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

Alophia combustella

species of insect

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 revisionMar 19, 2026
Entity authorityQ4734617 ↗
Source-derived summary

Alophia is a monotypic snout moth genus described by Émile Louis Ragonot in 1893. Its single species, Alophia combustella, was described by Gottlieb August Wilhelm Herrich-Schäffer in 1852. It is found in Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Sardinia, Sicily, Greece, North Macedonia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine and southern Russia.

Taxonomy

The genus is sometimes listed as a subgenus of Oncocera.

Editorial summary

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

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—1893, 1852—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Alophia, combustella 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 “Alophia combustella”, the useful work is to connect “species of insect” 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 Mar 19, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4734617. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1893 and 1852.

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 “Alophia combustella”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Alophia combustella primary sources, Alophia combustella archive and Alophia 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 “Alophia combustella”?
  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 “Alophia combustella” 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.