What are the chances of seeing a Rothschildia speculifer in Iguaçu National Park?
With luck
About 10% of wildlife watchers report a Rothschildia speculifer sighting in Iguaçu National Park on a given day, based on 5 verified sightings from GBIF citizen-science data from 2019 to 2026. It is the 246th most-seen of the 279 insects we can rate there. Over three days the chance rises to about 20%, and over a week to about 30%, if each day is a fresh chance.
When is the best time to see a Rothschildia speculifer in Iguaçu National Park?
March, July and November
In those months about 10% of wildlife watchers report a Rothschildia speculifer in Iguaçu National Park on a given day, against under 5% in April–June, August–October and December–February, the lowest months.
What time of day is best to see a Rothschildia speculifer?
Between 5 and 8 am
Across all the parks we cover, that three-hour window holds the most Rothschildia speculifer sightings with a recorded time, and about 8 in 10 of them come between 6 am and 6 pm: it is a daytime animal.
Where else can you see a Rothschildia speculifer?
Only Iguaçu National Park, in our data
Iguaçu National Park is the only park on Wallace's Line with enough records to rate Rothschildia speculifer sightings: about 10% of wildlife watchers there report one on a given day.
Which relatives of the Rothschildia speculifer live in Iguaçu National Park?
Same order: Lepidoptera
The closest relatives of the Rothschildia speculifer that you can see in Iguaçu National Park (order Lepidoptera, Butterflies and Moths) are Agathina Emperor (about 70%), Hydaspes Eighty-Eight (about 50%) and Orange Mapwing (about 40%), with each one's daily chance of a sighting.
Where does the Rothschildia speculifer sighting chance come from?
GBIF citizen-science records
It is estimated from how often the Rothschildia speculifer is recorded against all the insects logged in Iguaçu National Park (5 verified sightings from 2019 to 2026), calibrated against known sighting rates. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10% because citizen-science data supports honest approximations, not decimals, and months with records from fewer than five people show "—". How it works.