Nothura (Wagler 1827) (1 Viewer)

Why Nothura type is N. boraquira (Spix, 1825) and not N. maculosa (Temminck, 1815)?

PERHAPS BECAUSE Wagler lists boraquira as the first species of this genera?
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/233421#page/338/mode/1up .

Wagler's 1827 original diagnosis of Nothura comprised five forms: N. boraquira, N. major [= N. maculosa major], N. medius [= N. maculosa major], N. minor, and N. nana [= Taoniscus nanus]. Of these Gray, 1840, List Gen. Birds, p. 63, chose boraquira as the type, and his typification stands.

Wagler included in Nothura:
...but he did not fix a type. (He did not designate one [= fixation by original designation], did not treat all the included nominal species as a single taxonomic species under a single valid available species-group name [= fixation by monotypy], did not use a generic name identical to an available species-group name which he would have cited as included in the genus [= fixation by absolute tautonymy], and did not use a generic name identical to a single-word pre-1758 name which he would have cited in the synonymy of one (and only one) of the included nominal species [= fixation by Linnaean tautonymy]. These are the 4 [and only] 'methods' of original type fixation recognized by the Code.)
In such cases, all the nominal species that were originally included in the genus are eligible to become the type; the type becomes fixed when a subsequent author states that one of these nominal species is the type in a publication [= fixation by subsequent designation]; as James notes above, this was first done by:
...who indicated "N. Boraquira (Spix,) Wagl." (= Tinamus boraquira Spix 1825 -- https://digital.bbm.usp.br/view/?45000009045&bbm/7011#page/184/mode/2up) as the typical species of "Nothera, Wagl." (= Nothura Wagler 1827 -- misspellings do not affect the validity of type designations, as long as the nomenclatural concepts involved remain clearly identifiable).

Thank you all