CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Hyperphara

genus of insects

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 revisionMar 31, 2026
Entity authorityQ5958462
Source-derived summary

Hyperphara is a monotypic moth genus in the subfamily Arctiinae erected by George Hampson in 1898. Its only species, Hyperphara junctura, was described by Francis Walker in 1864. It is found in Colombia.

References

External links

Pitkin, Brian & Jenkins, Paul (2023). "Search results Family: Arctiidae". Butterflies and Moths of the World. Natural History Museum, London. doi:10.5519/s93616qw.

Editorial summary

“Hyperphara” enters the record as genus of insects. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Hyperphara, genus and insects 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—1898, 1864, 2023—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Hyperphara, genus and insects.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Hyperphara” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Hyperphara, genus and insects 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 Mar 31, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5958462. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1898, 1864 and 2023.

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 “Hyperphara”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Hyperphara primary sources, Hyperphara archive and Hyperphara 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 “Hyperphara”?
  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 Hyperphara” 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.