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

Deigloria

genus of fungi

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 revisionNov 3, 2025
Entity authorityQ5252428 ↗
Source-derived summary

Deigloria is a genus of agaric fungus in the family Marasmiaceae. Described by mycologist Reinhard Agerer in 1980, the genus contains 10 species that are widespread in neotropical areas. The generic name derives from the Latin words Deus (God) and gloria (glory).

See also

List of Agaricales genera

List of Marasmiaceae genera

References

External links

Deigloria in Index Fungorum.

Editorial summary

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

Editorial reviewA sound reference starting point where classification, measurement and the date of the underlying evidence remain visible. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1980—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Deigloria, genus and fungi.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Deigloria” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Deigloria, genus and fungi 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 Nov 3, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q5252428. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1980.

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