CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Aegiphila mollis

species of plant

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJul 26, 2026
Entity authorityQ28812047 ↗
Source-derived summary

Aegiphila mollis (syn. Aegiphila salutaris) is a species of flowering plant in the family Lamiaceae. It is native to Central and South America. Its common names include contra culebra and totumillo.

This plant is a tree or shrub.

The species is cited in Flora Brasiliensis by Carl Friedrich Philipp von Martius.

References

External links

(in Portuguese) Aegiphila salutaris. Flora Brasiliensis.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Aegiphila mollis” as species of plant. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Aegiphila, mollis and species.

Editorial reviewA sound reference starting point where classification, measurement and the date of the underlying evidence remain visible. The current 60-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Aegiphila, mollis and species providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Aegiphila mollis”, the useful work is to connect “species of plant” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 26, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q28812047. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. 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.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Aegiphila mollis”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Aegiphila mollis primary sources, Aegiphila mollis archive and Aegiphila research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Aegiphila mollis”?
  2. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
  3. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Aegiphila mollis” 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.