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

Pilotrochus

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 5, 2025
Entity authorityQ18103485 ↗
Source-derived summary

Pilotrochus is a genus of ants in the subfamily Myrmicinae containing the single species Pilotrochus besmerus. It is known from Madagascar.

The name of the genus is derived from Greek plios, "hair" + trochos, "wheel"; the specific name is from Latin bes, "eight of twelve" + Greek meros, "part", referencing the eight-segmented antennae.

Editorial summary

“Pilotrochus” enters the record as genus of insects. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Pilotrochus, genus and insects can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical orientation to terminology and classification, particularly when read beside dated observations, specimens or technical literature. The current 53-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Pilotrochus, genus and insects.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Pilotrochus” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Pilotrochus, genus and insects 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 May 5, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q18103485. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

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