Chamaecelyphus gutta (Speiser, 1910)
(record https://www.gbif.org/species/1617302) is currently marked as deleted. This is, however, a bit misleading. There's nothing wrong with the name as such. It does not represent a valid taxon, but the name in itself is perfectly fine (and has been used quite a bit).
It should be connected with Spaniocelyphus gutta (Speiser, 1910) [https://www.gbif.org/species/11113285] as a homotypic, currently not accepted, combination.
User: See in registry - Send email
System: Firefox 102.0.0 / Windows 10.0.0
Referer: https://www.gbif.org/species/1617302
Window size: width 1484 - height 794
API log&_a=(columns:!(_source),filters:!(),index:'3390a910-fcda-11ea-a9ab-4375f2a9d11c',interval:auto,query:(language:kuery,query:''),sort:!()))
Site log&_a=(columns:!(_source),filters:!(),index:'5c73f360-fce3-11ea-a9ab-4375f2a9d11c',interval:auto,query:(language:kuery,query:''),sort:!()))
System health at time of feedback: OPERATIONAL
Chamaecelyphus gutta (Speiser, 1910) =
Chamaecelyphus gutta (Speiser, 1910) (record https://www.gbif.org/species/1617302) is currently marked as deleted. This is, however, a bit misleading. There's nothing wrong with the name as such. It does not represent a valid taxon, but the name in itself is perfectly fine (and has been used quite a bit).
It should be connected with Spaniocelyphus gutta (Speiser, 1910) [https://www.gbif.org/species/11113285] as a homotypic, currently not accepted, combination.
User: See in registry - Send email System: Firefox 102.0.0 / Windows 10.0.0 Referer: https://www.gbif.org/species/1617302 Window size: width 1484 - height 794 API log&_a=(columns:!(_source),filters:!(),index:'3390a910-fcda-11ea-a9ab-4375f2a9d11c',interval:auto,query:(language:kuery,query:''),sort:!())) Site log&_a=(columns:!(_source),filters:!(),index:'5c73f360-fce3-11ea-a9ab-4375f2a9d11c',interval:auto,query:(language:kuery,query:''),sort:!())) System health at time of feedback: OPERATIONAL