Research Communications
OPEN
ACCESS
Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) and Traditional Knowledge in Brazil: An Ethnoentomological Analysis of Common Nomenclature
Caique Dantas1*, Eraldo Medeiros Costa Neto1, and Elmo Borges de Azevedo Koch1
1Postgraduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, Feira de Santana State University, Feira de Santana, Bahia State, Brazil.
*caidanvas@gmail.com
Received July 9, 2025 | Accepted November 11, 2025 | Published February 9, 2026
Ethnobiology Letters 2026 17(1):1–21 | DOI 10.14237/ebl.17.1.2026.1967
Abstract Butterflies, in addition to their ecological relevance, play important symbolic and cultural roles in many societies. This study aimed to analyze the diversity of common names attributed to butterflies in Brazil, based on a systematic literature review (following the PRISMA method), including sources such as scientific articles, books, and field guides. A total of 189 scientific species names were recorded, belonging to five taxonomic families, and associated with 111 distinct common names. The family Nymphalidae presented the highest number of records, indicating a morphologically diverse and culturally recognized group. The common names were classified into interpretive categories, with morphological designations being the most common, followed by behavioral, ecological, and symbolic associations. The analysis shows that common names reflect local knowledge grounded in empirical observation and symbolic meaning, contributing significantly to ecological understanding and the appreciation of biodiversity. This study highlights the role of ethnoentomology as an interdisciplinary approach that values local knowledge and enhances the understanding of human-insect relationships, recommending its broader application in related research.
Keywords Common names, Cultural entomology, Empirical knowledge, Biodiversity perception, Traditional taxonomy.
Introduction
Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) stand out not only for their remarkable diversity but also for the important ecological and economic roles they play in terrestrial ecosystems, contributing to essential processes such as nutrient cycling, food resource provision, and pollination (Brown, Jr. 1996). It is estimated that there are over 160,000 species of Lepidoptera worldwide (Bowden et al. 2025), of which approximately 12% are butterflies, totaling around 18,768 described species (Mitter et al. 2017). In Brazil, more than 3,500 butterfly species are known (Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil 2025), a number that continues to grow as new species are discovered and described.
Butterflies transcend their ecological role and emerge as cultural symbols across various societies throughout history (Alves and Souto 2011; Hoshina 2020; Petiza et al. 2013; Posey 1986). They are present in belief systems, therapeutic practices, artistic expressions, and, in some cases, even in culinary traditions (Carlini 2022; Costa Neto 2002a). In Brazil, these cultural associations are reflected in folklore and artistic representations, where butterflies are evoked as emblems of transformation, beauty, and renewal (Costa and Soares 2015).
Ethnoentomology, a branch of ethnobiology, is dedicated to studying the relationships between human societies and insects, taking into account local knowledge, traditional uses, naming systems, and the cultural meanings attributed to these organisms (Balée 1994; Berlin 1992; Costa Neto 2005; Posey 1986). Within this framework, common names play a central role, as they reflect communities’ empirical perceptions of insects’ morphological, behavioral, ecological, dietary, and symbolic traits. Beyond this descriptive function, common nomenclature also embodies cultural metaphors and ecological memory, encoding how local societies connect insects to plants, habitats, daily activities, and cosmologies (Apodonepa and Barreto 2015; Costa Neto 2013).
The case of butterflies, common names often refer to attributes such as coloration, size, flight patterns, feeding habits, life cycle stages, or ecological relationships with host plants (Alves et al. 2019; Ulysséa et al. 2010). Far from being mere folkloric expressions, these linguistic records contain valuable ecological information that can support environmental education and biodiversity conservation strategies (Costa Neto 2004; Melo et al. 2015; Santos et al. 2015).
In a country of continental dimensions like Brazil, understanding the diversity and distribution of common names helps reveal regional patterns of local ecological knowledge shaped by cultural, linguistic, and environmental factors. Studies show that, from north to south, butterflies are named based on analogies with elements of nature, cultural objects, or even mystical beliefs, highlighting the richness and variability of this knowledge (Melo et al. 2015; Santos et al. 2015; Ulysséa et al. 2010). Recognizing and incorporating such knowledge into environmental education and biodiversity conservation programs strengthens participatory management practices and ensures more effective and culturally appropriate strategies.
Although still in an early stage, ethnoentomological studies have been gaining greater visibility thanks to interdisciplinary approaches that integrate taxonomy, ecology, anthropology, and linguistics (Alves et al. 2019; Cajaiba and Silva 2017; Posey 1987). In this context, the documentation and analysis of common butterfly names across Brazil’s diverse biomes and regions become essential for recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge, highlighting its potential as a tool for supporting the conservation of biocultural heritage.
The present study aims to inventory the diversity of common butterfly names recorded in bibliographic and documentary sources—including scientific articles, books, book chapters, field guides, and identification manuals—and to assess the correspondence between these common names and the morphological, behavioral, ecological, dietary, and symbolic traits of the species. By combining quantitative and qualitative analyses, this study seeks to strengthen the field of ethnoentomology in Brazil and highlight the value of traditional knowledge as a tool to support the conservation of biocultural diversity.
Methodology
This study adopted the PRISMA protocol (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; Page et al. 2021), adapted to an ethnoentomological scope, with the aim of identifying, compiling, and analyzing the common names attributed to butterflies in Brazil. It is important to note that this study considered only butterflies, as they are diurnal, conspicuous, and culturally salient insects, more frequently represented in ethnobiological surveys, while moths were rarely reported in the analyzed literature. The methodological process was structured into four main and sequential stages: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Adapted PRISMA flowchart representing the stages of study selection included in the analysis of common butterfly names in Brazil.
During the identification phase, a broad and systematic search was conducted in scientific databases (Google Scholar, Scopus, SciELO, and Web of Science) and academic repositories, as well as in complementary literature, including books, book chapters, field guides, and identification manuals. Search terms in both Portuguese and English were used, including butterflies, common names, ethnoentomology, common nomenclature, Lepidoptera, and Papilionoidea. The aim was to retrieve publications up to April 2025 that mentioned common names associated with morphological, ecological, dietary, behavioral, or symbolic descriptions. In total, 132 potential sources were identified.
During the screening phase, the documents were evaluated for thematic relevance. A total of 89 publications were excluded for lacking explicit mention of butterfly common names. The remaining 43 studies were then subjected to full-text reading in the next stage. In the eligibility phase, data were extracted and organized into a spreadsheet containing the following variables: taxonomic classification (family, species), scientific name, common name (EN) = common names in English, common name (PT) = common names in Portuguese, categories, and reference (author and year). After this detailed screening, 26 studies were excluded for not fully meeting the inclusion criteria.
The final inclusion phase, 17 studies were consolidated to support the quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analysis involved calculating the frequency of common names per species and the diversity of names attributed to a single species, with results presented through charts and tables. The qualitative analysis consisted of interpreting the cultural and symbolic meanings underlying the common names, taking morphological, behavioral, ecological, dietary, and symbolic traits into account. This framework allows not only for descriptive categorization but also for identifying how common names act as cognitive tools that systematize local ecological knowledge.
Results and Discussion
Based on the analysis of 17 publications, 189 scientific names of butterflies (Papilionoidea) were recorded, associated with 111 distinct common names and distributed across five taxonomic families (Appendix 1). The variation observed in these records, where a single scientific species corresponds to multiple common names, can be interpreted as regional synonymy, since different communities often apply distinct names to the same species, reflecting linguistic diversity and local cultural perspectives (Berlin 1992; Costa Neto 2002a). A notable example is Hamadryas februa, which concentrates a relatively high number of folk names. Its wide distribution, striking wing patterns, and characteristic clicking sounds during flight make this species particularly conspicuous and memorable, favoring the creation of multiple local designations (Yack et al. 2001). In other cases, common names such as borboleta-asa-de-vidro (glass wing butterfly) are not restricted to a single species but encompass broader folk categories that include several genera with translucent wings, such as Episcada and related taxa. This phenomenon reflects perceptual salience, in which recurring morphological traits shared across taxa are cognitively grouped by local communities, resulting in generalized naming systems (Berlin 1992). Among the families, Nymphalidae presented the greatest diversity, with 164 species and 88 common names, totaling 203 records. Pieridae followed with 10 species and 10 common names (15 records), then Hesperiidae with 8 species and 5 common names (8 records), Papilionidae with 6 species and 7 common names (8 records), and finally Lycaenidae, represented by a single species and a single common name (1 record). These proportions reflect not only the taxonomic richness but also the cultural variability of butterfly nomenclature in Brazil.
Family Lycaenidae, with only one record, was exclusively associated with a morphological category. In the families Nymphalidae and Papilionidae, morphological associations were also predominant (42.9% and 37.5%, respectively), followed by symbolic or undefined categories. Hesperiidae showed a balanced distribution between behavioral and undefined categories, reflecting their reputation as fast and discreet insects (Figure 2). Although initially categorized as “undefined,” several names associated with Pieridae, such as borboleta-amarelinha (little yellow butterfly), borboleta-gema (yolk butterfly), and borboleta-gema-de-ovo (egg yolk butterfly), are clearly related to coloration and, therefore, to species morphology. Thus, when applying a more refined semantic analysis, it is possible to state that the common names in this family are also predominantly linked to the morphological category.
Figure 2 Proportion of interpretative categories attributed to common butterfly names by taxonomic family.
Taxonomic Distribution and Common Name Frequency
High representativeness of the Nymphalidae family within Brazil’s butterfly fauna—widely supported by entomological surveys (Freitas and Brown, Jr. 2004)—stems from its remarkable ecological and morphological diversity, factors that contribute to both broad geographic distribution and easier recognition by local communities. Among the most conspicuous taxa are the genera Morpho, whose iridescent wings aid in thermoregulation and defense through glare; Caligo, characterized by eyespots that mimic real eyes to deter predators; Heliconius, known for Müllerian mimicry and a specialized diet in Passifloraceae; Hamadryas, with cryptic patterns that facilitate camouflage on tree trunks; Mechanitis, associated with chemical aposematism; and Zaretis, notable for its compact wingspan and fast flight (see Figure 3). These visual and behavioral traits not only illustrate the morphological richness of Nymphalidae but also explain its prominence in ethnoentomological studies and in the diversity of common names.
Figure 3 Main genera of the Nymphalidae family, highlighting A Morpho, B Mechanitis, C Heliconius, D Hamadryas, E Caligo, and F Zaretis. Photographs by Caique Dantas.
Genus Morpho is widely recognized for the intense blue iridescence of its wings, which is an optical phenomenon caused by light diffraction on microscopic structures within the wing scales. Typical of humid tropical forests, these butterflies are often referred to by local communities using common names such as borboleta-bruxo-azul (blue wizard butterfly; Costa Neto 2022) and borboleta-azul-seda (silky blue butterfly; Lenko and Papavero 1996), both directly alluding to their striking coloration.
In shaded habitats, species of the genus Caligo display large eyespots on their hindwings, which function as defense mechanisms by mimicking the eyes of birds of prey to deter predators. This trait has inspired the common name borboleta-coruja (owl butterfly; Lenko and Papavero 1996).
Genus Heliconius is distinguished by aposematic color patterns that serve as models in key mimicry systems. In Müllerian mimicry, toxic species such as Heliconius erato phyllis and Heliconius melpomene share red and yellow color combinations to signal unpalatability (Mallet and Joron 1999; Merrill et al. 2015; Müller 1879). Conversely, Batesian mimicry occurs in taxa such as Dismorphia and Eueides, whose harmless species visually imitate these patterns (Bates 1862; Mallet 2001). Among the common names associated with this clade are borboleta-maria-boba (silly mary butterfly) and borboleta-castanha-vermelha (red chestnut butterfly; Lenko and Papavero 1996). Species like H. erato phyllis and Heliconius ethilla narcaea maintain close ecological relationships with Passiflora L. (Passifloraceae) plants, from which they derive defensive alkaloids.
Butterflies of the genus Hamadryas are remarkable for producing audible clicks during flight, a behavior associated with territorial disputes and courtship, which has earned them the common name borboleta-estaladeira (clicking butterfly; Lenko and Papavero 1996; Yack et al. 2001). These sounds originate from specialized structures on the hindwings (Monge-Nájera and Hernández 1991). Specifically, Hamadryas amphinome is locally known as borboleta-assenta-pau-da-barriga-vermelha (red bellied percher butterfly), a reference to its reddish ventral coloration and habit of landing on tree trunks. Meanwhile, H. februa is referred to as borboleta-angolinha (little angolan butterfly) or borboleta-angolista (angolan butterfly), names likely inspired by its wing patterns, although further ethnozoological research is required to confirm this etymology (Costa Neto 2002a).
Species of the genus Mechanitis (Ithomiinae) are characterized by translucent wings with black and orange patterns, an aposematic trait resulting from the ingestion of alkaloids from Solanum L. (Solanaceae) plants. This distinctive morphology has inspired common names such as borboleta-tigre (tiger butterfly), typically applied to Mechanitis polymnia (Linnaeus, 1758) and Mechanitis lysimnia, and borboleta-confusa-asa-de-tigre (confused tiger wing butterfly), alluding to the visual similarity among closely related species. Other names, such as borboleta-josé-maria (josé maria butterfly) and borboleta-esponja (sponge butterfly), could not be conclusively interpreted and remain of uncertain origin and meaning, highlighting the limits of current ethnoentomological knowledge.
Genus Zaretis, whose cryptic mimicry is a prominent feature, includes species such as Zaretis itys and Zaretis isidora that effectively blend in with tree trunks and the forest floor by resembling dry leaves, hence the common names borboleta-folha (leaf butterfly) and borboleta-folha-seca (dry leaf butterfly). Under certain lighting conditions, pinkish tones on the wing margins have led to the name borboleta-canoa-rosa (pink canoe butterfly), while the reddish dorsal pattern of Zaretis galanthis inspired the name borboleta-asa-de-listras-vermelhas (red striped wing butterfly). These examples illustrate how morphological, behavioral, ecological, dietary, and symbolic traits shape the construction of common names in the Nymphalidae family. More than descriptors, these names function as cultural analogies that link butterflies to everyday objects, symbolic values, or ecological interactions, thereby reinforcing both scientific taxonomy and the cultural significance of butterflies. Although less numerous, the families Pieridae (5 records), Hesperiidae (3), Papilionidae (4), and Lycaenidae (1) also contribute to the semantic richness of common naming. For Pieridae, for instance, with the predominance of species with white and yellow wings, names such as borboleta-gema-de-ovo (egg-yolk butterfly) and borboleta-amarelinha (little yellow butterfly), are common while the gregarious behavior of Anteos menippe has inspired the name borboleta-de-bando (flock butterfly) (Wijnen 2007; Figure 4).
