Archeuptychia cluena
In 3 days ~20% in a week ~30%
Archeuptychia is a monotypic satyrid butterfly genus described by Walter Forster in 1964. Its sole member, Archeuptychia cluena is found in Brazil. The original name of this species was Papilio cluena as described by Dru Drury in 1782. Wikipedia →
| # | Park | Country | Daily sighting probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Serra dos Órgãos National Park | 🇧🇷 Brazil | |
| 2 | Tijuca National Park | 🇧🇷 Brazil |
With luck
About 10% of wildlife watchers report an Archeuptychia cluena sighting in Tijuca National Park on a given day, based on 8 verified sightings from GBIF citizen-science data from 2019 to 2026. It is the 66th most-seen of the 132 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.
March, June–August and October–November
In those months about 10% of wildlife watchers report an Archeuptychia cluena in Tijuca National Park on a given day, against under 5% in April–May, September and December–February, the lowest months.
Between 10 am and 1 pm
Across all the parks we cover, that three-hour window holds the most Archeuptychia cluena sightings with a recorded time, and nearly all of them come between 6 am and 6 pm: it is a daytime animal.
2nd of 2
Of the 2 parks where we can rate Archeuptychia cluena sightings, Tijuca National Park ranks 2nd at about 10%. The best odds are in Serra dos Órgãos National Park (Brazil, about 20%).
Same family: Nymphalidae
The closest relatives of the Archeuptychia cluena that you can see in Tijuca National Park (family Nymphalidae, Brush-footed Butterflies) are White Peacock (about 20%), Julia Heliconian (about 10%) and Melinaea ludovica (about 10%), with each one's daily chance of a sighting.
GBIF citizen-science records
It is estimated from how often the Archeuptychia cluena is recorded against all the insects logged in Tijuca National Park (8 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.
