Overview

Distribution

endemic to a single state or province

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Type of Residency: Year-round

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Range: (<100 square km (less than about 40 square miles)) Known only from tributaries (Fall River and Hat Creek subdrainages and a spring tributary of the Pit River at Pit Power House III) of the Pit River in Shasta County, in northeastern California; apparently with a relict distribution of a once much more continuous one (Bouchard, 1977; Eng and Daniels, 1982; Daniels, 1980; Light et al., 1995; USFWS, 1998; Rogers, 2005).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Range Description

This species is known only from Shasta County, California, USA. It is more specifically known from isolated portions of the Pit River drainage. The current range is greatly reduced to much smaller and more isolated stream sections in the same watersheds (Millar 2004). This species has an estimated extent of occurrence of 13 km2.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Historic Range:
U.S.A. (CA)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Size

Length: 5 cm

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Diagnostic Description

Easily separated from Pacifastacus leniusculus ssp. by serrate rostral margins. Both Pacifastacus connectens and Pacifastacus gambeli have two conspicuous setal clusters along mesial and lateral submargins of dorsal surface of the chelae. The palm of Pacifastacus fortis is subquadrate, while that of the extinct Pacifastacus nigrescens is subrectangular. Key difference from P. nigrescens is chelae of P. nigrescens are relatively long and narrow compared to the shorter more robust chelae of P. fortis (Eng and Daniels, 1982).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Habitat Type: Freshwater

Comments: Prefers rocky, gravelly bottoms, usually volcanic rubble. Gregarious (fide Bouchard 1978). Has been found in spring pools and slow to moderately flowing waters, and also in cold clear lakes with little annual fluctuation in temperature (Eng and Daniels, 1982). It lives in cool, clear, spring-fed lakes, rivers and streams, usually at or near a spring inflow source, where waters show little annual fluctuation in temperature and remain cool during the summer. Most are found in still and slowly to moderately flowing waters. The most important habitat requirement appears to be the presence of adequate volcanic rock rubble to provide escape cover from predators (USFWS, 1998; Light et al., 1995).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat and Ecology

Habitat and Ecology
Pacifastacus fortis prefers rocky, gravelly bottoms, usually volcanic rubble (Bouchard 1978). This species has been found in spring pools and slow to moderately flowing waters, and also in cold clear lakes with little annual fluctuation in temperature (Eng and Daniels 1982). It requires a constant, steady, and untainted flow of fresh water to survive (American Fisheries Society Endangered Species Committee 1996). Pacifastacus fortis grows to 90mm total length and females reach maturity at 5 years old (Millar 2004).

Systems
  • Freshwater
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Migration

Non-Migrant: No. All populations of this species make significant seasonal migrations.

Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make local extended movements (generally less than 200 km) at particular times of the year (e.g., to breeding or wintering grounds, to hibernation sites).

Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make annual migrations of over 200 km.

They do not migrate and are not strong swimmers.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Trophic Strategy

Comments: Not much is really known about food habits. As most crustaceans an opportunistic feeder. Larval foodhabits are probably similar to the adults.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Population Biology

Number of Occurrences

Note: For many non-migratory species, occurrences are roughly equivalent to populations.

Estimated Number of Occurrences: 6 - 20

Comments: By 1990, it was restricted to seven isolated localities, mostly in the headwaters of spring-fed tributaries of the Pit River. Relict distribution exist today but no evidence the species had a wider range during historic times (Eng and Daniels, 1982). Historically, distribution was more or less continuous throughout the Fall River, Hat Creek, and the segment of the Pit River that joins these drainages (Light et al., 1995). It was described in 1898 from the Fall River at Fall River Mills and Hat Creek at Cassel with subsequent collections from the Fall River system in 1934, 1964, 1973-1974; with collections in 1975 from all three river systems (headwaters of the Fall River, Sucker Springs Creek on the Pit River, Crystal Lake on Hat Creek) (Bouchard, 1977). In 1978-1980 it was found in numerous locations in the Fall River system including the type locality as well as Sucker Springs Creek and the Pit River and in Crystal, Baum, and Rising River lakes on the Hat Creek system. Resurveys in 1985-1986 found no major changes in distribution but noted a declining population in Crystal Lake occurring with a large population of introduced Pacifastacus leniusculus in only five years plus new observations in Eastman Lake at the Lava Creek overflow, the Fall River at the mouth of Spring Creek, and Tritton Reservoir. Most recently in 1990-1991, Light et al. (1995) found it in a total of 14 sites (Crystal, Baum, and Rising River lakes in the Hat Creek subdrainages; Fall River, Big Lake, Spring Squaw, and Lava Creeks, and Crystal and Rainbow Springs in the Fall River subdrainage; and in Sucker Springs, a tributary of Pit River between the two subdrainages) comprising seven noncontiguous subpopulations separated by dams, gradient barriers and many stream km; mostly in the same areas as historically but now isolated in patches rather than distributed continuously; however the marginal locations (Fall River, Pit River mainstem near sucker Springs, and Baum Lake) have not yielded specimens since 1980 but these represented washdowns or strays from nearby populations anyway.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Abundance

