Achtheinus oblongus — The Life Data

Animalia/Arthropoda/Copepoda/Siphonostomatoida/Pandaridae/Achtheinus

At a glance

Occurrence records28

Data sources8

Biological traits1

DNA specimens1

eDNA detections1

Sources8 archives

Databases and archives Achtheinus oblongus's data was compiled from.

BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility9 records↗

OBISOcean Biodiversity Information System19 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI1 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics1 specimens↗

Open Tree of LifeOpenTreephylogeny backbone↗

Catalogue of LifeCOLtaxonomy↗

GLoBIGlobal Biotic Interactionsbiotic interactions↗

On this page5 sections

Every layer below draws on the sources above — open one to explore it, or use ← → to move between tabs.

NarrativeWikipediaarticle

Traits & measurements1 literature sources1 traits

Occurrence & distributionGBIF · OBIS28 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 0 countries1 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD1 specimens

01Narrative

Achtheinus oblongus is een eenoogkreeftjessoort uit de familie van de Pandaridae. De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort is voor het eerst geldig gepubliceerd in 1908 door Wilson C.B..

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

SourcesSeaLifeBase

Habitat & environment1

Habitat saltwateryes

05DNA & barcoding1 specimens

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 Achtheinus oblongus has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens1

BINs1

Marker genes1

eDNA detections1

Marker genes sequenced

★ 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.

COI-5P

animal barcode

08Occurrence & distribution

Record type28 records

Wild obs. + sensor14

Museum / vouchered14

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO40 km²

Depth

0–200 m sunlit1

200–1000 m twilight0

1–4 km midnight0

>4 km abyssal0

median 1.4 m · max 1.4 m · 1 record with depth

Wildobservation + sensor

Human sightings and records, or camera-trap / sensor detections — someone (or a device) saw or captured the species in the wild.

Coordinate accuracy100% within 1 km

≤100 m 1

1 georeferenced · 13 without coordinates

Open the mapobservation + sensor14

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.

Coordinate accuracy0% within 1 km

≤10 km 2>10 km 7

9 georeferenced · 5 without coordinates

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence14

Wildobservation + sensor

Human sightings and records, or camera-trap / sensor detections — someone (or a device) saw or captured the species in the wild.

10Collections & institutions

Holding institutions1 of 1 geolocated

Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.

Institution	Specimens
Washington, US	3

1 institutions · 3 of 14 vouchered records shown

09Environmental DNA1 detections

Where the DNA of Achtheinus oblongus 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

Detections DNA found1

Studies independent surveys1

Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections

Where its DNA was found

0 of 1 detections have coordinates

Open the map0 countries0

How strong is each trace?

DNA read depthRead counts were not reported for this species — the map shows presence only, not how strong each trace was.

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.