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

Aphasmaphleps

genus of flies

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 13, 2026
Entity authorityQ21219839 ↗
Source-derived summary

Aphasmaphleps is a genus of flies in the family Dolichopodidae from the Afrotropical realm. The genus was first described by Igor Grichanov in 2010. The name Aphasmaphleps refers to the genus Phasmaphleps, which was originally considered to be closely related to it. According to Capellari & Grichanov (2012), Aphasmaphleps more closely resembles Asyndetus and Cryptophleps.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Aphasmaphleps” as genus of flies. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

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—2010, 2012—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Aphasmaphleps, genus and flies can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the science & nature register because the source frames it as genus of flies. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

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 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q21219839. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2010 and 2012.

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 “Aphasmaphleps”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Aphasmaphleps primary sources, Aphasmaphleps archive and Aphasmaphleps 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 “Aphasmaphleps”?
  2. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
  3. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Aphasmaphleps” 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.