l_raty
laurent raty
I checked it, but I see no serious issue with the name.Hmm, I had Pseudochloris in the back of my mind for this species. There must be an issue with that name.
Pseudochloris Sharpe 1888, [OD]. This appears to be intended as a remplacement name for Orospina Cabanis 1883, nec Kaup 1829.
Orospina Cabanis 1883, [OD]: originally included nominal species Orospina pratensis Cabanis 1883 [OD] and Sycalis citrina Pelzeln 1870 [OD]. I'm never sure if this type of wording is to be interpreted as an original type designation or not. (The word "type" is not used, nor anything equivalent; but the genus is introduced expressly "for" the bird that is being described, then named O. pratensis; and then, citrina is added. Any Code-based suggestion would be welcome.) In the present case, this matters little, however, as:
- if the original text is not interpretable as including a type species designation, the type species is most likely still O. pratensis, by subsequent designation of Sharpe 1888 (loc. cit.), and
- these two names (pratensis Cabanis and citrina Pelzeln) are nowadays treated as synonyms (cf. Hellmayr 1938): the two nominal species that would be eligible to be the type denote the same taxonomic species.
The argument in the paper not to move this species is that the data do not contradict the monophyly of Sicalis convincingly enough.
Last edited: