Kosswigianella lutulenta — The Life Data

Animalia/Arthropoda/Insecta/Hemiptera/Delphacidae/Kosswigianella

At a glance

Occurrence records277

Data sources6

Biological traits0

DNA specimens4

eDNA detections3

Sources6 archives

Databases and archives Kosswigianella lutulenta's data was compiled from.

WikipediaWikimedia Foundation1 languages↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility277 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI3 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics4 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 & distributionGBIF277 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 0 countries3 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD4 specimens

01Narrative

Kosswigianella lutulenta is a species of delphacid planthoppers in the family Delphacidae. It is found in the Caribbean and North America.Bartlett C, Webb M (2014). "The planthopper genus Spartidelphax, a new segregate of Nearctic Delphacodes (Hemiptera, Delphacidae)". ZooKeys 453: 19-36.

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

No structured trait data for this taxon yet.

05DNA & barcoding4 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 Kosswigianella lutulenta has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens4

BINs1

Marker genes1

eDNA detections3

Countries2

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 type277 records

Wild obs. + sensor18

Museum / vouchered259

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO312 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 7≤1 km 6≤10 km 2>10 km 2

17 georeferenced · 1 without coordinates

Open the mapobservation + sensor18

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 28≤1 km 24≤10 km 175

227 georeferenced · 32 without coordinates

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence259

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 institutions2 of 4 geolocated

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

Institution	Specimens
Champaign, US	231
University Park, US	18
CUlocation not on record	7
UDlocation not on record	2

4 institutions · 258 of 259 vouchered records shown · 1 without an institution code

09Environmental DNA3 detections

Where the DNA of Kosswigianella lutulenta 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

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

Where its DNA was found

0 of 3 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.