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

Protoblepharus

genus of skinks

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 revisionSep 13, 2026
Entity authorityQ112175478 ↗
Source-derived summary

Protoblepharus is a genus of skinks.

Species

The following 3 species are recognized as being valid.

Protoblepharus apatani Mirza, Bragin, Bhosale, Gowande, Patel, & Poyarkov, 2022

Protoblepharus medogensis Jiang, Wu, Guo, Li, & Che, 2020

Protoblepharus nyingchiensis Jiang, Wu, Guo, Wang, Ding, & Che, 2020

Nota bene: A binomial authority in parentheses indicates that the species was originally described in a genus other than Protoblepharus.

Editorial summary

“Protoblepharus” enters the record as genus of skinks. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Protoblepharus, genus and skinks 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—2022, 2020—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Protoblepharus, genus and skinks.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

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

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 Sep 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q112175478. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2022 and 2020.

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