Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera

Creating Arhopala and other lycaenid pages

Hello,

I have created the page for Arhopala overdijkinki -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arhopala_overdijkinki

If you want me to create more pages, please write here. Mitsingh (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Also could anybody here try to get this page and article as fast as possible? Mitsingh (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Another page -

Parthenos aspila - Wikipedia Mitsingh (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Another one - Parthenos tigrina - Wikipedia Mitsingh (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Yet another - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arhopala_aurelia Mitsingh (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Arhopala aurelia - Wikipedia Mitsingh (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Anther one created with the help of Vijsingh-

Arhopala trogon Mitsingh (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Another one - Arhopala camdana - Wikipedia Mitsingh (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Another one - Arhopala norda - Wikipedia Mitsingh (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Arhopala avatha - Wikipedia This one as well Mitsingh (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been adding taxonbars to these articles. You could add after {{reflist}}. Sometimes the taxonbar can pick up a Wikidata qid automatically, but if it doesn't an empty taxonbar with get added to a category which will get other editors to look at the page.

I also note that Lepindex/Global Lepidoptera Index/CoL treat Arhopala norda as a subspecies of Arhopala major.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

But all of the references I used said norda was a seperate species.

I even provided a differentiation between the two in the article. Mitsingh (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying it shouldn't be recognised as a species, just that it isn't always treated that way. I used slashes between the three sources because they are not independent. CoL follows the GLI and the GLI is derived from Lepindex with only some groups updated. The Evans revision of oriental Arhopala also treated them as subspecies if I'm reading it correctly.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Another one - Arhopala milleri - Wikipedia Mitsingh (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Another one - Arhopala stinga - Wikipedia Mitsingh (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Another one- Arhopala wildeyana Mitsingh (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Another one - Arhopala zeta - Wikipedia Mitsingh (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Another one - Arhopala alkisthenes - Wikipedia Mitsingh (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Another two - Arhopala hellada

Arhopala varro Mitsingh (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

On the existence of Arhopala pseudocentaurus

In the Wikipedia page for Arhopala, a species, Arhopala pseudocentaurus is listed. No actual reference to this is listed and the only place I could find it - Arhopala says that it is a synonym of Arhopala centaurus centaurus. Should this entry be removed? Mitsingh (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The source used for the the list at Arhopala recognises Arhopala pseudocentaurus as a species in the centaurus group (see Brower et al 2008 on TOL).

However, Arhopala centaurus pseudocentaurus is recognised as a subspecies of Arhopala centaurus at Lepindex and the Global Lepidoptera Index. The funet.fi site has a number of Arhopala pseudocentaurus xxxx subspecies as synonyms of Arhopala centaurus xxxx subspecies so the listing of Arhopala pseudocentaurus as a synonym of Arhopala centaurus centaurus rather than synonym of Arhopala centaurus is a bit strange.

Markku Savela, the author of the funet.fi site, is a Finnish lepidopterist, but he says his site shouldn't be used as a taxonomic reference (see here). Respecting his wishes, I don't think we should use his site as the source for the list at Arhopala. The options seem to be to continue to use the TOL (Brower et al, 2008) source with the subgroups, perhaps with a footnote on Arhopala pseudocentaurus saying it is not always recognised as a species (I think thhis is better than removing it, so the list still follows the single source) or to replace the list with just the species (say following GLI) without the species groups.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

So should I remove the places I have referenced his site on the pages?

