Pierinae: Aporiini

In a revision of the Afrotropical genus Mylothris Hübner, Talbot (1944) treated the monotypic Pseudomylothris Neustetter (with type species leonora Krüger), tentatively treated as a subgenus by Klots (1933), as a distinct genus allied to Mylothris and Delias Hübner, but this was not followed by Ackery et al. (1995), who regarded Pseudomylothris as a synonym of Mylothris.

Talbot (1928­37) published a detailed revision of the speciose Indo­Australian genus Delias and proposed 20 species­groups. One of these groups, the hyparete species­group, was initially designated formal taxonomic rank, being placed in the subgenus Piccarda Grote, a synonym of Cathaemia Hübner, but Talbot (1928­37: 494) later abandoned that proposal. Müller (1999; 2001) revised the systematics of Leuciacria Rothschild & Jordan, although did not propose any changes at the generic or subgeneric level.

Reissinger (1972) divided the diverse Neotropical genus Catasticta Butler into five subgenera (Catasticta, Archonoia Reissinger, Pierinoia Reissinger, Leodontoia Reissinger, Hesperochoia Reissinger), largely on the basis of differences in the underside pattern of the hind wing. Three of these names (Pierinoia Reissinger, Leodontoia Reissinger, Hes ­ perochoia Reissinger) are nomenclaturally unavailable under the ICZN (Lamas 2005). Eitschberger and Racheli (1998) subsequently recognised three genera (Catasticta, Leod ­ ontoia Eitschberger & Racheli, Hesperochoia Eitschberger & Racheli), treating Archonoia Reissinger as a subgenus of Catasticta. Lamas and Bollino (2004: 3), however, maintained all species under the single genus Catasticta, noting that “though bowing to tradition in regarding Catasticta as a monophyletic species assemblage, we consider premature and misleading to divide it into either subgenera or separate genera.” A recent molecular study of the Aporiini (Braby et al., unpublished data), however, indicated that Catasticta is paraphyletic.

Klots (1933: 173) placed two species in the Neotropical taxon Charonias Röber, which he treated as a subgenus of Archonias Hübner according to minor differences in wing venation, shape and pattern. Klots pointed out that, compared to Archonias (Archonias), “The characters for Charonias are slight, and hardly sufficient to validate its subgeneric rank, much less a generic status.” Lamas (2005), however, provisionally treated Charonias as a distinct genus and closely allied to the monobasic Archonias (with type species brassolis Fabricius).