Alicia mirabilis — The Life Data

Animalia/Cnidaria/Anthozoa/Actiniaria/Aliciidae/Alicia

At a glance

Occurrence records545

Data sources7

Biological traits2

DNA specimens2

eDNA detections1

Sources7 archives

Databases and archives Alicia mirabilis's data was compiled from.

BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility488 records↗

OBISOcean Biodiversity Information System57 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI1 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics2 specimens↗

Open Tree of LifeOpenTreephylogeny backbone↗

Catalogue of LifeCOLtaxonomy↗

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 sources2 traits

Occurrence & distributionGBIF · OBIS545 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 0 countries1 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD2 specimens

01Narrative

La attinia alice è una attinia della famiglia Aliciidae.

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

SourcesSeaLifeBase

Habitat & environment2

Habitat saltwateryes

Habitat zonesessile

05DNA & barcoding2 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 Alicia mirabilis has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens2

Marker genes2

eDNA detections1

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 type545 records

Wild obs. + sensor495

Museum / vouchered15

Other35

Origin

Native1

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO788 km²

Depth

0–200 m sunlit35

200–1000 m twilight0

1–4 km midnight0

>4 km abyssal0

median 5 m · max 100 m · 35 records with depth

Wildobservation + sensor

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

Coordinate accuracy89% within 1 km

≤100 m 86≤1 km 56≤10 km 16>10 km 2

160 georeferenced · 335 without coordinates

Open the mapobservation + sensor495

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 · 15 records without

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence15

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 institutions2 of 5 geolocated

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

Institution	Specimens
Florida Museum of Natural History- Zoology, Paleontology & Paleobotanylocation not on record	4
Stockholm, SE	1
CASlocation not on record	1
Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collectionlocation not on record	1
Honolulu, US	1

5 institutions · 8 of 15 vouchered records shown

09Environmental DNA1 detections

Where the DNA of Alicia mirabilis 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.