(Stone) Kociolek and Stoermer 1988 Category: Asymmetrical biraphid
BASIONYM: Gomphoneis herculeana var. minuta Stone in McLaughlin and Stone 1986
Contributor: Pat Kociolek - January 2011
Length Range: 20-128 µm
Width Range: 14-26 µm
Striae in 10 µm: 10-12
Valves linear-clavate. Margins convex but not tumid at the center (except for initial valves). Headpole broadly rounded; footpole narrowly rounded. Initial valves are 108-128 µm long, 21-26 µm wide. Axial area is narrow, straight and expanded only at the center to form a linear-elliptical central area bearing one stigma. The raphe is lateral and undulate. Striae are radiate, more strongly so towards the footpole. The biseriate nature of the striae is evident. The longitudinal lines are located about half-way between the axial area and margin. Apical pore fields are bi-lobed.
Distribution: Gomphoneis minuta has been confirmed from a number of sites across the U.S., from Washington to Arizona and east to Virginia and North Carolina.
Basionym: Gomphoneis herculeana var. minuta
Author: Stone in McLaughlin and Stone 1986
Length Range: µm
Striae in 10 µm:
Kociolek, J.P. and Stoermer, E.F. (1988). Taxonomy, ultrastructure and distribution of Gomphoneis herculeana, G. eriense and closely related species (Naviculales: Gomphonemataceae). Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. 140: 24-97. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4064935
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) study was completed during the years 2000-2004 (see citations at bottom of this page). Over 1200 streams and rivers in 12 western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming) were selected for sampling based on a stratified randomized design. This type of design insures that ecological resources are sampled in proportion to their actual geographical presence. Stratified randomized design also allows for estimates of stream length with a known confidence in several “condition classes” (good or least-disturbed, intermediately-disturbed, and poor or most-disturbed) for biotic condition, chemistry and habitat.
Results are published in:
Johnson, T., Hermann, K., Spaulding, S., Beyea, B., Theel, C., Sada, R., Bollman, W., Bowman, J., Larsen, A., Vining, K., Ostermiller, J., Petersen, D. Hargett, E. and Zumberge, J. (2009). An ecological assessment of USEPA Region 8 streams and rivers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 Report, 178 p.
Stoddard, J. L., Peck, D. V., Olsen, A. R., Larsen, D. P., Van Sickle, J., Hawkins, C. P., Hughes, R. M., Whittier, T. R., Lomnicky, G. A., Herlihy, A. T., Kaufman, P. R., Peterson, S. A., Ringold, P. L., Paulsen, S. G., and Blair, R. (2005). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) western streams and rivers statistical summary. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 620/R-05/006, 1,762 p.
Stoddard, J. L., Peck, D. V., Paulsen, S. G., Van Sickle, J., Hawkins, C. P., Herlihy, A. T., Hughes, R. M., Kaufman, P. R., Larsen, D. P., Lomnicky, G. A., Olsen, A. R., Peterson, S. A., Ringold, P. L., and Whittier, T. R. (2005). An ecological assessment of western streams and rivers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 620/R-05/005, 49 p.