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

Phylloecus

genus of sawflies

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 revisionAug 18, 2023
Entity authorityQ15691210 ↗
Source-derived summary

Phylloecus (formerly Hartigia) is a genus of sawflies belonging to the family Cephidae.

The genus was first described by Edward Newman in 1838. In 2014, the genus Hartigia Schiødte, 1839 was reclassified as a junior synonym of Phylloecus.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Phylloecus” as genus of sawflies. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

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—1838, 2014, 1839—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Phylloecus, genus and sawflies can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the science & nature register because the source frames it as genus of sawflies. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

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 Aug 18, 2023. The linked authority identifier is Q15691210. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1838, 2014 and 1839.

Critical limits

Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. 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 “Phylloecus”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Phylloecus primary sources, Phylloecus archive and Phylloecus 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 “Phylloecus”?
  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 “Phylloecus” 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.