Arachnis zuni — The Life Data

Animalia/Arthropoda/Insecta/Lepidoptera/Erebidae/Arachnis

At a glance

Occurrence records80

Data sources7

Biological traits0

DNA specimens1

eDNA detections1

Sources7 archives

Databases and archives Arachnis zuni's data was compiled from.

WikipediaWikimedia Foundation3 languages↗

BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility80 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI1 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics1 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 & distributionGBIF80 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 0 countries1 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD1 specimens

01Narrative

Arachnis zuni, the zuni tiger-moth, is a moth of the family Erebidae. It was described by Berthold Neumoegen in 1890. It is found in North America from New Mexico to Arizona and Mexico.

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

No structured trait data for this taxon yet.

05DNA & barcoding1 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 Arachnis zuni has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens1

BINs1

Marker genes1

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-5P

animal barcode

08Occurrence & distribution

Record type80 records

Wild obs. + sensor38

Museum / vouchered42

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO212 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 16≤1 km 9≤10 km 6

31 georeferenced · 7 without coordinates

Open the mapobservation + sensor38

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 accuracy34% within 1 km

≤100 m 11≤10 km 20>10 km 1

32 georeferenced · 10 without coordinates

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence42

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 institutions8 of 11 geolocated

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

Institution	Specimens
US	9
University of Alabamalocation not on record	7
Colorado State Universitylocation not on record	5
New Haven, US	4
Ciudad de México, MX	4
Champaign, US	2
Provincia di Pesaro e Urbinolocation not on record	1
Provo, US	1
Albuquerque, US	1
München, DE	1
East Lansing, US	1

11 institutions · 36 of 42 vouchered records shown · 6 without an institution code

09Environmental DNA1 detections

Where the DNA of Arachnis zuni 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.