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

Batillipes

genus of waterbears

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 revisionJun 20, 2026
Entity authorityQ4138874 ↗
Source-derived summary

Batillipes is genus of tardigrades, the only genus in the family Batillipedidae. It was first described by Ferdinand Richters in 1909.

Species

The genus includes the following species:

References

Publications

Data related to Batillipes at Wikispecies

Richters, Tardigraden-Studien. Bericht der Senckenbergische Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 1909, vol. 40 p. 28-45 (in German)

Ramazzotti, Il Phylum Tardigrada. Memorie Istituto di Idrobiologia, 1962, vol. 14, p. 1-395.

Editorial summary

“Batillipes” enters the record as genus of waterbears. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Batillipes, genus and waterbears can confirm, complicate or overturn.

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—1909, 1962—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Batillipes, genus and waterbears.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

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

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 Jun 20, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4138874. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1909 and 1962.

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 “Batillipes”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Batillipes primary sources, Batillipes archive and Batillipes 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 “Batillipes”?
  2. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
  3. Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Batillipes” 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.