Particularly those of the problems inherent within the entomological nomenclature, in the importance of dating 

 the literature involved, in how the relevance of the subsequent dating could influence the seniority of any 

 individual scientific name involved and how in turn, this would influence subsequent synonymy and homonyms. 

 Knowledge also has be obtained of the relevance of primary types and the interpretation of syntypes and the 

 applications of terminology like sensu auctorum, sensu lato and nominum nudum. The appreciation in 

 recognising and interpreting the presence of misspellings and emendations of any taxon, plus the relevance, if 

 any, of genders and how this factor could influence the spelling of any taxon concerned and the subsequent 

 problems this would engender. 



The problems inferred to above, do not however concern the application of vernacular names, which, 

 though providing an historic interest and perhaps insight into the appearance of the species, or convey biological 

 information, or a behavioural aspect of the species that can suggest a species identification, have, thankfully, in 

 themselves no taxonomic importance. Certainly in English literature, it becomes taken for granted that all 

 butterflies warranted, by popular inclination, vernacular names. Over the years the same applied to all the so- 

 called macrolepidoptera, or what species were perceived as the larger and more easily recognisable moths, 

 though they contained species classified within microlepidoptera families and are treated as 'honorary macros'. 



The terms macrolepidoptera and microlepidoptera are in themselves rather loose terms and perhaps 

 deserve some examination, the former usually conveying the meaning of large species and the latter that of 

 small species. In the literature on Lepidoptera, they have tended however to also suggest an even more subtle 

 distinction. With increased knowledge of the proliferation of world fauna, the publications on Lepidoptera 

 began to reflect the specialisations of the authors. Books or shorter papers in journals took on different aspects, 

 they might be general in their coverage, or more specialised in the information they conveyed. The interest of 

 the writer might be purely from a local faunistic viewpoint, in which case the entire Lepidoptera fauna would be 

 under consideration, or, the interest may be in groups of families only. Specialisation of the Lepidoptera 

 taxonomists was reflected in the way they branched out into one of three major streams, the Rhopalocera 

 families (butterflies), the primitive moth groups (micro-moths) and the more advanced moth groups (macro- 

 moths). It became customary in the titles of books and papers to refer to the micro, or primitive moths as 

 microlepidoptera and to the macro, or advanced moths as macrolepidoptera, but in some literature these terms 

 might, or might not be considered at all. In the popular volumes produced by South, size and ease of 

 identification were the only factors allowed for when selecting the families to be covered. However, when the 

 current German series dealing with Palaearctic micro-moths appeared in the 1960's, the title of the series 

 Microlepidoptera Palaearctica very firmly suggested that there was a specialised restricted meaning of the 

 term microlepidoptera. Today no one would overlook the facts that Ghost moths (Hepialidae), Goat Moth and 

 Leopard Moth (Cossidae), Burnets and Foresters (Zygaenidae), Festoon and Triangle (Limacodidae) and 

 Clearwings (Sesiidae) belong to the microlepidoptera grouping of families. Similarly, most lepidopterists would 

 agree on which families they would include under the headings of Rhopalocera and macrolepidoptera. Recent 

 findings among the world Lepidoptera fauna have however produced some puzzling species, the question 

 arising, should they be classified with the Rhopalocera, or with one of the macro-moth families. It took a great 

 deal of anatomical research by specialists to finally decide to classify them with the superfamily Geometroidea. 

 Present research now deviates away from placing the Rhopalocera families as some sort of banner between the 

 microlepidoptera families and those of the macrolepidoptera. Aspects of the Phylogenetic relationships in the 

 Lepidoptera have now led some modern systematists to firmly place the butterfly families well within the 

 grouping of macrolepidoptera families, so that they are positioned between the Bombycoidea families and the 

 Drepanoidea families. Though the term's microlepidoptera and macrolepidoptera came into use more as a mode 

 of convenience and started with a fairly loose almost vernacular meaning, today they have taken on a firmer 

 definition, expressed very clearly in the French and Belgian checklist published by J. A. Leraut in 1997. 



The usage of vernacular names for butterflies and macro-moths are not of course unique to the British 

 fauna. Most countries have at one time or another adopted vernacular names for their fauna and in English 

 speaking countries around the world some of them have become well-enough known to the British, though the 

 names will be different from our own. The names Monarch or Milkweed are equally applicable to us, but the 

 North American Mourning Cloak is certainly better known to us as the Camberwell Beauty. 



Undoubtedly vernacular names have a charm of their own, perhaps because they are a natural part of 

 any given language and possibly because they are simply easier to remember. Most lepidopterists will use them 

 quite freely, especially in general conversation, in field-guides, faunistic works, in writing up reports on 

 fieldwork and general observations. It is in writing up large lists, scientific checklists and in the more general 

 scientific papers, that the vernacular names will give way to scientific Latinized names, primarily for the sake of 

 saving space and partly because most English vernacular names would anyway be rather meaningless to foreign 

 readers. Nevertheless, as mentioned below, a number of serious pest species of the microlepidoptera have 

 established themselves almost globally, as pests of rice, maize, sugar-cane, fruit trees and other important types 

 of agricultural produce. Other species are global economic pests of stored food products, or serious pests of 



49 



