Acrobasis palliolella

Ragonot, 1887 · species

image placeholder — illustration coming later

Animalia/Arthropoda/Insecta/Lepidoptera/Pyralidae/Acrobasis

At a glance

Occurrence records74

Data sources7

Biological traits0

DNA specimens6

eDNA detections1

Sources7 archives

Databases and archives Acrobasis palliolella's data was compiled from.

WikipediaWikimedia Foundation2 languages↗

BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility74 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI1 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics6 specimens↗

Open Tree of LifeOpenTreephylogeny backbone↗

GLoBIGlobal Biotic Interactionsbiotic interactions↗

On this page4 sections

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

NarrativeWikipediaarticle

Occurrence & distributionGBIF74 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 1 countries1 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD6 specimens

01Narrative

Acrobasis palliolella, the mantled acrobasis moth, is a species of snout moth in the genus Acrobasis. It was described by Ragonot in 1887, and is known from Ontario, Canada, and the eastern United States. The larvae feed on Carya species, including Carya ovata and Carya carolinae-septentrionalis.

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

No structured trait data for this taxon yet.

05DNA & barcoding6 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 Acrobasis palliolella has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens6

BINs3

Marker genes1

eDNA detections1

Countries1

The DNA barcodethe species' typical barcode, built from every sequenced specimen

COI-5P658 bp consensus3 specimens

ACGT

▸ drag or hover over the strip to read any position — letter and how much it varies

Violet ticks below the strip = positions where individuals differ; flat = the species' unchanging signature. 95% of positions are identical in every specimen.

Diversity (π)3.3%

Haplotypes2

BINs2

Most divergent pair0.15%

Where individuals differ — all 33 variable positions, in barcode order

115Cvariable

118Tvariable

154Cvariable

178Cvariable

220Tvariable

235Cvariable

238Cvariable

271Cvariable

283Avariable

304Tvariable

319Avariable

325Avariable

364Tvariable

370Avariable

376Tvariable

397Cvariable

400Tvariable

406Cvariable

407Cvariable

418Tvariable

421Tvariable

424Cvariable

436Cvariable

439Tvariable

448Tvariable

451Cvariable

475Cvariable

479Cvariable

506Gvariable

539Tvariable

616Cvariable

619Tvariable

625Gvariable

AACTTTATATTTTATTTTAGGAATTTGATCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCTTTAAGATTATTAATTCGTGCTGAATTAGGTACTCCTGGATC …

Closest relatives by DNA barcode

The species whose COI barcode is most similar to this one — a quick “who is this most like”. The percentage is how much the barcode differs; it approximates, but is not, the full evolutionary tree.

Acrobasis indigenellasame genus2.1%Acrobasis juglandissame genus2.3%Acrobasis ostryellasame genus4.3%Acrobasis comptoniellasame genus4.4%Acrobasis carpinivorellasame genus4.6%

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 type74 records

Wild obs. + sensor36

Museum / vouchered38

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO188 km²

Wildobservation + sensor

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

Coordinate accuracy82% within 1 km

≤100 m 11≤1 km 12≤10 km 4>10 km 1

28 georeferenced · 8 without coordinates

Open the mapobservation + sensor36

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 accuracy20% within 1 km

≤1 km 2≤10 km 8

10 georeferenced · 28 without coordinates

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence38

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 institutions5 of 8 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	12
Mississippi State, US	8
Cleveland Museum of Natural History, OH (CLEV)location not on record	6
East Lansing, US	4
Cornell University Insect Collectionlocation not on record	3
New Haven, US	2
Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural Historylocation not on record	2
Decorah, US	1

8 institutions · 38 of 38 vouchered records shown

09Environmental DNA1 detections

Where the DNA of Acrobasis palliolella 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

Countries1

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

Where its DNA was found

0 of 1 detections have coordinates

Open the map1 country0

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.

Modelled climatemodelled

−15°Ctemperature across detection sites+40°C

Temperature median20.7 °C 20.7–20.7

Seasonal swing summer↔winter25.4 °C

Max temp (day)25.5 °C

Min temp (night)16.0 °C

Precipitation97.6 mm/mo

Air humidity60.4 %

Moisture balance-26.6 mm/mo

Vapour deficit965 Pa

Wind speed2.30 m/s

Cloud cover38.4 %

CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 1 detection point · median with p10–p90 · reflects where sampling happened, not only the true niche

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.

←→tabs

The Life Data · species page · narrative wired to read_model image placeholder · 3D tilt requires an http server (WebGL)