Warren (1961) concluded that Pieris napi nesis Fruhstorfer, 1909 from Hokkaido, Japan was included in 'melete-group' instead of 'napi-group' judging from its androconia. Since P. melete from Hokkaido is treated as P. melete melete, the taxon of nesis become a synonym of melete due to the year of priority, if the specimen that Warren (1961) inspected was the type specimen of P. nesis in NHM. On the other hand, P. napi nesis has been treated as the napi-related species from mainland Japan, according to Eitschberger (1984). It is apparent that both the original description and the type specimens in NHM indicate that nesis is either P. melete or the napi-related species from mainland Japan (not the one from Hokkaido), judging from its wing markings. I infer that the real status of Pieris nesis may be Pieris melete from Hokkaido based on the following reasons; 1) Fruhstorfer (1909) described its type locality as "North-Japan, 2♂ ♂, 2♀ ♀. Sapporo (Dr. Matsumura leg.)". Sapporo in Hokkaido is the most appropriate type locality. 2) A handwriting label attached to the holotype specimen "**megamera Butl." means Pieris melete from Hakodate, Hokkaido as per Butler (1873). 3) The yellow label "andr. b.m.37 S.R.B." can be read as "androconia, sample no.- b.m.37, S. R. Bowden" which perfectly coincides with the first sentence of the Acknowledgment in Warren (1961) as "I am indebted for the loan of material to Mr. S. R. Bowden, and so on". It is indicated that the androconia of nesis that Warren (1961) inspected was provided by S. R. Bowden who obtained it from the male type specimen of nesis. For the sake of confirming it, I studied the type specimen of Pieris durcinea Butler, 1882, which Warren (1961) inspected as well, and found a same yellow label written "andr. b.m.39 S.R.B.". 4) Eitschberger (1984) stated "The spring generation of nesis can be distinguished from melete in many cases only by the androconia." which indicated that Eitschberger superseded wing markings to the androconia for the identification of nesis. I infer that Eitschberger had noticed Warren (1961) but ignored the results by the above statement. I like to inspect the androconia of the holotype specimen of Pieris nesis in NHM to conclude the real status of Pieris (napi) nesis at my earliest opportunity.

View full abstract