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

Cisthene picta

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 revisionJan 7, 2021
Entity authorityQ16751455 ↗
Source-derived summary

Cisthene picta, the pictured lichen moth, is a moth of the family Erebidae. It was described by William Barnes and James Halliday McDunnough in 1918. It is found in the United States from Texas to Arizona. The habitat consists of deserts.

The wingspan is about 18 mm. Adults are on wing from August to October.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Cisthene picta” as species of insect. 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—1918—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Cisthene, picta and species can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

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

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 Jan 7, 2021. The linked authority identifier is Q16751455. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1918.

Critical limits

Scientific names, classifications and consensus can change while older terminology persists in catalogues and historical literature. 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 “Cisthene picta”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Cisthene picta primary sources, Cisthene picta archive and Cisthene 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 “Cisthene picta”?
  2. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
  3. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Cisthene picta” 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.