Tapinella panuoides is a fungus species in the genus Tapinella. Atromentin is a phenolic compound. The first enzymes in its biosynthesis have been characterised in T. panuoides.Characterization of the atromentin biosynthesis genes and enzymes in the homobasidiomycete Tapinella panuoides. Patrick Schneider, Sarah Bouhired and Dirk Hoffmeister, Fungal Genetics and Biology, Volume 45, Issue 11, November 2008, pages 1487-1496, Despite its pleasant taste, the species is poisonous.
No narrative description available for this taxon yet.
Compounds documented for Tapinella panuoides across natural-product and food-composition databases — not just the ~150 nutrients on a classic label ("nutritional dark matter").
Compound class profile5 classes
Cinnamic acids and derivatives $ Phenylethanoids22
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 Tapinella panuoides has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
DNA specimens13
Marker genes2
GenBank sequences10
eDNA detections61
Countries9
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.
★ITS10★ITS1
fungal barcode
06Genome at a glanceGoaT
The complete instruction manualTapinella panuoides 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
Genome size52 230 000 bp
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).
BACTERIUM Carsonella ruddii0.00016 Gb
FUNGUS0.04 Gb
THIS GENOME Tapinella panuoides0.05 Gb
INSECT0.25 Gb
HUMAN3.2 Gb
WHEAT17 Gb
FERN Tmesipteris160.45 Gb
07Deep time~12.8 Ma lineage
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
DNA clock origin12.8 Ma TimeTree
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.
DNA clock origin
08Occurrence & distribution
Record type4 277 records
Wild obs. + sensor3 510
Museum / vouchered639
Other128
Origin
Native19
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO12 208 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 accuracy58% within 1 km
≤100 m 1 154≤1 km 528≤10 km 1 095>10 km 113
2 890 georeferenced · 620 without coordinates
Open the mapobservation + sensor3 510
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 accuracy56% within 1 km
≤100 m 63≤1 km 105≤10 km 111>10 km 23
302 georeferenced · 337 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence639
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 institutions37 of 71 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
Institution
Specimens
BDBClocation not on record
36
Museo Entomologico de Leonlocation not on record
32
Helsinki, FI
30
Copenhagen, DK
29
Olocation not on record
22
Joensuu, FI
19
Kew, GB
18
Bronx, US
18
Kensington, AU
17
WTUlocation not on record
16
Görlitz, DE
14
Karlsruhe, DE
14
GJOlocation not on record
13
TENN-Flocation not on record
12
SLU Artdatabankenlocation not on record
12
San Sebastián, ES
11
Hobart, AU
10
Kuopio, FI
9
Göteborg, SE
9
Canberra, AU
8
WU-MYClocation not on record
8
Tartu, EE
8
Museum Ludovicae Ulricae, Zoology Institute of the University of Uppsalalocation not on record
7
Vancouver, CA
7
Toronto, CA
7
National Mushroom Centre, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Bhutanlocation not on record
6
Museo civico di Storia naturale Giacomo Doria di Genova | Giacomo Doria Natural History Museum in Genoalocation not on record
5
Université de Montréal Biodiversity Centrelocation not on record
5
Auckland, NZ
5
National Institute of Biological Resourceslocation not on record
5
Philadelphia, US
5
LDlocation not on record
4
Turku, FI
4
Chicago, US
4
DPIlocation not on record
4
Stockholm, SE
4
Uppsala, SE
4
MeiseBGlocation not on record
4
Brisbane, AU
4
nsnflocation not on record
3
Salzburg, AT
3
Catholic University of Pekinglocation not on record
3
Staten Island, US
3
Durham, US
3
V. N. Karazin National Universitylocation not on record
2
CA
2
Provincia di Livornolocation not on record
2
TFC Miclocation not on record
2
Davis and Elkins Collegelocation not on record
2
Metsähallituslocation not on record
2
Oulu, FI
2
Berlin, DE
2
Zürich, CH
2
Warsaw, PL
2
California State University, East Baylocation not on record
2
Vitoria, ES
2
CJBGlocation not on record
2
Osaka, JP
2
Gijón, ES
1
JA-CAGPDS-CAMlocation not on record
1
IB FRC Komi SC UB RASlocation not on record
1
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kewlocation not on record
1
Universidade de Lisboa, Museu Bocagelocation not on record
1
Mlocation not on record
1
ILLSlocation not on record
1
FLASlocation not on record
1
TUR-Alocation not on record
1
MAlocation not on record
1
Bando, JP
1
Jyväskylä, FI
1
Tomioka, JP
1
71 institutions · 505 of 639 vouchered records shown · 132 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA61 detections
Where the DNA of Tapinella panuoides 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 found61
Studies independent surveys6
Countries9
Signal confidence: moderateweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections
Where its DNA was found
0 of 61 detections have coordinates
Open the map9 countries0
Forest
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.
22 samples with on-site data · median with range · describes the sample, not the organism
Modelled climatemodelled
−15°Ctemperature across detection sites+40°C
Temperature median14.7 °C 9.60–17.9
Seasonal swing summer↔winter11.6 °C
Max temp (day)19.7 °C 13.5–23.4
Min temp (night)10.8 °C 5.50–13.1
Precipitation58.9 mm/mo 34.9–103
Air humidity55.9 % 54.8–61.6
Moisture balance-24.5 mm/mo -105–30.6
Vapour deficit735 Pa 437–944
Wind speed3.00 m/s 2.40–4.10
Cloud cover21.0 % 17.3–40.9
CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 53 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.