Habitat GIFTÁrea Antrópica, Campo Limpo, Cerrado (lato sensu)
Woodinessnon-woody
05DNA & barcoding3 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 Polygala glochidiata has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
DNA specimens3
Marker genes4
GenBank sequences7
eDNA detections5
Countries2
The DNA barcodea real sequence read deposited for this species
★ 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.
★matK1★rbcL1★ITS5★ITS2
plant barcodefungal barcode
08Occurrence & distribution
Record type389 records
Museum / vouchered389
Origin
Native2
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO968 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 accuracy10% within 1 km
≤1 km 5≤10 km 29>10 km 14
48 georeferenced · 341 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence389
10Collections & institutions
Holding institutions17 of 39 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
Institution
Specimens
Bronx, US
111
JBRJlocation not on record
38
University of Stellenboschlocation not on record
35
Kew, GB
32
Cenargenlocation not on record
22
San Jose State University, Museum of Birds and Mammalslocation not on record
16
National Biodiversity Institute, Costa Ricalocation not on record
15
UnBlocation not on record
13
ASUlocation not on record
9
Universidade Federale do Rio Grande do Sullocation not on record
7
San Diego, US
7
Ivano-Frankivsk, UA
6
Stockholm, SE
5
Anchorage, US
4
UFPElocation not on record
4
Departamento de Sistematica e Ecologialocation not on record
4
CEPLAClocation not on record
4
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA)location not on record
4
Salvador, BR
3
Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldilocation not on record
3
Phoenix, US
3
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznańlocation not on record
3
Córdoba, AR
2
Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL)location not on record
2
Ilhéus, BR
2
DOI/NPS, Greenbelt Parklocation not on record
2
Chicago, US
2
Paris, FR
2
Edinburgh, GB
2
Riverside, US
2
Corrientes, AR
1
Istituto Agrario Castelnuovolocation not on record
1
Bloomington, US
1
Fort Worth, US
1
Laboratorio de Ictiologialocation not on record
1
Universidade Federal do Maranhãolocation not on record
1
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Nortelocation not on record
1
UFPRlocation not on record
1
UFERSAlocation not on record
1
39 institutions · 373 of 389 vouchered records shown · 15 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA5 detections
Where the DNA of Polygala glochidiata 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
Countries2
Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections
Where its DNA was found
0 of 5 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 median24.8 °C 23.8–25.7
Seasonal swing summer↔winter7.20 °C
Max temp (day)28.0 °C 27.6–28.4
Min temp (night)22.2 °C 20.1–24.3
Precipitation119 mm/mo 114–125
Air humidity60.5 % 59.4–61.7
Vapour deficit1,244 Pa 1,223–1,266
Cloud cover35.4 % 33.7–37.1
CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 2 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.