Mesapamea secalis
(Linnaeus, 1758) · speciesAt a glance
Sources9 archives
Databases and archives Mesapamea secalis's data was compiled from.
WikipediaWikimedia Foundation6 languages↗
BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗
GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility417 424 records↗
ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI8 eDNA detections↗
BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics231 specimens↗
Open Tree of LifeOpenTreephylogeny backbone↗
GoaTGenomes on a Tree · Sangergenome & karyotype↗
NCBIUS National Library of Medicinegenome & karyotype↗
GLoBIGlobal Biotic Interactionsbiotic interactions↗Every layer below draws on the sources above — open one to explore it, or use ← → to move between tabs.
Mesapamea secalis, the common rustic, is a moth of the family Noctuidae. The species was first described by Carl Linnaeus in his 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae. It is found in Europe, north-west Africa, Turkey and northern Iran. The species was formerly considered the same species as the lesser common rustic (Mesapamea didyma) and Remm's rustic (Mesapamea remmi). All three were raised to species level. See Townsend et al. for diagnoses. Martin C. Townsend, Jon Clifton and Brian Goodey (2010). British and Irish Moths: An Illustrated Guide to Selected Difficult Species. (covering the use of genitalia characters and other features) Butterfly Conservation.
No narrative description available for this taxon yet.
Diet & foraging2
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 Mesapamea secalis 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 Mesapamea secalis 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).
Sequencing statusassembly quality — how far to trust these numbers
Assembly level tells you how finished the sequence is — from fragmented contigs, through scaffolds, up to a full chromosome-level assembly. BUSCO % estimates completeness: the share of genes expected to be present that were actually found. These describe the data quality, not the organism.
How far back this lineage goes — and how we know. Everything here is measured in Ma, short for “mega-annum”: millions of years ago. The chart reads left to right like a calendar of the Earth, from the deep past on the left to today at the right edgetop to bottom like a core drilled through the Earth, from the deep past at the top down to today at the bottom.
At a glance
When this lineage existed
How to read this: the coloured strip along the bottomdown the left is the geological calendar — the standard epochs (Pliocene, Pleistocene…) every museum uses, shown so you can see which chapter of Earth's history this lineage lived in. This lineage is a young one, so the strip is zoomed in to epochs — the finer subdivisions inside a period. The orange marker is the DNA clock: DNA accumulates mutations at a roughly steady rate, so comparing this species' DNA with its relatives estimates when the lineage split off — independently of any fossil.
Record type417 424 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 institutions25 of 67 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
| Institution | Specimens |
|---|---|
| Helsinki, FI | 2 735 |
| DanishLepidopterologicalSocietylocation not on record | 2 602 |
| Provincia di Livornolocation not on record | 1 425 |
| Tartu, EE | 407 |
| Zürich, CH | 397 |
| Museum Ludovicae Ulricae, Zoology Institute of the University of Uppsalalocation not on record | 337 |
| NTNU-VMlocation not on record | 266 |
| ZMAAlocation not on record | 265 |
| Bern, CH | 228 |
| Naturéum — Muséum cantonal des sciences naturelles, Lausanne, Département Zoologielocation not on record | 210 |
| Kuopio, FI | 163 |
| Salzburg, AT | 116 |
| Natural History Museum Rotterdamlocation not on record | 107 |
| NHMOlocation not on record | 100 |
| SLU Artdatabankenlocation not on record | 99 |
| Dhaka, BD | 97 |
| Musee d'Histoire Naturallelocation not on record | 95 |
| Naturama Aargaulocation not on record | 89 |
| Geneva, CH | 85 |
| Tallinn, EE | 81 |
| CBDClocation not on record | 79 |
| Naturmuseum St. Gallenlocation not on record | 76 |
| Frauenfeld, CH | 75 |
| Museum zu Allerheiligen Schaffhausenlocation not on record | 63 |
| Philadelphia, US | 63 |
| Muzeum Górnośląskie w Bytomiulocation not on record | 62 |
| Podgorica, ME | 44 |
| Fribourg, CH | 42 |
| Uniwersytet Łódzkilocation not on record | 40 |
| Winterthur, CH | 38 |
| Nijmegen, NL | 37 |
| UMUlocation not on record | 36 |
| Stockholm, SE | 32 |
| SFRAlocation not on record | 28 |
| Museo civico di Storia naturale Giacomo Doria di Genova | Giacomo Doria Natural History Museum in Genoalocation not on record | 27 |
| Paro, BT | 25 |
| Sion, CH | 25 |
| MZLUlocation not on record | 22 |
| Metsähallituslocation not on record | 21 |
| Universität Zürich, Naturhistorisches Museumlocation not on record | 18 |
| South Kensington, GB | 17 |
| Archäologie und Museum Baselland - Museum.BLlocation not on record | 12 |
| Glarus, CH | 12 |
| Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeumlocation not on record | 11 |
| ZSMlocation not on record | 7 |
| Natural History Museum, Londonlocation not on record | 7 |
| Brussels, BE | 6 |
| Tromsø, NO | 4 |
| EGBlocation not on record | 4 |
| Naturmuseum Oltenlocation not on record | 4 |
| neflocation not on record | 4 |
| ИЗШ НАНУlocation not on record | 3 |
| Ugentlocation not on record | 3 |
| DABUHlocation not on record | 3 |
| European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy (EDIT)location not on record | 3 |
| Museum of Zoology at the University of Bergen, Invertebrate Collectionlocation not on record | 3 |
| NMBU:MINAlocation not on record | 2 |
| Bavarian State Collection of Zoologylocation not on record | 2 |
| Musée de Saint-Imierlocation not on record | 2 |
| Edmonton, CA | 2 |
| John May Museum of Natural Historylocation not on record | 2 |
| University of Vienna, Dept of Botany and Biodiversity Researchlocation not on record | 1 |
| Sevilla, ES | 1 |
| Garðabær, IS | 1 |
| Zoological Museum of the University of Chittagong, Bangladeshlocation not on record | 1 |
| University of Alaska Museumlocation not on record | 1 |
| МПХУlocation not on record | 1 |
Where the DNA of Mesapamea secalis 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.