Data Paper
Data Paper
A database on the distribution of butterflies (Lepidoptera) in northern Belgium (Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region)
expand article infoDirk Maes, Wouter Vanreusel§, Marc Herremans§, Pieter Vantieghem|, Dimitri Brosens, Karin Gielen§, Olivier Beck, Hans Van Dyck#, Peter Desmet, Vlinderwerkgroep Natuurpunt|
‡ Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium
§ Natuurpunt Studie, Mechelen, Belgium
| Vlinderwerkgroep Natuurpunt, Mechelen, Belgium
¶ Leefmilieu Brussel/BIM, Brussels, Belgium
# Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Open Access


In this data paper, we describe two datasets derived from two sources, which collectively represent the most complete overview of butterflies in Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region (northern Belgium). The first dataset (further referred to as the INBO dataset contains 761,660 records of 70 species and is compiled by the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) in cooperation with the Butterfly working group of Natuurpunt (Vlinderwerkgroep). It is derived from the database Vlinderdatabank at the INBO, which consists of (historical) collection and literature data (1830-2001), for which all butterfly specimens in institutional and available personal collections were digitized and all entomological and other relevant publications were checked for butterfly distribution data. It also contains observations and monitoring data for the period 1991-2014. The latter type were collected by a (small) butterfly monitoring network where butterflies were recorded using a standardized protocol. The second dataset (further referred to as the Natuurpunt dataset contains 612,934 records of 63 species and is derived from the database, hosted at the nature conservation NGO Natuurpunt in collaboration with Stichting Natuurinformatie. This dataset contains butterfly observations by volunteers (citizen scientists), mainly since 2008. Together, these datasets currently contain a total of 1,374,594 records, which are georeferenced using the centroid of their respective 5 × 5 km² Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid cell. Both datasets are published as open data and are available through the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).


Butterflies, distribution, collection, literature, citizen science, observations, monitoring

Data published through

INBO dataset:


Natuurpunt dataset:



Butterflies are among the best studied insects in the world and have always attracted the attention of both professional researchers, amateur naturalists, butterfly collectors, and the wider public (Kühn et al. 2008). Butterflies are widely considered as interesting study systems for ecology, evolution, behaviour, and conservation biology (e.g., Watt and Boggs 2003). Many butterflies have been collected and subsequently stored in museum or private collections. Furthermore, entomologists have often published lists of observed species during excursions to special habitats or have made overviews of regional or national butterfly faunas. In Belgium, entomology in general and lepidopterology in particular, have a long tradition with the first faunas already published only seven years after its independence in 1830 (De Selys-Longchamps 1837). Since then, several authors have updated the Belgian butterfly fauna based on collections or observations (e.g., Hackray et al. 1969; De Prins 1998). In 1991, the youth and nature organization Jeugdbond voor Natuur en Milieu (JNM) launched a butterfly project with the aim to publish a distribution atlas of the butterflies of Flanders, northern Belgium (Daniëls 1991). To do so, a first step consisted of collecting all historical collection and literature data. Secondly, a working group was organised in cooperation between JNM, De Wielewaal (which later became Natuurpunt) and the INBO that set up a citizen science project to obtain as many butterfly observations with a good spatial coverage over Flanders. The data gathered during this project (period 1991-1998) were used to compile a first Red List (Maes and Van Dyck 2001) and a distribution atlas of butterflies in Flanders, including the Brussels Capital Region (Maes and Van Dyck 1999). Recently, both the Red List (Maes et al. 2012) and the distribution atlas (Maes et al. 2013) were updated using recent distribution data recorded through, a data portal launched by Natuurpunt, the largest nature conservation NGO in Belgium, where citizen-scientists can store and keep track of their recordings. Here, we publish both the historical and the more recent data used for the Red List and the distribution atlases as a data paper on a UTM grid cell resolution of 5 × 5 km².

Taxonomic coverage

The datasets cover all 67 indigenous and 3 regular migrant butterfly species (Colias croceus, Colias hyale, Vanessa cardui). In the INBO dataset vagrant or doubtful species (Apatura ilia, Arethusana arethusa, Boloria dia, Brenthis ino, Coenonympha arcania, Colias alfacariensis, Colias palaeno, Cupido argiades, Danaus plexippus, Erebia aethiops, Erebia ligea, Erebia medusa, Hamearis lucina, Iphiclides podalirius, Lampides boeticus, Lasiommata maera, Limenitis populi, L. reducta, Lycaena dispar, Lycaena helle, Lycaena hippothoe, Lycaena virgaureae, Melitaea aurelia, Pontia daplidice) and introduced species (Cacyreus marshalli and Polyommatus damon) were excluded because no evidence of the observation was available. In the Natuurpunt dataset, however, eight vagrant species with photographic evidence, that most likely spontaneously reached Flanders were included (Apatura ilia, Brenthis ino, Cupido argiades, Iphiclides podalirius, Lampides boeticus, Nymphalis xanthomelas, Polyommatus coridon and Pontia daplidice). Three additional species (Aporia crataegi, Argynnis adippe and A. aglaja) are considered as indigenous species, but recent observations are all vagrant individuals. Nomenclature is according to Fauna Europaea (

Taxonomic ranks

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Arthropoda, Subphylum: Hexapoda, Class: Insecta, Order: Lepidoptera, Superfamilies: Hesperoidea, Papilioidea, Families: Hesperiidae, Lycaenidae, Nymphalidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae, Subfamilies: Apaturinae, Coliadinae, Dismorphiinae, Heliconiinae, Heteropterinae, Hesperiinae, Limenitidinae, Lycaeninae, Melitaeinae, Nymphalinae, Papilioninae, Pierini, Polyommatinae, Pyrginae, Satyrinae, Theclinae, Genera: Aglais, Anthocharis, Apatura, Aphantopus, Aporia, Araschnia, Argynnis, Aricia, Boloria, Callophrys, Carcharodus, Carterocephalus, Celastrina, Coenonympha, Cupido, Cyaniris, Erynnis, Euphydryas, Favonius, Gonepteryx, Hesperia, Heteropterus, Hipparchia, Issoria, Lasiommata, Leptidea, Limenitis, Lycaena, Maniola, Melitaea, Melanargia, Nymphalis, Ochlodes, Papilio, Pararge, Phengaris, Pieris, Plebejus, Polygonia, Polyommatus, Pyrgus, Pyronia, Satyrium, Spialia, Thecla, Thymelicus, Vanessa

Species: Table 1 gives an overview of the species, together with the number of records present in the respective datasets.

Table 1.

The number of records per species in the two datasets and the sum of the records in both datasets. v = observations with photographic evidence, but the species most probably do not have populations in Flanders. indicates that a species is considered as extinct in Flanders; the year of extinction is also given. Observations after the year of extinction are considered as vagrant individuals. M: regular migrant species, (M): the species is indigenous, but the regional population is supplemented by migrant individuals.

