Luxiaria ochrophara
In 3 days ~30% in a week ~50%
| # | Park | Country | Daily sighting probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Springbrook National Park | 🇦🇺 Australia |
More parks will be added in future updates.
| # | City | Country | Daily sighting probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brisbane | 🇦🇺 Australia |
With luck
About 10% of wildlife watchers report a Luxiaria ochrophara sighting in Springbrook National Park on a given day, based on 15 verified sightings from GBIF citizen-science data from 2019 to 2026. It is the 112th most-seen of the 429 insects we can rate there. Over three days the chance rises to about 30%, and over a week to about 50%, if each day is a fresh chance.
June and August
In those months about 20% of wildlife watchers report a Luxiaria ochrophara in Springbrook National Park on a given day, against under 5% in January–February and April, the lowest months. Those are among Springbrook National Park's driest months, with about 55 mm of rain a month against 210 mm in February.
Between 8 and 11 pm
Across all the parks we cover, that three-hour window holds the most Luxiaria ochrophara sightings with a recorded time, and about 9 in 10 of them come between 6 pm and 6 am: it is mostly seen at night.
Only Springbrook National Park, in our data
Springbrook National Park is the only park on Wallace's Line with enough records to rate Luxiaria ochrophara sightings: about 10% of wildlife watchers there report one on a given day.
Same family: Geometridae
The closest relatives of the Luxiaria ochrophara that you can see in Springbrook National Park (family Geometridae, Geometer Moths) are Paradromulia ambigua (about 20%), White Looper Moth (about 20%) and Southern Bracca (about 20%), with each one's daily chance of a sighting.
GBIF citizen-science records
It is estimated from how often the Luxiaria ochrophara is recorded against all the insects logged in Springbrook National Park (15 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.