2500 - 100,000 individuals

Comments: See CA NHP studies. Mark-recapture estimates of three populations were 4640 for Spring Creek, 210 for Big Lake, and 369 for Crystal Lake and a second estimate of the Spring Creek population using transects was 4951, perhaps half the total remaining population over the 5965 square mile area in which surveys were carried out (Light et al., 1995).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

General Ecology

Detailed data scant. Prefers slow flowing water and also lakes. Needs cold, clear, well oxygenated water, mostly spring fed.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Cyclicity

Comments: Active all year but more so in summer. Ovigerous/brooding females more secretive. probably more active at night.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Reproduction

Sex ratio in Crystal Lake 1:1. Breeding in September-October. Eggs extruded in October-November, with hatching in May; fecundity low (few eggs extruded; 10-70) (Eng and Daniels, 1982).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N1 - Critically Imperiled

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G1 - Critically Imperiled

Reasons: This species is endangered and known from a limited range (<13 sq. km) that remains as wide as it was historically but is now reduced to scattered, disjunct occurrences with declining numbers of individuals and declining habitat quality mostly in headwaters where it was formerly continuous throughout but is now fragmented by dams. An inference of population decline has been made which determined this to be at least 50% in the last 10 years, and is continuing to decline. It is threatened by habitat modification and introduction of non-native species of fish and crayfish. The construction of the Pit I hydroelectric project also poses a threat, therefore further research into the ecology, distribution and abundance of this species is required.

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.

Comments: The species exhibits some habitat flexibility in their persistence along the shores of relatively warm and turbid Big Lake, but for the most part they are closely tied to the cold, clear water and abundant rocky substrate now typical only in headwaters (Light et al., 1995).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

IUCN Red List Assessment


Red List Category
CR
Critically Endangered

Red List Criteria
B1ab(ii,iii,v)

Version
3.1

Year Assessed
2010

Assessor/s
Johnson, D., Taylor, C.A., Schuster, G.A., Cordeiro, J. & Jones, T.

Reviewer/s
Collen, B. & Richman, N.

Contributor/s
Livingston, F., Livingston, F., Soulsby, A.-M., Batchelor, A., Dyer, E., Whitton, F., Milligan, H.T., Smith, J., Lutz, M.L., De Silva, R., McGuinness, S., Kasthala, G., Jopling, B., Sullivan, K. & Cryer, G.

Justification
Pacifastacus fortis has been assessed as Critically Endangered under criterion B1ab (ii,iii,v). This species has a very restricted range with an extent of occurrence of 13 km2, and a range that is severely fragmented by the presence of dams and invasive species. There is an ongoing decline in the quality of this species habitat as a result of dam construction, and invasive species continue to drive a decline in the number of mature individuals. Measures are urgently required to control the spread of invasive species towards the relict, subpopulations of this species.

History
  • 1996
    Critically Endangered
  • 1994
    Endangered
    (Groombridge 1994)
  • 1990
    Vulnerable
    (IUCN 1990)
  • 1988
    Vulnerable
    (IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre 1988)
  • 1986
    Vulnerable
    (IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre 1986)
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Current Listing Status Summary

Status: Endangered
Date Listed: 09/30/1988
Lead Region:   California/Nevada Region (Region 8) 
Where Listed: Entire


Population detail:

Population location: Entire
Listing status: E

For most current information and documents related to the conservation status and management of Pacifastacus fortis , see its USFWS Species Profile

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Short Term Trend: Decline of 30-50%

Comments: Introduced crayfishes have reduced its range and most likely are reducing populations. This species is endangered by habitat loss from water diversions, predation, and competition with the exotic signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) and other species. Two entire populations have been extirpated since 1978 (USFWS, 1998). The Signal Crayfish had become established throughout much of the study area within 12 years. In one site P. leniusculus probably contributed to the precipitous decline of this species, from 2000 - 3000 in 1980 to about 370 (+ 135) in 1991 (Light et al., 1995).

Global Long Term Trend: Decline of 30-50%

Comments: Relict distribution exist today but no evidence the species had a wider range during historic times (Eng and Daniels, 1982). Historically, distribution was more or less continuous throughout the Fall River, Hat Creek, and the segment of the Pit River that joins these drainages (Light et al., 1995). It was described in 1898 from the Fall River at Fall River Mills and Hat Creek at Cassel with subsequent collections from the Fall River system in 1934, 1964, 1973-1974; with collections in 1975 from all three river systems (headwaters of the Fall River, Sucker Springs Creek on the Pit River, Crystal Lake on Hat Creek). In 1978-1980 it was found in numerous locations in the Fall River system including the type locality as well as Sucker Springs Creek and the Pit River and in Crystal, Baum, and Rising River lakes on the Hat Creek system. Resurveys in 1985-1986 found no major changes in distribution but noted a declining population in Crystal Lake occurring with a large population of introduced Pacifastacus leniusculus in only five years plus new observations in Eastman Lake at the Lava Creek overflow, the Fall River at the mouth of Spring Creek, and Tritton Reservoir. Most recently in 1990-1991, Light et al. (1995) found it in a total of 14 sites comprising seven noncontiguous subpopulations separated by dams, gradient barriers and many stream km; mostly in the same areas as historically but now isolated in patches rather than distributed continuously; however the marginal locations (Fall River, Pit River mainstem near sucker Springs, and Baum Lake) have not yielded specimens since 1980 but these represented washdowns or strays from nearby populations anyway.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Population

Population
By 1990, Pacifastacus fortis was restricted to seven isolated localities, mostly in the headwaters of spring-fed tributaries of the Pit River. The Signal Crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) had become established throughout much of the study area within 12 years. In one site P. leniusculus probably contributed to the precipitous decline of this species, from 2000 - 3000 in 1980 to about 370 (+ 135) in 1991 (Light et al. 1995). Relict distribution exist today but no evidence the species had a wider range during historic times (Eng and Daniels 1982). Historically, distribution was more or less continuous throughout the Fall River, Hat Creek, and the segment of the Pit River that joins these drainages (Light et al. 1995). It was described in 1898 from the Fall River at Fall River Mills and Hat Creek at Cassel with subsequent collections from the Fall River system in 1934, 1964, 1973-1974; with collections in 1975 from all three river systems (headwaters of the Fall River, Sucker Springs Creek on the Pit River, Crystal Lake on Hat Creek). In 1978-1980 it was found in numerous locations in the Fall River system including the type locality as well as Sucker Springs Creek and the Pit River and in Crystal, Baum, and Rising River lakes on the Hat Creek system. Resurveys in 1985-1986 found no major changes in distribution but noted a declining population in Crystal Lake occurring with a large population of introduced Pacifastacus leniusculus in only five years plus new observations in Eastman Lake at the Lava Creek overflow, the Fall River at the mouth of Spring Creek, and Tritton Reservoir. Most recently in 1990-1991, Light et al. (1995) found it in a total of 14 sites comprising seven noncontiguous subpopulations separated by dams, gradient barriers and many stream km; mostly in the same areas as historically but now isolated in patches rather than distributed continuously. The marginal locations (Fall River, Pit River mainstem near sucker Springs, and Baum Lake) have not yielded specimens since 1980, though these represented washdowns or strays from nearby populations.

Population Trend
Decreasing
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Threats

Degree of Threat: Very high - high

Comments: Historically this species was threatened by water diversion and impoundments from four hydroelectric power facilities (which fragmented populations and resulted in secondary effects such as increased siltation and water temperature and decreased dissolved oxygen plus reduced flow), introduction of non-native competitive crayfish species such as Orconectes virilis and Pacifastacus leniusculus leniusculus as fishing bait, associated introduction of crayfish pathogens (limited but present), non-native game fish introductions that prey on crayfish, alteration of habitat for trout spawning (including fish pathogen control, stream channelization, impoundment, substrate modification), crayfish fishing (historical only- banned in 1981), siltation and loss of larval substrate (through land reclamation activities, channelization, dredging, logging, forest fires, culverts and bridges, agriculture, grazing, and introduced muskrat activity). (USFWS, 1998). Currently threatened by habitat fragmentation (there are now many small, genetically isolated populations remaining from a formerly continuous distribution), and introduced populations of aggressive Orconectes virilis and particularly Pacifastacus leniusculus leniusculus and small and large-mouthed bass in the area seriously threatened the continued existence of this species (Daniels, 1980; Light et al., 1995). This species is endangered by habitat loss from water diversions, predation, and competition with the exotic signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) and other species. Two entire populations have been extirpated since 1978 and although range extent remains what it was historically, occupied area is significantly reduced as the species is reduced to isolated patches mostly in headwaters where it was once distributed continuously (USFWS, 1998; Light et al., 1995). Preliminary data show invasion of P. leniusculus reduce densities of P. fortis following invasion in streams, reduce densities of snail (Juga sp., Fluminicola sp.) prey as well as other benthic invertebrates (chironomids, water boatman, zooplankton), P. leniusculus become more aggressive towards P. fortis as density of P. leniusculus increases (this is even more pronounced for the highly aggressive Procambarus clarkii), and at high densities, P. leniusculus individuals dispersed more than at lower density (Kats et al., 2006).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Major Threats
This species faces a number of threats within its restricted range. This species has undergone significant habitat fragmentation as a result of water diversion and impoundments associated with 4 major hydroelectric dams (NatureServe 2009). Though range extent is still as it was historically, distribution is no longer continuous and the amount of occupied area within its range is significantly reduced (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, Light et al. 1995). The population of this species is now considered to be highly fragmented and split into isolated subpopulations as a result of dam construction (Millar 2004). Exotic and invasive species also pose another major threat to this species: it is likely that the decline of this species is linked to the spread of Pacifastacus leniusculus (Fetzner 2008) as well as Orconectes virilis, both of which have the characteristics typical of expanding populations (Daniels 1980, Light et al. 1995). Pacifastacus fortis is also subject to increased predation from non-native species such as muskrats, bullfrogs, and several species of introduced game fish (Millar 2004).
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Biological Research Needs: Search for "natural" protection from O. VIRILIS and P. L. LENUSCULUS. The only real protection is barriers.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Protection: Few (1-3) occurrences appropriately protected and managed

