Ptomaphila perlata
In 3 days ~20% in a week ~40%
| # | Park | Country | Daily sighting probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Springbrook National Park | 🇦🇺 Australia | |
| 2 | Lamington National Park | 🇦🇺 Australia | |
| 3 | Royal National Park | 🇦🇺 Australia | |
| 4 | Blue Mountains National Park | 🇦🇺 Australia |
With luck
About 10% of wildlife watchers report a Ptomaphila perlata sighting in Royal National Park on a given day, based on 5 verified sightings from GBIF citizen-science data from 2019 to 2026. It is the 147th most-seen of the 175 insects we can rate there. Over three days the chance rises to about 20%, and over a week to about 40%, if each day is a fresh chance.
February to April
In those months about 10% of wildlife watchers report a Ptomaphila perlata in Royal National Park on a given day, against under 5% in May to January, the lowest months. Those are among Royal National Park's wettest months, with about 130 mm of rain a month against 50 mm in August.
Between 7 and 10 pm
Across all the parks we cover, that three-hour window holds the most Ptomaphila perlata sightings with a recorded time, and about 8 in 10 of them come between 6 pm and 6 am: it is mostly seen at night.
Among the best
Of the 4 parks where we can rate Ptomaphila perlata sightings, Royal National Park ranks 3rd at about 10%, level with the leaders once rounded. The best odds are in Springbrook National Park (Australia, about 10%) and Lamington National Park (Australia, about 10%).
Same order: Coleoptera
The closest relatives of the Ptomaphila perlata that you can see in Royal National Park (order Coleoptera, Beetles) are Anoplognathus olivieri (about 30%), Botany Bay Diamond Weevil (about 30%) and Argentinian Scarab (about 20%), with each one's daily chance of a sighting.
GBIF citizen-science records
It is estimated from how often the Ptomaphila perlata is recorded against all the insects logged in Royal 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.
