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

Alepidomus

Genus of fishes

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 revisionApr 24, 2026
Entity authoritySource title only
Source-derived summary

Alepidomus evermanni is a freshwater species of silverside endemic to western Cuba. This species grows to 3.3 cm (1.3 in) in standard length. It is the only known member of its genus. This species was described as Atherina evermanni by Carl H. Eigenmann in 1903 with a type locality of San Cristobal, Cuba. The specific name honours the American ichthyologist Barton Warren Evermann (1853-1932).

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Alepidomus” as genus of fishes. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Alepidomus, Genus and fishes.

Editorial reviewUseful for establishing the present vocabulary of the subject while preserving a route back to the evidence on which that vocabulary rests. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1903, 1853, 1932—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Alepidomus, Genus and fishes providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

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

Evidence profile

Datasets, specimens, observations and peer-reviewed methods provide the appropriate test for the technical claims summarized here. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 24, 2026. The first chronological checks are 1903, 1853 and 1932.

Critical limits

Scientific names, classifications and consensus can change while older terminology persists in catalogues and historical literature. 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 “Alepidomus”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Alepidomus primary sources, Alepidomus archive and Alepidomus 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 “Alepidomus”?
  2. Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
  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 “Alepidomus” 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.