This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
Tineina and Cossina each have a link to a source listing the included subfamilies. Neither Section clade (as described there) is compatible with the clades here called Apoditrysia, Obtectomera, and Macrolepidoptera (as described here) - as far as I can tell they are two completely different, mutually exclusive classifications. If Apoditrysia, Obtectomera, and Macrolepidoptera are monophyletic then Tineina and Cossina are both paraphyletic with respect to Apoditrysia, Obtectomera, and Macrolepidoptera. "Obstecomera and Macrolepidoptera are other examples of Ditrysia's subclades." does not tell me anything helpful. Please clarify the situation and how these two taxonomic concepts relate to each other. Dates and authors are needed! If they are separate it would be much better to have a separate article section for each classification scheme or cladogram, instead of mashing them together into one paragraph. If they're meant to be compatible then their contents need to be clarified. 2601:441:4900:A6E0:0:0:0:543D (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to compare which superfamilies have been placed in which clades (using the cited Wiktionary page for Tineina, and Wikipedia for the others). Some Wiki articles say Macrolepidoptera is not monophyletic and that most of the Macrolepidopteran moths have been reclassified as Macroheterocera, which isn't mentioned in this article. As far as I can see the Ditrysian superfamilies are classified like this:
Same person here again. I looked at the source for Cossina, Encyclopedia of Entomology, on Google Books. This source also includes Tineina and adds a couple subfamilies not mentioned in wiktionary (which I'll add to my table above). It does not mention Apoditrysia, Obtectomera, or Macroheterocera. It only mentions Macrolepidoptera to imply it isn't a natural clade. So it looks like this classification and the Apoditrysia > Obtectomera > Macrolepidoptera classification are competing theories. Unfortunately I couldn't find the authorial source for Cossina and Tineina. 2601:441:4900:A6E0:0:0:0:543D (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be two competing classifications, both originating in 1998.
The "32 superfamily" classification (actually 33 superfamilies listed) in the article on Butterflies and Moths by John Heppner in Encyclopedia of Entomology seems to be an update of the one by John Heppner in Classification of Lepidoptera. Part 1: Introduction. I can't find an online copy of the source, but this archived page claims to use that classification. On page 629 of the Encyclopedia of Entomology, another recent classification with 46 superfamilies is mentioned.
The 46 superfamily classification seems to be that used by Niels Kristensen and Andrzej Skalski in the Handbook of Zoology (Volume 1, 1998). This was revised slightly in Appendix 1 of the second volume in 2007 (adding a superfamily and moving a couple) and can also be found in Kristensen et al (2007).
The latter classfication with the Apoditrysia > Obtectomera > Macrolepidoptera classification seems more consistent with molecular data (see van Nieukerken et al 2011) and Mitter et al 2017), although there is some shuffling of superfamilies which led van Nieukerken et al 2011 to introduce Macroheterocera for Macrolepidoptera (see note 59).
As for changing the article. It would be simplest to remove Tineina and Cossina to avoid the confusion. although we are supposed to cover alternative classifications. This one seems to have fallen into disuse but I not entirely sure about this. — Jts1882 | talk16:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
