Carex molesta
Mack. · speciesAt a glance
Sources8 archives
Databases and archives Carex molesta's data was compiled from.
BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗
GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility1 631 records↗
ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI12 eDNA detections↗
BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics15 specimens↗
NCBIUS National Library of Medicinesequences↗
GRIN TaxonomyUSDA-ARSdistribution & uses↗
Open Tree of LifeOpenTreephylogeny backbone↗
CCDBChromosome Counts DB · Tel Aviv U.genome & karyotype↗Every layer below draws on the sources above — open one to explore it, or use ← → to move between tabs.
Carex molesta est une espèce de plantes du genre Carex et de la famille des Cyperaceae.
No narrative description available for this taxon yet.
Size & morphology2
Life cycle & reproduction25
Diet & foraging1
Habitat & environment24
Physiology & chemistry23
Uses & economy14
Other traits6
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 Carex molesta has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
★ 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.
The complete instruction manual Carex molesta carries — its genome. We read it from three angles — how big it is, how the DNA is packed into chromosomes, and how completely it has been sequenced — and explain how to read each value as you go.
Genome sizehow big the whole instruction manual is
Measured in base pairs (bp) — the individual letters of DNA (human ≈ 3.2 Gb, a bacterium a few million). The chart places this genome on a logarithmic scale — each step to the right is ten times bigger — among reference organisms. Across species a bigger genome loosely tracks with larger cells, slower growth and lower-energy lifestyles (powered flight favours small genomes) — yet it does not imply more genes or a more advanced organism (the long-standing C-value paradox).
Chromosomes & ploidyhow the DNA is packaged
2n is the full chromosome count in a normal body cell; n is a gamete (egg or sperm), which carries half. Ploidy is how many complete chromosome sets each cell holds — 2× (diploid) is typical for animals, while higher levels (polyploidy) are common in plants. Click any value below to see the underlying records and sources.
2n 682×CCDB · ipcn-api-dl · CCDB · carex
2n 701×CCDB · carex
2n 721×CCDB · iapt
Record type1 631 records
Origin
Range
Wildobservation + sensor
Human sightings and records, or camera-trap / sensor detections — someone (or a device) saw or captured the species in the wild.
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.
Wildobservation + sensor
Human sightings and records, or camera-trap / sensor detections — someone (or a device) saw or captured the species in the wild.
Holding institutions48 of 72 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
| Institution | Specimens |
|---|---|
| Wuzhou, CN | 189 |
| Madison, US | 126 |
| Chicago, US | 99 |
| Bronx, US | 96 |
| Oregon State Universitylocation not on record | 79 |
| Jackson, US | 72 |
| Bloomington, US | 68 |
| Ann Arbor, US | 66 |
| Philadelphia, US | 55 |
| Saint Louis, US | 50 |
| San Angelo, US | 45 |
| Chongqing Museumlocation not on record | 26 |
| International Salmonella Centre (W.H.O.)location not on record | 24 |
| Allentown, US | 24 |
| Philadelphia, US | 20 |
| Davenport, US | 19 |
| Museum of the Rockieslocation not on record | 18 |
| Burlington, US | 16 |
| Tampa, US | 16 |
| Dekalb, US | 14 |
| Chadron, US | 12 |
| University of Stellenboschlocation not on record | 11 |
| University of Toronto Mississaugalocation not on record | 10 |
| Bangkok, TH | 9 |
| Pittsburg, US | 7 |
| Lincoln, US | 7 |
| Spearfish, US | 7 |
| Green Bay, US | 6 |
| University of Tennessee at Chattanoogalocation not on record | 5 |
| University of Wisconsinlocation not on record | 5 |
| Toronto, CA | 5 |
| Dover, US | 4 |
| BAYLUlocation not on record | 3 |
| Phoenix, US | 3 |
| University of Southern Mississippilocation not on record | 3 |
| WTUlocation not on record | 3 |
| Millersville, US | 3 |
| Chapel Hill, US | 3 |
| McWane Science Centerlocation not on record | 3 |
| Whitewater, US | 3 |
| Royal Botanical Gardenslocation not on record | 3 |
| Little Rock, US | 3 |
| DOI/NPS, Little Rock Central High School National Historic Sitelocation not on record | 2 |
| Springfield, US | 2 |
| Macomb, US | 2 |
| University of Alberta Museumslocation not on record | 2 |
| Richmond, US | 2 |
| Musee des Dinosaures d'Esperaza (Aude)location not on record | 2 |
| GB | 2 |
| Maryland Department of Natural Resourceslocation not on record | 2 |
| DOI/NPS, Mississippi National River & Recreation Arealocation not on record | 2 |
| Provo, US | 1 |
| Brookings, US | 1 |
| New Brunswick, US | 1 |
| Emporia, US | 1 |
| IDElocation not on record | 1 |
| Davis, US | 1 |
| Denver, US | 1 |
| Chicago, US | 1 |
| Fairfax, US | 1 |
| Conway, US | 1 |
| University of Western Ontariolocation not on record | 1 |
| Kirksville, US | 1 |
| ASUlocation not on record | 1 |
| LINUlocation not on record | 1 |
| Tuscaloosa, US | 1 |
| Florida Museum of Natural History- Zoology, Paleontology & Paleobotanylocation not on record | 1 |
| Clemson, US | 1 |
| EL PASO, US | 1 |
| Madrid, ES | 1 |
| Missouri Department of Conservationlocation not on record | 1 |
| San Luis Obispo, US | 1 |
Where the DNA of Carex molesta 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
Where its DNA was found
How strong is each trace?
Modelled climatemodelled
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.