No abstract

In reviewing the hostplant associations of nymphalid butterflies. particular emphasis is placed on the intractable problem of nymphalid classification . Although offering few certain conclusions. if used in conjunction with more formal morphological characters. the data presented should contribute toward a resolution of the inter-relationships of the many widely recognized groupings within the Nymphalidae. several of which seem to be broadly characterized by typical host families . As a direct result of this analysis. the presumed association between larval hostplants and unpalatability is re.appraised .

Illustrated keys are given to the seven genera and 44 species of Parnassiinae here recognized, together with brief notes on the distribution and larval food plants of each species. For poljrtypic species a list is given of the subspecies that differ most markedly from the typical form. One generic synonym is newly established.

A review of the larval hostplant associations of African and Australian butterflies highlights their overall conservatism in host choice—the most widely exploited families are cosmopolitan or pan‐ tropical in range. Thus there is no apparent relationship between butterfly diversity and endemic plant novelty at the family level. Such conservatism in hostplant preferences suggests that butterflies encounter few opportunities to make gross hostplant shifts, with the likelihood of the limited available options being repeatedly explored through time. Attempts to detect any simple parallel cladogenesis between butterflies and their larval hosts must allow for the probability of homoplasy. Similarities in the host ranges of the Papilionoidea, Hesperioidea and Hedyloidea might suggest that the Malvales constitute the ancestral host group of the butterflies.

No abstract