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

Uranophora walkeri

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 revisionSep 16, 2026
Entity authorityQ13529053 ↗
Source-derived summary

Uranophora walkeri is a moth in the subfamily Arctiinae. It was described by Herbert Druce in 1889. It is found from Costa Rica and Panama to Peru.

It belongs to a mimicry complex that includes species in many other lepidopteran families, including Phostria mapetalis (Crambidae), Mapeta xanthomelas (Pyralidae), Pseudomennis bipennis (Geometridae), Mesene margaretta (Riodinidae), Oricia homalochroa (Notodontidae), and Pyromorpha synecha (Zygaenidae).

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Uranophora walkeri” as species of insect. 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—1889—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Uranophora, walkeri and species can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the science & nature register because the source frames it as species of insect. 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 Sep 16, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q13529053. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1889.

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