Good job, Gilbert.
However, I have one reservation - there is no reference to state what system of taxonomy you are using (e.g. the HKLS website or some other author). I bring this issue up because most HK and Chinese references still split the Nymphalidae at the family level, rather than subfamily level. Most modern taxonomic research show the danaids, acraeids, satyrids, vanessids, charaxines, amathusines and nymphalines to all be placed in Nymphalidae. This includes one of the most recent authorative publications that looks at higher classification of the Lepidoptera - Holloway, Kibbie & Peggie, 2001, The Families of Malesian Moths & Butterflies (published bu E.J.Brill, Leiden, the Netherlands), which follows a similar line to the most comprehensive recent treatment on Lepidoptera - N.P.Kristenesen (ed.), 1999. Handbook of Zoology, Band 34: Arthropoda, Insecta, part 35 - Lepidoptera, Moths & Butterflies - volume 1: Evolution, Systematics and Biogeography (published by Walter de Gruyter, Berlin & New York), in which Ackery, de Rink & Vane-Wright point out that "there is a single complex character unique to all members of the family: Ventromesial surface of antennae with three longitudinal ridges (carinae), separating two continuous sulci, or pairs of shallow depressions on each segment" (not a character readily seen in the field!!), and who use Nymphalidae in the broader sense. As I'm not the butterfly forum moderator, I'll leave it up to Philip Lo to call the shots on which classification should be used (whilst bearing in mind that unless we can conclusively demonstrate the arrangement you have posted is valid, it will probably have to be edited to currently accepted international nomencalture).
At least with the Nymphalidae we don't have the problems posed by the ever shifting opinions regarding the Noctuoidea and Pyraloidea in the moths!!
[ Last edited by hkmoths at 2007-3-6 23:12 ]