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

Endothenia pullana

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 revisionMay 15, 2026
Entity authorityQ13860284 ↗
Source-derived summary

Endothenia pullana, the woundwort marble, is a moth of the family Tortricidae. It was described by Adrian Hardy Haworth in 1811. It is found in north-western Europe, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. The habitat consists of marshy areas.

The wingspan is 10–14 mm. Adults are on wing from late May to July.

The larvae feed on Stachys palustris.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Endothenia pullana” is species of insect. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Endothenia, pullana and species, not as a finished interpretation.

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—1811—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Endothenia, pullana and species is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “species of insect” 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.

Evidence profile

The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 15, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q13860284. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1811.

Critical limits

Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. 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.

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 “Endothenia pullana”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Endothenia pullana primary sources, Endothenia pullana archive and Endothenia 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 “Endothenia pullana”?
  2. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
  3. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Endothenia pullana” 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.