A systematic and synonymic list of the Pieridae of Western Palearctic butterflies hyperlinked to the original descriptions (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) Taymans Michel & Cuvelier Sylvain AWPL 2026(1): 1-38 — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18986091
The family Pieridae includes species whose pale or vivid coloration has long attracted the attention of both scientists and collectors. The genus Colias offers a striking example, comprising highly colourful species that are especially prized by butterfly enthusiasts.
Pieridae also includes groups of species whose identification can sometimes be very difficult (for example, within the Pontia daplidice/edusa complex), or even impossible without recourse to genetic analyses.
Phylogenetic studies have consequently led to the splitting of several well-established species into multiple previously unrecognized entities. A well-known example is the division of Leptidea sinapis into three distinct species, L. sinapis, L. juvernica, and L. reali (Dincă et al. 2011). Examination of the genitalia allows sinapis to be separated from juvernica and reali, but it is ineffective for distinguishing between the latter two.
Phylogenetic studies have also led to taxonomic revisions among species associated with the Macaronesian fauna. Owing to the geographical isolation of several populations on individual islands, divergences in their genetic characters have in some cases been considered sufficient to recognize them as distinct species. As a result, the genera Gonepteryx (including cleobule, palmae, and maderensis), Pieris (with wollastoni and cheiranthi), and Euchloe (with hesperidum, grancanariensis, and eversi) have each seen an increase in the number of recognized species.
Despite these advances, several species groups continue to present substantial taxonomic difficulties, and the status of some taxa remains uncertain, whether they should be regarded as distinct species, subspecies, or evolutionary significant units (ESUs). This uncertainty applies, for example, to taxa such as Gonepteryx eversi, Euchloe pechi, and Zegris meridionalis.
Finally, the Pieris napi/bryoniae/adalwinda/maura/segonzaci/balcana complex is treated in this synonymic list according to the conclusions of Dapporto et al. (2022). All these taxa, whose habitus can sometimes be very distinctive, are undoubtedly closely related, and some occur in sympatry or parapatry. Multivoltinism further complicates identification, as different seasonal forms may occur and can sometimes be very similar.
All these cases are discussed in detail in Taymans & Cuvelier (2025).
Regular updates to a comprehensive systematic and synonymic reference list are therefore essential. A dynamic, continuously maintained list offers clear advantages over fixed, paper-based publications, which cannot be revised once issued and may become outdated relatively quickly as new taxonomic insights emerge.
Toward a revised checklist of the Western Palearctic butterflies, hyperlinked to the original descriptions at species, genus and family level (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea)
Part IV: Rationale and framework for the Riodinidae and Lycaenidae (part I) Taymans Michel & Cuvelier Sylvain AWPL 2026(1): 39-43 — DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18985843
The present article seeks to clarify the classification adopted in the checklist for the family Riodinidae and for the subfamilies of the family Lycaenidae, with the exception of Polyommatinae, which will be addressed in a subsequent paper. Despite extensive research, the internal classification of this family remains partly unresolved. In particular, the rank and delimitation of the principal groups traditionally regarded as subfamilies have been interpreted in different ways by different authors, depending on the morphological or molecular evidence on which their conclusions are based.
Over the past decades, several phylogenetic studies have proposed different hypotheses regarding the relationships among these groups. Analyses based on morphological characters or molecular data have produced alternative arrangements of the principal clades and have sometimes attributed to them different taxonomic ranks, treating them either as subfamilies or as tribes within broader assemblages. Consequently, no single classification has yet achieved general consensus, and the placement and relationships of some groups remain uncertain.
Furthermore, some recent phylogenetic studies have delimited genera primarily on the basis of genetic data, sometimes without considering other criteria, which may lead to a certain degree of nomenclatural instability.
Online Journal of Western Palearctic Lepidoptera Editors-in-Chief: Michel Taymans & Sylvain Cuvelier
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)
ISSN 3041-6531 Archives of Western Palearctic Lepidoptera
.jpg)