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 Antheminia lunulata has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
DNA specimens4
BINs1
Marker genes1
eDNA detections4
Countries1
The DNA barcodethe species' typical barcode, built from every sequenced specimen
COI-5P658 bp consensus4 specimens
ACGT
▸ drag or hover over the strip to read any position — letter and how much it varies
Violet ticks below the strip = positions where individuals differ; flat = the species' unchanging signature. 97% of positions are identical in every specimen.
Where individuals differ — all 20 variable positions, in barcode order
Each circle is a barcode variant; bigger = more specimens, colour = region. Lines join the most similar variants and the tick marks count the mutations between them — a tight cluster is one “dialect”, a long line a more divergent lineage. Click a circle to list its actual specimens.
Diversity (π)1.7%
Haplotypes3
BIN1
Most divergent pair2.3%
OtherEurope
Closest relatives by DNA barcode
The species whose COI barcode is most similar to this one — a quick “who is this most like”. The percentage is how much the barcode differs; it approximates, but is not, the full evolutionary tree.
★ 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 type346 records
Wild obs. + sensor278
Museum / vouchered68
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO824 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 82≤1 km 30≤10 km 107>10 km 4
223 georeferenced · 55 without coordinates
Open the mapobservation + sensor278
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 accuracy40% within 1 km
≤100 m 2≤1 km 4≤10 km 8>10 km 1
15 georeferenced · 53 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence68
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 3 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
Institution
Specimens
Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiejlocation not on record
47
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznańlocation not on record
5
Helsinki, FI
2
3 institutions · 54 of 68 vouchered records shown · 14 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA4 detections
Where the DNA of Antheminia lunulata 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 median21.2 °C 21.2–21.2
Seasonal swing summer↔winter21.6 °C
Max temp (day)25.9 °C
Min temp (night)16.7 °C
Precipitation71.7 mm/mo
Air humidity56.3 %
Moisture balance-60.6 mm/mo
Vapour deficit1,102 Pa
Wind speed3.30 m/s
Cloud cover36.0 %
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.
