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

Thaumatopsis magnificus

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 revisionApr 1, 2022
Entity authorityQ14478533 ↗
Source-derived summary

Thaumatopsis magnificus is a moth in the family Crambidae. It was described by Charles H. Fernald in 1891. It is found in North America, where it has been recorded from New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado.

The wingspan is about 25 mm. The forewings are dull yellow with white stripes. The hindwings are uniform white. Adults are on wing in June and July.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Thaumatopsis magnificus” as species of insect. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

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—1891—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Thaumatopsis, magnificus 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 insect. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

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 Apr 1, 2022. The linked authority identifier is Q14478533. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1891.

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 “Thaumatopsis magnificus”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Thaumatopsis magnificus primary sources, Thaumatopsis magnificus archive and Thaumatopsis 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 “Thaumatopsis magnificus”?
  2. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
  3. Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Thaumatopsis magnificus” 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.