|Scientific Name:||Dryophytes chrysoscelis|
|Species Authority:||Cope, 1880|
Hyla chrysoscelis Cope, 1880
|Taxonomic Source(s):||Frost, D.R. 2017. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0 (10 March 2017). American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA Available at: http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html.|
|Taxonomic Notes:||This species is not easily distinguished from the very similar Hyla versicolor in most published literature; it is distinguished by chromosomes, erythrocyte size (Matson 1990), and call characteristics.
The genus Dryophytes was resurrected from synonymy under Hyla by Duellman et al. (2016) and this species was transferred from Hyla to Dryophytes.
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Least Concern ver 3.1|
|Assessor(s):||IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group|
|Facilitator/Compiler(s):||Angulo, A. & Sharp, D.|
Listed as Least Concern in view of the large extent of occurrence, large number of sub-populations and localities, large population size and use of a wide range of habitats.
|Previously published Red List assessments:|
|Range Description:||This species' geographic range is not precisely determined, although it covers most of the southeastern and central USA and part of south-central Canada. It is sympatric with Hyla versicolor in south-central U.S. and in the Wisconsin area and perhaps many other areas as well. See Little et al. (1989) for information on distribution in West Virginia, southern Ohio, and southwestern Pennsylvania.|
Native:Canada (Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, Québec); United States (Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin)
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||The total adult population size is unknown but large; the species is common in many areas. Range-wide, it is probably relatively stable.|
|Current Population Trend:||Stable|
|Habitat and Ecology:||Habitats include wooded areas and woodland edges (including woodlots in prairies), usually within a few hundred metres of water. This species is often found in recently disturbed areas with abundant shrubs, herbaceous growth and vines. It is arboreal and terrestrial. When inactive, these frogs may hide in tree holes, under bark, under leaves, or under tree roots. In Tennessee, frogs associated with knothole cavities in trees in fall were not there after mid-November (Ritke and Babb 1991). Eggs are laid and larvae develop in temporary or permanent waters of flooded ditches, puddles, river sloughs, creeks and small ponds, where there are woody branches or extensive herbaceous growth along the edges. Males call from water surface or from vegetation or ground near water. Individuals generally breed in the same site in successive years (Ritke et al. 1991).|
|Use and Trade:||There are no records of this species being utilized.|
|Major Threat(s):||There are no known major threats to this species.|
Its range overlaps with many protected areas. No conservation measures are needed.
|Amended reason:||This amended assessment has been created because the species was transferred from the genus Hyla to Dryophytes.|
|Citation:||IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. 2017. Dryophytes chrysoscelis. (amended version published in 2015) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T55448A112712686.Downloaded on 17 August 2017.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided|