Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to Content
LogoLogoLogoLogoLogoLogo
LogoLogoLogoLogoLogoLogo
Browse Our Titles
Email this content

Share link with colleague or librarian


You can email a link to this page to a colleague or librarian:
Email this content
or copy the link directly:
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.
Link copied successfully

Save
Email this content

Share link with colleague or librarian


You can email a link to this page to a colleague or librarian:
Email this content
or copy the link directly:
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.
Link copied successfully

Save

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

In:Insect Systematics & Evolution
Authors:
R.I. Vane-WrightR. I. Vane-Wright, Biodiversity Division, Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK

Search for other papers by R.I. Vane-Wright in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
,
R. De JongDepartment of Entomology, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by R. De Jong in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
, and
P.R. AckeryP. R. Ackery, Collections Management Division, Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK

Search for other papers by P.R. Ackery in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
Online Publication Date:
01 Jan 1996

Abstract

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.

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Personal login

Log in with your brill.com account

Login with brill.com account
Title:
The higher classification of butterflies (Lepidoptera): problems and prospects
Article Type:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/187631296X00205
Language:
English
Pages:
65–101
In:
Insect Systematics & Evolution
In:
Volume 27: Issue 1
Publisher:
Brill
E-ISSN:
1876-312X
Print ISSN:
1399-560X
Subjects:
Entomology,Biology
All TimePast 365 daysPast 30 Days
Abstract Views219647361
Full Text Views2833411
PDF Views & Downloads138230

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

In:Insect Systematics & Evolution
Authors:
R.I. Vane-WrightR. I. Vane-Wright, Biodiversity Division, Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK

Search for other papers by R.I. Vane-Wright in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
R. De JongDepartment of Entomology, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by R. De Jong in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
P.R. AckeryP. R. Ackery, Collections Management Division, Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK

Search for other papers by P.R. Ackery in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
View MoreView Less
Online Publication Date:
01 Jan 1996
Download CitationGet Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€35.00

Abstract

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.

Title:
The higher classification of butterflies (Lepidoptera): problems and prospects
Article Type:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/187631296X00205
Language:
English
Pages:
65–101
In:
Insect Systematics & Evolution
In:
Volume 27: Issue 1
Publisher:
Brill
E-ISSN:
1876-312X
Print ISSN:
1399-560X
Subjects:
Entomology,Biology

Content Metrics

All TimePast 365 daysPast 30 Days
Abstract Views219647361
Full Text Views2833411
PDF Views & Downloads138230
Powered by PubFactory
Close
Edit Annotation

Character limit500/500

@!

Character limit500/500


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp