Toward a revised checklist of the Western Palearctic butterflies, hyperlinked to the original descriptions at species, genus and family level (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea)
Part I: Rationale and framework for the Papilionidae.
Published online: 30.vi.2025.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15723397

Michel Taymans¹ | Sylvain Cuvelier²
0
¹ Clos du Moulin Royal 2 bte 02, B-6900 Marche-en-Famenne, Belgium. michel.taymans@hotmail.com
² Diamantstraat 4, B-8900 Ieper, Belgium. sylvain.cuvelier@telenet.be

Abstract
This article provides a comprehensive taxonomic reassessment of the Papilionidae family, focusing on the tribes Parnassiini and Zerynthiini, with particular emphasis on the genera Driopa and Allancastria and their associated nomenclatural issues.
Building upon recent morphological and molecular phylogenetic studies, we support the recognition of Driopa as a distinct genus within Parnassiini. The consistent structural differences in male genitalia not only distinguish Driopa from Parnassius sensu stricto, but also corroborate the genetic divergence revealed by phylogenetic analyses. The status of Driopa nebrodensis is examined in light of historical nomenclature, with nebrodensis (Turati, 1907) emerging as the valid name under the Principle of Priority and First Reviser rules. The complex case of Parnassius phoebus is revisited, with ICZN Opinion 2488 (2023) confirming the continued use of the name despite earlier misidentifications.
For Zerynthia cassandra, the article defends the validity of its name over Z. demnosia, the latter being unavailable under ICZN Article 12.
Finally, we maintain Allancastria as a valid genus based on distinctive morphological traits despite its genetic proximity to Zerynthia. Within this genus, Allancastria cerisyi is retained under its original name and authorship, following the earliest valid description and in accordance with ICZN criteria.
This work contributes to stabilising the taxonomy of Palearctic Papilionidae, integrating historical literature with modern phylogenetic and nomenclatural frameworks.

Key words
Taxonomy — Checklist — Papilionoidea — Papilionidae — Driopa — Driopa nebrodensis — Parnassius phoebus — Zerynthia cassandra — Allancastria — Allancastria cerisyi — Western Palearctic.

Introduction
In recent years, advances in genetic research have significantly reshaped our understanding of butterfly systematics.
The increasing availability of high-throughput sequencing technologies, including full genome sequencing, amplicon capture phylogenomics, and museomics, has provided unprecedented insights into evolutionary relationships, species boundaries, and hidden diversity within Lepidoptera. These tools have enabled researchers to re-evaluate long-standing taxonomic assumptions, often revealing cryptic species, redefined clades, and previously unrecognised lineages.
A growing number of publications integrating genomic data with morphology have questioned traditional genus- and species-level classifications that were historically based on limited morphological characters.
Given this context, it has already become necessary to revise and update the taxonomic Checklist for the Western Palearctic Butterflies (Taymans & Cuvelier 2025). The most recent version of this checklist, deposited on Zenodo on 24 January 2025, serves as a baseline for the present reassessment.
This article represents the first part of the revision, focusing specifically on the Papilionidae. Subsequent parts will address the other butterfly families and taxa of the region.
Building upon the existing Checklist, this initial instalment integrates recent molecular findings and morphological reassessments, with particular emphasis on the genera Driopa, Parnassius, and Allancastria. It also tackles several critical nomenclatural issues essential for ensuring the stability and accuracy of butterfly taxonomy.

Genus Driopa

Taxonomic context and evidence
Recent publications (Condamine et al. 2018; Korb 2020; Leraut P. 2016; Tian et al. 2023) on the biology, morphology and molecular phylogeny of the Parnassiini have provided clear evidence that this tribe is composed of several highly homogeneous species groups, which could justify the establishment of multiple distinct genera.
Surprisingly, many scientists continue to adhere to Staudinger's early 20th-century classification, which is based solely on wing patterns and still assigns all species to the single genus Parnassius.
Korb (2020) has expertly synthesised the various aspects of this issue and produced a compelling annotated checklist.
Among other distinguishing traits, species in the Driopa group (with Papilio mnemosyne Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species) display a male genitalia structure notably distinct from that of other groups, especially when compared to Parnassius s. str. (with Papilio apollo Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species).
The differences are as follows:

Conclusion
These morphological traits provide strong evidence for recognising Driopa as a distinct genus within the Parnassiini tribe.

