Oecophora
genus of insects
Oecophora is a genus of the concealer moth family (Oecophoridae). Among these, it belongs to subfamily Oecophorinae. It is the type genus of its subfamily and family. Thus, regardless of the uncertain phylogeny, systematics and taxonomy of its superfamily Gelechioidea, it and its closest relatives always have to be assigned to this family and subfamily as long as these are deemed valid.
Systematics and taxonomy
The genus' type species was initially given as the Tinea sulphurella described by Johan Christian Fabricius in 1777. However, that name is a junior homonym and thus invalid; Fabricius himself had used it two years earlier to describe the moth now known as Esperia sulphurella. But actually, Fabricius' 1777 "T." sulphurella had been described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758 already, who named it Tinea bractella. But subsequent authors placed it in the related genus Alabonia, thus preventing for long the determination of the correct name for the moth invalidly described by Fabricius in 1777.
Invalid scientific names of Oecophora are:
Aecophora (lapsus)
Oecophera Costa, 1840 (unjustified emendation)
Selected species
Species of Oecophora include:
Oecophora bractella
Oecophora kindermanni (Herrich-Schäffer, 1852)
Formerly, several other Oecophorinae (e.g. of genus Esperia) have been placed here too.
“Oecophora” enters the record as genus of insects. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Oecophora, genus and insects can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Oecophora” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Oecophora, genus and insects provides the most credible route into that argument.
The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 18, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7078466. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1777, 1758, 1840 and 1852.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Oecophora”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Oecophora primary sources, Oecophora archive and Oecophora research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Oecophora”?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Oecophora” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.