Wild Cashew (Anacardium excelsum)

Identidad taxonómica

Scientific name: Anacardium excelsum (Bertero & Balb.) Skeels
Canonical name: The scientific name without its authorship or date, for example Zea mays instead of Zea mays L.: Anacardium excelsum
Authorship: The author or authors credited with publishing the scientific name. It is written after the name, sometimes with the year, for example L. (Linnaeus) in Zea mays L. An author in parentheses first published the name in another genus or rank.: (Bertero & Balb.) Skeels
Common names: Wild Cashew
Names in other languages (7)
Caracolí, Espave, Espavel, Marañón, Mijao, caracoli, espavé
Kingdom: One of the broadest ranks of biological classification. It groups organisms that share very basic features, for example plants (Plantae), animals (Animalia) or fungi (Fungi).: Plantae
Phylum: Rank below kingdom that groups organisms with a shared general body plan, for example chordates (Chordata), arthropods (Arthropoda) or vascular plants (Tracheophyta). In botany the same rank is also called division.: Tracheophyta
Class: Rank below phylum, for example mammals (Mammalia), birds (Aves), insects (Insecta) or monocot plants such as grasses and orchids (Liliopsida).: Magnoliopsida
Order: Rank below class that groups related families, for example grasses and their relatives (Poales) or bats (Chiroptera).: Sapindales
Family: Rank below order that groups related genera. Family names usually end in -aceae in botany (for example Poaceae, the grass family) and in -idae in zoology (for example Felidae, the cat family).: Anacardiaceae
Genus: Rank that groups closely related species. Its name is the first word of a species' scientific name and starts with a capital letter, for example Zea in Zea mays.: Anacardium
Specific epithet: The second word of a species' scientific name. On its own it does not name the species: it always goes with the genus, for example mays in Zea mays.: excelsum
Taxonomic rank: The level a name occupies in the hierarchy of biological classification, such as kingdom, family, genus, species or subspecies.: species
Reference species: Anacardium excelsum
Taxonomic status: Whether the taxonomic catalogue the record comes from currently accepts this name for the organism, or treats it as a synonym of another accepted name or as doubtful.: accepted name

Photos and conservation status

IUCN Red List category: The extinction-risk category that the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) assigns to a species on its Red List. EX Extinct: there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died. EW Extinct in the wild: it survives only in cultivation, in captivity or as a population far outside its past range. CR Critically endangered, EN Endangered and VU Vulnerable: the three threatened categories, from an extremely high to a high risk of extinction in the wild. NT Near threatened: close to qualifying as threatened. LC Least concern: evaluated and not threatened. DD Data deficient: there is not enough information to assess its risk. NE Not evaluated: not yet assessed against the criteria. It describes the risk of the species worldwide, not its situation in a project's area.: Least concern (LC)
Source: IUCN Red List via GBIF, queried on 2026-10-13 05:36.

Photo of Anacardium excelsum (Bertero & Balb.) Skeels — Photo: keesgroenendijk · CC BY 4.0 · View original image · Original observation

Research-grade iNaturalist observations via GBIF, CC0 or CC BY licences only, queried on 2026-10-13 05:36.

Interacciones documentadas

GloBI says it is documented somewhere in the world. Biolitica answers whether it could happen here.

A documented interaction means it was recorded somewhere in the world. It does not mean it occurs here.

Types shown: 4 of 4 is eaten by × is a host of × is preyed upon by × has as a vector ×

Blocks that do not sit under a navigation concept heading keep the source's own term: no navigation concept has been assigned to them yet.

is eaten by 12 organisms

This term does declare that the organism harms this species.

Organism	Reads as	Studies	Where it was documented
Seba's Short-tailed Bat Carollia perspicillata Phyllostomidae	is eaten by	1	no location
1 source · 2 records Florez-Montero GL, Muylaert RL, Nogueira MR, Geiselman C, Santana SE, Stevens RD, Tschapka M, Rodrigues FA, Mello MAR, 2022. NeoBat Interactions: A data set of bat–plant interactions in the Neotropics. Published in globalbioticinteractions/neofrugivory Record contexts (sample): Neotropics · no date published; Neotropics · no date published A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.
Artibeus glaucus watsoni Phyllostomidae	is eaten by	1	no location
1 source · 1 record Florez-Montero GL, Muylaert RL, Nogueira MR, Geiselman C, Santana SE, Stevens RD, Tschapka M, Rodrigues FA, Mello MAR, 2022. NeoBat Interactions: A data set of bat–plant interactions in the Neotropics. Published in globalbioticinteractions/neofrugivory Context: Neotropics · no date published A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.
Graphocephala riverae Cicadellidae	is eaten by	1	no location
1 source · 1 record Domínguez León, D.E., Murillo, V. & Orwat, J. (2021) Leafhopper food plants in a Neotropical forest in Panama (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). <i>Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências</i>, 93(2), 1–12. Published in urn:lsid:checklistbank.org:dataset:2317 Context: no place published · no date published A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.
Pale Spear-Nosed Bat Phyllostomus discolor Phyllostomidae	is eaten by	1	no location
1 source · 1 record Florez-Montero GL, Muylaert RL, Nogueira MR, Geiselman C, Santana SE, Stevens RD, Tschapka M, Rodrigues FA, Mello MAR, 2022. NeoBat Interactions: A data set of bat–plant interactions in the Neotropics. Published in globalbioticinteractions/neofrugivory Context: Neotropics · no date published A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.