Comments: Recognized as "Endangered" by USFWS & state of CA. Several sites in Ahjamaui Lava Springs State Park protected. TNC has "conservation buffer" for Thousand Springs Ranch. By installing and maintaining effective barriers in the river system, the plan to protect Pacifastacus fortis focuses on preventing the invasion of signal crayfish into the 20 remaining native subpopulations still free of the exotic species. When these subpopulations are stabilized, work will be done to remove signal crayfish from areas containing both crayfish species and additional barriers will also be installed. The plan requires government agencies to increase cooperative efforts with local landowners because much of the habitat is on private lands (Millar, 2004). Culverts at Spring Creek Road have been replaced using a design to prevent signal crayfish migration. The fish hatchery at Sucker Creek has been removed and a barrier installed. Restoration has been carried out on eroded areas. A recovery plan calls for future repairs on water impoundments to be done with imported boulders to improve Shasta Crayfish habitat instead of locally dredged materials. Removal or controls of muskrat populations throughout the watershed are to be undertaken (USFWS, 1998). Continued study of Shasta Crayfish ecology, and monitoring of Signal Crayfish are being carried out (Millar, 2004).

Needs: Protection from exotic introductions & human destruction of habitat.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation Actions

Conservation Actions
Pacifastacus fortis received protection under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and has been classified as 'endangered' by the American Fisheries Society (Taylor et al. 2007). This species has been assigned a Global Heritage Status Rank of G1 by NatureServe (2009).

By installing and maintaining effective barriers in the river system, the plan to protect Pacifastacus fortis focuses on preventing the invasion of signal crayfish into the 20 remaining native subpopulations still free of the exotic species. When these subpopulations are stabilized, work will be done to remove signal crayfish from areas containing both crayfish species and additional barriers will also be installed. The plan requires government agencies to increase cooperative efforts with local landowners because much of the habitat is on private lands (Millar 2004).

Culverts at Spring Creek Road have been replaced using a design to prevent signal crayfish migration. The fish hatchery at Sucker Creek has been removed and a barrier installed. Restoration has been carried out on eroded areas. A recovery plan calls for future repairs on water impoundments to be done with imported boulders to improve Shasta Crayfish habitat instead of locally dredged materials. Removal or controls of muskrat populations throughout the watershed are to be undertaken (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Continued study of Shasta Crayfish ecology, and monitoring of Signal Crayfish are being carried out (Millar 2004).
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Pacifastacus fortis

Pacifastacus fortis (known as the Shasta crayfish or placid crayfish) is an endangered crayfish species endemic to Shasta County, California, where it is found only in isolated spots on the Pit River and Fall River Mills.

Description and ecology[edit]

P. fortis is thick and stocky, with relatively heavy chelae. It is usually dark brown dorsally with bright orange areas on its underside. It grows about 2-4 inches long. It lives in cold, clear, rocky areas of the mountain rivers, and feeds on the slime coating the rocks. The animal requires a constant, steady, and untainted flow of fresh water to survive.

Conservation[edit]

Pacifastacus fortis is listed as a critically endangered species on the IUCN Red List,[1] and an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.[2] It has always had a very small native range, and that range has been significantly fragmented by such human activities as damming, mining, and agriculture. The signal crayfish, a recently introduced species, has outcompeted P. fortis in much of its range. The Pit River Fish Hatchery was closed to protect this species.

References[edit]

  1. ^ D. Johnson, C. A. Taylor, G. A. Schuster, J. Cordeiro & T. Jones (2010). "Pacifastacus fortis". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 3.1. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Retrieved October 6, 2010. 
  2. ^ "Shasta crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis) species profile". Environmental Conservation Online System. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. October 6, 2010. 
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Source: Wikipedia

Unreviewed

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Disclaimer

EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.

To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!