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

Pseudocolaspis rufitarsis

species of beetle

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 revisionJul 21, 2026
Entity authorityQ28431305 ↗
Source-derived summary

Pseudocolaspis rufitarsis is a species of leaf beetle of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It was first described by the Belgian entomologist Burgeon in 1940.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Pseudocolaspis rufitarsis” as species of beetle. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Pseudocolaspis, rufitarsis and species.

Editorial reviewA practical orientation to terminology and classification, particularly when read beside dated observations, specimens or technical literature. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1940—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Pseudocolaspis, rufitarsis and species providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

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

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 Jul 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q28431305. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1940.

Critical limits

Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. 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 “Pseudocolaspis rufitarsis”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Pseudocolaspis rufitarsis primary sources, Pseudocolaspis rufitarsis archive and Pseudocolaspis 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 “Pseudocolaspis rufitarsis”?
  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 “Pseudocolaspis rufitarsis” 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.