Autohaemorrhaging
action of animals deliberately ejecting blood from their bodies
Autohaemorrhaging, or reflex bleeding, is the action of animals deliberately ejecting blood from their bodies. Autohaemorrhaging has been observed as occurring in two variations. In the first form, blood is squirted toward a predator. The blood of these animals usually contains toxic compounds, making the behaviour an effective chemical defense mechanism. In the second form, blood is not squirted, but is slowly emitted from the animal's body. This form appears to serve a deterrent effect, and is used by animals whose blood does not seem to be toxic. Most animals that autohaemorrhage are insects, but some reptiles also display this behaviour.
Some organisms have shown an ability to tailor their autohaemorrhaging response. Armoured crickets will projectile autohaemorrhage over longer distances when attacked from the side, compared to being attacked by a predator overhead.
Insects
Several orders of insects have been observed to utilize this defence mechanism.
The public source identifies “Autohaemorrhaging” as action of animals deliberately ejecting blood from their bodies. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Autohaemorrhaging, action and animals.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Autohaemorrhaging”, the useful work is to connect “action of animals deliberately ejecting blood from their bodies” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q772850. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. 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
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Autohaemorrhaging”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Autohaemorrhaging primary sources, Autohaemorrhaging archive and Autohaemorrhaging research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Autohaemorrhaging”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Autohaemorrhaging” 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.