86 
Rowland M. Shelley 
sites (Fuller 1972, 1977); however, Fuller (1977) mentioned a possible 
specimen from an unspecified locality in the Northeast Cape Fear River. 
He also listed E. marsupiobesa as “Endangered” within North Carolina 
because of proposed impoundments above Fayetteville and pollution 
and sedimentation in the river. As it is similar conchologically to E. 
complanata and E. raveneli, many collections doubtlessly contain misi- 
dentified specimens of this species. Elliptio marsupiobesa may be widely 
distributed in the lower Cape Fear and perhaps in other coastal drain- 
ages. “Undetermined” status is more appropriate than “Endangered” 
until this matter is resolved. 
DELETION 
Alasmidonta heterodon (Lea 1830). 
Remarks’. Dawley (1965) reported A. heterodon from an unspecified 
lake in Guilford County, but this determination is suspect because the 
unionid is strictly a riverine species. The specimen(s) were supposedly in 
her collection, but they were not among the materials donated to the 
State Museum of Natural Sciences. Thus without verification, this 
report has to be considered erroneous. Considered an “Endangered” 
species both within North Carolina and nationally because of the dis- 
junct distribution and small population sizes (Fuller 1977), A. hete- 
rodon has been authentically reported from the Neuse and Tar systems 
(Walter 1956, Johnson 1970, Clarke 1981), the known southern distribu- 
tional limit. However, it has not been collected in the Neuse since Wal- 
ter’s study; in his survey of the Tar River, Clarke (1983) found no empty 
valves and only one living individual, in the Piedmont section in Gran- 
ville County. The Granville record is unusual as A. heterodon is primar- 
ily a Coastal Plain species. 
DISCUSSION 
With this report, the known unionid faunas of the three major 
drainages lying entirely within North Carolina — the Tar, Neuse, and 
Cape Fear — have been discussed. Surveys in the Neuse and Cape Fear 
were not quantitative; they concentrated on the upper or Piedmont sec- 
tions, and included relatively small tributaries. Clarke’s (1983) survey in 
the Tar was quantitative; it included both Piedmont and coastal sec- 
tions, but was largely limited to the Tar River itself with little sampling 
in tributaries. Although the three studies are not equivalent, they never- 
theless reveal the native faunas, which can be compared and contrasted 
with enhancement from other published records. Comparable sampling 
may not be done for years, and investigations in such lesser-known sys- 
tems as the New (Atlantic), White Oak, and North Carolina sections of 
the Chowan, Lumber, Yadkin/ Pee Dee, Catawba, and Broad drainages 
deserve equal priority. 
Unionid faunas also change over time as human alterations and 