Species name INBO Natuurpunt Total
Aglais io 54,329 52,471 106,800
Aglais urticae 35,237 25,047 60,284
Anthocharis cardamines 15,689 17,393 33,082
Apatura ilia - 4v 4
Apatura iris 141 304 445
Aphantopus hyperantus 8,156 7,636 15,792
Aporia crataegi †1960 120 2v 122
Araschnia levana 24,772 18,531 43,303
Argynnis adippe †1947 22 3v 25
Argynnis aglaja †1971 54 1v 55
Argynnis niobe †1977 21 - 21
Argynnis paphia 272 697 969
Aricia agestis 6,867 5,251 12,118
Boloria euphrosyne †1949 37 - 37
Boloria selene †1994 181 - 181
Brenthis ino - 7v 7
Callophrys rubi 2,008 1,552 3,560
Carcharodus alceae 16 402 418
Carterocephalus palaemon 1,159 2,478 3,637
Celastrina argiolus 21,857 20,579 42,436
Coenonympha hero †1912 16 - 16
Coenonympha pamphilus 9,886 10,429 20,315
Coenonympha tullia †1994 70 - 70
Colias croceus M 3,380 12,762 16,142
Colias hyale M 617 277 894
Cupido argiades - 1v 1
Cupido minimus 82 43 125
Cyaniris semiargus 222 76 298
Erynnis tages 102 130 232
Euphydryas aurinia †1959 65 - 65
Favonius quercus 2,217 3,051 5,268
Gonepteryx rhamni 20,011 22,357 42,368
Hesperia comma 145 471 616
Heteropterus morpheus †1995 29 - 29
Hipparchia semele 4,157 5,160 9,317
Hipparchia statilinus †1930 11 - 11
Iphiclides podalirius - 5v 5
Issoria lathonia 2,794 3,216 6,010
Lampides boeticus - 44v 44
Lasiommata megera 4,089 1,882 5,971
Leptidea sinapis 144 585 729
Limenitis camilla 1,154 2,323 3,477
Limenitis populi †1957 14 - 14
Lycaena phlaeas 16,393 15,246 31,639
Lycaena tityrus 303 263 566
Maniola jurtina 35,117 31,782 66,899
Melanargia galathea 53 23 76
Melitaea athalia †1968 80 - 80
Melitaea cinxia 300 466 766
Melitaea diamina †1954 28 - 28
Nymphalis antiopa 240 63 303
Nymphalis polychloros 323 362 685
Nymphalis xanthomelas - 5v 5
Ochlodes sylvanus 11,484 15,660 27,144
Papilio machaon 10,322 8,927 19,249
Pararge aegeria 65,290 56,129 121,419
Phengaris alcon 441 342 783
Phengaris teleius †1980 136 - 136
Pieris brassicae 45,713 22,030 67,743
Pieris napi 54,313 28,294 82,607
Pieris rapae 94,957 52,188 147,145
Plebejus argus 1,436 1,711 3,147
Plebejus idas †1984 15 - 15
Polygonia c-album 33,660 36,058 69,718
Polyommatus coridon - 12v 12
Polyommatus icarus 20,269 21,186 41,455
Pontia daplidice - 3v 3
Pyrgus armoricanus †1952 18 - 18
Pyrgus malvae 589 527 1116
Pyronia tithonus 31,771 21,184 52,955
Satyrium ilicis 397 617 1,014
Satyrium w-album 97 504 601
Spialia sertorius †1937 8 - 8
Thecla betulae 835 2,191 3,026
Thymelicus lineola 17,087 5,029 22,116
Thymelicus sylvestris 1,012 387 1,399
Vanessa atalanta (M) 69,965 55,306 125,271
Vanessa cardui M 28,865 21,269 50,134
Total 761,660 612,934 1,374,594
N species 70 63 78
Number of grid cells surveyed 631 634 637
Number of different observers 1,697 3,856

Common names: Butterflies

Geographic coverage

Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region

Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region cover an area of 13,522 km² and 162 km² respectively (13,684 km² in total – Figure 1). This area is situated in the northern of Belgium and represents 45% of the Belgian territory. Flanders is largely covered by agricultural land and urban areas while the Brussels Capital Region is mainly urban (Table 2). Both regions have a very high population density (Table 2).

Figure 1. 

The location of Belgium in Europe (left) and the three administrative regions of Belgium (right): Flanders (yellow), the Brussels Capital Region (black) and Wallonia (red).

Table 2.

Area of the main land use types in Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region in ha (ranked in descending order of percentage in both regions). Source: Biological Valuation Map Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region (Vriens et al. 2011).

Land use type Flanders Land use type Brussels Capital Region
Agricultural land 702 276 (51%) Urban areas 11 917 (73%)
Urban areas 411 144 (30%) Woodlands 1988 (12%)
Woodlands 138 595 (10%) Other green areas 1568 (10%)
Other green areas 39 516 (3%) Agricultural land 544 (3%)
Water 32 008 (2%) Water 185 (1%)
Semi-natural grasslands 15 315 (1%) Semi-natural grasslands 27 (<1%)
Heathlands 8140 (<1%) Marshes 17 (<1%)
Coastal dunes 1818 (<1%) Heathlands 3 (<1%)
Marshes 1742 (<1%)
Mud flats and salt marshes 1497 (<1%)
Population density 474/km² 7210/km²

Bounding box

50°40'48"N to 51°30'36"N latitude, 2°32'24"E to 5°55'12"E longitude

Georeferencing method

All distribution data of butterflies in Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region were attributed to grid cells of 5 × 5 km² of the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection (Figure 2). The centroids of the 5 × 5 km² grid cells were calculated using the WGS84 projection with a coordinateUncertaintyInMeters of 3,769 meters (Wieczorek et al. 2004).

Figure 2. 

