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

Upper Laos caecilian

species of amphibian

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 revisionSep 25, 2026
Entity authorityQ595761 ↗
Source-derived summary

The Upper Laos caecilian (Ichthyophis laosensis) is a species of amphibian in the family Ichthyophiidae. It is endemic to Laos and only known from a single specimen (holotype) collected from the imprecise type locality, "Upper Laos". Presumably a tropical moist forest species, nothing definite is known about its habitat or ecology.

Editorial summary

“Upper Laos caecilian” enters the record as species of amphibian. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Upper, Laos and caecilian can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA sound reference starting point where classification, measurement and the date of the underlying evidence remain visible. The current 51-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Upper, Laos and caecilian.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Upper Laos caecilian” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Upper, Laos and caecilian provides the most credible route into that argument.

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 Sep 25, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q595761. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

Scientific names, classifications and consensus can change while older terminology persists in catalogues and historical literature. 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 “Upper Laos caecilian”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Upper Laos caecilian primary sources, Upper Laos caecilian archive and Upper 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 “Upper Laos caecilian”?
  2. Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
  3. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Upper Laos caecilian” 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.