Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera

Proposal to create unified list of the butterflies of India

The list of the butterflies of India is divided into 14 pages-

• List of butterflies of India
• List of butterflies of India (Papilionidae)
• List of butterflies of India (Hesperiidae)
• List of butterflies of India (Hesperiinae)
• List of butterflies of India (Coeliadinae)
• List of butterflies of India (Pyrginae)
• List of butterflies of India (Pieridae)
• List of butterflies of India (Riodinidae)
• List of butterflies of India (Lycaenidae)
• List of butterflies of India (Nymphalidae)
• List of butterflies of India (Danainae)
• List of butterflies of India (Morphinae)
• List of butterflies of India (Satyrinae)
• List of butterflies of India (Limenitidinae)

I propose that we create a single list for the butterflies of India, as these lists are incomplete and outdated.

Moreover, with the publication of A Synoptic Catalogue of the Butterflies of India, Edition 2, we have a single complete source of the butterflies of India. Mitsingh (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The page List of birds of India, which has almost the same number of species listed, can fit into one single page. Mitsingh (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. One sourced page with someone willing to update it is better than 14 out-of-date articles with no one maintaining them.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Will be starting today, thanks! Mitsingh (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jts1882 I have made the change. Could you put a deletion nomination on all the other pages (I don't know how to)? Mitsingh (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mitsingh and Jts1882: I made the suggestion on my talk page, in response to a question, to change those other pages to redirects. That way, if there are any links to those pages, they will still work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirects are definitely the way to go. They can link to the appropriate sections so any links to redirects will provide the same information as the separate articles (but updated).  —  Jts1882 | talk  18:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

E.g. this edit changes the List of butterflies of India (Hesperiidae) article to a redirect to the appropriate section in List_of_butterflies_of_India.  —  Jts1882 | talk  18:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Could we do something like that for the List of butterflies of North America as well? This is even smaller than the India list, with <900 species. Checklist of North American butterflies 2.6 - North American Butterfly Association is a reliable source. Mitsingh (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Merge to WikiProject Insects?

Hi! I propose converting WikiProjects Lepidoptera (and Beetles) into task forces of WikiProject Insects (just like Ants and Hymenoptera are). My rationale is that having both {{WikiProject Lepidoptera}} (or {{WikiProject Beetles}}) and {{WikiProject Insects}} on one talk page would be redundant, and WP Insects is supposed to document ALL types of insects. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. (For reference, the overlap between insects and lepidoptera can be found here) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 14:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this. However, as with beetles, I have to ask who is going to do the actual work if there is support for the merge? OpalYosutebito, are you willing to commit to replacing the WikiProject Lepidoptera banner with the WIkiProject Insects banner for ~100,000 articles? Do you have a bot, or do you know a bot owner who would accept this task? There is much less overlap in WikiProject banners between Lepidoptera and Insects than there is with Beetles and Insects. Plantdrew (talk)

@Plantdrew I'll likely need some help, seeing as how I'm busy with my last college semester - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 17:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Moths needs improvement!

I find it quite sad that the article for butterflies is a so expansive and rated GA, where as the article for Moth (90% of Lepidoptera) is basically a stub. Unfortunately it has been left on B class rating since 2008, this is definitely not a B class article.

The largest section on the page is on their relationship to humans.

The page for butterflies is 103,768 bytes (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Butterfly&action=info), where as for moths it is 33,480(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moth&action=info) :(

I am trying to improve the article.

If any one is interested, there are several CNs on the page that need good quality citations.

Chattenoir (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your work Chattenoir. Moth is one of the many articles which should be improved. Your work will make a difference. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, I've made some expansion and added a lot of citations. Still a ways to go ofcourse. Chattenoir (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Silk moth

I was editing the Monarch butterfly migration page and tried to link to Silk moth and couldn't figure out what the problem was. I was taken to a disambiguation page that I couldn't figure out. Is there no article for Silk moth or don't I know what I am doing? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 23:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems that the article for 'Silk moths' is Bombycidae, and there currently is no redirect for the article name Silk Moth. I could create a page for Silk Moth with a redirect to it perhaps. Chattenoir (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be helpful. Thank you very nuch. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 00:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Barbara, apologies but I realised that the term Silk Moth can refer to another family of Moth also ( ), so therefore it wouldn't be right to have the page redirect in case people were looking for the other family.

Instead of a redirect, what I recommend is using the following link: Silk Moth. You can get a link like this by typing the following: [[Bombycidae|Silk Moth]] Chattenoir (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Excellent. I can make that change myself. Thanks again.

Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 18:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I've known them as Bombyx mori since I first studied textile manufacture in the 1980s. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be the domestic silk moth, but there is also the wild silk moth, Bombyx mandarina. Although per this source it is apparent that the term Silk Moth is used for the Domestic silk moth, as this source uses the latter initially and then uses the shortened form afterwards.

Whether the link is appropriate for Bombyx mori or Bombycidae would depend on the context. If the former the link should be Silk Moth Chattenoir (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Wrong moth genus?

I'm extraordinarily out of my depth here... Acrocercops malvacea cites to gracillariidae.net, but the link is dead. I was able to find this, which seems to indicate that the genus should be Dialectica instead? But their underlying 1907? source gives the Acrocercops genus, so I am confused and am taking it to folks who know more about moths/biology :-) GrapesRock (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The new page you found on gracillariidae.net is giving the source of the original description of the species, which was Acrocercops malvacea. This is the name used in most works until recently, including gracillariidae.net when this Wikipedia article was written. However, the updated database indicates that someone has move the species to a new genus, although rather unhelpfully don't give a source for the change. The change is accepted by Catalogue of Life (see taxonbar link which I just updated), although that is not independent as it uses gracillariidae.net as its source. It's probably worth noting that the Global Lepidoptera Index effectively recommends that website/database for Gracillariidae, So I think the article should be moved to Dialectica malvacea.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I've moved the page and updated the taxonomy, reference and taxonbar.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Iridopsis angulata

What are your favorite websites to search for info on moths. I have just spent over a half an hour and can't seem to find any info on this species. What search engine should I be using besides Google? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 20:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It can be helpful to search for any objective synonyms (synonyms where the species name is the same, but it has been placed in a different genus). I. angulata was originally described as Anacamptodes angulata; the original description can be downloaded here (starting on page 19 as the PDF pages are numbered, or page 191 as shown at the top of the pages as originally published). Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice-it really is helpful. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've added a couple of taxonomic references. Strangely I can't find a reference for the recombination. Hodges (1983) MONA still includes the species in Anacamptodes.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)