10 × 10 km² UTM grid cells in Flanders and in the Brussels Capital Region. The partitioning of 10 × 10 km² UTM grid cells (left) into 5 × 5 km² UTM grid cells is shown on the right. The 5 × 5 km² UTM grid cells were used to georeference the distribution data in Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region.

In total, Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region cover 638 (622 with records) and 9 (all nine with records) grid cells, respectively. The grid cells without records only cover a very small area within Flanders.

Temporal coverage

The INBO dataset mainly covers the historical museum and literature records (since 1830), butterfly monitoring records (since 1991) and observations (until 2008) while the Natuurpunt dataset covers the recent observations (mostly since 2008). Between 2000 and 2006, a butterfly survey project was organised in the province of West-Flanders (Cuvelier et al. 2007) and in the period 2006-2008, a similar project was undertaken in the Brussels Capital Region by the INBO on demand of Leefmilieu Brussel – BIM (Beckers et al. 2009). Both datasources were integrated in the INBO dataset. Since the introduction of the data portal for storing observations by the NGO Natuurpunt in 2008, the number of records has strongly increased and now reaches almost 150,000 records per year (Figure 3). The datasets will be updated on a yearly basis.

Figure 3. 

Number of collected records between 1830 and 1985 (left) and between 1986 and 2014 (right) in the two datasets (INBO and Natuurpunt). Each number on the x-axis stands for a period of 5 years (e.g., 1905 = 1901–1905, 1910 = 1906–1910, etc.). Note the different scales on the y-axis for both figures.


Sampling methods

Butterfly distribution data were collected in four different ways: i) collection data, ii) literature data, iii) monitoring transect data and iv) observations.

Collection data were digitized from the following museum collections: Bosmuseum Groenendaal, Royal Institute for Natural Sciences (Brussels), Agricultural Faculty of Gembloux, Ghent university and the Antwerp Zoo. Furthermore, the private butterfly collections of the following people were also incorporated into the INBO dataset: A. Artoisenet, R. Bracke, A. Caljon, S. Cuvelier, A. De Boer, K. Desender, P. Halflants, D. Hilven, J. & T. Jaeken, M. Keirens, H. Kinders, P. & W. Pardon, W. Tips, W. Troukens, F. Turelinckx, O. Van De Kerckhove, R. Van Heuverswijn, B. Vandepitte, J. Vervaeke & R. Winnen. The source collection is indicated in the field associatedReferences.

Published observations were searched for in different literature sources (see section “References to literature checked for occurrence data” in the Suppl. material 1) and indicated in the field associatedReferences. Since most of the records in collections and in the literature were only reported at the municipality level, the UTM 5 × 5 km² grid cell of the centre of the municipality was attributed to the record.

Butterfly monitoring counts were conducted along fixed transects of maximum 1 km, consisting of smaller sections, each with a homogeneous habitat (e.g., woodland, hay meadow, dry heathland – see van Swaay et al. 2008; van Swaay et al. 2011 for a detailed description of the monitoring method).

Observations (species, date, location, observer) were recorded by volunteers/citizen scientists and stored in the INBO dataset (mainly for the period 1991-2007, usually with a resolution of 1 × 1 km² or 5 × 5 km²) or in the Natuurpunt dataset. Since 2011, 69% of the records had a precision of 25m or less. Because of the increasing popularity of mobile apps using GPS readings in the field, this proportion increased with 5% per year to reach 77% in 2015. The number of observers in the INBO and the Natuurpunt datasets is given in Table 1. The frequency distribution of the recorders per number of records is given in Figure 4.

Figure 4. 

Frequency distribution of the observers per number of records in the datasets of INBO and Natuurpunt.

A list of references that used data described in this paper can be found in the section “Publications based on this dataset” in the Suppl. material 1.

Quality control

The data in both datasets were carefully verified by butterfly experts (including professional entomologists) taking collection specimens, the observer’s species knowledge, added photographs and known species list of locations into account. The validation procedure from consists of an interactive procedure in which observers can be asked for additional information by a team of validators, after which the validator manually adds a validation status. Records that are not manually validated are additionally checked by an automated validation procedure that takes into account the number of manually validated observations within a specified date and distance range. 11% of the butterfly records submitted to the data portal are supported by photographs. The validation status is indicated in the field identificationVerificationStatus.

