Baetis guttata F.-J. Pictet, 1843
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.35929/RSZ.0022 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7004648 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/FE1887BE-393D-FFD6-EFF2-FAE915C7F870 |
treatment provided by |
Carolina |
scientific name |
Baetis guttata F.-J. Pictet, 1843 |
status |
|
Baetis guttata F.-J. Pictet, 1843
Baetis guttata F.-J. Pictet, 1843 -1845: 187-188, pl. 24, fig. 3.
Heptagenia guttata . – Eaton, 1871: 156 (transfer).
Ecdyurus guttatus . – Eaton, 1888: 301 (transfer).
Ecdyonurus guttatus . – Ulmer, 1920b: 136 (transfer).
? Siphlonella guttata View in CoL . – Flowers & Peters, 1981: 153 (transfer).
Siphlonella guttata View in CoL . – Domínguez et al., 2006: 556 (nomen dubium).
Accepted name: Baetis guttata F.-J. Pictet, 1843 nom. dub.
Locus typicus: “ Chili ”.
Type material: Holotype [by monotypy] female imago, not traced.
Remarks: F.-J. Pictet examined a single female from the National Museum of Natural History in Paris. This species certainly does not belong to the genus Ecdyonurus nor to the family Heptageniidae , which is absent from South America. The combination with Siphlonella (Oniscigastridae) proposed by Flowers & Peters (1981) is mainly based on the colour pattern. The holotype is presumably lost and the name Baetis guttata should be considered a nomen dubium.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Baetis guttata F.-J. Pictet, 1843
Sartori, Michel & Bauernfeind, Ernst 2020 |
Siphlonella guttata
Dominguez E. & Molineri C. & Pescador M. L. & Hubbard M. D. & Nieto C. 2006: 556 |
Siphlonella guttata
Flowers R. W. & Peters W. L. 1981: 153 |
Ecdyonurus guttatus
Ulmer G. 1920: 136 |
Ecdyurus guttatus
Eaton A. E. 1888: 301 |
Heptagenia guttata
Eaton A. E. 1871: 156 |
Baetis guttata
Pictet F. -J. 1843: 187 |