CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Aquilegia coerulea

North American species of columbine

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 revisionAug 21, 2026
Entity authorityQ2561781 ↗
Source-derived summary

Aquilegia coerulea, commonly called the Colorado columbine, Rocky Mountain columbine, or blue columbine, is a species of flowering plant in the buttercup family, native to the Rocky Mountains in the western United States. It is a moderate sized wildflower that grows in mountainous areas from the foothills to above timberline. The flowers are mainly pollinated by bumblebees and several species of hawkmoths. The species has been the state flower of Colorado since 1899 and with its large, showy flowers is a frequent garden plant and used in the breeding of columbine hybrids. The botanical name coerulea (or caerulea) means 'sky blue'.

Description

Aquilegia coerulea is a herbaceous plant with flowering stems that may be 15–80 centimeters (6–31 in) when fully grown. They are perennial plants that typically live for four to six years; regrowing from a simple or branched rootstock that is covered in the bases of old petioles, the stems that support individual leaves. The basal leaves, the ones growing from the base of the plant, are always shorter than the flowering stems, just 9–37 cm (3.5–14.5 in) tall. They are compound leaves that are usually biternate, having nine leaflets in total in groups of three. However, occasionally they may be simply trifoliate, divided into just three leaflets, or tripinnate with each leaf divided to three levels with 21 leaflets in total.

Editorial summary

“Aquilegia coerulea” enters the record as north American species of columbine. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Aquilegia, coerulea and North can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical orientation to terminology and classification, particularly when read beside dated observations, specimens or technical literature. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1899—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Aquilegia, coerulea and North.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Aquilegia coerulea” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Aquilegia, coerulea and North provides the most credible route into that argument.

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 Aug 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2561781. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1899.

Critical limits

Scientific names, classifications and consensus can change while older terminology persists in catalogues and historical literature. 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.

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