Diacrisia
genus of insects
Diacrisia is a genus of tiger moths in the family Erebidae. The genus was erected by Jacob Hübner in 1819. Its species can be found in Europe and Asia.
The species of the genera Rhyparia and Rhyparioides were placed in Diacrisia as a result of phylogenetic research published by Rönkä et al. in 2016.
Species
Diacrisia amurensis (Bremer, 1861)
Diacrisia aurapsa Swinhoe, 1905
Diacrisia echo Rothschild, 1910
Diacrisia irene Butler, 1881
Diacrisia metelkana (Lederer, 1861)
Diacrisia nebulosa (Butler, 1877)
Diacrisia porthesioides Rothschild, 1910
Diacrisia purpurata (Linnaeus, 1758) Purple Tiger
Diacrisia sannio (Linnaeus, 1758) Clouded Buff
Diacrisia subvaria (Walker, 1855)
For Diacrisia sublutea see name on BOLD database, may be unpublished BOLD
For Diacrisia aspersa (Mabille, 1878) (i.e. per Hampson, 1901 see Detoulgoetia virginalis (Butler, 1878) with junior synonym Spilosoma aspersa Mabille, 1878)
References
External links
Pitkin, Brian & Jenkins, Paul. "Search results Family: Arctiidae". Butterflies and Moths of the World. Natural History Museum, London.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Diacrisia” is genus of insects. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Diacrisia, genus and insects, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “genus of insects” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 10, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q3006513. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1819, 2016, 1861 and 1905.
Scientific names, classifications and consensus can change while older terminology persists in catalogues and historical literature. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. 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.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Diacrisia”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Diacrisia primary sources, Diacrisia archive and Diacrisia research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Diacrisia”?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
- Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Diacrisia” 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.