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

Paraphasis

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 revisionMay 20, 2025
Entity authorityQ7135651 ↗
Source-derived summary

Paraphasis is a monotypic moth genus of the family Tortricidae described by Lord Walsingham in 1907. Its only species, Paraphasis perkinsi, described by the same author in the same year, is endemic to the Hawaiian island of Kauai.

See also

List of Tortricidae genera

References

External links

Tortricidae.com

Zimmerman, Elwood C. (1978). Insects of Hawaii. Vol. 9 Microlepidoptera. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. hdl:10125/7338.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Paraphasis” as genus of insects. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Paraphasis, genus and insects.

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—1907, 1978—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Paraphasis, genus and insects providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Paraphasis”, the useful work is to connect “genus of insects” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

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 May 20, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q7135651. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1907 and 1978.

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