This species can be found in the USA. It occurs in Illinois, Indiana, southern Ohio, western West Virginia, and central Virginia south to northern Florida, southern Alabama, southern Mississippi, and southeastern Louisiana (Jacobs 1987, Conant and Collins 1991, Sever 1999). An old record for Michigan needs verification (Sever 1999).
Habitat and Ecology
It can be found on rocky brooks, springs, seepages, river swamps (e.g., tupelo-cypress), forested floodplains with stagnant pools; it may disperse into wooded terrestrial habitats in wet warm weather. Adults hide under objects in or near flowing water. It is often found crossing roads in rainy weather during breeding season. Eggs are laid on/under submerged rocks, logs, or aquatic plants.
Total adult population size is unknown but probably exceeds 100,000.
Like many salamanders, this species is sensitive to intensive timbering, land clearing, and stream pollution and siltation, and it is often absent from urban areas and highly disturbed landscapes (Petranka 1998), but overall the species is unthreatened.
There are no conservation measures needed.
Red List Status
Least Concern (LC)
Listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, presumed large population, and because it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category.
Jacobs (1987) examined allozyme variation and concluded that the Eurycea bislineata subspecies (bislineata, cirrigera and wilderae) should be regarded as distinct species. Most subsequent authors, including Sever (1999), have followed this treatment, but Petranka (1998) retained these taxa as subspecies of Eurycea bislineata, pending study of genetic interactions in contact zones. Camp et al. (2000) examined allozyme and morphological variation in Eurycea at a contact zone between E. cirrigera and E. wilderae in Georgia and concluded that the two are distinct species. Kozak and Montanucci (2001) examined genetic variation across a wilderae-cirrigera contact zone in South Carolina, found evidence of an extended history of reduced gene exchange, and concluded that the two are distinct species. The status of Eurycea aquatica is problematic. Sever (1999) reasoned that E. aquatica might be a valid species, but recent checklists do not regard Eurycea aquatica as a valid species but instead include it in Eurycea cirrigera (Crother et al. 2000; 2003; Collins and Taggart 2002) or E. bislineata (sensu lato, Petranka 1998).
Geoffrey Hammerson 2004. Eurycea cirrigera. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T59264A11895061. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T59264A11895061.en