Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The higher classification of butterflies (Lepidoptera): problems and prospects

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Insect Systematics & Evolution

Progress in understanding the higher classification of butterflies has not kept pace with increase in the number of described species. Important points of uncertainty or contention include, apart from ranking problems, monophyly of Papilionoidea plus Hesperioidea, their relationship with other Lepidoptera in general and the Hedyloidea in particular, the question of the sister group of the Pieridae (either Papilionidae, or Lycaenidae + Nymphalidae), and the division of families into subfamilies. Traditional groupings are discussed and compared with the results of a cladistic analysis using 103 characters and 74 species (59 butterflies and 15 moths). The cladistic analysis supports a number of currently held views about butterfly classification, such as monophyly of five major family groupings (Hesperiidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae, Lycaenidae and Nymphalidae) and suggests sister group relationships between Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea, and Pieridae and (Lycaenidae + Nymphalidae). Most traditional subfamilies, however, are not supported on the basis of the data set used but the Riodininae, which always appeared as a monophyletic, subordinate group within the Lycaenidae, are a notable exception. Further, the analysis suggests that, contrary to traditional ideas, the Parnassiinae, not Baroniinae, are sister to the remainder of the Papilionidae, Pseudopontiinae are internal to (Pierinae + Coliadinae), Dismorphiinae are sister to all other Pieridae, and that Liptena, Poritia and Miletus represent the closest relatives of the Riodininae. The data set is not well suited for an assessment of the position of the butterflies amongst other Lepidoptera. Nevertheless, of the moths used, Macrosoma (Hedylidae, Hedyloidea) and Urania (Uraniidae, Geometroidea) appear to be the closest relatives of the butterflies. With regard to the higher classification of the butterflies many problems thus remain, and several ways to tackle these are discussed. The need for some form of international co-operation between fieldworkers, comparative morphologists and molecular systematists is stressed.

Affiliations: 1: Department of Entomology, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands; 2: R. I. Vane-Wright, Biodiversity Division, Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK; 3: P. R. Ackery, Collections Management Division, Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Insect Systematics & Evolution — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation