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

Aphomia sabella

species of insect

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 revisionMar 31, 2026
Entity authorityQ4779699 ↗
Source-derived summary

Aphomia sabella, the greater date moth, is a species of snout moth in the genus Aphomia. It was described by George Hampson in 1901 and is known from the Persian Gulf, Algeria and Iran. It was first recorded in Spain in 1999.

The wingspan is about 34 mm for males and 40 mm for females.

The larvae have been recorded feeding on Phoenix dactylifera.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Aphomia sabella” as species of insect. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Aphomia, sabella and species.

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—1901, 1999—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Aphomia, sabella and species providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Aphomia sabella”, the useful work is to connect “species of insect” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

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 Mar 31, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4779699. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1901 and 1999.

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 “Aphomia sabella”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Aphomia sabella primary sources, Aphomia sabella archive and Aphomia 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 “Aphomia sabella”?
  2. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
  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 “Aphomia sabella” 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.