Figure 4 A Phoebis marcelina and B Phoebis argante. Photographs by Caique Dantas.
The differences among Papilionoidea families regarding the origin of common names do not appear to result merely from sampling variation but instead reflect specific biological and perceptual traits. In Hesperiidae, the small body size, generally brown coloration, and fast, erratic flight hinder the attribution of names based on striking morphological features, which explains the predominance of behavior-related names, such as borboleta-diabinha (little devil butterfly) (Lenko and Papavero 1996; Uehara-Prado and Ribeiro 2012). In contrast, families such as Papilionidae and Lycaenidae, although represented by fewer records, include visually conspicuous species—either through the impressive wingspan and tail-like extensions of Heraclides thoas brasiliensis (Rothschild and Jordan, 1906), which inspired the name borboleta-rabo-de-andorinha (swallowtail butterfly; Tyler et al. 1994), or through the metallic blue coloration of some Lycaenidae, as in the borboleta-azulzinha-do-trevo (little clover blue butterfly), whose iridescence conveys symbolic associations of rarity and delicacy (Costa Neto 2002a; Figure 5). By comparison, Nymphalidae, the most diverse and conspicuous butterfly family in Brazil, concentrate the majority of morphology-based names due to their large body size, contrasting color patterns, and easily observable behaviors, making them especially salient to local perception and common naming.
Figure 5 A Urbanus sp., B Heraclides thoas brasiliensis, and C Hemiargus hanno hanno. Photographs by Caique Dantas.
These examples, although drawn from families with fewer records, clearly illustrate the semantic richness of common butterfly names in Brazil. The multiple names attributed, particularly among the ten most frequently cited species, reflect not only distribution and visibility but also the role of morphological, behavioral, ecological, dietary, and symbolic categories in shaping local taxonomies. Such names represent a dynamic system of folk classification, functioning as ecological memory and cultural metaphor. The multiple names attributed, particularly among the ten most frequently cited species (Figure 6), reflect not only the wide geographic distribution and presence in different biomes, but also the morphological and behavioral salience of certain taxa for local communities. In this way, traditional knowledge is consolidated through visual analogies, cultural metaphors, and empirical observations, complementing and enriching the scientific understanding of Brazilian lepidopteran fauna.
Figure 6 Butterfly species with the highest number of recorded common names.
Semantic Associations of Common Names
Semantic analysis of common butterfly names allowed their classification into five interpretative categories: morphological, behavioral, ecological, dietary, and symbolic. This categorization is based not only on descriptive meanings but also on ethnoentomological evidence that common nomenclature encodes ecological knowledge, symbolic associations, and cultural metaphors that link butterflies to broader worldviews (Costa Neto 2002a). common names can also be understood as cognitive shortcuts, functioning as simple and convenient ways of remembering folk categories of insects. In this sense, the most salient feature of each species, whether visual, behavioral, or ecological, becomes the primary basis for naming.
The morphological category was the most representative among the records analyzed, encompassing common names that directly refer to coloration, shape, and wing patterns. Names such as borboleta-asa-de-vidro (glass wing butterfly), borboleta-azul (blue butterfly), borboleta-oitenta (eighty butterfly), borboleta-zebra (zebra butterfly), and borboleta-tigre (tiger butterfly) illustrate the tendency to identify species by striking visual features. Species with greenish-metallic or blue-green wings are often called borboleta-esmeralda (emerald butterfly), while those displaying colored stripes or spots are known as borboleta-asa-de-listras-vermelhas (red striped wing butterfly). Among Pieridae, names such as borboleta-amarelinha (little yellow butterfly), borboleta-gema (yolk butterfly), and borboleta-gema-de-ovo (egg-yolk butterfly) are frequent, all referring to the bright yellowish coloration typical of species like Phoebis argante and Phoebis marcelina. In these cases, morphology clearly emerges as the most salient attribute for folk classification.
Common names with behavioral interpretations are associated with actions, postures, or sounds emitted by butterflies. The term crackling butterfly refers to the audible clicks produced by Hamadryas males during flight (Yack et al. 2001). These butterflies are also regionally known as clicking or clucking butterflies, all referring to the same species complex (Hamadryas spp.; Lenko and Papavero 1996); borboleta-maria-boba (silly mary butterfly) evokes the slow and hesitant flight pattern of certain Heliconius species; and borboleta-de-bando (flock butterfly) alludes to the gregarious behavior of Anteos menippe. These examples show that when morphology is less distinctive, behavior can become the defining element of local nomenclature.
Although less frequent, ecological associations highlight the habitat or resources used by the species. Borboleta-capitão-do-mato (runaway captain butterfly), for example, refers to butterflies found in forest margins or secondary growth, while borboleta-do-maracujá (passion fruit butterfly) reflects the close ecological relationship between Heliconius and Passiflora L. (Passifloraceae) species, from which they acquire toxic compounds for chemical defense. Such names demonstrate that local communities do not merely observe form and movement but also integrate ecological interactions into their classification systems.
Finally, names with symbolic or cultural meanings express subjective, religious, or mystical interpretations. Borboleta-bruxo-azul (blue wizard butterfly), commonly referring to Morpho achilles, suggests not only its vivid coloration but also an aura of enchantment and mystery. Borboleta-andromeda (andromeda butterfly) may reference mythological, celestial, or feminine figures, while names like borboleta-alma-do-outro-mundo (soul from the other world butterfly) and borboleta-caixão-de-defunto (coffin butterfly) reflect beliefs associating butterflies with death, spirits, or omens. More enigmatic designations, such as borboleta-josé-maria (josé maria butterfly), indicate possible anthropomorphic or religious associations that remain unclear and would require further ethnographic research (Bentley and Rodrígues 2001; Costa Neto 2005; Posey 1986). These symbolic names reveal how cultural imagination shapes common classification, transforming butterflies into metaphors for life, death, spirituality, and human experience (Balée 1994; Costa Neto 2002a).
Together, these interpretive categories reveal an empirical system of classification shaped by attentive observation, direct interaction with the environment, and cultural elaboration (Berlin 1992; Costa Neto 2002a). Far from being mere nicknames, common butterfly names embody practical ecological knowledge, symbolic meaning, and cognitive strategies for remembering and transmitting information. This underscores their dual role in both enriching scientific understanding of Brazilian lepidopteran fauna and reinforcing the importance of ethnoentomology in biocultural conservation.
Importance for Ethnoentomology and Conservation
Ethnoentomology, by investigating the interactions between humans and insects through traditional knowledge systems, represents a valuable tool for biodiversity conservation, particularly in megadiverse countries like Brazil. The common names attributed to butterflies are far from mere folkloric expressions; they reflect a structured body of empirical knowledge grounded in direct observation and everyday coexistence with these insects. Such knowledge provides relevant insights that complement and enrich conventional scientific approaches, especially regarding the ecology, behavior, and distribution of species (Costa Neto 2002b).
