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

Enneapterygius rufopileus

species of fish

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 5, 2026
Entity authorityQ1839273 ↗
Source-derived summary

Enneapterygius rufopileus, the blackcheek threefin, Lord Howe black-head triplefin or redcap triplefin, is a species of triplefin blenny in the genus Enneapterygius. It was described by Edgar Ravenswood Waite in 1904. It occurs in the western Pacific Ocean off Lord Howe Island, Norfolk Island, New Caledonia, Fiji and Tonga.

Editorial summary

“Enneapterygius rufopileus” enters the record as species of fish. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Enneapterygius, rufopileus and species can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewUseful for establishing the present vocabulary of the subject while preserving a route back to the evidence on which that vocabulary rests. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1904—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Enneapterygius, rufopileus and species.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

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

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 5, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1839273. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1904.

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 “Enneapterygius rufopileus”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Enneapterygius rufopileus primary sources, Enneapterygius rufopileus archive and Enneapterygius 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 “Enneapterygius rufopileus”?
  2. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
  3. Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Enneapterygius rufopileus” 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.