Acroperla trivacuata — The Life Data

Animalia/Arthropoda/Insecta/Plecoptera/Gripopterygidae/Acroperla

At a glance

Occurrence records787

Data sources7

Biological traits0

DNA specimens8

eDNA detections3

Sources7 archives

Databases and archives Acroperla trivacuata's data was compiled from.

BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility787 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI3 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics8 specimens↗

Open Tree of LifeOpenTreephylogeny backbone↗

Catalogue of LifeCOLtaxonomy↗

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 & distributionGBIF787 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 0 countries3 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD8 specimens

01Narrative

Acroperla trivacuata is een steenvlieg uit de familie Gripopterygidae. De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort is voor het eerst geldig gepubliceerd in 1923 door Tillyard.

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

No structured trait data for this taxon yet.

05DNA & barcoding8 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 Acroperla trivacuata has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens8

BINs1

Marker genes2

eDNA detections3

Countries1

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-5P18S-5P

animal barcoderibosomal

08Occurrence & distribution

Record type787 records

Wild obs. + sensor218

Museum / vouchered569

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO1 592 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 accuracy93% within 1 km

≤100 m 18≤1 km 10≤10 km 2

30 georeferenced · 188 without coordinates

Open the mapobservation + sensor218

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 accuracy39% within 1 km

≤100 m 4≤1 km 23≤10 km 39>10 km 3

69 georeferenced · 500 without coordinates

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence569

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 4 geolocated

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

Institution	Specimens
New Zealand Arthropod Collectionlocation not on record	166
MWLRlocation not on record	68
Auckland, NZ	56
Lincoln University, Bio-Protection Research Centrelocation not on record	5

4 institutions · 295 of 569 vouchered records shown · 274 without an institution code

09Environmental DNA3 detections

Where the DNA of Acroperla trivacuata 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 found3

Studies independent surveys1

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

Where its DNA was found

0 of 3 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.