References
Condamine F., Rolland J., Höhna S., Sperling F. & Sanmartín I. 2018. Testing the Role of the Red Queen and Court Jester as Drivers of the Macroevolution of Apollo Butterflies. — Systematic Biology 67(6): 940–964. doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy009

Korb S. 2020. An annotated checklist of the tribus Parnassiini sensu Korshunov of the Old World (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae) — Acta Biologica Sibirica 6: 59-86. doi.org/10.3897/abs.6.e53717

Leraut P. 2016. Papillons de jour d’Europe et des contrées voisines. Verrières-le-Buisson: NAP Editions. 1116 p.

Tian X., Mo S., Wang H. & Zhang P. 2023. Amplicon capture phylogenomics provides new insights into the phylogeny and evolution of alpine Parnassius butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Systematic Entomology 48(4): 571–584. doi.org/10.1111/syen.12591

Driopa nebrodensis (Turati, 1907)

Taxonomic context and evidence
Recent studies on molecular phylogeny have shown that populations of Parnassius mnemosyne from southwestern Europe, including the Pyrenees, southwestern Alps, and Italy, are genetically distinct from other European populations. Some authors (Bolotov et al. 2021; Lukhtanov & Zakharov 2023) have even suggested that these populations should be considered a distinct species.
However, the process of formally naming this taxon has been complicated by issues of taxonomic priority as, in the past, numerous names have been assigned to populations in the region. Several authors have described taxa from this area, leading to ambiguity as to which name should take precedence.
Below is a summary of potentially relevant taxa and a chronological overview of the authors' statements that may clarify the correct nomenclature.

Chronology of publications
1907
- Verity in: Rhop. Pal.: 97, pl. 23, fig. 5-6 [Kudrna (1983) considers that this page and plate was published on May 31, 1907] describes:
(a) “Parnassius mnemosyne ab. pyraenaica” from Pyrenées orientales, infrasubspecific taxon (not available) and homonym of Parnassius apollo pyraenaica Harcourt-Bath, 1896.
- Turati in: Nat. Sicil. 20(1-3): 15-16 [No specific date on this publication. However, since the last seven issues of volume 19 were published in 1907, it can be assumed that the first three issues of volume 20 were published after May 31, 1907 and are more recent than Verity's publication) describes:
(b) “Parnassius mnemosyne ab. nebrodensis” from Monti Nebrodi (Sicily), infrasubspecific (not available)
(c) “Parnassius mnemosyne ab. pyraenaica” from Hautes-Pyrénées, infrasubspecific (not available) and homonym of Parnassius apollo pyraenaica Harcourt-Bath, 1896.
1908
Fruhstorfer published two articles in two different journals (Int. entomol. Z. 2(3) and Entomol. Z. 22(3)) on the same date of April 18th 1908.
However, since the article in the first journal revises the taxa already assigned, we consider that it has priority over the second article.
- Fruhstorfer in: Int. entomol. Z. 2(3): 17-18 [dated April 18th, 1908] describes:
(d) “Parnassius mnemosyne ssp. dinianus” from Digne (available taxon).
(e) “Parnassius mnemosyne ssp. vernetanus” replacement name for Parnassius mnemosyne ab. pyraenaica Verity, 1907.
(f) “Parnassius mnemosyne ssp. turatii” replacement name for Parnassius mnemosyne ab. pyraenaica Turati, 1907.
(g) “Parnassius mnemosyne ssp. nebrodensis” with the following mention: “The subspecies mnemosyne nebrodensis Turati is, however, in complete safety, because Count Turati explicitly states in Nat. Sicil. 1908 p. 15: "e sembra sia la razza che rappresenti la specie in Sicilia," so that Turati's formula "ab. nova" reflects a purely individual and cautious interpretation, in place of which Staudinger's contemporaries would have put "var.".
- Fruhstorfer in: Entomol. Z. 22(3): 12 [dated April 18th, 1908] describes:
(h) “ Parnassius mnemosyne ssp. parmenides ” from Alpes-Maritimes (available taxon). ….
2018
- In: Condamine et al. (Syst. Biol. 67(6): 940-964): "The ancestor of Parnassius dispersed from Central Asia to the Himalaya-Tibet Plateau around the mid-Miocene (13.4 Ma, 10.5–16.6 Ma), followed by vicariance between the subgenus Parnassius and the ancestor of the other subgenera. Dispersal events to adjacent geographic regions and subsequent allopatric speciation are reconstructed within each subgenus, especially in Driopa.
2021
- Bolotov et al. (Ecologica Montenegrina 40: 140-163): "Recent multi-locus phylogenetic studies revealed that P. mnemosyne sensu lato represents a complex of cryptic species that contains P. mnemosyne s. str. and two additional species-level taxa, P. mnemosyne sp.2 from the Middle East and P. mnemosyne sp.3 from Southern Europe (Condamine 2018; Condamine et al. 2018)." The mnemosyne-complex is redefined as follows:
In 2021, Cotton et al. (Ecologica Montenegrina 43: 56-58):
" Under the First Reviser Principle we hereby assign priority to turatii Fruhstorfer, 1908 over the other names listed above in order to honour Conte Emilio Turati. Priority under the First Reviser Principle is applied to all the above names in order to avoid any possible future nomenclatural issues if one or more of the last four listed names are subsequently found to be conspecific with Parnassius turatii."
- "Bolotov et al. (2021) effectively synonymised all populations of the new species under Parnassius nebrodensis without any subspecies as per their Table 5. It is beyond the scope of this publication to determine the validity of the various populations at subspecies level, other than the necessity of reinstating the Sicilian subspecies, nebrodensis Rothschild, 1918, above. We leave the subspecific status of all other taxa listed in Table 5 of Bolotov et al. (2021) applicable to the species Parnassius turatii Fruhstorfer, 1908 to subsequent authors."
2023
- Lukhtanov & Zakharov (Insects 2023, 14, 942):
- " The butterfly genus Parnassius attracts the attention of numerous researchers. However, species and populations from Central and Western Asia remain understudied compared to taxa from Western Europe and East Asia. In our study, using the analysis of DNA barcodes and morphology (wing colour, male genitalia, and sphragis shape in females), we substantiate the species status for P. nubilosus stat. nov. from Turkmenistan and NE Iran. We demonstrate that the P. mnemosyne group includes three morphologically similar species, P. mnemosyne (Western Eurasia), P. turatii (southwestern Europe), and P. nubilosus, as well as P. ariadne (Altai)."

Conclusion
Clearly, the first reviser, within the meaning of article 24.2 of the Code, of the taxa already in use was Fruhstorfer, 1908. Int. entomol. Z. 2(3): 17-18. Following his interpretation, see [g] above, the taxa described by Verity and Turati in 1907 should be treated as varieties.
The first valid name is therefore 'nebrodensis' because 'pyrenaica' is a junior homonym of Parnassius apollo pyrenaica Harcourt-Bath, 1896. The decision by Bolotov et al. (2021) is therefore the most appropriate, whereas the approach taken by Cotton et al., 2021 is taxonomically not justified.
If this interpretation were to be rejected, then the following considerations would apply:
- the principle of priority would take effect, making 'dinianus' the earliest available name.
- 'vernetanus' could also be considered, as it is the replacement name for the first-described taxon 'Parnassius mnemosyne ab. pyraenaica Verity, 1907'
- ‘turatii’ should be excluded, as it was published later than all aforementioned names.

References
Bolotov I., Gofarov M., Gorbach V., Kolosova Y., Zheludkova A., Kondarov A. & Spitsyn V.. 2021. Parnassius nebrodensis : A threatened but neglected Apollo Butterfly species from Southern Europe (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). — Ecologica Montenegrina 40: 140-163. doi.org/10.37828/em.2021.40.13

Condamine F., Rolland J., Höhna S., Sperling F. & Sanmartín I. 2018. Testing the Role of the Red Queen and Court Jester as Drivers of the Macroevolution of Apollo Butterflies. — Systematic Biology 67(6) : 940-964, fig. doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy009

Cotton A., Bolotov I., Gofarov M., Gorbach V., Kolosova Y., Zheludkova A., Kondarov A. & Spitsyn V.. 2021. The correct name for the South Western European species recently separated from Parnassius mnemosyne (Linnaeus, 1758) (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). — Ecologica Montenegrina 43: 56-58. doi.org/10.37828/em.2021.43.8

Fruhstorfer H. 1908. Neue Parnassius-Rassen. — Entomologische Zeitschrift 22(3): 12. (url)

Fruhstorfer H. 1908. Neue Parnassier aus der mnemosyne-Gruppe. — Internationale entomologische Zeitschrift 2(3): 17-18. (url)

Lukhtanov V. & Zakharov E. 2023. Taxonomic Structure and Wing Pattern Evolution in the Parnassius mnemosyne Species Complex (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). — Insects 14(12), 942: 1-24. doi.org/10.3390/insects14120942

