Daucus montanus Humb. & Bonpl. ex Schult.

Identidad taxonómica

Scientific name: Daucus montanus Humb. & Bonpl. ex Schult.
Canonical name: The scientific name without its authorship or date, for example Zea mays instead of Zea mays L.: Daucus montanus
Authorship: The author or authors credited with publishing the scientific name. It is written after the name, sometimes with the year, for example L. (Linnaeus) in Zea mays L. An author in parentheses first published the name in another genus or rank.: Humb. & Bonpl. ex Schult.
Common names: Names in other languages (2)
Orejuela, Purum culantrillo
Kingdom: One of the broadest ranks of biological classification. It groups organisms that share very basic features, for example plants (Plantae), animals (Animalia) or fungi (Fungi).: Plantae
Phylum: Rank below kingdom that groups organisms with a shared general body plan, for example chordates (Chordata), arthropods (Arthropoda) or vascular plants (Tracheophyta). In botany the same rank is also called division.: Tracheophyta
Class: Rank below phylum, for example mammals (Mammalia), birds (Aves), insects (Insecta) or monocot plants such as grasses and orchids (Liliopsida).: Magnoliopsida
Order: Rank below class that groups related families, for example grasses and their relatives (Poales) or bats (Chiroptera).: Apiales
Family: Rank below order that groups related genera. Family names usually end in -aceae in botany (for example Poaceae, the grass family) and in -idae in zoology (for example Felidae, the cat family).: Apiaceae
Genus: Rank that groups closely related species. Its name is the first word of a species' scientific name and starts with a capital letter, for example Zea in Zea mays.: Daucus
Specific epithet: The second word of a species' scientific name. On its own it does not name the species: it always goes with the genus, for example mays in Zea mays.: montanus
Taxonomic rank: The level a name occupies in the hierarchy of biological classification, such as kingdom, family, genus, species or subspecies.: species
Taxonomic status: Whether the taxonomic catalogue the record comes from currently accepts this name for the organism, or treats it as a synonym of another accepted name or as doubtful.: accepted name

Photos and conservation status

IUCN Red List category: The extinction-risk category that the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) assigns to a species on its Red List. EX Extinct: there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died. EW Extinct in the wild: it survives only in cultivation, in captivity or as a population far outside its past range. CR Critically endangered, EN Endangered and VU Vulnerable: the three threatened categories, from an extremely high to a high risk of extinction in the wild. NT Near threatened: close to qualifying as threatened. LC Least concern: evaluated and not threatened. DD Data deficient: there is not enough information to assess its risk. NE Not evaluated: not yet assessed against the criteria. It describes the risk of the species worldwide, not its situation in a project's area.: Not available.

No photos have been requested for this species yet.

Interacciones documentadas

GloBI says it is documented somewhere in the world. Biolitica answers whether it could happen here.

A documented interaction means it was recorded somewhere in the world. It does not mean it occurs here.

Types shown: 2 of 7 has its flowers visited by × visits the flowers of × 5 more types with data for this species

Flower visit

has its flowers visited by 20 organisms

The authority declares no effect on this species for this term: neither that it harms it nor that it benefits it. Visiting a flower is not pollinating it. «Pollinates» is a different term and a different block, and merging the two is the measured defect that turned ~88 shared «pollinators» into birds and primates.

Organism	Reads as	Studies	Where it was documented
Continental Striped Shield Bug Graphosoma italicum italicum Pentatomidae	has its flowers visited by	5	not compared
5 sources · 5 records https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/63706842 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · Aug. 2, 2020 · Human observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/71931585 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · Aug. 1, 2020 · Human observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/87609223 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · July 18, 2021 · Human observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/87609224 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · July 18, 2021 · Human observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/88357797 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · July 23, 2021 · Human observation A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.
Stenopterus ater Cerambycidae	has its flowers visited by	5	not compared
5 sources · 8 records https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/82199456 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Record contexts (sample): no place published · June 8, 2021 · Human observation; no place published · June 8, 2021 · Human observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/84312537 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Record contexts (sample): no place published · June 23, 2021 · Human observation; no place published · June 23, 2021 · Human observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/84436952 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Record contexts (sample): no place published · June 25, 2021 · Human observation; no place published · June 25, 2021 · Human observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/217456067 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · May 21, 2024 · Human observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/66350678 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · July 4, 2020 · Human observation A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.
Anthaxia millefolii	has its flowers visited by	3	not compared
3 sources · 3 records https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/63369276 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · July 2, 2020 · Human observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/71198089 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · July 3, 2020 · Human observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/84313906 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · June 24, 2021 · Human observation A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.
Papilio machaon Papilionidae	has its flowers visited by	3	not compared
3 sources · 3 records https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/86753765 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · July 12, 2021 · Human observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/86820712 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · July 13, 2021 · Human observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/87614413 Published in globalbioticinteractions/inaturalist Context: no place published · July 18, 2021 · Human observation A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.

Showing 4 of 20, by number of studies See more of this type

visits the flowers of 1 organism

Organism	Reads as	Studies	Where it was documented	Actions
børstebiller Dasytidae	visits the flowers of Refuted	1	no location	Not a modelling unit: the source publishes it at family level.
1 source · 1 record Records of plants pollinating or visiting flowers of any other organism are likely to be errors Published in globalbioticinteractions/refuted-biotic-interactions-by-eol Context: no place published · no date published A published relationship says these two taxa were documented interacting. It does not say how often, or that it happens in this project's region.

Showing 1 of 1, by number of studies

Interaction data from Global Biotic Interactions (GloBI), GloBI 0.11. Each row keeps the citation its own study published.

Interactions are published at species level: they are not resolved by variety or race.

Each block is headed by the source's own term, read from this species' end — not by a category of ours. Two similar terms are not merged.

«Documented here» means the interaction was observed in this territory. It is not evidence that the species is here, and it does not enter the niche model.

Acompañantes documentados

This agronomic reading comes from a source reserved for internal use, so it is not shown here.

Documented uses and recommendations

Uses and recommendations that a source documents for this species beside a crop, each in its own context. They are the source's statements, not traits of the species and not Biolítica's recommendations, and none of them is a relation between two species.

Among the sources you can read, none documents a use or recommendation of this species beside a crop.