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

Blacktail pike-conger

species of fish

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 revisionJul 7, 2026
Entity authorityQ6410054 ↗
Source-derived summary

The blacktail pike-conger (Hoplunnis diomediana) is an eel in the family Nettastomatidae (duckbill/witch eels). It was described by George Brown Goode and Tarleton Hoffman Bean in 1896. It is a subtropical, marine eel which is known from the western Atlantic Ocean. It is known to dwell at a maximum depth of 203 meters. Males can reach a maximum total length of 36.6 centimeters.

Editorial summary

“Blacktail pike-conger” enters the record as species of fish. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Blacktail, pike-conger and species 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—1896—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Blacktail, pike-conger and species.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Blacktail pike-conger” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Blacktail, pike-conger and species provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 7, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6410054. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1896.

Critical limits

Scientific names, classifications and consensus can change while older terminology persists in catalogues and historical literature. 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 “Blacktail pike-conger”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Blacktail pike-conger primary sources, Blacktail pike-conger archive and Blacktail 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 “Blacktail pike-conger”?
  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 “Blacktail pike-conger” 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.