INTRODUCTION 



Recently, two articles were published (Dodd, 1982, I983) summarizing 

 the natural history, conservation activities, proposed federal listing and 

 controversy surrounding the form considered by some (e.g., Iverson, 1979) 

 as the Illinois mud turtle, Kinosternon flavescens spooneri , and by others 

 (e.g., Houseal et al., 1982) as an isolated population of the yellow mud 

 turtle, Kinosternon flavescens flavescens . Unfortunately, the proposed 

 listing of this turtle as endangered has, in fact, generated considerable 

 controversy. This controversy has resulted in greatly polarized positions 

 and bitter, adversarial relationships between those having the opinion 

 that the listing is critical to th-e continued existence of the turtle 

 versus those having the opinion that the turtle is presently adequately 

 protected, or at least as well-protected, without the listing as it would 

 be with an endangered status afforded by the federal government. 



Dodd (1982, 1983) provided a wide-ranging overview and expressed a 

 number of personal opinions concerning the events surrounding the proposed 

 listing of the Illinois mud turtle from his perspective. Representatives 

 of Monsanto Agricultural Products Company (Monsanto) have presented their 

 views and opinions concerning the matter in several forums, many of which 

 were listed by Dodd (1982). The purpose of this paper is to present our 

 views from the perspective of the persons who performed the 1979-1980 

 research which was supported by Monsanto. It also represents an attempt 

 to partition aspects of the controversy into the realms which represent 

 differences in opinions and interpretations of the data versus the 

 adequacy and credibility of the data which were gathered (and the analyses 

 which were performed) as part of Monsanto's research program. 



In essence, this paper is intended to supplement Dodd (1982, 1983), 

 providing additional case history. Dodd (1982) ended with the opinion: 



"In the Illinois mud turtle controversy, no one benefitted, 

 least of all £. £. spooneri ." 



While we do not agree with Dodd's statement, we believe that a careful 

 review of this case history in its entirety will greatly benefit all in 

 the scientific community who sometimes find themselves in the public arena 

 with regards to their position on ecological issues. 



NATURAL HISTORY 



Dodd (1982, 1983) provided a brief summary of the natural history and 

 ecology of the Illinois mud turtle referencing Cooper (1975), Springer and 

 Gallaway (1980) and Kangas et al. (1980) as containing detailed accounts. 

 In general, the overview reasonably depicts the natural history of the 

 turtle. 



Material in Springer and Gallaway (1980) concerning the present 

 range, distribution, abundance and natural history of the turtle is now 

 published (Bickham et al., 1984; Christiansen and Gallaway, 1984; 

 Christiansen et al., 1984, in press). Yet another manuscript describing 

 the population estimation procedure developed from this project also has 

 been prepared (Gazey and Staley, in press). 



