Agelena limbata — The Life Data

Animalia/Arthropoda/Arachnida/Araneae/Agelenidae/Agelena

At a glance

Occurrence records100

Data sources8

Biological traits1

DNA specimens1

eDNA detections1

Sources8 archives

Databases and archives Agelena limbata's data was compiled from.

WikipediaWikimedia Foundation5 languages↗

BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility100 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI1 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics1 specimens↗

World Spider Trait DBMasaryk University1 traits · 1 refs↗

World Spider CatalogNaturhist. Museum Bernworld catalog↗

Open Tree of LifeOpenTreephylogeny backbone↗

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 & distributionGBIF100 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 0 countries1 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD1 specimens

01Narrative

Agelena limbata is a species of spider in the family Agelenidae, which contains at least 1,350 species of funnel-web spiders . It has been described by Thorell in 1897. It is commonly found in China, Korea, Myanmar, and Japan.

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

SourcesBirkhofer & Wolters 2012

Predation1

Prey OrderAraneae

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 Agelena limbata has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens1

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 type100 records

Wild obs. + sensor40

Museum / vouchered60

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO348 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 accuracy50% within 1 km

≤100 m 1≤10 km 1

2 georeferenced · 38 without coordinates

Open the mapobservation + sensor40

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 · 60 records without

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence60

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 6 geolocated

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

Institution	Specimens
NSMKlocation not on record	28
KIBSlocation not on record	11
National Institute of Biological Resourceslocation not on record	10
Frankfurt am Main	5
KBISlocation not on record	2
YPIMlocation not on record	1

6 institutions · 57 of 60 vouchered records shown · 3 without an institution code

09Environmental DNA1 detections

Where the DNA of Agelena limbata 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.