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

Sacoproteus

genus of molluscs

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 revisionNov 24, 2023
Entity authorityQ60776115 ↗
Source-derived summary

Sacoproteus is a genus of sea slugs in the Limapontiidae family, described in 2018. It contains five species, of which four were newly described when the genus was erected, and one (Sacoproteus smaragdinus) was reassigned from its previous classification of Stiliger smaragdinus as the type species of the new genus. Most of the species are mimetic of toxic "sea-grape" algae in the genus Caulerpa.

Species

The species of the genus were found to closely mimic the appearance of different types of toxic algae that they feed on.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Sacoproteus” as genus of molluscs. 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—2018—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Sacoproteus, genus and molluscs can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the science & nature register because the source frames it as genus of molluscs. 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 Nov 24, 2023. The linked authority identifier is Q60776115. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2018.

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