Turati E. 1907. Nuove forme di Lepidotteri. — Il Naturalista siciliano, giornale di scienze naturali 20(1-3): 1-48. (url)

Verity R. 1905-1911. Rhopalocera Palearctica, iconograhie et description des papillons diurnes de la région Paléarctique (Papilionidae et Pieridae).. — Florence [Italy]: R. Verity. [Vol. 1 - texte]: i-lxxxvi, 1-368, [Vol. 2 - planches]: i-xii, pl. 1-86. (note on publication dates: Kudrna, 1983 (url): 1905: 1-36, pl. 1-7 ; 1906: 37-68, pl. 8-9, 11-13, 15, 21 ; 1907: 69-124, pl. 10, 14, 16-20, 22-23, 26, 41, 43-44 ; 1908: 125-220, pl. 27-34, 40, 42, 45-49 ; 1909: 221-284, pl. 24, 35-39, 48 ; 1911: i-lxxxvi, 285-368, pl. 25, 50-72). (url not available)

Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793)

Taxonomic context and evidence
The name Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793) has been used for decades to refer to the Parnassius species whose distribution in Europe is limited to the Alps and the Urals (it is also present in Asia and North America).
Papilio phoebus was briefly described in 1793 by Fabricius based on a watercolour by William Jones depicting a butterfly from Drury’s collection, originating from Siberia.
Hanus & Theye (2010) gained access to this original watercolour painted by Jones and determined that the specimen designated as P. phoebus was actually Parnassius ariadne (Lederer, 1853).
The butterfly had been collected in western Altai in 1771 during the Pallas expedition in Siberia.
They concluded that the Alpine species Parnassius phoebus, cited by all authors since 1793, had been misidentified and should instead be referred to by the oldest available name for this taxon, namely Parnassius corybas Waldheim, 1823.
The consequences of this publication on Parnassius nomenclature were tumultuous.
Ultimately, in the interest of stability and to preserve the traditionally used names, a neotype was designated by Lukhtanov et al. (2019).
In 2023, ICZN Opinion 2488 validated this procedure. For over a decade, supporters of Hanus & Theye’s thesis and defenders of the traditional nomenclature fiercely debated the issue, leaving numerous references in the literature to Hanus & Theye’s conclusions.

Conclusion
The name Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793) is retained for the revised checklist.

References
Hanus J. & Theye M-L. 2010. Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793), a misidentified species (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). – Nachrichten des Entomologischen Vereins Apollo, N. F. 31(1/2): 71–84. (url)

ICZN. 2023 Opinion 2488 (Case 3767) – Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793 (currently Parnassius phoebus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): usage conserved for the specific name and that of Doritis ariadne Lederer, 1853 (currently Parnassius ariadne) by the designation of a neotype. – Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 80: 71-73. doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v80.a017

Lukhtanov V., Pelham J., Cotton A. & Calhoun J. 2019. Case 3767 – Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793 (currently Parnassius phoebus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of prevailing usage of the specific name and that of Doritis ariadne Lederer, 1853 (currently Parnassius ariadne) by the designation of a neotype. – Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 76: 14-22. doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v76.a007

Zerynthia cassandra (Geyer, [1828])

Taxonomic context and evidence
Dapporto (2010) studied European Zerynthia butterflies of the polyxena-group using morphological (male genitalia) and genetic characteristics. His results support the existence of two sister species in Europe. To name the species restricted to Italy south of the Po River, Dapporto reinstated the name Zerynthia cassandra (Geyer, [1828]), stat. rev. In the same article, he designated a neotype: “Italy: Prato: San Giorgio a Colonia: 20.V.2009, Leonardo Dapporto leg.”, which is deposited in the Museo di Storia Naturale dell’Università di Firenze ‘La Specola’.
Jutzeler (2024) reaffirmed the existence of a distinct Zerynthia species in Italy but challenged the name assigned by Dapporto. Through a detailed historical analysis, he argued that the taxon demnosia Boisduval, 1828 is the correct name for the Italian species, taking priority over cassandra Geyer, [1828], which, in his view, should be restricted to designate individual and localised forms of Zerynthia within the polyxena-group exhibiting pronounced pattern variation.
While acknowledging the thoroughness of Jutzeler’s investigation, it is important to note that the name demnosia Boisduval, 1828 is not valid under Article 12 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). According to this article, any name published before 1831 must be accompanied by a description, a definition or an indication, such as a bibliographic reference or a previously published diagnosis, in order to be considered available. In Boisduval’s original 1828 publication of demnosia, no description was provided, only a vague origin: “Italie”. This mention is insufficient for taxonomic differentiation, as two Zerynthia species are found in Italy, one occurring north of the Po and the other south of it.
Although Jutzeler’s investigation demonstrates that the name demnosia would be taxonomically appropriate, it cannot be used, as it is rendered unavailable under Article 12 of the Code.

Conclusion
To preserve nomenclatural stability, the name Zerynthia cassandra (Geyer, [1828]) is retained for the revised checklist.

References
Dapporto L. 2010. Speciation in Mediterranean refugia and post-glacial expansion of Zerynthia polyxena (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). – Journal of Zoological Systemics and Evolutionary Research 48(3): 229–237. doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2009.00550.x

Jutzeler D. 2024. Zerynthia cassandra (Geyer, 1828) or Zerynthia demnosia (Boisduval, 1828)? Which one is the correct name according to the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature? – Entomologica romanica 28: 12-21. (url)

Genus Allancastria Bryk, 1934

Taxonomic context and evidence
For decades, the genus Allancastria has been used to designate several species of the tribe Zerynthiini, which share a distinctive and characteristic habitus and genital structure.
With the advent of genetic studies on butterflies, researchers (Nazari & Sperling 2007; Nazari et al. 2007) realised that, while Allancastria remains a homogeneous group, it is relatively close to Zerynthia.
As a result, they decided to relegate Allancastria to a subgeneric rank: Zerynthia (Allancastria).

Conclusion
For the sake of stability and considering the distinct differences in their genital structure, the genus Allancastria has been retained in the checklist.

References
Nazari V. & Sperling F. 2007. Mitochondrial DNA divergence and phylogeography in western Palaearctic Parnassiinae (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae): How many species are there? – Insect Systematics & Evolution, 38(2), 121–138. doi.org/10.1163/187631207788783996

Nazari V., Zakharov E. & Sperling F. 2007. Phylogeny, historical biogeography, and taxonomic ranking of Parnassiinae (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae) based on morphology and seven genes. – Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42(1): 131–156. doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2006.06.022

Allancastria cerisyi (Godart, 1823)

Taxonomic context and evidence
The nomenclatural problem involves uncertainties regarding the original species description, the exact date of its publication, and the valid species name.

Examples of discordance
Higgins 1970. A field guide to the Butterflies of Britain and Europe (ed. 1): 39. « Allancastria cerisyi Godart, 1822. ».
De Prins & Iversen 1996. Papilionidae. In: Karsholt & Razowski, The Lepidoptera of Europe, a distributional checklist: 203. « Zerynthia (Allancastria) cerisy (Godart, 1824).
Tolman 1997. Collins field guide – Butterflies of Britain & Europe (ed. 1): 28. « Zerynthia cerisy Godart, 1824. ».
Tshikolovets 2011. Butterflies of Europe & the Mediterranean area: 88. « Zerynthia cerisyi (Godart, [1824]) Thais cerisyi Godart, [1824]. Encycl. Méth. 9(2): 812, pl. 2 ».
Wiemers et al. 2018. An updated checklist of the European Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea). ZooKeys 811: 17. « Zerynthia cerisy (Godart, [1824]) ».
Dapporto et al. 2022. The Atlas of mitochondrial genetic diversity for Western Palearctic butterflies. Global Ecology and Biogeography 31 : vii. « Zerynthia cerisy (Godart, 1824) ».

Publication of the original description
Two publications are regularly cited:
Godart, 1822 or 1823 or 1824 or [1824]. Description de quelques espèces nouvelles de lépidoptères diurnes. Mém. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 234-235, pl. 20, fig. 3-4. « THAIS CERISY. [vernacular french name] THAIS cerisyi. (planche XX, fig. 3 et 4.) Th. Alis flavescentibus : anticis utrinquè fasciis septem transversis nigris, posticis sex coccineis … un seul exemplaire … communiqué par M. Lefébure de Cerisy, correspondant de la Société Linnéenne de Toulon. »
and Godart, [1824]. Espèces additionnelles. In: Latreille, Encycl. Méth. Entomol. 9(suppl.): 812-813. « THAIS Cérisy. [vernacular french name] THAIS Cerisy. … Thais Cerisy. Godart, Mém. de la Société Linn. de Paris, tome 2. Pl. 2 des lépid. ».