Ethnoentomological studies conducted in Bahia have shown that local communities develop their own classification systems for butterflies, which often correspond to formal taxonomic categories. These systems consider attributes such as coloration, flight patterns, and habitat types, allowing for precise species identification and offering deeper understanding of their ecological interactions. In this sense, traditional knowledge proves to be a legitimate and practical source for characterizing regional lepidopteran fauna (Costa Neto 2002b).
Integrating this traditional knowledge into conservation strategies becomes even more relevant considering the increasing threats faced by many butterfly species in Brazil. Although most endangered species are found within protected areas, many persist in unprotected landscapes, particularly in the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes. In this context, the recognition of occurrence areas based on local knowledge can support the creation of new conservation units and guide more effective management actions.
Moreover, by incorporating the empirical knowledge of traditional populations into environmental education programs, conservation efforts become more inclusive and culturally sensitive. This approach strengthens the link between biological and cultural diversity, contributing not only to species protection but also to the valorization of local identities and practices.
Conclusion
This study highlighted the remarkable diversity of common names attributed to butterflies in Brazil, revealing a vast repertoire of traditional knowledge anchored in morphological, behavioral, ecological, symbolic, and cultural attributes. The predominance of names based on wing coloration and patterns underscores the central role of empirical observation in common classification, while symbolic or mystical designations reflect the integration of these insects into the worldview and cosmology of local communities.
The concentration of records in biomes such as the Caatinga and the Atlantic Forest, as well as in northeastern states, positions these regions not only as biodiversity hotspots but also as true centers of local ecological knowledge. This spatial pattern of common name usage suggests that cultural and environmental factors interact synergistically in the construction and intergenerational transmission of traditional knowledge.
The findings reinforce the need to recognize the value of common knowledge as an intangible cultural heritage essential for planning conservation strategies and environmental education. Future research should expand the geographic scope to include other Brazilian biomes and deepen the analysis of the connections between common nomenclature and local ecological processes, particularly with regard to endangered species outside protected areas.
By combining scientific evidence with the empirical knowledge of communities, this study strengthens ethnoentomology as an interdisciplinary approach capable of promoting biocultural conservation that is more inclusive, respectful of local traditions, and effective in simultaneously preserving Brazil’s biological and cultural diversity.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my gratitude for the financial support provided by the “A Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior” – CAPES (88887.952111/2024-00), which was essential for the completion of this research.
Declarations
Permissions: None declared.
Sources of funding: None declared.
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
References Cited
Alves, R. R. N., and W. M. S. Souto. 2011. Ethnozoology in Brazil: Current Status and Perspectives. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 7:1–18. DOI:10.1186/1746-4269-7-22.
Alves, A. C., A. dos A. Beims, E. de M. Alencar, F. A. de Lima, K. M. A. da Silva, E. S. de Sousa, and R. L. Cajaiba. 2019. Conhecimento Etnoentomológico dos Moradores do Município de Buriticupu, Maranhão, Brasil. Biotemas 32:97–105. DOI:10.5007/2175-7925.2019v32n2p97.
Apodonepa, L. A., and M. R. Barreto. 2015. Conhecimento Etnoentomológico na Comunidade Indígena Umutina (Mato Grosso, Brasil). Revista Etnobiología 13:68–79.
Balée, W. 1994. Footprints of the Forest: Ka’apor Ethnobotany—The Historical Ecology of Plant Utilization by an Amazonian People. Columbia University Press, New York.
Bates, H. W. 1862. Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 23:495–566. DOI:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1860.tb00146.x.
Beccaloni, G. W., Á. L. Viloria, S. K. Hall, and G. S. Robinson. 2008. Catalogue of the Hostplants of the Neotropical Butterflies. Natural History Museum, London.
Bentley, J. W., and G. Rodríguez. 2001. Honduran Folk Entomology. Current Anthropology 42:285–301.
Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Bowden, J. J., A. Owens, K. Brown, R. W. Harding, M. Graversen, M. Larrivée, K. McFarland, T. A. Miller, J. Warren, and J. O. Young. 2025. Moth Walls: Shedding Light on Moth Biodiversity. FACETS 10:1–6. DOI:10.1139/facets-2024-0298.
Braga, L. 2022. Borboletas do Legado das Águas, 1st edition. Reservas Votorantim, São Paulo, Brazil.
Brown, Jr., K. S. 1981. The Biology of Heliconius and Related Genera. Annual Review of Entomology 26:427–456.
Brown, Jr., K. S. 1992. Borboletas da Serra do Japi: Diversidade, Hábitats, Recursos Alimentares e Variação Temporal. In História Natural da Serra do Japi, edited by L. P. C. Morellato, pp. 142–186. Editora UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil.
Brown, Jr., K. S. 1996. Diversity of Brazilian Lepidoptera: History of Study, Methods for Measurement, and Use as Indicators for Genetic, Specific, and System Richness. In Biodiversity in Brazil: A First Approach, edited by C. E. M. Bicudo and N. A. Menezes, pp. 121–145. CNPq, Brasília, Brazil.
Cajaiba, R. L., and W. B. Silva. 2017. Aulas Práticas de Entomologia como Mecanismo Facilitador no Aprendizado de Taxonomia para Alunos do Ensino Médio. Scientia Amazonia 6:107–116.
Cardoso, M. O., A. M. S. R. Pamplona, and M. Michereff Filho. 2010. Recomendações Técnicas para o Controle de Lepidópteros-Praga em Couve e Repolho no Amazonas. Circular Técnica35:1–15. EMBRAPA, Manaus, Brazil.
Carlini, I. de O. 2022. Entomofagia: Insetos como Fonte Alimentar Humana: Uma Revisão Bibliográfica, pp. 1–42. UNESP. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11449/235877. Accessed on July 9, 2025.
Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil. 2025. Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil [Internet]. Brasília (DF): Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Available at: https://fauna.jbrj.gov.br/. Accessed on July 9, 2025.
Costa Neto, E. M. 2002a. The Ritual Use of Insects in Different Socio-Cultural Contexts. Sitientibus Série Ciências Biológicas 2:97–103. Available at: http://periodicos.uefs.br/index.php/sitientibusBiologia/article/view/8243. Accessed on July 9, 2025.
Costa Neto, E. M. 2002b. Etnotaxonomia: Bases Conceituais e Metodológicas. Revista Amazônica 4:111–126.
Costa Neto, E. M. 2004. Estudos Etnoentomológicos no Estado da Bahia, Brasil: Uma Homenagem aos 50 Anos do Campo de Pesquisa. Biotemas 17:117–149.
Costa Neto, E. M. 2005. Entomotherapy, or the Medicinal Use of Insects. Journal of Ethnobiology 25:93–114.
Costa Neto, E. M. 2013. Análise Etnossemântica de Nomes Comuns de Abelhas e Vespas (Insecta, Hymenoptera) na Terra Indígena Pankararé, Bahia, Brasil. Cadernos de Linguagem e Sociedade 14:237–251.
Costa Neto, E. M. 2022. O Bruxo-Azul e a Cobra-de-Asa: Insetos no Dia a Dia de uma Comunidade Rural do Recôncavo Baiano. Edufba, Salvador, Brazil.
