Hemming (1967) stated:-
From the beginning of the XXth century and indeed for many years earlier the name Liptena Westwood and also the name Pentila Westwood were in general use for genera which under the Code had no claim to bear these names ; the name Liptena was used for a group of between sixty and seventy species, of which one was Liptena undularis Hewitson, the name Pentila Westwood for a group of between forty and fifty species, of which one was Tingra tropicalis Boisduval, 1847. Both these usages were entirely incorrect. Under the Code the name Liptena applied not to the large group for which it was commonly used but to the quite different group (of about thirty species) universally known by the name Telipna Aurivillius, 1895, the type-species of which (Liptena acraea Westwood, ) by selection by Scudder in 1875 (Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 208) was under the Code the true type-species of Liptena Westwood. If the Code had been correctly applied in the foregoing manner, the name Telipna would have become a junior objective synonym of Liptena, while for the large group of species hitherto known as Liptena, it would have been necessary to bring into use the long-discarded name Parapontia Röber, . At the genus-name level the problem associated with the name Liptena is distinct from that of the name Pentila, but these names are connected with one another at the family-group name level - each being the name of a family-group taxon - with the result that a shift in the interpretation of these genera would have involved changes at the family-group-name level (either subfamily or tribe, according to the taxonomic view taken as to the status to be assigned to the taxa concerned). Under the Code the type-species (by monotypy) of the genus Pentila was Pentila zymna Westwood, . This species is currently treated subjectively as congeneric with Megalopalpus simplex Röber, 1886, the type-species of the genus Megalopalpus Röber, 1886. Accordingly, under the Code the name Megalopalpus Röber was a junior subjective synonym of Pentila Westwood. The application of the name Pentila in the foregoing sense, as required by the Code would have led to the utmost confusion, for not only would it have involved the use of the name Pentila in an entirely novel sense, but it would have required that that name should be used for a genus (i.e. that hitherto known as Megalopalpus) which was not a member of the Lipteninae but which was referable to a far removed subfamily of the Lycaenidae, the subfamily Miletinae. As for the large group of species hitherto placed in the genus Pentila, they should under the Code have been placed in the genus Tingra Boisduval, 1847 (type-species by monotypy : Tingra tropicalis Boisduval, 1847), a nominal genus which, though older than Pentila Westwood, had been completely ignored by all authors subsequent to Boisduval himself.
Fortunately, the devastating changes indicated above were never put into effect, lepidopterists, though realizing that they were required under the Code, deeming it better to maintain the firmly-established, though incorrect usage of the names Liptena and Pentila, until, as it was hoped, an opportunity might present itself for securing the validation of that usage. This opportunity arose when the Commission began to use its Plenary Powers for preventing confusion at the species-name level as well as at the genus-name level, for dealing with which those powers had hitherto in practice been reserved. In 1957 M. H. Stempffer (Paris) and I judged that the time was ripe for approaching the Commission in this case. In the application which we then submitted we asked that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to secummission began to use its Plenary Powers for preventing confusion at the species-name level as well as at the genus-name level, for dealing with which those powers had hitherto in practice been reserved. In 1957 M. H. Stempffer (Paris) and I judged that the time was ripe for approaching the Commission in this case. In the application which we then submitted we asked that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to secure the valid application of the names Liptena Westwood and Pentila Westwood by designating Liptena undularis Hewitson to be the type-species of the first of these genera and Tingra tropicalis Boisduval to be the type-species of the second. At the same time we asked for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Tingra Boisduval, this being necessary to prevent the name Pentila, defined as we then proposed, from falling as a junior objective synonym of Tingra Boisduval. These and the associated proposals then submitted were approved by the Commission, the decision so taken being promulgated in the Commission's Opinion 566 published in 1959 (Opin. int. Comm. Zool. Nom. 20 : 377-390). In the foregoing Opinion the name Liptena Westwood, defined, as indicated above, was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No., 1365.
LIPTENA was included within the subfamily LYCAENIDAE: PORITIINAE by Ackery et al., in Kristensen (1999).
The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).
Learn more about Lycaenidae in Wikipedia
Search the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) for references to LIPTENA and included species.