CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Scythropia crataegella

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 revisionMay 19, 2026
Entity authorityQ2585386
Source-derived summary

Scythropia crataegella, the hawthorn moth, is a species of moth in the monotypic genus Scythropia. It is found in western Eurasia.

Taxonomy

Described as Phalaena crataegella by Linnaeus in 1767, it was made the type species of Scythropia by Jacob Hübner in the 1820s. The genus is now placed in the monotypic family Scythropiidae., but was previously placed in subfamily Scythropiinae either in Plutellidae or Yponomeutidae.

Initially (in 1796), Hübner had misidentified the grass moth Eudonia lacustrata – much larger and only distantly related, but somewhat similar in color and pattern – as Linnaeus' Phalaena crataegella. Similarly, a junior synonym of this species, Tinea cornella, has frequently been misapplied – and sometimes still is even today – to the fairly closely related apple blossom tineid.

Description and ecology

Scythropia crataegella is a small moth is widespread almost all over Europe; it is absent from Great Britain north of The Lake District, and has also not been recorded yet on Iceland and Ireland (where it is probably genuinely absent), in Portugal (where it may be absent), and in Slovenia (where it probably occurs but has not been found yet, as its range includes the surrounding countries). It is quite common throughout its range. The nocturnal adults are attracted to light sources; on Great Britain they are only commonly seen in July, but elsewhere they may be found from late May to September and have two generations per year.

The wingspan of adults is 11–15 mm.

Editorial summary

“Scythropia crataegella” enters the record as species of insect. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Scythropia, crataegella and species 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—1767, 1796—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Scythropia, crataegella and species.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

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

Evidence profile

Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 19, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2585386. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1767 and 1796.

Critical limits

A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. 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 “Scythropia crataegella”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Scythropia crataegella primary sources, Scythropia crataegella archive and Scythropia 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 “Scythropia crataegella”?
  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 Scythropia crataegella” 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.