Showing 4 of 12, by number of studies See more of this type

is a host of 4 organisms

The authority declares no effect on this species for this term: neither that it harms it nor that it benefits it. In the source ontology symbiosis covers mutualism, commensalism and parasitism alike, so this block holds attackers and allies side by side.

Organism	Reads as	Studies	Where it was documented	Actions
Cercospora rhinocarpi Mycosphaerellaceae	is a host of	3	no location
3 sources · 3 records Dennis, R.W.G.. 1970. Kew Bulletin Additional Series III. Fungus Flora of Venezuela and Adjacent Countries.. Verlag von J. Cramer :531 Published in globalbioticinteractions/usda-fungus-host Context: Venezuela · no date published Chupp, C.. 1954. Monograph of the fungus genus %Cercospora%. Published by the Author, Ithaca, New York :667 Published in globalbioticinteractions/usda-fungus-host Context: Venezuela · no date published Watson, A.J.. 1971. Foreign bacterial and fungus diseases of food, forage, and fiber crops. U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service :111 Published in globalbioticinteractions/usda-fungus-host Context: Venezuela · no date published A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.
Lasiodiplodia theobromae Botryosphaeriaceae	is a host of	1	no location
1 source · 1 record Wardeh, M., Risley, C., McIntyre, M. et al. Database of host-pathogen and related species interactions, and their global distribution. Sci Data 2, 150049 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015.49. Accessed at <https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/wardeh2015/archive/90… Published in globalbioticinteractions/wardeh2015 Context: no place published · no date published A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.
Pseudocercospora rhinocarpi	is a host of	1	no location
1 source · 1 record Crous, P.W., and Braun, U.. 2003. %Mycosphaerella% and its anamorphs: 1. Names published in %Cercospora% and %Passalora%. Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Utrecht :571 Published in globalbioticinteractions/usda-fungus-host Context: Venezuela · no date published A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.
Stenella Delphinidae	is a host of	1	no location	Not a modelling unit: the source publishes it at genus level.
1 source · 1 record Urtiaga, R.. 1986. Indice de enfermedades en plantas de Venezuela y Cuba. Impresos en Impresos Nuevo Siglo. S.R.L., Barquisimeto, Venezuela :202 Published in globalbioticinteractions/usda-fungus-host Context: Venezuela · no date published A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.

Showing 4 of 4, by number of studies

is preyed upon by 2 organisms

This term does declare that the organism harms this species.

Organism	Reads as	Studies	Where it was documented	Actions
Anacampsis phytomiella Gelechiidae	is preyed upon by	1	no location
1 source · 1 record Gripenberg, S. et al., 2019. A highly resolved food web for insect seed predators in a species‐rich tropical forest F. Jordan, ed. Ecology Letters, 22(10), pp.1638–1649. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13359. Accessed at <https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/BCI… Published in globalbioticinteractions/BCI_Seed_Predator Context: no place published · no date published A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.
Conotrachelus Curculionidae	is preyed upon by	1	no location	Not a modelling unit: the source publishes it at genus level.
1 source · 2 records Gripenberg, S. et al., 2019. A highly resolved food web for insect seed predators in a species‐rich tropical forest F. Jordan, ed. Ecology Letters, 22(10), pp.1638–1649. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13359. Accessed at <https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/BCI… Published in globalbioticinteractions/BCI_Seed_Predator Record contexts (sample): no place published · no date published; no place published · no date published A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.

Showing 2 of 2, by number of studies

has as a vector 1 organism

The authority declares no effect on this species for this term: neither that it harms it nor that it benefits it.

Organism	Reads as	Studies	Where it was documented	Actions
Bat Chiroptera	has as a vector	1	no location	Not a modelling unit: the source publishes it at order level.
1 source · 1 record van der Pijl, L. 1957. The dispersal of plants by bats (chiropterochory). Acta Botanica Neerlandica 6: 291-315. Published in globalbioticinteractions/batbase Context: Unspecified · no date published A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.

Showing 1 of 1, by number of studies

Interaction data from Global Biotic Interactions (GloBI), GloBI 0.11. Each row keeps the citation its own study published.

Interactions are published at species level: they are not resolved by variety or race.

Each block is headed by the source's own term, read from this species' end — not by a category of ours. Two similar terms are not merged.

«Documented here» means the interaction was observed in this territory. It is not evidence that the species is here, and it does not enter the niche model.

Acompañantes documentados

This agronomic reading comes from a source reserved for internal use, so it is not shown here.

Documented uses and recommendations

Uses and recommendations that a source documents for this species beside a crop, each in its own context. They are the source's statements, not traits of the species and not Biolítica's recommendations, and none of them is a relation between two species.

Among the sources you can read, none documents a use or recommendation of this species beside a crop.