Author Leucippus chlorocercus (1 Viewer)

[Taphrospilus]

I am wondering if the author of Leucippus chlorocercus should be really Gould after the code. There is no doubt Sclater and Salvin used Goulds manuscript (MS). But as I understood from similar cases this doesn't mean necessarily that he is the author according to the rules of the code. The article starts here.

 

[l_raty]

The name is attributed to Gould and the descriptive text appears to be quoted from his MS ("Mr. Gould describes it as follows:-- "[description]""), thus I see no problem with Gould being the author.
(It would have been different if S&S had written their own description using information from Gould's MS; in this case, they would have been the authors of the name.)