Type species of Ramphastos Linn. (1 Viewer)

(I had originally posted this elsewhere, just asking for the reference of the designation, but the problem may be deeper than just this, hence I prefer to treat it separately.)

The generic name Ramphastos was made available by Linnaeus 1758 in the 10th ed. of Systema naturae [here], with four included nominal species: R. piperivorus, R. tucanus, R. picatus and R. aracari.
I'm looking the first subsequent designation of one of these as the type of the genus. (Preferably tucanus, as this is the currently accepted type...)

Several authorities (including H&M4) suggest Vigors did it in 1826; the original source for this claim seems to be Peters 1948 [here]:

Ramphastos Linné, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 1, 1758, p. 103. Type, by subsequent designation, Ramphastos erythrorhynchus Gmelin = Ramphastos tucanus Linné (Vigors, Zool. Journ., 2, 1826, p. 471.)

Click to expand...

Vigors 1826, Zool. J. 2:471, is [this] -- but I can't see anything remotely looking like a type species designation there.
Additionally, what Vigors would have done exactly according to this reference is not fully clear to me. Ramphastos erythrorhynchus Gm. is not an originally included nominal species, and thus decidedly not eligible to be the type of Ramphastos; a designation of this nominal species by Vigors might have resulted in the fixation of Ramphastos tucanus L. as the type, if and only if Vigors had listed Ramphastos tucanus L. explicitly as a synonym of Ramphastos erythrorhynchus. But Vigors 1826 treated R. tucanus L. [here] and R. erythrorhynchus Gm. [here] as distinct species: this excludes the possibility that a designation of the latter might be a valid indirect designation of the former in this work.

In 1821 (5 years before the hypothetical designation by Vigors), Swainson [here] designated Ramphastos erythrorhynchus "Lath." (= Gm.) without citing any synonym. Maybe this is the designation that Peters had in mind? Or did Vigors really do it somewhere else? Swainson's designation, in any case, is clearly invalid.

During the middle part of the 19th C, many authors came to regard R. toco as the type (e.g. Gray 1840, 1841, 1855, Baird 1858, Cassin 1867 -- this was due to Ramphastos being traced back to Gesner's use of 'Ramphestes' for [this]). Of course, designations of this nominal species are invalid as well, unless one of the originally included nominal species is listed as a synonym of toco. Cassin 1867 did this, listing picatus L. as a synonym of toco Müller, but with a question mark which makes the designation ambiguous, hence invalid again. [This], however, from c1888, would unquestionably be valid if there is nothing earlier.

Sclater 1891 [here] designated R. erythrorhynchos Gm., while listing R. tucanus in its synonymy [here], which might have been an indirect designation of the latter... but apparently came too late, being after 1888.

Would anybody know of a valid designation before 1888...?

On page 472 Vigors says "of the two birds thus included by Linnaeus in his description of R. tucanus the first ought properly to be considered the original type." That is a type species designation.

mb1848 said:

On page 472 Vigors says "of the two birds thus included by Linnaeus in his description of R. tucanus the first ought properly to be considered the original type." That is a type species designation.

Click to expand...

No, it's a statement about "the type" of the species name R. tucanus, not at all about that of the genus name Ramphastos.
Linnaeus was quite inconsistent with his Toucan descriptions; the diagnoses in the 12th ed. are all very different from those of the 10th ed., being based on an entirely different set of characters, and many references were added, some of them evidently in error.

10th ed.:

Tucanus. 2. R. rostro rubro : carina obtusa alba.
---------- Habitat in America meridionali.
---------- Maxillae versus basin fascia nigra.

Click to expand...

The main diagnosis describes a Toucan with a red bill, with a blunt white 'keel'; the bird inhabits southern America; the last sentence adds that it has a black band towards the base of the maxillae.

12th ed.:

Tucanus. 5. R. nigricans, fascia abdominali crisso uropygioque flavis.
---------- Ramphastos rostro rubro carina obtusa albida. Syst. nat. 1. p. 103.
---------- Tucana Marcgr. bras 217.
---------- Tucana rostro rubro Edw. av. 238.
---------- Tucana brasiliensis gutture luteo Briss. av. 4. p. 419. t. 32. f. 1.
---------- Toucan surin. niger ex albo flavo rubro mixta. Pet. gaz. t. 44. f. 13.
---------- Habitat in America meridionali ; victitans fructibus Musae.
---------- Rostrum flavescens, versus basin fascia nigra. Collum subtus et genae albae. Rectrices decem.

Click to expand...

Here, the main diagnosis describes a toucan that is black, with a yellow band on the belly, yellow undertail and yellow rump (and says nothing about the bill).
Then come references: (1) a quote of his own 1758 diagnosis (which was all about the bill); (2) Marcgrave's Tucana [here]; (3) Edward's Red-beaked Toucan [here]; (4) Brisson's Toucan à gorge jaune du Brésil [here] (text) and [here] (plate); (5) Petiver's Toucan surinamensis niger, ex albo flavo rubroque mixta [here] (plate) and [here] (text).
In the Habitat statement, he adds that the bird lives on bananas.
The last line of the text states that the bill is yellowish, with a black band towards the base; the lower neck and cheeks are white; and there are 10 tail feathers.

Vigors notes, quite correctly, that the reference to Brisson in the 12th ed. is not to the same species as the others -- most references are to descriptions of Red-billed Toucan; but Red-billed Toucan is Brisson's Toucan à gorge blanche de Cayenne; his Toucan à gorge jaune du Brésil, which Linnaeus cited here, is Channel-billed. Vigors then discusses which of these two birds should be viewed as "the type" of Ramphastos tucanus Linn.
(In substance, he says that "properly", tucanus ought to apply to Red-billed; but this species was at that time widely known as erythrorhynchus Gm. and, as he preferred not to disrupt prevailing usage, he chose to apply the name to Channel-billed. [Thereby creating confusion, while his voiced intent was to avoid it...] Of course, this is not acceptable; only the 1758 publication has nomenclatural value, and there is nothing there that suggests Channel-billed; the 1766 instance is but a subsequent use of the name, which here appears to be partly incorrect.)

In 1811 when Illiger split off Ramphastos aracari into Pteroglossus he listed two species left in Ramphastos erythrorhynchus and dicolorus neither an originally included nominal species, and thus not eligible to be the type of Ramphastos. Missing from the sources you list is Gould's monograph on the family of Toucans. I cannot find the letterpress of that book lots of the drawings. It should be checked. As well as http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/135881#page/15/mode/1up . Sturm & Sturm. I searched the google book version for type in German with no results.
James Peters:
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v047n03/p0405-p0408.pdf .

mb1848 said:

In 1811 when Illiger split off Ramphastos aracari into Pteroglossus he listed two species left in Ramphastos erythrorhynchus and dicolorus neither an originally included nominal species, and thus not eligible to be the type of Ramphastos.

Click to expand...

And, anyway, listing only one originally included species as being left in the genus would not make it the type under today's rules. You need an explicit designation.
See [Article 69.4] of the ICZN.

Missing from the sources you list is Gould's monograph on the family of Toucans. I cannot find the letterpress of that book lots of the drawings. It should be checked.

Click to expand...

[here]