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

Nausinoe reussi

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 revisionOct 29, 2024
Entity authorityQ6981423 ↗
Source-derived summary

Nausinoe reussi is a species of moth of the family Crambidae described by Max Gaede in 1917.

It can be found in Tanzania, in eastern Africa.

This species remembers a little Nausinoe geometralis. It has pale-brown wings with white spots and has a wingspan of 18–20 mm. The holotypes were found in Kilwa in German East Africa (today: Tanzania), Dar es Salaam, and Ukerewe Island.

Editorial summary

“Nausinoe reussi” enters the record as species of insect. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Nausinoe, reussi 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—1917—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Nausinoe, reussi and species.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

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

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 Oct 29, 2024. The linked authority identifier is Q6981423. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1917.

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 “Nausinoe reussi”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Nausinoe reussi primary sources, Nausinoe reussi archive and Nausinoe 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 “Nausinoe reussi”?
  2. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
  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 “Nausinoe reussi” 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.