I'll remove it for now. Mitsingh (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it fine to reference his site, but not for specific taxonomic opinions (e.g. species v subspecies). I quote the part I think is relevant: "The status or ranking of a specific taxon in this site should not be referenced. This site does not contain orignal taxonomic information or opinions." I think it is reasonable to use the site as a secondary source for the general statements about butterflies and their distributions.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know! Mitsingh (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a 2008 phylogenetic study on Arhopala that includes Arhopala pseudocentaurus (Megens et al, 2008). The number of species is limited, but it recovers three members of the centaurus group as a clade with Arhopala pseudocentaurus sister to Arhopala centaurus plus Arhopala madytus. This is inconsistent with Arhopala pseudocentaurus being a synonym of Arhopala centaurus unless Arhopala madytus is also synonymised. Marku Savela recognises the latter as a species. While 2008 is some time ago, there doesn't appear much recent work that might contradict this study. Arhopala pseudocentaurus is included in the list of Brower et al (2008) so should probably be included in the article.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Questionable Arhopala species

These are a list of questionable Arhopala species that I am unable to find enough places that accept its rank as species (like Wikispecies, Funet, etc.)-

Note-

I have created the page Arhopala siabra though it is considered as a subspecies by Wikispecies, it is considered as a species by Funet.

1. Arhopala ander (recognised by Wikispecies, not by Funet)
2. Arhopala pseudocentaurus (recognised by neither Wikispecies nor Funet)
3. Arhopala aruana (recognised by Wikispecies, not by Funet)
4. Arhopala ralanda (recognised by neither Wikispecies, nor Funet)
5. Arhopala canaraica (recognised by neither Wikispecies, nor Funet)
6. Arhopala ellisi (recognised by neither Wikispecies, nor Funet)
7. Arhopala mindanensis (recognised by neither Wikispecies, nor Funet)
8. Arhopala mizunumai (recognised by neither Wikispecies, nor Funet)
9. Arhopala nakamotoi (recognised by neither Wikispecies, nor Funet)
10. Arhopala pabihira (i can't seem to find it anywhere)
11. Arhopala schroederi (recognised by neither Wikispecies, nor Funet)

I have these pages and Arhopala tephlis remaining.

Interestingly, another page I have remaining to create, Arhopala trionoea, is either misspelled or synonymised with Arhopala trionaea in the WP page for Arhopala. Wikispecies accepts trionoea.

How many of these pages should I create? Mitsingh (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

From that list, the Global Lepidoptera Index recognises:

• Arhopala canaraica (Moore, 1884)
• Arhopala ellisi Evans, 1914
• Arhopala mindanensis Bethune-Baker, 1903
• Arhopala mizunumai (Hayashi, 1978)
• Arhopala nakamotoi (Hayashi, 1978)

It doesn't have the others as species. Other comments:

• See my comment on Arhopala pseudocentaurus in the section above, where it was included in a phylogenetic study and would make A. centaurus paraphyletic if included as a subspecies. It's a subspecies in Lepindex and GLI.
• Lepindex and GLI have siabra as subspecies Arhopala baluensis siabra Corbet, 1941.
• Lepindex and GLI have ralanda and its subspecies in Evans 1957 all as subspecies of A. kounga.
• Lepindex and GLI have Arhopala trionaea Semper, 1890. There is a comment on the spelling in Lepindex: "The name of this taxon is spelt *trionoea* in Bridges' Catalogue of Lycaenidae & Riodinidae. (A. Giusti 13/01/2004)".

As a general comment, there are so many species without articles, I'd suggest concentrating on those where species acceptance is clear.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jts1882 I have noticed that none of the Baeotis species have a taxonomy template- could you help me with this? Mitsingh (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I've created the taxonomy template {{Taxonomy/Baeotis}} for Baeotis and converted the taxobox. The species list is another where opinions differ. The GLI and funet agree on about half of them.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

On Graphium albociliatis

Graphium albociliatis is listed as various synonyms in various places-

1. In List of butterflies of India (Papilionidae), Graphium albociliates is mentioned
2. In Graphium evemon and List of butterflies of Indochina, it is listed as a subspecies, Graphium evemon albociliatis. Wikispecies and GBIF agree with the same.
3. In Markku Savvela, Graphium evemon albociliatis (Fruhstorfer, 1901) is mentioned, but so is Graphium albociliatus as an "Unmatched external taxon" from another website, Yutaka Inayoshi.
4. In Adams Miles Cottons paper, he noted that Hans Fruhstorfer, the person who described this taxon, had incorrectly used the spelling albociliatis as the heading when instead the correct spelling should be albociliatus, which he had used in the remainder of his paper. He listed it as a subspecies of evemon.
5. In this paper on the revision of the Arisbe eurypylus group, it is mentioned that albociliatus is a separate species as is listed as Arisbe albociliatus. (=Graphium albociliatus)
6. In the Global Lepidoptera Index, it is listed as a subspecies of evemon.