Information withheld

In the original databases, the observer’s name, the exact XY-coordinates and the toponym are known.


Dataset description

The butterfly occurrence data are published as two separate Darwin Core Archives: 1) collection and literature data, observations and butterfly monitoring in Flanders and in the Brussels Capital Region (1830-2014) hosted at the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) and 2) recent observations (1974-2014) from the Natuurpunt data portal ( The data models used for both datasets are identical and can be merged easily. The INBO dataset contains 761,660 records and the Natuurpunt dataset 612,934 records totalling to almost 1.4 million records. The data compiled for the butterfly atlas of the Brussels Capital Region are marked as INBO/LB-BIM in the ownerInstitutionCode field in the INBO dataset.

The distribution of the number of records and species per grid cell for both datasets is given in Figure 5.

Figure 5. 

Number of records (left, increasing dot sizes represent 100, 1000, 2500, 5000 and >5000 records per grid cell) and species (right, increasing dot sizes represent 10, 20, 30, 40 and >40 species per grid cell) in the INBO dataset (1830–2014, top row) and in the NP dataset (1981–2014, bottom row). Squares indicate grid cells without records.

The data are standardized to Darwin Core (Wieczorek et al. 2012) with a custom SQL view on the original INBO and Natuurpunt butterfly database respectively. They were published using the GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit (Robertson et al. 2014) instance at the INBO ( The Darwin Core terms ( in the dataset at the time of publication are:

occurrenceID, type, language, license, rightsHolder, accessRights, references, datasetID, institutionCode, datasetName, ownerInstitutionCode, basisOfRecord, informationWithheld, dataGeneralizations, recordedBy, individualCount, sex, lifestage, associatedReferences, samplingProtocol, samplingEffort, eventDate, verbatimEventDate, continent, countryCode, stateProvince, municipality, verbatimLocality, verbatimCoordinates, verbatimCoordinateSystem, verbatimSRS, decimalLatitude, decimalLongitude, geodeticDatum, coordinateUncertaintyInMeters, georeferenceRemarks, identificationVerificationStatus, scientificName, kingdom, phylum, class, order, taxonRank, scientificNameAuthorship, vernacularName, nomenclaturalCode.

INBO dataset

Object name: Vlinderdatabank – Butterflies in Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region, Belgium

Format name: Darwin Core Archive format

Format version: 1.0

Character encoding: UTF-8

Language: English


Usage norms:

Publication date: 2016-01-13



Natuurpunt dataset

Object name: – Butterfly observations in Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region, Belgium

Format name: Darwin Core Archive format

Format version: 1.0

Character encoding: UTF-8

Language: English


Usage norms:

Publication date: 2016-02-02



Usage norms

To allow anyone to use the datasets described here, we released the data to the public domain under a Creative Commons Zero waiver ( Users of published datasets are encouraged to follow the respective norms for data use ( and [in Dutch]) and to provide a link to the original dataset ( and, whenever appropriate. If used for a scientific paper, it is recommended to cite the dataset following the applicable citation norms (e.g. GBIF 2012) and/or to contact the authors for additional information (, or Dataset issues can also be reported via


First of all, we would like to thank the many volunteers for their observations, the subsequent board members of the Vlinderwerkgroep for their contributions to different data collection projects. A list of contributors to this datapaper can be send on request for the INBO dataset and can be found on for the Natuurpunt dataset. Gert Van Spaendonk, Pieter Vandenbroeck, Jo Loos, Tom De Boeck, Wouter Van Schandevijl, Frederic Piesschaert, Sven Schelfaut, Stijn Van Hoey and Filiep T’jollyn helped to build, maintain and use the INBO web application. Stichting Natuurinformatie build the data portal We also thank Marc Pollet and Anne Eskildsen for useful comments on the manuscript.