Costa, M. F., and J. C. Soares. 2015. Livre como uma Borboleta: Simbologia e Cuidado Paliativo. Revista Brasileira de Geriatria e Gerontologia 18:1–11. Available at: https://www.scielo.br/j/rbgg/a/pY5XpWHG4SCfcL3p9fTb4FR/?lang=pt. Accessed on July 9, 2025.
DeVries, P. J. 1987. The Butterflies of Costa Rica and Their Natural History. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Freitas, A. V. L., and K. S. Brown, Jr. 2004. Phylogeny of the Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera). Systematic Biology 53:1–25.
Gilbert, L. E. 1972. Pollen Feeding and Reproductive Biology of Heliconius Butterflies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 69:1403–1407. DOI:10.1073/pnas.69.6.1403.
Godé, L., and C. E. B. Nobre. 2015. Inventário XIX da Reserva Biológica de Pedra Talhada: Borboletas e Mariposas (Lepidoptera). In Biodiversidade da Reserva Biológica de Pedra Talhada (Alagoas, Pernambuco – Brasil), edited by A. Studer, L. Nusbaumer, and R. Spichiger, Boissiera 68:683–692.
Hoshina, H. 2020. Cultural Lepidopterology in Modern Japan: Butterflies as Spiritual Insects in the Akihabara Culture. Journal of Geek Studies 7:149–159.
Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio). 2023. Borboletas. Available at: https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/centros-de-pesquisa/biodiversidade-do-cerrado/arquivo/avaliacao/borboletas. Accessed on July 9, 2025.
Lenko, K., and N. Papavero. 1996. Insetos no Folclore, 2nd edition. Plêiade/FAPESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Mallet, J. 2001. Mimicry: An Interface Between Psychology and Evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98:8928–8930. DOI:10.1073/pnas.171326298.
Mallet, J., and M. Joron. 1999. Evolution of Diversity in Warning Color and Mimicry: Polymorphisms, Shifting Balance, and Speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30:201–233. DOI:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.30.1.201.
Melo, A. C. B., F. L. Lima-Araújo, J. E. Freire, and P. E. T. Braga. 2015. O Conhecimento Popular Acerca dos Insetos no Município de Cariré, Ceará, Brasil. Ciência e Natura 37:253–260.
Merckx, T., B. Huertas, Y. Basset, and J. Thomas. 2013. A Global Perspective on Conserving Butterflies and Moths and Their Habitats. In Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2, edited by D. W. Macdonald and K. J. Willis, pp. 237–257. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI:10.1002/9781118520178.ch14.
Merrill, R. M., K. K. Dasmahapatra, J. W. Davey, D. D. Dell’Aglio, J. J. Hanly, B. Huber, C. D. Jiggins, M. Joron, K. M. Kozak, V. Llaurens, S. H. Martin, S. H. Montgomery, J. Morris, N. J. Nadeau, A. L. Pinharanda, N. Rosser, M. J. Thompson, S. Vanjari, R. W. R. Wallbank, and Q. Yu. 2015. The Diversification of Heliconius Butterflies: What Have We Learned in 150 years? Journal of Evolutionary Biology 28:1417–1438. DOI:10.1111/jeb.12672.
Mitter, C., D. R. Davis, and M. P. Cummings. 2017. Phylogeny and Evolution of Lepidoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 62:265–283. DOI:10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035125.
Monge-Nájera, J., and E. S. Hernández. 1991. A Morphological search for the Sound Mechanism of Hamadryas Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 30:82–90.
Müller, F. 1879. Ituna and Thyridia; a Remarkable Case of Mimicry in Butterflies. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London 1879:xx–xxix.
Nomura, H. 2007. Entomologia Pitoresca II: Os Insetos nas Crenças, Superstições e Medicina Popular – Análise Bibliográfica. Sitientibus Série Ciências Biológicas 7:98–112.
Oliveira, I. F., and F. B. Baccaro. 2024. Borboletas Frugívoras da Resex Arapixi, 1st edition. Editora da Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, Brazil.
Oliveira Neto, J. F. de. 2019. Borboletas do Litoral Sul: Limenitidinae, Heliconiinae e Biblidinae. UNESPAR – Campus Paranaguá, Paranaguá, Brazil.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stewart, L. A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A. C., Welch, V. A., Whiting, P., and Moher, D. 2021. The Prisma 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 372:n71. DOI:10.1136/bmj.n71.
Petiza, S., N. Hamada, A. C. Bruno, and E. M. Costa Neto. 2013. Etnotaxonomia Entomológica Baniwa na Cidade de São Gabriel da Cachoeira, Estado do Amazonas, Brasil. Revista de Antropologia 5:708–732.
Posey, D. A. 1986. Entomologia de Tribos Indígenas da Amazônia. In Suma Etnológica Brasileira, vol. 1, edited by D. Ribeiro, pp. 251–272. Vozes/Finep, Petrópolis, Brazil.
Posey, D. A. 1987. Temas e Inquirições em Etnoentomologia: Algumas Sugestões Quanto à Geração de Hipóteses. Boletim Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi 3:99–134.
Rosa, A. H. B., and A. V. L. Freitas. 2020. Guia básico das borboletas asas de vidro da Mata Atlântica. 1st edition, maio de 2020. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.18562.30407/1. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341106786_Guia_basico_das_borboletas_asas_de_vidro_da_Mata_Atlantica. Accessed on September 17, 2025.
Rosa, A. H. B., and A. V. L. Freitas. 2024. The Importance of Protected Areas for Threatened Brazilian Butterflies. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 96:e20231344. DOI:10.1590/0001-3765202420231344.
Rosa, A. H. B., B. Huertas, K. R. Willmott, E. P. Barbosa, P. A. Machado, O. H. H. Mielke, C. H. P. Canaan, and A. V. L. Freitas. 2021. Fifty Years without a Name: A New Species of Splendeuptychia Forster (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Satyrinae). Zootaxa 5061:95–114. DOI:10.11646/zootaxa.5061.1.4.
Salgado-Neto, G. 2010. Lepidópteros do Brasil (Agenda de Campo). Rede de Inovação Tecnológica para Defesa Agropecuária, Viçosa, Brazil.
Santos, J. R. L., S. E. O. Thomas, A. Dorval, and M. C. Pasa. 2015. A Etnoentomologia na Comunidade Mata Cavalo de Baixo em Nossa Senhora do Livramento, MT, Brasil. Biodiversidade 14:84–92.
Santos, J. R. dos, F. J. S. Vieira, A. S. Oliveira, and F. P. Soares. 2022. Borboletas no Nordeste: As Borboletas em Áreas Protegidas de Florestas Nordestinas. Self-published.
Tyler, H. A., K. S. Brown, Jr., and K. H. Wilson. 1994. Swallowtail Butterflies of the Americas. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL.
Uehara-Prado, M., and D. B. Ribeiro. 2012. Serra do Itapeti: Aspectos Históricos, Sociais e Mutualísticos. In Borboletas em Floresta Atlântica: Métodos de Amostragem e Inventário de Espécies na Serra do Itapeti, vol. 1, pp. 167–186. Editora da Universidade de Mogi das Cruzes, Mogi das Cruzes, Brazil.
Ulysséa, M. A., N. Hanazaki, and B. C. Lopes. 2010. Percepção e Uso dos Insetos pelos Moradores da Comunidade de Ribeirão da Ilha, Santa Catarina, Brasil. Biotemas 23:1191–1202.
Vieira, R. S., C. Motta, and D. B. Agra. 2010. Observando Borboletas: Uma Experiência para Monitoramento de Fauna em Unidades de Conservação. Editora INPA, Manaus, Brazil.
Wijnen, B., H. L. Leertouwer, and D. G. Stavenga. 2007. Colors and Pterin Pigmentation of Pierid Butterfly Wings. Journal of Insect Physiology 53:1206–1217. DOI:10.1016/j.jinsphys.2007.06.016.
Yack, J. E., L. D. Otero, J. W. Dawson, A. Surlykke, and J. H. Fullard. 2001. Sound Production and Hearing in the Blue Cracker Butterfly Hamadryas feronia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of Experimental Biology 204:3689–3702. DOI:10.1242/jeb.203.24.3689.
Young, A. M. 1972. Community Ecology of Some Tropical Rain Forest Butterflies. American Midland Naturalist 87:146. DOI:10.2307/2423888.
Zacca, T., M. M. Casagrande, O. H. H. Mielke, B. Huertas, A. V. L. Freitas, M. A. Marín, M. Espeland, and K. R. Willmott. 2021. A New Euptychiine Butterfly Species from South Brazil and Taxonomic Rearrangements for Taydebis Freitas, 2013 and Hermeuptychia Forster, 1964 (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Satyrinae). Zootaxa 5023:555–570. DOI:10.11646/zootaxa.5023.4.5. PMID:34810948.
Appendix 1 Distribution of scientific and common names of butterflies recorded in 17 publications, organized by taxonomic family. The table presents the Family, Scientific Name, Common Name (EN) = common names in English, Common Name (PT) = common names in Portuguese, Categories, and Reference.
|
Family |
Scientific Name |
Common Name (EN) |
Common Name (PT) |
Categories |
Reference |
|
Hesperiidae |
Cogia calchas |
Mimosa butterfly |
Borboleta-mimosa |
Behavioral |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Epargyreus exadeus |
Silver drop butterfly |
Borboleta-gota-de-prata |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Mimoniades sp. |
Little devil butterfly |
Borboleta-diabinho |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Mysoria sp. |
Little devil butterfly |
Borboleta-diabinho |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Pyrrhopyge sp. |
Little devil butterfly |
Borboleta-diabinho |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Sarbia sp. |
Little devil butterfly |
Borboleta-diabinho |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Urbanus dorantes dorantes |
Dorantes longtail butterfly |
Borboleta-dorantes-longtail |
Symbolic |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Urbanus procne |
Longtailed brown butterfly |
Borboleta-marrom-de-rabo-longo |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
Lycaenidae |
Hemiargus hanno hanno |
Little clover blue butterfly |
Borboleta-azulzinha-do-trevo |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
Nymphalidae |
Anartia jatrophae |
White peacock butterfly |
Borboleta-pavão-branco |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Adelpha cytherea |
Smooth banded sister butterfly |
Borboleta-irmã-de-bandas-lisas |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Adelpha iphiclus |
Fooler butterfly |
Borboleta-engana-tolo |
Behavioral |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Adelpha syma |
Heart butterfly |
Borboleta-coração |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Agraulis vanillae |
Silver drops butterfly |
Borboleta-pingos-de-prata |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Agraulis vanillae |
Silver drops butterfly |
Borboleta-pingos-de-prata |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Agraulis vanillae |
Wild passion fruit butterfly |
Borboleta-maracujá-silvestre |
Dietary |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Agraulis vanillae maculosa |
Silver drops butterfly |
Borboleta-pingos-de-prata |
Morphological |
Oliveira Neto (2019) |
|
|
Anaea (Fountainea) ryphea |
Ruby butterfly |
Borboleta-rubi |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Anaea sp. |
Leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Anartia amathea |
Brown peacock butterfly |
Borboleta-pavão-marrom |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Anartia amathea |
Red peacock butterfly |
Borboleta-pavão-vermelho |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Anartia amathea |
Scarlet peacock butterfly |
Borboleta-pavão-escarlate |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Anartia jatrophae |
White peacock butterfly |
Borboleta-pavão-branco |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Archaeoprepona demophon |
Canoe butterfly |
Borboleta-canoa |
Symbolic |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Archeoprepona demophoon |
Blue canoe butterfly |
Borboleta-canoa-azul |
Symbolic |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Biblis hyperia |
Red ringed butterfly |
Borboleta-aro-vermelho |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Biblis hyperia nectanabis |
Red edged butterfly |
Borboleta-borda-vermelha |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Brassolis astyra |
Snuff butterfly |
Borboleta-rapé |
Symbolic |
Salgado-Neto (2010) |
|
|
Brevioleria aelia plisthenes |
Glass-winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Brevioleria seba emyra |
Glass-winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Caligo brasiliensis brasiliensis |
Owl butterfly |
Borboleta-coruja |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Caligo euphorbus |
Owl butterfly |
Borboleta-coruja |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Caligo eurilochus |
Owl butterfly |
Borboleta-coruja |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Caligo eurilochus |
Owl butterfly |
Borboleta-coruja |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Caligo idomeneus |
Owl butterfly |
Borboleta-coruja |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Caligo illioneus |
Owl butterfly |
Borboleta-coruja |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Caligo illioneus illioneus |
Owl butterfly |
Borboleta-coruja |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Caligo sp. |
Owl butterfly |
Borboleta-coruja |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Caligo sp. |
Owl butterfly |
Borboleta-coruja |
Morphological |
Godé and Nobre (2015) |
|
|
Caligo teucer |
Owl butterfly |
Borboleta-coruja |
Morphological |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Caligo teucer |
Owl butterfly |
Borboleta-coruja |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Callicore pygas |
Eighty butterfly |
Borboleta-oitenta |
Morphological |
Nomura (2007) |
|
|
Callicore sorana sorana |
80 butterfly |
Borboleta-80 |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Catagramma codomanus |
Fooler butterfly |
Borboleta-engana-tolo |
Behavioral |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Catagramma sp. |
Southern cross butterfly |
Borboleta-cruzeiro-do-sul |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Catoblepia xanthus |
Little owl butterfly |
Borboleta-corujinha |
Morphological |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Ceratinias sp. |
José maria butterfly |
Borboleta-josé-maria |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Cithaerias pireta |
Transparent butterfly |
Borboleta-transparente |
Morphological |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Coenophlebia sp. |
Leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Colobura dirce |
Zebra butterfly |
Borboleta-zebra |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Consul fabius |
Long-tailed josé maria butterfly |
Borboleta-josé-maria-de-cauda |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Consul sp. |
Leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Danaus erippus |
South american monarch butterfly |
Borboleta-monarca-sul-americana |
Symbolic |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Danaus erippus |
Southern monarch butterfly |
Borboleta-monarca-do-sul |
Symbolic |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Danaus gilippus |
Queen butterfly |
Borboleta-rainha |
Symbolic |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Danaus gilippus |
Viceroy butterfly |
Borboleta vice-rei |
Symbolic |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Diaethria clymena meridionalis |
88 butterfly |
Borboleta-88 |
Morphological |
Oliveira Neto (2019) |
|
|
Dione juno |
Passion fruit butterfly |
Borboleta-do-maracujá |
Dietary |
Oliveira (2021) |
|
|
Dione juno |
Passion fruit butterfly |
Borboleta-do-maracujá |
Dietary |
Oliveira (2021) |
|
|
Dryas iulia |
Fire in the air butterfly |
Borboleta-fogo-no-ar |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Dryas iulia alonga |
Julia butterfly |
Borboleta-julia |
Symbolic |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Dynamine postverta postverta |
Four-spotted sailor butterfly |
