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 Antiteuchus tripterus has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
DNA specimens10
BINs3
Marker genes2
eDNA detections4
Countries2
The DNA barcodethe species' typical barcode, built from every sequenced specimen
COI-5P622 bp consensus8 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. 96% of positions are identical in every specimen.
Where individuals differ — all 27 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)1.2%
Haplotypes3
BINs3
Most divergent pair2.4%
S.America
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-3P★COI-5P
animal barcode
08Occurrence & distribution
Record type306 records
Wild obs. + sensor245
Museum / vouchered61
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO600 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 accuracy81% within 1 km
≤100 m 134≤1 km 26≤10 km 16>10 km 21
197 georeferenced · 48 without coordinates
Open the mapobservation + sensor245
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 accuracy0% within 1 km
≤10 km 17>10 km 20
37 georeferenced · 24 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence61
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 institutions3 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
Provo, US
25
The University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobagolocation not on record
11
College Station, US
5
UNICAMPlocation not on record
5
Cambridge, US
1
5 institutions · 47 of 61 vouchered records shown · 12 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA4 detections
Where the DNA of Antiteuchus tripterus 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 median25.2 °C 25.3–25.2
Seasonal swing summer↔winter5.00 °C
Max temp (day)29.0 °C
Min temp (night)21.6 °C
Precipitation227 mm/mo
Air humidity63.7 %
Moisture balance61.5 mm/mo
Vapour deficit1,167 Pa
Wind speed2.60 m/s
Cloud cover66.2 %
CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 3 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.
