Some species of Helvibotys and Helvibotys are indistinguishable without dissection according to Brian Scholtens. For individual species descriptions, look at their respective species pages.
The following notes were created by Steve Nanz based on Capps, 1967
and through communication with Brian Scholtens.
Helvibotys freemani: Not covered and very different.
Helvibotys helvialis: Forewing: Upper surface pale yellow, somewhat shiny; area along costa, the reniform, discal dot, and two transverse lines luteous; subterminal line absent. Transverse hues smooth, transverse anterior line bent outwardly, concave or weakly angulate. Posterior transverse line directly posterior from costa to about vein 7, slightly concave outwardly to vein 3, angled inward to vein 2, outward to fold between veins 1b and 2, thence slightly inward to inner margin of wing. Subterminal line lacking.
Hindwing: Upper surface ground color similar to that of forewing but paler from cell to costa; postmedial line appearing as a continuation of transverse line of forewing and terminating at about vein 2; subterminal line absent. Fringe of fore- and hindwings concolorous with ground color of wings. Under surface of wings paler than upper, with markings evident but weaker.
Helvibotys pseudohelvialis: (FW st. line lacking inferred in comparison to helvialis) p. 5 Outer margin of fore- and hindwing darker, concolorous with markings of wings (in helvialis, concolorous with ground color of wings).
Helvibotys pucilla: Not covered and very different.
Neohelvibotys arizonensis: (FW st. line lacking inferred in comparison to pseudohelvialis & neohelvialis) p. 6 Similar to pseudohelvialis in color and maculation, but the average size of arizonensis is larger and luteous suffusion along outer margin of fore- and hindwing is more extensive.
Neohelvibotys neohelvialis: (FW st. line lacking) p. 7 With characters of arizonensis and reliably distinguished from it only by examination of genitalia.
p. 8 Labels on some specimens indicate that neohelvialis has been confused with both mancalis and helvialis. The lack of a subterminal line on the fore- and hindwings of neohelvialis distinguishes it from mancalis. The sparser cilia of the antenna and incrassate midtibia with a hair-pencil distinguishes the males of [i]neohelvialis from those of helvialis. If the specimens are in good condition, the coloration along the outer margin of the fore- and hindwings is darker in neohelvialis than in helvialis; in the former, it is concolorous with the markings of the wings and in the latter, concolorous with the ground color of the wings.
Neohelvibotys polingi: (FW st. line lacking inferred in comparison to arizonensis) p. 9 Maculation similar to that of arizonensis but with shading along outer margin of fore- and hindwings usually not as sharply defined as in arizonensis.
Hahncappsia spp. are superficially similar to these two genera.