Borboleta-marinheiro-de-4-manchas |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Episcada carcinia |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Episcada hemixanthe |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Episcada hymenaea |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Episcada hymenaea hymenaea |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Episcada philoclea |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Episcada striposis |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Episcada vitrea |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Episcada zajciwi canaria |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Episcada zajciwi zajciwi |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Epityches eupompe |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Eueides isabella dianasa |
Striped tiger butterfly |
Borboleta-tigrada |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Eueides sp. |
Pumpkin butterfly |
Borboleta-abóbora |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Eunica tatila bellaria |
Purple winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-roxa |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Fountainea glycerium |
Leaf winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-folha |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Fountainea halice moretta |
Reddish leaf winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-folha-avermelhada |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Fountainea ryphea |
Leaf Butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Fountainea sp. |
Leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Haetera piera |
Transparent butterfly |
Borboleta-transparente |
Morphological |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Hamadryas amphinome |
Crackling butterfly |
Borboleta-estaladeira |
Ecological |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Hamadryas amphinome |
Red bellied percher butterfly |
Borboleta-assenta-pau-da-barriga-vermelha |
Behavioral |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas arinome |
Crackling butterfly |
Borboleta-estaladeira |
Ecological |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Hamadryas februa |
Angolan butterfly |
Borboleta-angolista |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas februa |
Crackling butterfly |
Borboleta-estaladeira |
Ecological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas februa |
Guinea fowl butterfly |
Borboleta-galinha-de-angola |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas februa |
Little angolan butterfly |
Borboleta-angolinha |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas februa |
Spotted butterfly |
Borboleta-carijó |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas februa |
Crackling butterfly |
Borboleta-estaladeira |
Ecological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Hamadryas feronia |
Angolan butterfly |
Borboleta-angolista |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas feronia |
Crackling butterfly |
Borboleta-estaladeira |
Ecological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas feronia |
Guinea fowl butterfly |
Borboleta-galinha-de-angola |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas feronia |
Little angolan butterfly |
Borboleta-angolinha |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas feronia |
Peddler butterfly |
Borboleta-mascate |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas feronia |
Peddler butterfly |
Borboleta-mascate |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas feronia |
Spotted butterfly |
Borboleta-carijó |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hamadryas feronia |
Crackling butterfly |
Borboleta-estaladeira |
Ecological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Hamadryas sp. |
Crackling butterfly |
Borboleta-estaladeira |
Ecological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Hamdryas amphinome amphinome |
Red crackling butterfly |
Borboleta-estaladeira-vermelha |
Ecological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Heliconius erato phyllis |
Cockscomb butterfly |
Borboleta-crista-de-galo |
Dietary |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Heliconius erato phyllis |
Red chestnut butterfly |
Borboleta-castanha-vermelha |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Heliconius erato phyllis |
Red chestnut butterfly |
Borboleta-castanha-vermelha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Heliconius erato phyllis |
Silly mary butterfly |
Borboleta-maria-boba |
Behavioral |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Heliconius erato phyllis |
Silly mary butterfly |
Borboleta-maria-boba |
Behavioral |
Salgado-Neto (2010) |
|
|
Heliconius erato phyllis |
Silly mary butterfly |
Borboleta-maria-boba |
Behavioral |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Heliconius ethilla |
Silly mary butterfly |
Borboleta-maria-boba |
Behavioral |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Heliconius ethilla narcaea |
Tiger butterfly |
Borboleta-tigre |
Morphological |
Oliveira Neto (2019) |
|
|
Heliconius ethilla polychrous |
Striped tiger butterfly |
Borboleta-tigrada |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Heliconius melpomene nanna |
Postman butterfly |
Borboleta-carteiro |
Symbolic |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Heliconius sara |
Yellow chestnut butterfly |
Borboleta-castanha-amarela |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Heliconius sara apseudes |
Cockscomb butterfly |
Borboleta-crista-de-galo |
Dietary |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Heliconius sp. |
José maria butterfly |
Borboleta-josé-maria |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Heliconius sp. |
Sponge butterfly |
Borboleta-esponja |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hermeuptychia hermes |
Hermes butterfly |
Borboleta-hermes |
Symbolic |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Heterosais edessa |
Glass-winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Historis acheronta |
Umbaúba canoe butterfly |
Borboleta-canoa-de-umbaúba |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Historis odius |
Yellow canoe butterfly |
Borboleta-canoa-amarela |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Historis odius odius |
Yellow canoe butterfly |
Borboleta-canoa-amarela |
Symbolic |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Hyalenna pascua |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Hypna clytemnestra |
Leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Hypna clytemnestra |
Soul from the other world butterfly |
Borboleta-alma-do-outro-mundo |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hypna clytemnestra forbesi |
Marbled leaf-winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-folha-marmorizada |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Hypna sp. |
Dry leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha-seca |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Hypoleria adasa adasa |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Hypoleria adasa parcilimbata |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Hypoleria alema oreas |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Hypoleria alema proxima |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Hypoleria sarepta goiana |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Ithomia agnosia |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Ithomia agnosia zikani |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Ithomia drymo |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Ithomia drymo |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Ithomia lichyi lichyi |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Junonia evarete evarete |
Daytime peacock-eye butterfly |
Borboleta-olho-de-pavão-diurno |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Junonia genoveva |
Daytime peacock-eye butterfly |
Borboleta-olho-de-pavão-diurno |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Junonia genoveva |
Mantle of our lady aparecida butterfly |
Borboleta-manto-de-maria-aparecida |
Symbolic |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Lycorea halia discreta |
Leaf-winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Lycorea halia discreta |
Striped tiger butterfly |
Borboleta-tigrada |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Lycorea sp. |
José maria butterfly |
Borboleta-josé-maria |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Lycorea sp. |
Sponge butterfly |
Borboleta-esponja |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Magneuptychia libye |
Gray blue satyr butterfly |
Borboleta-sátiro-cinza-azul |
Symbolic |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Marpesia chiron |
Wren butterfly |
Borboleta-cambaxirra |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Mcclungia cymo fallens |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Mcclungia cymo salonina |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Mechanitis lysimnia |
Confused tiger wing butterfly |
Borboleta-confusa-asa-de-tigre |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Mechanitis lysimnia |
Sweet-oil tiger butterfly |
Borboleta-tigre-de-óleo-doce |
Symbolic |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Mechanitis lysimnia lysimnia |
Striped tiger butterfly |
Borboleta-tigrada |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Mechanitis polymnia casabranca |
Striped tiger butterfly |
Borboleta-tigrada |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Mechanitis sp. |
José maria butterfly |
