CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Poecilia vandepolli

species of live-bearing toothcarps

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 revisionJul 15, 2026
Entity authorityQ2008505 ↗
Source-derived summary

Poecilia vandepolli, or Van de Poll's molly, is a poeciliid fish native to the Caribbean islands of Aruba, Bonaire, and Curaçao. It is one of the most common fish in its range, inhabiting fresh, brackish, salt, and hypersaline waters such as streams, ponds, bays, salt pans, and lagoons. For much of the twentieth century, it was regarded as a subspecies or synonym of P. sphenops, but morphological and genetic studies have confirmed its status as a distinct species. The molly is highly variable in size and color, with males ranging from 2.6 to 5.3 cm and females from 3.2 to 9.6 cm, and coloration varying from grayish-brown to yellow or orange in any given population. Marine fish are generally larger, stronger, and more colorful than freshwater specimens. Males' ability to develop an intense orange coloration may make the species attractive to aquarists.

Forming shoals near the surface, mollies feed mainly on algae, detritus, and aquatic invertebrates, and are preyed upon by other fish and birds. Females produce live fry, giving the species an edge over killifish, with which it competes across its range. Successful reproduction depends on the availability of shelter for fry, most of which fall prey to adults. The species is drawn to freshwater habitats, which disappear in each dry season, killing freshwater populations; these habitats are recolonized from the sea when the rains return.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Poecilia vandepolli” as species of live-bearing toothcarps. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

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 227-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Poecilia, vandepolli 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 live-bearing toothcarps. 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 Jul 15, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2008505. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

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