Trigonotoma bhamoensis is een keversoort uit de familie van de loopkevers (Carabidae). De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort is voor het eerst geldig gepubliceerd in 1889 door Bates.
No narrative description available for this taxon yet.
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 Trigonotoma lewisii has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
DNA specimens4
BINs1
Marker genes1
eDNA detections4
Countries1
The DNA barcodethe species' typical barcode, built from every sequenced specimen
COI-5P683 bp consensus3 specimens
ACGT
▸ drag or hover over the strip to read any position — letter and how much it varies
Violet ticks below the strip = positions where individuals differ; flat = the species' unchanging signature. 100% of positions are identical in every specimen.
The species whose COI barcode is most similar to this one — a quick “who is this most like”. The percentage is how much the barcode differs; it approximates, but is not, the full evolutionary tree.
★ 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 type271 records
Wild obs. + sensor121
Museum / vouchered150
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO648 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 accuracy65% within 1 km
≤100 m 16≤1 km 18≤10 km 5>10 km 13
52 georeferenced · 69 without coordinates
Open the mapobservation + sensor121
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 accuracy8% within 1 km
≤1 km 1≤10 km 10>10 km 2
13 georeferenced · 137 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence150
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 institutions6 of 11 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
Institution
Specimens
Chiba, JP
68
NSMKlocation not on record
21
Yamaguchi-shi, JP
17
Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural Historylocation not on record
13
Teylers Museumlocation not on record
11
Bando, JP
3
Nagatoro-machi, Chichibu-gun, JP
1
Tomioka, JP
1
Kushiro City Museumlocation not on record
1
Tokushima, JP
1
Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural Historylocation not on record
1
11 institutions · 138 of 150 vouchered records shown · 12 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA4 detections
Where the DNA of Trigonotoma lewisii 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 found4
Studies independent surveys1
Countries1
Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections
Where its DNA was found
0 of 4 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 median14.8 °C 14.8–14.8
Seasonal swing summer↔winter20.6 °C
Max temp (day)17.2 °C
Min temp (night)11.2 °C
Precipitation136 mm/mo
Air humidity57.2 %
Moisture balance22.3 mm/mo
Vapour deficit716 Pa
Wind speed2.50 m/s
Cloud cover33.4 %
CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 1 detection point · 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.
