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

Cassytha racemosa

species of plant

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 revisionDec 12, 2023
Entity authorityQ15604067 ↗
Source-derived summary

Cassytha racemosa (common name - dodder laurel) is a parasitic perennial in the Lauraceae family.

It is found in Western Australia.

The species was first described in 1845 by Christian Gottfried Daniel Nees von Esenbeck from specimen 1623 found near the town of Fremantle growing on Melaleuca huegelii.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Cassytha racemosa” is species of plant. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Cassytha, racemosa and species, not as a finished interpretation.

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—1845, 1623—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Cassytha, racemosa and species is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “species of plant” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

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 Dec 12, 2023. The linked authority identifier is Q15604067. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1845 and 1623.

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 “Cassytha racemosa”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Cassytha racemosa primary sources, Cassytha racemosa archive and Cassytha 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 “Cassytha racemosa”?
  2. Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
  3. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Cassytha racemosa” 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.