The first publication is not dated but it is most certainly prior to the second because the latter refers to the first. This publication is available on the internet: - https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bd6t5397242f - https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/159028#page/152/mode/1up

But Cowan (1970. Annotationes rhopalocerologicae: 17) wrote: «… it was been found that volume 2 of Mém. Soc. Linn. Paris was never published. Only a proof copy is known, wich contains no plates… The species concerned were described by Godart in July 1824, Encycl. Méth. (Zool.)9(2), and that is the correct reference ».

Koçak (1981. Critical check-list of European Papilionoidea (Lepidoptera). Priamus 1(2): 49-50) answered: « The first available description of Thais cerisyi was made by Godart in 1822 (Mém. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 234,pl. 20,figs. 3-4). This journal and Godart’s work have been seen by the author and Dr. G. Bernardi together in the Main Library of National Museum, Natural History in Paris. ».

According to Koçak‘s remark (1981) and that a original copy of this publication is also available at the « Bibliothèque Nationale de France », the first publication is valid accordance to the dispositions of the ICZN Code.

Date of publication
The first pages of Mém. Soc. Linn. Paris 2 relate the « Procès-Verbal de la séance publique du 28 décembre 1822 ». It is therefore likely that the publication date is 1823 but without certainty. (cf. Delmas, 2015. Bibliographie des Lépidoptères de France 1 (index par auteur): 175).

Name species
In the two publications which concern us, Godart first takes the vernacular name of the species in French (not valid according to the ICZN Code), then, at the beginning of the description, he takes the name in ist Latinised form. The correct name is therefore: «Thais cerisyi ».

Conclusion
The name Allancastria cerisyi (Godart, 1823) is retained for the revised checklist.

References
Cowan C. 1970. Annotationes rhopalocerologicae. – Clunbury Press, Berkhamsted, Herts, England, 70 p.

Dapporto L., Menchetti M., Vodă R., Corbella C., Cuvelier S., Djemadi I., Gascoigne-Pees M., Hinojosa J., Lam N., Serracanta M., Talavera G., Dincă V. & Vila. R. 2022. The Atlas of mitochondrial genetic diversity for Western Palearctic butterflies. – Global Ecology and Biogeography. 00, 1–7. doi.org/10.1111/geb.13579

De Prins W. & Iversen F. 1996. Papilionidae. In: Karsholt O. & Razowski J. 1996. The Lepidoptera of Europe, a distributional checklist. – Apollo Books, Stenstrupp, 380 p.

Delmas S. 2015. Bibliographie des Lépidoptères de France (1593-2010). 1. Index par auteur. Alexanor et Oreina édits., Paris et Thoury-Férottes. 384 p.

Godart J. 1823. Description de quelques espèces nouvelles de lépidoptères diurnes. – Mémoires de la Société Linnéenne de Paris 2: 226-243. (url)

Godart J. [1824]. Pap. - Papillon. Espèces additionnelles. – In: Latreille, Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle. Entomologie, ou Histoire naturelle des crustacés, des arachnides et des insectes. Tome neuvième, Part 2, Supplément. Paris: Mme veuve Agasse (Ed.). pp. 809-828. (note on publication dates: Heppner, 1982 (url)). (url)

Higgins L. 1970. A field guide to the Butterflies of Britain and Europe (1st ed.). – Collins, London, 380 p.

Koçak 1981. Critical Check-list of European Papilionoidea (Lepidoptera). – Priamus 1(2): 46-90.

Tolman T. 1997. Collins field guide. Butterflies of Britain & Europe (1st ed.). – HarperCollins Publishers, London, 320 p.

Tshikolovets V. 2011. Butterflies of Europe & the Mediterranean area. – Tshikolovets Publications, Pardubice, Czech Republic, 544 p.

Wiemers M., Balletto E., Dincă V., Fric Z., Lamas G., Lukhtanov V., Munguira M., van Swaay C., Vila R., Vliegenthart A., Wahlberg N. & Verovnik R. 2018. An updated checklist of the European Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea). – ZooKeys 811: 9-45. doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.811.28712

Author contribution
Michel Taymans: conceptualisation, analysis, visualisation, writing - original draft, writing – review and editing.
Sylvain Cuvelier: analysis, validation, visualisation, writing – review and editing.

Acknowledgements
We are sincerely grateful to Theo Garrevoet for his careful and thorough review of the final draft.