  • Beckers K, Ottart N, Fichefet V, Godeau JF, Weyembergh G, Beck O, Gryseels M, Maes D (2009) Dagvlinders van het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest: verspreiding, behoud en beheer/Papillons de jour de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale: répartition, conservation et gestion, Leefmilieu Brussel & Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, Brussel, 158 pp.
  • Cuvelier S, Degrande J, Merveillie L, Spruytte S, Vervaeke J (2007) Dagvlinders in West-Vlaanderen. Verspreiding en Ecologie 2000–2006, Z.W.V.V.K., Ieper, 144 pp.
  • Daniëls L (1991) JNM-Dagvlinderprojekt. Euglena 10: 26–27.
  • De Prins W (1998) Catalogue of the Lepidoptera of Belgium, Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Brussel, 235 pp.
  • De Selys-Longchamps E (1837) Catalogue des Lepidoptères ou Papillons de la Belgique. Luik, 14–21.
  • GBIF (2012) Recommended practices for citation of the data published through the GBIF Network. Version 1.0 (Authored by Vishwas Chavan), Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen, 12 pp.
  • Hackray J, Sarlet L, Berger L (1969) Catalogue des macrolépidoptères de Belgique. Lambillionea (suppl.) 67: 1–256.
  • Kühn E, Feldmann R, Harpke A, Hirneisen N, Musche M, Leopold P, Settele J (2008) Getting the public involved in butterfly conservation: Lessons learned from a new monitoring scheme in Germany. Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution, 54: 89–103. doi: 10.1560/IJEE.54.1.89
  • Maes D, Van Dyck H (1999) Dagvlinders in Vlaanderen - Ecologie, verspreiding en behoud, Stichting Leefmilieu i.s.m. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud en Vlaamse Vlinderwerkgroep, Antwerpen/Brussel, 480 pp.
  • Maes D, Van Dyck H (2001) Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (north Belgium): Europe’s worst case scenario? Biological Conservation 99: 263–276. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00182-8
  • Maes D, Vanreusel W, Jacobs I, Berwaerts K, Van Dyck H (2012) Applying IUCN Red List criteria at a small regional level: A test case with butterflies in Flanders (north Belgium). Biological Conservation, 145: 258–266. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.021
  • Maes D, Vanreusel W, Van Dyck H (2013) Dagvlinders in Vlaanderen: nieuwe kennis voor betere actie, Uitgeverij Lannoo nv, Tielt, 542 pp.
  • Robertson T, Doring M, Guralnick R, Bloom D, Wieczorek J, Braak K, Otegui J, Russell L, Desmet P (2014) The GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit: Facilitating the Efficient Publishing of Biodiversity Data on the Internet. PLoS ONE 9: e102623. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102623
  • van Swaay CAM, Nowicki P, Settele J, van Strien AJ (2008) Butterfly monitoring in Europe: methods, applications and perspectives. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 3455–3469. doi: 10.1007/s10531-008-9491-4
  • van Swaay CAM, Termaat T, Plate CL (2011) Handleiding Landelijke Meetnetten Vlinders en Libellen, Rapport VS2011.001. De Vlinderstichting & Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Wageningen/Den Haag, 27 pp.
  • Vriens L, Bosch H, De Knijf G, De Saeger S, Oosterlynck P, Guelinckx R, T’jollyn F, Van Hove M, Paelinckx D (2011) De Biologische Waarderingskaart. Biotopen en hun verspreiding in Vlaanderen en het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Mededelingen van het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek INBO.M.2011.1. Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, Brussel, 416 pp.
  • Watt WB, Boggs CL (2003) Butterflies as model systems in ecology and evolution - Present and future. In: Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR (Eds) Butterflies: Ecology and evolution taking flight. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 603–613
  • Wieczorek J, Bloom D, Guralnick R, Blum S, Doring M, Giovanni R, Robertson T, Vieglais D (2012) Darwin Core: An Evolving Community-Developed Biodiversity Data Standard. PLoS ONE 7: e29715. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029715
  • Wieczorek J, Guo QG, Hijmans RJ (2004) The point-radius method for georeferencing locality descriptions and calculating associated uncertainty. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 18: 745–767. doi: 10.1080/13658810412331280211

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 

A database on the distribution of butterflies (Lepidoptera) in northern Belgium (Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region)

Dirk Maes, Wouter Vanreusel, Marc Herremans, Pieter Vantieghem, Dimitri Brosens, Karin Gielen, Olivier Beck, Hans Van Dyck, Peter Desmet, Vlinderwerkgroep Natuurpunt

Data type: Additional references

Explanation note: The supplementery material provides 1) a list of published entomological references that were checked for occurrence data and 2) a list of references that used data described in this paper.

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License ( The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (29.67 kb)
login to comment