Tylecodon striatus — The Life Data

Plantae/Tracheophyta/Magnoliopsida/Saxifragales/Crassulaceae/Tylecodon

At a glance

Occurrence records31

Data sources5

Biological traits14

DNA specimens1

eDNA detections1

Sources5 archives

Databases and archives Tylecodon striatus's data was compiled from.

WikipediaWikimedia Foundation1 languages↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility31 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI1 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics1 specimens↗

Open Tree of LifeOpenTreephylogeny backbone↗

On this page5 sections

Every layer below draws on the sources above — open one to explore it, or use ← → to move between tabs.

NarrativeWikipediaarticle

Traits & measurements3 literature sources14 traits

Occurrence & distributionGBIF31 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 0 countries1 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD1 specimens

01Narrative

Tylecodon striatus ist eine Pflanzenart der Gattung Tylecodon in der Familie der Dickblattgewächse (Crassulaceae).

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

SourcesWCVPGIFTTRY

Size & morphology2

Plant height max0.3 m

Plant height min0.15 m

Life cycle & reproduction2

Life formsucculent subshrub

Life spanperennial

Diet & foraging1

Parasiteindependent

Habitat & environment8

Aquaticterrestrial

Climatedesert or dry shrubland

Climberself-supporting

Elevation max1 100 m

Elevation min200 m

Epiphyteterrestrial

Growth formshrub

Woodinesswoody

Other traits1

Plant support typefree-standing

05DNA & barcoding1 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 Tylecodon striatus has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens1

Marker genes1

eDNA detections1

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 type31 records

Wild obs. + sensor11

Museum / vouchered20

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO112 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 accuracy64% within 1 km

≤100 m 7>10 km 4

11 georeferenced

Open the mapobservation + sensor11

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 accuracy

no georeferenced coordinates · 20 records without

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence20

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 institutions2 of 2 geolocated

Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.

Institution	Specimens
Cape Town, ZA	11
Pretoria, ZA	9

2 institutions · 20 of 20 vouchered records shown

09Environmental DNA1 detections

Where the DNA of Tylecodon striatus 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 found1

Studies independent surveys1

Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections

Where its DNA was found

0 of 1 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.