Skip to content
A Virtual Museum on the State's Fish Biodiversity

FoTX-accounts_SourceID_40

Not suspect, not examined
Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus
TX Threatened SGCN Federal: Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance NS G4 NS S2

Photos

No photos available.

Map

Location 28.69750° N, 100.51062° W (± 9000 m)

Taxonomy

FamilyAcipenseridae
GenusScaphirhynchus
Speciesplatorynchus

Identification

Determinerunknown

Geography

DrainageRio Grande
CountryUSA
StateTexas
LocalityRio Grande near Eagle Pass
Latitude28.697496
Longitude-100.510619
DatumWGS84
Error9000

Other

Specimen NotesObservation taken from email correspondence from David Riskin (TPWD) to Gary Garrett in response ot questions about sturgeon in the Rio Grande. David says: Seems to me I recounted this oral history to you in an e-mail with attribution and a drawing. I do NOT have that file any longer .... But, yes. I spoke with several elders who remembered netting the fishe in the Rio Grande in the EP/PN area. I do not recall dates or names any longer. Moreover, and sadly, everyone I knew who could assist in channeling these sources, now also are deceased. Thus we have a proto-gray category and you’ll just have to enter an anecdotal account based on my recollection of an account I forwarded to you some 2???. Oh my, decades hence? PS-- since there was presidio and mission at the Presidio del Norte, Guerrero, Coahuila, and since there are archives now at San Antonio, it is possible there may be accounts contained therein. I am certain that the San Antonio Missions NHP have an archivist. It may be worth a long shot. The Camino Real crossed there, the Presidio and garrison were there as we three missions – Bautista, Bernardo and San Antonio de Valero.

Record Source

Source Fishes of Texas Accounts (type: miscellaneous)
Institution Dean Hendrickson Lab (type: researcher)
Curator Unknown
Record Added June 24, 2020
Record Last Modified June 22, 2022
Data Processing Track Track 3
From Data Set Received 5/2017 to 11/2017

Identification

Suspect Notes None
Count No data

Current Determination

Actinopterygii Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Scaphirhynchus Scaphirhynchus platorynchus
Determiner Unknown
Determination Date Unknown
Determination Type Unspecified
Identification Comments None
Identification Confidence Unknown

Collecting Event

Collected Jan. 1, 1800 – Dec. 31, 2000
Collector(s)
No collector information is available for this record.
Collecting Event ID 270846
Field Notes
There are no field notes available.

Locality

Jurisdiction Maverick, Texas
Name Rio Grande near Eagle Pass
Hydrography Rio Grande Region Rio Grande-Falcon Rio Grande-Falcon San Ambrosia-Santa Isabel Rosita Creek-Rio Grande Seco Creek-Rio Grande
Captive no
Locality Photos
No locality photos available.
Ecoregion Unknown
HUC 12 130800020702
Georeferencing Remarks Georeference needs verification/refinement; coordinates provided by donor
Georeferencing Annotation
Has not been Georeferenced because This record, being part of the track 3 import, is not formally georeferenced by FoTX staff at this time. However, to allow mapping and visualization of this record, locality information has been provisionally accepted if provided by the donor or if location text could be matched to previously georeferenced records by FoTX team or donor data. For many records spatial error is either accepted from the donor (when provided) or derived based on coordinate precision.

Comments On FoTX-accounts_SourceID_40

Dean Hendrickson Sept. 11, 2022, 5:25 p.m.
What about Platania, S. P., Hendrickson, D. A., & Cohen, A. E. (2018). Documentation Related to a 1991 Observation of Sturgeon in the Rio Grande – Río Bravo, USA (Texas) and Mexico (Coahuila). https://doi.org/10.15781/T2445HW2D. It seems that should be what's cited here, as well as perhaps his original report (Platania, S. P., Young, D. A., & Burr, B. M. (1991). Observation of the Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus, in the Rio Grande, Texas and Mexico, with comments on Rio Grande records of Scaphirhynchus platorynchus. Note they originally reported the 1991 weighting as a different species. Why not publish that (as suspect as well) along with this determination?