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

Hypsopygia rubidalis

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 revisionAug 13, 2026
Entity authorityQ5962034 ↗
Source-derived summary

Hypsopygia rubidalis is a species of snout moth in the genus Hypsopygia. It was described by Michael Denis and Ignaz Schiffermüller in 1775. It is found from Spain and France to Russia.

The wingspan is about 25 mm.

Editorial summary

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

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—1775—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Hypsopygia, rubidalis 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

Datasets, specimens, observations and peer-reviewed methods provide the appropriate test for the technical claims summarized here. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5962034. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1775.

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