Gymnoglaux CABANIS, Jour. für Orn., 1855, 466. (Type, Noctua nudipes Lembeye (not Strix nudipes Daudin)=Gymnoglaux lawrencii Sclater and Salvin.) ...
Juan Lembeye (1850): "NOCTUA NUDIPES,
Daud." (
here)
Noctua nudipes Lembeye =
Strix nudipes Daudin, misapplied to what is now known as
Gymnoglaux lawrencii Sclater and Salvin. Not a separately available name, and therefore not something that can be a type species.
Gymnoglaux lawrencii Sclater and Salvin 1868 itself, OTOH, having been described (= started to exist nomenclaturally) 14 years after
Gymnoglaux, is of course not an originally included included nominal species of this genus-group name, and thus, under the standard provisions of the Code, not eligible to become its type.
(However, under the 4th ed. of the ICZN, it has become possible to 'correct' a misidentified type species -- i.e., if it is clear that Cabanis used
Strix nudipes Daudin in error, while he really had
lawrencii in mind, an author might (in a publication) designate the latter to displace the former as the type of
Gymnoglaux. But this would still not result in the type being "
Noctua nudipes Lembeye (not
Strix nudipes Daudin)=
Gymnoglaux lawrencii Sclater and Salvin" as per Friedman & Ridgway; the type would then become
Gymnoglaux lawrencii Sclater and Salvin (misidentified by Cabanis as
Strix nudipes Daudin by Cabanis), which would make the genus-group name tied to Sclater & Salvin's specimens (instead of being tied to Daudin's specimens). And this has not been done so far for the present generic name so far as I'm aware. Instead, we use '
Margarobyas' (introduced as a “nomen novum pro '
Gymnoglaux Cabanis' auctorum” = as a wholly new genus, with the type species that '
auctores' erroneously attributed to
Gymnoglaux Cabanis but for which no genus-group name had in fact been proposed yet, (1) without a diagnosis [=
nomen nudum after 1930], and (2) in a paper where the authors explicitly declined to take a stance on the validity of the taxon they were naming [= conditional proposal, forbidden after 1960]).)
I was forgetting
Gymnasio Bonaparte 1854, indeed.