Borboleta-josé-maria |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Mechanitis sp. |
Sponge butterfly |
Borboleta-esponja |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Melinaea ethra |
Striped tiger butterfly |
Borboleta-tigrada |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Melinaea ludovica paraiya |
Striped tiger butterfly |
Borboleta-tigrada |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Memphis acidalia |
Leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Memphis basilia |
Leaf Butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Memphis leonida |
Leaf Butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Memphis moruus |
Leaf Butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Memphis offa |
Leaf Butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Memphis phantes |
Leaf Butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Memphis polycarmes |
Leaf Butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Mestra hersilia |
South american master butterfly |
Borboleta-mestra-da-américa-do-sul |
Ecological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Morpho achilles |
Captain butterfly |
Borboleta-capitão |
Ecological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Morpho achilles |
Runaway captain butterfly |
Borboleta-capitão-do-mato |
Ecological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Morpho anaxibia |
Hunchback butterfly |
Borboleta-corcovado |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Morpho eugenia |
Blue wizard butterfly |
Borboleta-bruxo-azul |
Symbolic |
Costa Neto (2022) |
|
|
Morpho helenor |
Runaway captain butterfly |
Borboleta-capitão-do-mato |
Ecological |
Godé and Nobre (2015) |
|
|
Morpho helenor anakreon |
Runaway captain butterfly |
Borboleta-capitão-do-mato |
Ecological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Morpho hercules |
Float butterfly |
Borboleta-boia |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Morpho menelaus |
Silky blue butterfly |
Borboleta-azul-seda |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Morpho sp. |
Blue butterfly |
Borboleta-azul |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Myscelia orsis |
Blue butterfly |
Borboleta-azul |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Oleria aquata |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Oleria aquata |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Oleria astrea astrea |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Oleria victorine manora |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Opsiphanes invirae |
Ghost butterfly |
Borboleta-fantasma |
Symbolic |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Opsiphanes invirae |
Snuff butterfly |
Borboleta-rapé |
Symbolic |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Opsiphanes quiteria |
Snuff butterfly |
Borboleta-rapé |
Symbolic |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Opsiphanes sp. |
Little owl butterfly |
Borboleta-corujinha |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Ortilia ithra |
Bataraza butterfly |
Borboleta-bataraza |
Symbolic |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Phantos sp. |
Leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Philaethria dido |
Emerald butterfly |
Borboleta-esmeralda |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Philaethria wernickei |
Emerald butterfly |
Borboleta-esmeralda |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Placidula euryanassa |
Striped tiger butterfly |
Borboleta-tigrada |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Polygrapha sp. |
Leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Prepona demophon |
Blue canoe butterfly |
Borboleta-canoa-azul |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Prepona laertes |
Blue canoe butterfly |
Borboleta-canoa-azul |
Symbolic |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Prepona sp. |
Canoe butterfly |
Borboleta-canoa |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Pseudoscada acilla acilla |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Pseudoscada acilla acilla |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Pseudoscada acilla quadrifasciata |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Pseudoscada erruca |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Braga (2022) |
|
|
Pseudoscada erruca |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Pseudoscada florula genetyllis |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Pteronymia carlia |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Pteronymia euritea |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-vidro |
Morphological |
Rosa and Freitas (2020) |
|
|
Siderone sp. |
Leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Siproeta stelenes |
Fooler butterfly |
Borboleta-engana-tolo |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Siproeta stelenes |
Malachite butterfly |
Borboleta-malaquita |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Siproeta stelenes meridionalis |
Malachite butterfly |
Borboleta-malaquita |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Smyrna blomfildia |
Cat face butterfly |
Borboleta-cara-de-gato |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Splendeuptychia tupinamba |
Tupinambá butterfly |
Borboleta-tubinambá |
Symbolic |
Rosa et al. (2021) |
|
|
Taydebis guria |
Girl butterfly |
Borboleta-guria |
Symbolic |
Zacca (2021) |
|
|
Taygetis echo |
Tristan butterfly |
Borboleta-tristão |
Symbolic |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Taygetis lanches |
Andromeda butterfly |
Borboleta-andromeda |
Symbolic |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Taygetis mermeria |
Tristan butterfly |
Borboleta-tristão |
Symbolic |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Zaretis galanthis |
Red striped wing butterfly |
Borboleta-asa-de-listras-vermelhas |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Zaretis isidora |
Leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Zaretis itys |
Leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Zaretis itys |
Leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Zaretis sp. |
Dry leaf butterfly |
Borboleta-folha-seca |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Zaretis sp. |
Pink canoe butterfly |
Borboleta-canoa-rosa |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
Papilionidae |
Battus polydamas |
Gold edged butterfly |
Borboleta-borda-de-ouro |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Battus polydamas |
Gold ringed swallowtail butterfly |
Borboleta-rabo-de-andorinha-de-aro-de-ouro |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Heraclides thoas brasiliensis |
Coffin butterfly |
Borboleta-caixão-de-defunto |
Symbolic |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Heraclides thoas brasiliensis |
Swallowtail butterfly |
Borboleta-rabo-de-andorinha |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Heraclides thoas brasiliensis |
Swallowtail papilio butterfly |
Borboleta-papilio-andorinha |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Parides zacynthus zacynthus |
Parides butterfly |
Borboleta-parides |
Symbolic |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Protesilaus glaucolaus |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-vidro-no-ar |
Morphological |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Protesilaus molops |
Glass winged butterfly |
Borboleta-vidro-no-ar |
Morphological |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
Pieridae |
Anteos menippe |
Flock butterfly |
Borboleta-de-bando |
Ecological |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Ascia monuste orseis |
Cabbage pest butterfly |
Borboleta-praga-da-couve |
Dietary |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Ascia monuste orseis |
Ucurerê kale butterfly |
Borboleta-ucurerê-da-couve |
Dietary |
Cardoso et al. (2010) |
|
|
Ascia monuste orseis |
White cabbage butterfly |
Borboleta-branca-da-couve |
Dietary |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Dismorphia melia |
Gardener butterfly |
Borboleta-jardineira |
Ecological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Perrhybris sp. |
Gossip butterfly |
Borboleta-comadre |
Symbolic |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Phoebis argante |
Egg yolk butterfly |
Borboleta-gema-de-ovo |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Phoebis argante |
Egg yolk butterfly |
Borboleta-gema-de-ovo |
Morphological |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Phoebis argante |
Yolk butterfly |
Borboleta-gema |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Phoebis marcelina |
Little yellow butterfly |
Borboleta-amarelinha |
Morphological |
Santos et al. (2022) |
|
|
Phoebis philea |
Yolk butterfly |
Borboleta-gema |
Morphological |
Lenko and Papavero (1996) |
|
|
Phoebis philea |
Yolk butterfly |
Borboleta-gema |
Morphological |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Phoebis philea |
Yolk butterfly |
Borboleta-gema |
Morphological |
Oliveira and Baccaro (2024) |
|
|
Phoebis statira |
Flock butterfly |
Borboleta-de-bando |
Ecological |
Vieira et al. (2010) |
|
|
Pyrisitia nise tenella |
Yellow mimosa butterfly |
Borboleta-mimosa-amarela |
Behavioral |
Santos et al. (2022) |