Aegocera venulia — The Life Data

Animalia/Arthropoda/Insecta/Lepidoptera/Noctuidae/Aegocera

At a glance

Occurrence records202

Data sources7

Biological traits0

DNA specimens1

eDNA detections10

Sources7 archives

Databases and archives Aegocera venulia's data was compiled from.

WikipediaWikimedia Foundation3 languages↗

BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility202 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI10 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics1 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 & distributionGBIF202 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 2 countries10 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD1 specimens

01Narrative

Aegocera venulia is a moth in the family Noctuidae first described by Pieter Cramer in 1777. It is found in India and Sri Lanka.

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

No structured trait data for this taxon yet.

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 Aegocera venulia has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens1

BINs1

Marker genes1

eDNA detections10

Countries2

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 type202 records

Wild obs. + sensor191

Museum / vouchered11

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO532 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 accuracy71% within 1 km

≤100 m 61≤1 km 36≤10 km 26>10 km 14

137 georeferenced · 54 without coordinates

Open the mapobservation + sensor191

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 accuracy

no georeferenced coordinates · 11 records without

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence11

Wildobservation + sensor

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

09Environmental DNA10 detections

Where the DNA of Aegocera venulia 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 found10

Studies independent surveys1

Countries2

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

Where its DNA was found

0 of 10 detections have coordinates

Open the map2 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.

Modelled climatemodelled

−15°Ctemperature across detection sites+40°C

Temperature median29.7 °C 17.5–31.1

Seasonal swing summer↔winter17.9 °C

Max temp (day)33.4 °C 21.9–35.9

Min temp (night)25.7 °C 11.0–26.2

Precipitation100 mm/mo 53.1–301

Air humidity58.5 % 57.9–63.6

Moisture balance-55.3 mm/mo -160–142

Vapour deficit1,663 Pa 848–1,893

Wind speed4.50 m/s 2.20–5.30

Cloud cover18.8 % 15.0–24.5

CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 10 detection points · 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.