Neurobathra curcassi — The Life Data

Animalia/Arthropoda/Insecta/Lepidoptera/Gracillariidae/Neurobathra

At a glance

Occurrence records4

Data sources7

Biological traits0

DNA specimens2

eDNA detections5

Sources7 archives

Databases and archives Neurobathra curcassi's data was compiled from.

WikipediaWikimedia Foundation3 languages↗

BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility4 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI5 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics2 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 & distributionGBIF4 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 1 countries5 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD2 specimens

01Narrative

Neurobathra curcassi is a moth of the family Gracillariidae. It is known from Cuba.Global Taxonomic Database of Gracillariidae (Lepidoptera) The larvae feed on Jatropha species, including Jatropha curcas. They probably mine the leaves of their host plant.

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

No structured trait data for this taxon yet.

05DNA & barcoding2 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 Neurobathra curcassi has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens2

BINs1

Marker genes1

eDNA detections5

Countries1

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 type4 records

Museum / vouchered4

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO16 km²

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 · 4 records without

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence4

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
Australian National Insect Collectionlocation not on record	2
Florida Museum of Natural History- Zoology, Paleontology & Paleobotanylocation not on record	1
Washington, US	1

3 institutions · 4 of 4 vouchered records shown

09Environmental DNA5 detections

Where the DNA of Neurobathra curcassi 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 found5

Studies independent surveys1

Countries1

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

Where its DNA was found

0 of 5 detections have coordinates

Open the map1 country0

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 median22.2 °C 22.1–22.2

Seasonal swing summer↔winter4.80 °C

Max temp (day)25.8 °C 25.8–25.9

Min temp (night)18.4 °C 18.1–18.4

Precipitation108 mm/mo 42.1–108

Air humidity67.8 % 65.8–67.8

Moisture balance-17.4 mm/mo -85.8–-17.4

Vapour deficit862 Pa 862–906

Wind speed2.90 m/s 2.90–4.20

Cloud cover27.6 % 26.6–27.6

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.