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 Cionosicys excisus has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
Marker genes1
GenBank sequences3
eDNA detections3
Countries2
The DNA barcodea real sequence read deposited for this species
Cionosicyos excisus voucher B. Wallnoefer 9508 (M) internal transcribed spacer 1, partial sequence; and 5.8S ribosomal RNA gene, internal transcribed spacer 2, and 28S ribosomal RNA gene, complete sequence
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.
★ITS3
fungal barcode
08Occurrence & distribution
Record type398 records
Wild obs. + sensor54
Museum / vouchered344
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO1 112 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 accuracy76% within 1 km
≤100 m 21≤1 km 7≤10 km 6>10 km 3
37 georeferenced · 17 without coordinates
Open the mapobservation + sensor54
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 accuracy96% within 1 km
≤100 m 246≤1 km 1≤10 km 8>10 km 1
256 georeferenced · 88 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence344
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 institutions16 of 21 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
Institution
Specimens
Mérida, MX
81
Durango, MX
69
Mexico City, MX
48
Saint Louis, US
43
Tapachula, MX
26
Austin, US
16
San Francisco de Campeche, MX
13
Mérida, MX
11
Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabascolocation not on record
9
San Jose State University, Museum of Birds and Mammalslocation not on record
4
Tuxtla Gutiérrez, MX
3
University of Stellenboschlocation not on record
3
Austin, US
2
Chicago, US
2
Tampa, US
2
South Kensington, GB
2
Mexico City, MX
1
EL PASO, US
1
Instituto de Investigaciones Biológicas, Universidad Veracruzana, Región Xalapalocation not on record
1
Riverside, US
1
Minister of Sustainable Development, Climate Change & Solid Waste Managementlocation not on record
1
21 institutions · 339 of 344 vouchered records shown · 5 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA3 detections
Where the DNA of Cionosicys excisus 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 found3
Studies independent surveys1
Countries2
Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections
Where its DNA was found
0 of 3 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 median15.7 °C 15.7–22.8
Seasonal swing summer↔winter9.60 °C
Max temp (day)22.0 °C 22.0–27.1
Min temp (night)9.00 °C 9.00–18.4
Precipitation34.7 mm/mo 34.7–187
Air humidity50.9 % 50.9–64.6
Moisture balance-93.3 mm/mo -93.3–53.7
Vapour deficit884 Pa 884–971
Wind speed4.10 m/s 2.00–4.10
Cloud cover25.5 % 24.1–25.5
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.
