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 Cinnamomum iners has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
DNA specimens13
Marker genes3
eDNA detections9
Countries4
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.
★matK★rbcL★ITS
plant barcodefungal barcode
08Occurrence & distribution
Record type807 records
Wild obs. + sensor208
Museum / vouchered599
Origin
Introduced1
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO1 512 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 accuracy94% within 1 km
≤100 m 104≤1 km 44≤10 km 6>10 km 4
158 georeferenced · 50 without coordinates
Open the mapobservation + sensor208
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 accuracy23% within 1 km
≤100 m 3≤1 km 2≤10 km 14>10 km 3
22 georeferenced · 577 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence599
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 institutions18 of 29 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
Institution
Specimens
Paris, FR
170
Kunming, CN
42
Beijing, CN
23
Taipei, TW
21
Museo Entomologico de Leonlocation not on record
17
Edinburgh, GB
8
Kew, GB
7
Smithfield, AU
6
Bronx, US
5
Yunnan Universitylocation not on record
5
Southwest Forestry Collegelocation not on record
5
South Kensington, GB
4
Saint Louis, US
4
Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Academia Sinicalocation not on record
4
Chengdu, CN
4
Cibinong Science Center, Herbarium Bogorienselocation not on record
3
University of Stellenboschlocation not on record
3
Florida Museum of Natural History- Zoology, Paleontology & Paleobotanylocation not on record
2
Tampa, US
2
LDlocation not on record
2
Cambridge, US
1
Rotorua, NZ
1
Görlitz, DE
1
EL PASO, US
1
Taipei, TW
1
CASlocation not on record
1
CSIROlocation not on record
1
Herbarium of South China Botanical Gardenlocation not on record
1
Pondicherry, IN
1
29 institutions · 346 of 599 vouchered records shown · 252 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA9 detections
Where the DNA of Cinnamomum iners 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 found9
Studies independent surveys1
Countries2
Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections
Where its DNA was found
0 of 9 detections have coordinates
Open the map2 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.
Modelled climatemodelled
−15°Ctemperature across detection sites+40°C
Temperature median28.1 °C 26.5–28.1
Seasonal swing summer↔winter4.40 °C
Max temp (day)31.9 °C 29.9–31.9
Min temp (night)23.6 °C 22.8–23.6
Precipitation137 mm/mo 137–243
Air humidity59.8 % 59.8–66.5
Moisture balance-8.90 mm/mo -8.90–105
Vapour deficit1,523 Pa 1,168–1,523
Wind speed2.20 m/s 1.40–2.20
Cloud cover38.6 % 38.6–53.8
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.
