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

Heikeopsis

genus of crustaceans

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 22, 2025
Entity authorityQ5699259 ↗
Source-derived summary

Heikeopsis is a genus of crabs containing two species, Heikeopsis japonica and Heikeopsis arachnoides. The genus was originally described under the name "Heikea" by Lipke Holthuis and Raymond B. Manning in 1990, but was later determined to be a junior homonym of the gastropod genus Heikea, erected by Orvar Isberg in 1934.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Heikeopsis” as genus of crustaceans. 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—1990, 1934—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Heikeopsis, genus and crustaceans 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 crustaceans. 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 22, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q5699259. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1990 and 1934.

Critical limits

Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. 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 “Heikeopsis”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Heikeopsis primary sources, Heikeopsis archive and Heikeopsis 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 “Heikeopsis”?
  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 “Heikeopsis” 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.