It's not really possible to be certain without having seen the entire book, but the mere use of a name in a list at apparent subgeneric rank (as in the snippet of Tyrell's book that can be seen on Google -- note that Schuchmann wrote about a genus Chionogaster
, not a subgenus) makes that name available as a genus-group name only in works published before 1931. In a work published after 1930 (here: 1985), you need a statement (in words) of characters purported to differentiate the taxon -- short of this, the name is a nomen nudum
Currently, I am a bit more concerned about Leucolia
, which still needs a valid type designation. In SACC Prop. 781
, Gary Stiles wrote:
We note here that we had accepted viridicauda as its type following the recommendation of Elliot, but this was incorrect because it was described after Leucolia was named; we have submitted a manuscript (Stiles et all, submitted) substituting violiceps as the type species to correct this error.
I more or less expected that this would be done in the same paper as the (re-)description of the group they had named Elliotia
... But this wasn't.
The nominal species originally included in Leucolia
are listed in [my post 128 above
]; as long as one of these has not been designated, they are all
eligible to become the type species of the name. These species include chionogaster
Tschudi, the type of Elliotomyia
, thus Leucolia
is currently a potential objective senior synonym of this name.
(IOW, it would be not be fully safe to adopt Elliotomyia
for now, because it has a sword of Damocles above it -- the publication, by anyone, anywhere, of a simple statement that chionogaster
is the type of Leucolia
, would make it readily invalid.)