Talk:Differences between butterflies and moths/Archive 1

Is this article biased against the moth? Or what? --12.220.209.197, 03:52, 30 May 2004

I changed the opening. It was too wordy. Also I wasn't sure if this was accurate:
 * That is, "butterfly" and "moth" are not natural classifications based on differences in morphology or behavior.

If they separate into different families, they are presumably somewhat naturally distinct, just not along standard taxonomic lines? --Chinasaur 05:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I also put blank lines between the bullet points to make it easier to edit. True, it makes the HTML ugly, but who really cares about that... --Chinasaur 05:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think there needs to be quite a bit of change. There are day-flying moths that have almost clubbed antennae and there is no mention at all of the frenulum. Just to quote two examples. NeilJ

minor ambiguity

 * Some butterflies, like the skippers,

Does this mean as with the skippers, or including the skippers? --Singkong2005 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct or delete this article
Sorry for being blunt but I think this article in its present form is utter rubbish. Butterflies ARE a natural taxonomic unit, a monophyletic unit even, comprising the superfamily Papilionoidea (or two superfamilies, Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea, in the view of some authors). There is no need to deny that (and to bring up the outdated term "Rhopalocera" instead of Papilionoidea). There is even less reason to call the "heterocera" a "division" as if they were a natural grouping. Secondly, the statement "moths usually have large feathered antennae for the males and thin, straight, unclubbed antennae for the females" goes for some groups in some (few) moth families but is untrue for most Lepidoptera families. Third, the statement on moths "but they all lack the clubbed ends of a butterfly" is simply wrong: The Sesiidae, the Castniidae, and the Zygaenidae do have clubbed antennae. Forth, take out all the other incorrect statements like "Moths tend to have very fat hairy or furry appearing bodies" or "Moths rest with their wings spread out to their sides" which are obviously founded on insufficient knowledge of moths and the desire to see moths as one "group". There is no need to have an article like this at all; the facts could be given in the "butterfly" article. -- Alex 16:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Quoting from Howe, "Butterflies of North America" (a standard encyclopedic work), "Moths have antennae of a variety of shapes: filiform...,pectinate...,or clubbed.  Most moths have the fore wings and hind wings of each side linked together by a frenulum...In addition to these traits, no butterfly has a tmpanum, or hearing organ, but many moths do: situated on each side of the poeterior part of the thorax or of the base of the abdomen."  Butterflies are superfamily Papilionidea; skippers are superfamily Hesperioidea; moths are multiple superfamilies..  The information in the article seems to agree with the material in Holland's "The Moth Book", pub. 1903! jrcagle 02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Butterfly vs. moth - move to Lepidoptera? (and revise thoroughly)
In my opinion this is a topic that may be better placed in the Lepidoptera page. It needs a thorough revision to explain far better the character states that are used to define the butterflies and moths, giving a much better set of referenced examples that illustrate the points, and the exceptions (of which there are many) - --HKmoths 03:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Done rewrite, need images and wikification
Guys, reads better now. Need help with selection and placement of images and with wikification. Have removed the cleanup stub. See C style comments for where images required, add and replace them please. Regards. AshLin 16:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the Prize?
I don't understand what is desirable about denying the distinction between butterflies and moths. Butterflies are members of Papilionoidea; skippers are Hesperioidia; moths are all other Lepidoptera. That seems really clear; what have I missed?

Thanks, jrcagle 17:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I'm not in possession of scientific resources to tell the exact scientific differences between the various levels of classification of the Lepidoptera. I'll just reword the article. People with serious objections are welcome to enlighten us. Its so easy to revert things on Wikipedia. AshLin 17:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's done. While I appreciate the tendency of people to like things accurate and scientifically just right, I remember the words of a disappointed user on a talk page who was looking for absolute basic information and could not find it. (Unfortunately, I can't remember which article this was). This made a deep impression on me that people have information needs which may be worded, expressed or intended very differently from how we Wikipedia editors present information to the world. So, I would recommend we let the article remain in existance. Any person having exact taxonomic data on this issue may enlighten us or do the necessary edits himself. I feel that this exact scientific information should also be presented here for accuracy, completeness, contrast and context. On my part, I was just rewriting what unintentionally had become clumsy reading so that I could remove the cleanup stub. AshLin 17:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

page move?
Perhaps "Differences between butterflies and moths" would be a better title? Opinions? --Dreaded Walrus 18:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Stemonitis 14:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Shyamal 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Arthurian Legend 19:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done finally. Need help with double redirect fixes though.Shyamal 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)