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 Rusavskia sorediata has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
DNA specimens20
Marker genes1
eDNA detections18
Countries4
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 type1 028 records
Wild obs. + sensor619
Museum / vouchered407
Other2
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO2 760 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 407≤1 km 69≤10 km 15>10 km 22
513 georeferenced · 106 without coordinates
Open the mapobservation + sensor619
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 accuracy66% within 1 km
≤100 m 78≤1 km 93≤10 km 79>10 km 8
258 georeferenced · 149 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence407
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 institutions14 of 30 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
Institution
Specimens
Olocation not on record
111
Madison, US
100
TROMlocation not on record
33
TSBlocation not on record
16
DOI/NPS, Colonial National Historical Parklocation not on record
16
Oulu, FI
16
Trondheim, NO
15
Durham, US
11
Polar-Alpine Botanical Garden-Institutelocation not on record
10
Bergen, NO
9
Museo civico La Terra e l'Uomo di Crocetta del Montellolocation not on record
8
Wuzhou, CN
8
Helsinki, FI
7
Turku, FI
5
UNITOlocation not on record
5
BioFokuslocation not on record
4
SLU Artdatabankenlocation not on record
4
BDBClocation not on record
3
Université Lavallocation not on record
2
DClocation not on record
2
Göteborg, SE
2
ASUlocation not on record
2
LDlocation not on record
2
Kuopio, FI
1
Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung: Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseumlocation not on record
1
San Sebastián, ES
1
US
1
Repubblica di San Marinolocation not on record
1
Uppsala, SE
1
New Brunswick, US
1
30 institutions · 398 of 407 vouchered records shown · 6 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA18 detections
Where the DNA of Rusavskia sorediata 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 found18
Studies independent surveys1
Countries3
Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections
Where its DNA was found
0 of 18 detections have coordinates
Open the map3 countries0
On building wall (rock)
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 median0.6 °C -2.50–10.4
Seasonal swing summer↔winter19.7 °C
Max temp (day)3.50 °C 0.9–13.3
Min temp (night)-3.90 °C -7.30–5.90
Precipitation130 mm/mo 75.3–175
Air humidity60.2 % 57.8–66.7
Moisture balance82.4 mm/mo -13.7–118
Vapour deficit231 Pa 219–541
Wind speed5.20 m/s 2.80–6.90
Cloud cover47.2 % 46.7–51.6
CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 4 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.
