What are the chances of seeing a Lepidoneiva caecum in Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve?
Rare
Under 5% of wildlife watchers report a Lepidoneiva caecum sighting in Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve on a given day, based on 6 verified sightings from GBIF citizen-science data from 2019 to 2026. It is the 359th most-seen of the 506 insects we can rate there. Over three days the chance rises to about 10%, and over a week to about 30%, if each day is a fresh chance.
When is the best time to see a Lepidoneiva caecum in Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve?
July to September
In those months about 10% of wildlife watchers report a Lepidoneiva caecum in Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve on a given day, against under 5% in October to June, the lowest months.
What time of day is best to see a Lepidoneiva caecum?
Between 6 and 9 pm
Across all the parks we cover, that three-hour window holds the most Lepidoneiva caecum sightings with a recorded time, and nearly all of them come between 6 pm and 6 am: it is mostly seen at night.
Where else can you see a Lepidoneiva caecum?
Only Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve, in our data
Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve is the only park on Wallace's Line with enough records to rate Lepidoneiva caecum sightings: under 5% of wildlife watchers there report one on a given day.
Which relatives of the Lepidoneiva caecum live in Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve?
Same family: Erebidae
The closest relatives of the Lepidoneiva caecum that you can see in Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve (family Erebidae, Underwing, Tiger, Tussock, and Allied Moths) are Symphlebia perflua (about 10%), Black Witch (about 10%) and Amastus aconia (about 10%), with each one's daily chance of a sighting.
Where does the Lepidoneiva caecum sighting chance come from?
GBIF citizen-science records
It is estimated from how often the Lepidoneiva caecum is recorded against all the insects logged in Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve (6 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.