Acanthocyclops robustus
(Sars G.O., 1863) · speciesAt a glance
Sources6 archives
Databases and archives Acanthocyclops robustus's data was compiled from.
BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗
GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility4 630 records↗
ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI41 eDNA detections↗
BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics14 specimens↗
GoaTGenomes on a Tree · Sangergenome ~0.73 Gbp↗
GLoBIGlobal Biotic Interactionsbiotic interactions↗Every layer below draws on the sources above — open one to explore it, or use ← → to move between tabs.
Acanthocyclops robustus is een eenoogkreeftjessoort uit de familie van de Cyclopidae. De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort werd in 1863 voor het eerst geldig gepubliceerd door Georg Ossian Sars.
No narrative description available for this taxon yet.
No structured trait data for this taxon yet.
A DNA barcode is a short, standardised stretch of genes that works like a fingerprint — enough to tell one species from another. Below is the molecular trace Acanthocyclops robustus has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
★ the standard DNA barcode for this group — the short region actually read to tell this species apart. The rest are extra genes sequenced along the way.
The complete instruction manual Acanthocyclops robustus carries — its genome. We read it from three angles — how big it is, how the DNA is packed into chromosomes, and how completely it has been sequenced — and explain how to read each value as you go.
Genome sizehow big the whole instruction manual is
Measured in base pairs (bp) — the individual letters of DNA (human ≈ 3.2 Gb, a bacterium a few million). The chart places this genome on a logarithmic scale — each step to the right is ten times bigger — among reference organisms. Across species a bigger genome loosely tracks with larger cells, slower growth and lower-energy lifestyles (powered flight favours small genomes) — yet it does not imply more genes or a more advanced organism (the long-standing C-value paradox).
Record type4 630 records
Origin
Range
Wildobservation + sensor
Human sightings and records, or camera-trap / sensor detections — someone (or a device) saw or captured the species in the wild.
Museum / Voucheredphysical evidence
Backed by a physical specimen — a herbarium sheet, sample or voucher held in a collection. “Vouchered” means supported by material evidence, not just an observation.
Wildobservation + sensor
Human sightings and records, or camera-trap / sensor detections — someone (or a device) saw or captured the species in the wild.
Holding institutions9 of 20 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
| Institution | Specimens |
|---|---|
| San Diego, US | 546 |
| Tapachula, MX | 512 |
| Vrije Universiteit Brussellocation not on record | 119 |
| NTNU-VMlocation not on record | 72 |
| Western Australian Museumlocation not on record | 28 |
| Brussels, BE | 24 |
| RBINS-Scientific Heritagelocation not on record | 20 |
| Washington, US | 10 |
| Tlalnepantla, MX | 9 |
| Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (Zoological Collections)location not on record | 4 |
| Tempe, US | 3 |
| SNSDlocation not on record | 3 |
| Helsinki, FI | 3 |
| San Nicolás de los Garza, MX | 2 |
| Stockholm, SE | 2 |
| Centre for Biodiversity Genomicslocation not on record | 1 |
| Museo civico La Terra e l'Uomo di Crocetta del Montellolocation not on record | 1 |
| FURGlocation not on record | 1 |
| University of Guelph, Centre for Biodiversity Genomicslocation not on record | 1 |
| Florida Museum of Natural History- Zoology, Paleontology & Paleobotanylocation not on record | 1 |
Where the DNA of Acanthocyclops robustus was picked up in samples of water, soil or air — nobody saw the organism, only its DNA left behind. A trace is a clue that the species was near, not a confirmed sighting.
Signal
Where its DNA was found
How strong is each trace?
Modelled climatemodelled
How to read this: each dot is one detection of this species' DNA in an environmental sample. The confidence meter weighs how many independent studies and places back up the signal — one detection in one study is a hint; many across several studies is solid. Records dated before 2008 (when eDNA methods began) are treated as likely mislabeled and left off the map.