Natural History Review
Dublin: Hodges & Smith, 1854-1865.
The Natural History Review was a short-lived, quarterly journal devoted to natural history. It was published in Dublin and London between 1854 and 1865.
The Natural History Review included the transactions of the Belfast Natural History and Philosophical Society, Cork Cuvierian Society, Dublin Natural History Society, Dublin University Zoological Association, and the Literary and Scientific Institution of Kilkenny, as authorised...It was founded by Edward Perceval Wright who was also the editor.
The parts are:
Vols 1-4, 1854–57; title concludes: ...by the Councils of these Societies (Geological Society of Dublin later added to list)
This was continued as
Natural History Review, and quarterly journal of science. Edited by Edward Percival Wright, William Henry Harvey, Joseph Reay Greene, Samuel Haughton and Alexander Henry Haliday London, Vols 5-7, 1858-60.
In turn continued as
Natural History Review: a quarterly journal of biological science. Edited by George Busk, William Benjamin Carpenter, Frederick Currey et al., London, Vols 1-5, 1861–65; no more published.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Natural History Review” as dublin: Hodges & Smith, 1854-1865. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as dublin: Hodges & Smith, 1854-1865. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 13, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q1969970. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1854, 1865, 1858 and 1861.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. 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
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Natural History Review”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Natural History Review primary sources, Natural History Review archive and Natural 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 “Natural History Review”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Natural History Review” 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.