Taxonomy
- Kingdom: Animalia
- Phylum: Chordata
- Class: Amphibia
- Order: Anura
- Family: Hylodidae
- Genus: Hylodes
- Species: Hylodes cardosoi
Authority
- The species was formally described in 2006. (The original authorship details are not provided here due to insufficient encyclopedic information.)
Description
- Hylodes species are generally small to medium‑sized torrent frogs with streamlined bodies adapted to fast‑flowing streams. Specific morphological details for H. cardosoi (e.g., size range, coloration, sexual dimorphism) are not readily available in the consulted sources.
Distribution and Habitat
- Hylodes cardosoi is endemic to Brazil. It has been reported from the Atlantic Forest biome, where it inhabits the margins of clear, fast‑flowing mountain streams at mid‑elevation. Precise locality records and range limits are not fully documented in publicly accessible databases.
Ecology and Behavior
- Members of the genus Hylodes are typically diurnal, terrestrial frogs that breed in streams. Males usually emit distinctive calls from rocks or vegetation near the water. Detailed studies on the ecology, breeding biology, and diet of H. cardosoi are lacking; therefore, specific information for this species is not available.
Conservation Status
- The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has assessed Hylodes cardosoi as Data Deficient. The paucity of population data and threats prevents a more precise evaluation. Habitat loss due to deforestation and alteration of stream environments within the Atlantic Forest are potential concerns for the species, but their impacts have not been quantified.
Etymology
- The specific epithet cardosoi likely honors a Brazilian herpetologist or naturalist with the surname Cardoso. The original description would contain the formal justification for the name.
References
- Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference (American Museum of Natural History).
- IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Note: Several aspects of Hylodes cardosoi—including its detailed morphological description, precise distribution, and ecological traits—remain insufficiently documented in accessible scientific literature. Further field studies and taxonomic revisions are needed to fill these knowledge gaps.