Which one of these synonyms should be used on Wikipedia? Mitsingh (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

On #6, please note that you have linked the Global Lepidoptera Names Index, which is the digitised version of the original Lepindex (on index cards). The confusingly named Global Lepidoptera Index is the successor database, which recognises the subspecies Graphium evemon albociliatus (Fruhstorfer, 1901) following Lepindex. The problem with the GLI is that only some taxa are getting actively updated, due to the scale of the project (see description). There are three categories: taxa with significantly updates, taxa not being updated because another database is covering them, and those not being updated due to lack of resources. Butterflies are in the middle category, not being updated because there is an alternative project covering Papilionidae and Pieridae at GloBIS (GART) - Global Butterfly Information System.

Unfortunately the link for the GloBIS (GART) website is dead and the Berlin Natural History Museum also still uses the dead link. It is partially available at archive.org, where it does not seem to recognise Graphium albociliatus as a species. Arisbe is treated as a subgenus, but there is no albociliatus or albociliatis. So I assume it has it as a subspecies of Graphium emonon, although the species page hasn't been archived. There is a version of GloBIS (GART) at Checklistbank, which has Papilio evemon albociliatis Fruhstorfer, 1901 as a synonym of Graphium evemon (Boisduval, 1836). The record is dated Sept 2013.

Page & Treadaway (2014) recognise the species as Arisbe albociliatus using the -us suffix, which is the correct spelling according to Cotton (2016). GLI/Lepindex also use that spelling. Cotton (2016) acknowledges the species proposal but continues to treat it as a subspecies pending an "upcoming DNA analysis".

Based on the sources available, I think Wikipedia should treat it as Graphium evemon albociliatus. There is a primary source for the species proposals (Page & Treadaway, 2014) and a secondary source considering the proposal (Cotton, 2016) continues to treat it as a subspecies, as does Markku Savvela. None of the databases treat it as a species, but I don't think any of the relevant records have been updated since 2013. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Heliothis, Heliocheilus and Masalia.

Hi, I came across the above genera when trying to add references to Heliothis uncta. I noticed that the Masalia species were moved to under Heliothis, but they don't show up in the CoL. The LepIndex in the taxonbar told me they were under "Heliocheilus" instead, and searching species under that in the CoL gave me the expected results. Is it necessary to move those articles to Heliocheilus instead? (i.e. Heliocheilus uncta). Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Possibly related: https://idtools.org/id/lepintercept/Pogue_2013_Chloridea.pdf ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

None of the articles seem to be well sourced and there doesn't seem to be a database covering these groups that has been updated recently. CoL follows the Global Lepidoptera Index (GLI) which is a partially updated version of the digitised Lepindex. Heliothinae are not among the groups that have been updated. It seems we have several conflicting schemes.

• The one in Heliothis, where Masalia is included in Heliothis.
• The one followed by Lepindex/GLI where Heliocheilus includes Masalia species. This is supported by the Pogue (2013).
• The one in Markku Savela's site where Masalia is treated as the Masalia group in Timora.

Not sure what to do. I tend to follow CoL/GLI/Lepindex unless there is another database that uses more up to date information.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Maybe we could just model Masalia similar to Timora? As in add a line saying something along the lines of "Some authors consider it to be...", citing Pogue, along with a mention in the Helio articles. Still not sure what to do with the species articles though. Maybe Heliocheilus, like Fibiger and Pogue? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon

Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is a $100 prize for most nature articles destubbed or improved. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for your project, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)