Antheua servula — The Life Data

Animalia/Arthropoda/Insecta/Lepidoptera/Notodontidae/Antheua

At a glance

Occurrence records52

Data sources7

Biological traits0

DNA specimens2

eDNA detections2

Sources7 archives

Databases and archives Antheua servula's data was compiled from.

WikipediaWikimedia Foundation2 languages↗

BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility52 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI2 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics2 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 & distributionGBIF52 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 1 countries2 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD2 specimens

01Narrative

Antheua servula is a species of moth of the family Notodontidae. It was first described by Dru Drury in 1773 from Madras (modern Chennai). It is also found in other parts of India, Sri Lanka and on Sumatra.Notodontidae & Oenosandridae (Lepidoptera)

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

No structured trait data for this taxon yet.

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 Antheua servula has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens2

BINs1

Marker genes1

eDNA detections2

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-5P

animal barcode

08Occurrence & distribution

Record type52 records

Wild obs. + sensor49

Museum / vouchered3

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO152 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 accuracy68% within 1 km

≤100 m 12≤1 km 9≤10 km 7>10 km 3

31 georeferenced · 18 without coordinates

Open the mapobservation + sensor49

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 · 3 records without

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence3

Wildobservation + sensor

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

09Environmental DNA2 detections

Where the DNA of Antheua servula 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 found2

Studies independent surveys1

Countries1

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

Where its DNA was found

0 of 2 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 median20.5 °C 17.7–23.2

Seasonal swing summer↔winter20.5 °C

Max temp (day)24.0 °C 21.6–26.4

Min temp (night)14.6 °C 11.2–17.9

Precipitation285 mm/mo 208–362

Air humidity62.8 % 62.3–63.3

Moisture balance134 mm/mo 67.8–200

Vapour deficit912 Pa 748–1,077

Wind speed2.30 m/s 1.90–2.80

Cloud cover22.6 % 21.0–24.1

CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 2 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.