Hypercompe nemophila

Herrich-Schäffer, 1853 · species

image placeholder — illustration coming later

Animalia/Arthropoda/Insecta/Lepidoptera/Erebidae/Hypercompe

At a glance

Occurrence records287

Data sources7

Biological traits0

DNA specimens59

eDNA detections44

Sources7 archives

Databases and archives Hypercompe nemophila's data was compiled from.

WikipediaWikimedia Foundation3 languages↗

BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility287 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI44 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics59 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 & distributionGBIF287 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 4 countries44 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD59 specimens

01Narrative

Hypercompe nemophila is a moth of the family Erebidae first described by Gottlieb August Wilhelm Herrich-Schäffer in 1853. It is found in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Peru and Venezuela.

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

No structured trait data for this taxon yet.

05DNA & barcoding59 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 Hypercompe nemophila has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens59

BINs6

Marker genes1

eDNA detections44

Countries4

The DNA barcodethe species' typical barcode, built from every sequenced specimen

COI-5P658 bp consensus59 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. 91% of positions are identical in every specimen.

Where individuals differ — all 60 variable positions, in barcode order

19Tmostly conserved

29Avariable

30Gvariable

46Tvariable

50Cvariable

74Tmostly conserved

85Cvariable

91Avariable

94Avariable

115Tvariable

130Tvariable

154Cvariable

157Tmostly conserved

181Gmostly conserved

187Tmostly conserved

196Amostly conserved

199Tvariable

202Cvariable

205Cvariable

206Cvariable

214Gvariable

271Cmostly conserved

319Amostly conserved

322Amostly conserved

328Amostly conserved

352Tvariable

364Cmostly conserved

370Gmostly conserved

373Gvariable

376Cvariable

382Tmostly conserved

385Cvariable

403Tvariable

412Avariable

433Amostly conserved

451Cmostly conserved

457Tmostly conserved

463Tvariable

470Cvariable

478Tmostly conserved

481Gvariable

499Tmostly conserved

517Amostly conserved

523Cvariable

535Cvariable

538Tmostly conserved

547Cvariable

550Tvariable

553Cvariable

556Cvariable

557Cvariable

574Tmostly conserved

589Tvariable

596Cvariable

601Tvariable

613Tmostly conserved

622Tmostly conserved

628Gvariable

631Amostly conserved

640Cvariable

AACATTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAAGAGGTATAGTAGGAACTTCACTAAGATTATTAATTCGAGCAGAATTAGGTAACCCCGGATC …

Variant network

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)4.2%

Haplotypes16

BINs6

Most divergent pair13.1%

N.AmericaS.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.

Spilosoma vaganssame family9.1%Leptarctia californiaesame family9.1%Spilosoma pteridissame family9.6%Afrowatsonius marginalissame family9.6%Hypercompe obtectasame genus9.7%

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 type287 records

Wild obs. + sensor5

Museum / vouchered280

Other2

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO244 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 accuracy100% within 1 km

≤1 km 5

5 georeferenced

Open the mapobservation + sensor5

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 accuracy

no georeferenced coordinates · 280 records without

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence280

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 institutions1 of 3 geolocated

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

Institution	Specimens
National Biodiversity Institute, Costa Ricalocation not on record	242
Uniwersytet Jagiellońskilocation not on record	24
Mississippi State, US	14

3 institutions · 280 of 280 vouchered records shown

09Environmental DNA44 detections

Where the DNA of Hypercompe nemophila 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 found44

Studies independent surveys1

Countries4

Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections

Where its DNA was found

0 of 44 detections have coordinates

Open the map4 countries0

1. Forest & Woodland|1.9. Subtropical/Tropic…

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 median19.4 °C 15.8–23.0

Seasonal swing summer↔winter2.10 °C

Max temp (day)22.7 °C 19.1–25.8

Min temp (night)16.5 °C 12.7–20.7

Precipitation422 mm/mo 182–442

Air humidity70.8 % 65.4–75.7

Moisture balance323 mm/mo 59.6–340

Vapour deficit724 Pa 434–817

Wind speed1.10 m/s 0.6–2.30

Cloud cover38.7 % 18.6–45.1

CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 42 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.

←→tabs

The Life Data · species page · narrative wired to read_model image placeholder · 3D tilt requires an http server (WebGL)