Thread: Trochilidae
View Single Post
Old Friday 8th November 2019, 09:46   #208
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,326
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:
Quote:
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.)

Last edited by l_raty : Friday 8th November 2019 at 15:47.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote