The Alcaeorrhynchus grandis is a genus species of the family Pentatomidae. Also known as Giant Strong-nosed Stink Bug, the Alcaeorrhynchus grandis can be found through Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and the southern United States.
No narrative description available for this taxon yet.
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 Alcaeorrhynchus grandis has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
DNA specimens4
BINs1
Marker genes2
eDNA detections4
Countries3
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 type1 186 records
Wild obs. + sensor940
Museum / vouchered246
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO3 012 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 accuracy84% within 1 km
≤100 m 473≤1 km 149≤10 km 61>10 km 57
740 georeferenced · 200 without coordinates
Open the mapobservation + sensor940
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 accuracy65% within 1 km
≤100 m 26≤10 km 12>10 km 2
40 georeferenced · 206 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence246
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 institutions13 of 24 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
Institution
Specimens
Tapachula, MX
82
Corporación Centro de Investigación en Palma de Aceite - CENIPALMAlocation not on record
36
Mexico City, MX
24
National Biodiversity Institute, Costa Ricalocation not on record
21
Montecillo, Texcoco, MX
16
College Station, US
16
Chicago, US
9
UFPRlocation not on record
8
Durango, MX
4
University of Central Floridalocation not on record
4
The University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobagolocation not on record
3
University of Guelphlocation not on record
2
OSUClocation not on record
2
Champaign, US
2
Provo, US
2
Ciudad de México, MX
1
University of Pennsylvanialocation not on record
1
Wuzhou, CN
1
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (PUJ)location not on record
1
CUlocation not on record
1
San Francisco, US
1
New Haven, US
1
UNICAMPlocation not on record
1
Lubbock, US
1
24 institutions · 240 of 246 vouchered records shown · 6 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA4 detections
Where the DNA of Alcaeorrhynchus grandis 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 found4
Studies independent surveys1
Countries1
Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections
Where its DNA was found
0 of 4 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 median21.6 °C 21.6–21.6
Seasonal swing summer↔winter8.60 °C
Max temp (day)26.2 °C
Min temp (night)17.9 °C
Precipitation171 mm/mo
Air humidity63.9 %
Moisture balance41.6 mm/mo
Vapour deficit932 Pa
Wind speed1.80 m/s
Cloud cover40.2 %
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.
