Compounds documented for Ramalina calicaris across natural-product and food-composition databases — not just the ~150 nutrients on a classic label ("nutritional dark matter").
Compound class profile2 classes
Depsides4
Usnic acid and derivatives3
Documented compounds7 total
Compound
Class
Amount
Source
(-)-Usnic Acid
present
LOTUS
d-Usnic acid
present
LOTUS
Evernic Acid
present
LOTUS
Ramalic acid
present
LOTUS
Ramalinolic acid
present
LOTUS
Sekikaic acid
present
LOTUS
Usnic acid, (R)-
present
LOTUS
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 Ramalina calicaris has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
DNA specimens4
Marker genes1
eDNA detections2
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.
★ITS
fungal barcode
08Occurrence & distribution
Record type900 records
Wild obs. + sensor322
Museum / vouchered578
Origin
Native11
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO2 444 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 accuracy93% within 1 km
≤100 m 198≤1 km 82≤10 km 19>10 km 3
302 georeferenced · 20 without coordinates
Open the mapobservation + sensor322
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 accuracy26% within 1 km
≤100 m 35≤1 km 45≤10 km 125>10 km 105
310 georeferenced · 268 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence578
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 institutions24 of 37 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
Institution
Specimens
Uppsala, SE
203
LDlocation not on record
87
Madrid, ES
53
Chicago, US
47
Bando, JP
24
SLU Artdatabankenlocation not on record
18
BClocation not on record
17
Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung: Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseumlocation not on record
16
University of Gdansklocation not on record
15
Wellington, NZ
12
Berlin, DE
10
Oskarshamn, SE
9
Göteborg, SE
7
South Kensington, GB
5
Vancouver, CA
4
TSBlocation not on record
3
Stockholm, SE
3
Museo Achille Folettolocation not on record
3
Wuzhou, CN
3
Vitoria, ES
3
Toronto, CA
2
Universidad de Oviedolocation not on record
2
GZUlocation not on record
2
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburghlocation not on record
2
New Haven, US
2
St. Paul, US
2
Edinburgh, GB
2
Davenport, US
1
Bronx, US
1
Burlington, US
1
Tilburg, NL
1
Yerevan, AM
1
Ann Arbor, US
1
Museo di Storia Naturale di Venezia Giancarlo Ligabue | Natural History Museum of Venice Giancarlo Ligabuelocation not on record
1
National Museum of Natural Sciencelocation not on record
1
Clemson, US
1
MAlocation not on record
1
37 institutions · 566 of 578 vouchered records shown · 12 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA2 detections
Where the DNA of Ramalina calicaris 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 found2
Studies independent surveys1
Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections
Where its DNA was found
0 of 2 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.
