long-eared bat, Myotis keenii
R
C,S
H
pink-faced bat, Myotis sodalis
E
C,S
H
small-footed bat, Myotis leibii
T
C,S
H
silver-haired bat, Lasionycteris
noctivagans
R
X
M
eastern pipistrelle, Pipistrellus
pipistrellus
S
C,S
H
big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus
C
C
H
red bat, Lasiurus borealis
U
X
M
hoary bat, Lasiurus cinereus
U
X
M
evening bat, Nycticeius
humeralis
R
G
T,H
Seminole bat, Lasiurus
seminolus
U
?
Y
eastern cottontail, Sylvilagus
floridanus
C
B,G
A,C,Y
New England cottontail,
Sylvilagus transitionalis
A
M
U,Y
snowshoe hare, Lepus
americanus
A
M
N,Y
eastern chipmunk, Tamias
straitus
C
G
D,H
woodchuck, Marmota monax
C
W,A,R
D,H
gray squirrel, Sciurus
carolinensis
C
D,G
D,T
fox squirrel, Sciurus niger
R,E,C
D,A
D,T
red squirrel, Tamiasciurus
hudsonicus
C
D,X
D,T
southern flying squirrel,
Glaucomys volans
C
D,X
N,T
lagomorphs:
Lagomorpha
rabbits and hares:
Leporidae
rodents:
Rodentia
squirrels:
Sciuridae
northern flying squirrel,
Glaucomys sabrinus
E
X,C
N,T
beaver, Castor canadensis
C
S,L
N,Y
rice rat, Oryzomys palustris
I
M,A
N,Y
deer mouse, Peromyscus
maniculatus
C
G
N
white-footed mouse,
Peromyscus leucopus
C
G
N
eastern woodrat, Neotoma
magister
T
M,R
N
southern red-backed vole,
Clethrionomys gapperi
C
X,C,R
N
meadow vole, Microtus
pennsylvanicus
C
N,W
A,Y
rock vole, Mictotus
chrotorrhinus
A
X,R
D,Y
pine vole, Microtus pinetorum
C
G
A,Y
southern bog lemming,
Synaptomys cooperi
I
N,W
A,Y
muskrat, Ondatra zibethicus
C
W,L,S
N
Norway rat, Rattus norvegicus
C
H,A
N
house mouse, Mus musculus
C
H,A
H
meadow jumping mouse, Zapus
hudsonius
C
N,S
H,N
woodland jumping mouse,
Napeozapus insignis
C
M,C,
H,N,C
porcupine, Erethizon dorsatum
C
M,C,
N,Y
beavers:
Castoridae
native rats, mice,
and voles:
Cricetidae
old world rats and
mice: Muridae
jumping mice:
Zapodidae
new world
porcupines:
Erethizontidae
carnivores:
Carnivora
dogs and foxes:
Canidae
eastern coyote, Canis latrans
S
G
A
red fox, Vulpes vulpes
C
B, A
N
gray Fox, Urocyon
cinerecargenteus
C
B,D
N
black bear, Ursus americanus
C
M,C,D
N
raccoon, Procyon lotor
C
G
N
ermine, Mustela erminea
I
B,A
N
least weasel, Mustela nivalis
U
B,A
N
long-tailed weasel, Mustela
frenata
C
G?
N
mink, Mustela vison
C
W,S
C
eastern spotted skunk,
Spilogale putorius
E
R,X
D
striped skunk, Mephitis
mephitis
C
G
N
river otter, Lutra canadensis
C
G
C,A
bobcat, Felis rufus
A
M,B,A, R
N
white-tailed deer, Odocoileus
virginianus
C
G
C,A
bears: Ursidae
raccoons:
Procyonidae
weasels, skunks,
and otters:
Mustelidae
cats: Felidae
even-toed
hoofed
mammals:
Artiodactyla
deer: Cervidae
Occassional/Questionable Occurrences
carnivores: Carnivora
weasels, skunks, and otters: Mustelidae
marten, Martes americana
fisher, Martes pennanti
cats: Felidae
mountain lion, Felis concolor
lynx, Felis lynx
Extirpated Species
carnivores: Carnivora
dogs and foxes: Canidae
grey wolf, Canis lupus
weasels, skunks, and otters: Mustelidae
wolverine, Gulo gulo
even-toed hoofed mammals: Artiodactyla
deer: Cervidae
elk, Cervus elaphus
moose, Alces alces
bovines: Bovidae: bison, Bison bison
This checklist was designed to serve as both a guide to students and the public and is intended to provide an
overview of the general characteristics and current status of all mammal species occurring within the
Commonwealth, including those that have been introduced or eliminated within the State boundaries. Both the
common and scientific names are provided for each species, followed by abbreviations of current status,
preferred habitat, and general behavior. Abbreviations are defined below. NOTE: The eastern elk subspecies,
native to Pennsylvania, was extirpated in the early 1900s. However, the Rocky Mountain subspecies was reintroduced in the Commonwealth from western states. The fisher has also been re-introduced into
Pennsylvania.
Status: Status of all species is based on the work of Kirkland and Krim (1990; see also, Genoways and
Brenner, 1985). Those species not considered of special concern are listed as either C(Common), I(restricted
distribution), or S(secure now, but previously listed as Species of Concern). Multiple designations refer to
subspecies status. The following six categories have been recognized for species of special concern by the
Pennsylvania Biological Survey. However, the reader should refer to the chapter by J. D. Hassinger in the
present volume for more details concerning classifications.
U(Undetermined) - Species of concern for which insufficient data are available for adequate assessment
R(Rare) - Species found in either a few restricted areas or over a broad area at low numbers
A(At Risk) - Species particularly vulnerable to further habitat modifications or exploitation
T(Threatened) - Species that are likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future
E(Endangered) - Species of imminent danger of extinction in Pennsylvania
X(Extirpated) - Species that disappeared from Pennsylvania since 1600
Habitats: Behavior:
M - mountain woodlands N - nocturnal (active at night)
R - rocky areas D - diurnal (active in day)
B - brush thickets, hedgerows C - crepuscular (active at dawn and dusk)
W - marshes A - active day and night
S - streams, rivers T - nests in tree hollows
L - lakes, ponds M - migratory
N - grasslands H - hibernator
C - coniferous forests Y - active year-round
D - deciduous forests
X - mixed forests
A - agricultural lands, old fields
H - near human/suburban areas (barns, attics)
G - generalized habitat requirements (found in a variety of habitats)
See Appendix for scientific names.