2021-A-9: Resurrect
Corthylio for Ruby-crowned Kinglet
The best part of this genus is that the type species is the "hypothetical" (read drunken lie?) of Regulus cuvieri.
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/C/c01657a.jpg .
http://birdaz.com/blog/tag/cuviers-regulus/ .
https://bioone.org/journals/bulleti...at-launched/10.25226/bboc.v140i2.2020.a3.full .
When Richmond wrote "type" on one of his genus-group cards, he generally meant what we would call "included species".
OD of
Corthylio: Cabanis J. 1853. Zur Naturgeschichte des Pallas'schen Laubhähnchens, Phyllobasileus superciliosus. J. Ornithol., 1: 83-96.; p. 83;
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13866877.
Cabanis included two species in the new genus:
Corthylio calendula, a recombination of
Motacilla calendula Linnaeus, which he had also placed in the genus
Phyllobasileus previously, and
C. Cuvieri, a recombination of
Regulus cuvieri Audubon. He did not designate a type (or, at least, not explicitly enough for me), he treated the included taxa as more than one taxonomic species, and the new generic name was not identical to the available name denoting one of the included nominal species, or identical to a pre-1758 one-word name cited in the synonymy of one of the included nominal species. At this point, there was no fixed type yet -- only two candidates.
The type became
Motacilla calendula Linnaeus 1766 through the subsequent designation of this species in: Baird SF, Brewer TM, Ridgway R. 1874. A history of North American birds. Land birds. Volume I. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston.; p. 72;
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7273614.
(At least this is the first satifying designation I found. There was an earlier, wannabe designation in: Giebel CG. 1872. Thesaurus ornithologiae. Repertorium der gesammten ornithologischen Literatur und Nomenclator sämmtlicher Gattungen und Arten der Vögel nebst Synonymen und geographischer Verbreitung. Erster Band. FA Brockhaus, Leipzig.; p. 781;
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/48113912 . Giebel wrote: “
Typus.: Regulus calendula Lichtst., R. Cuvieri Audub.” This might perhaps be deemed valid if interpreted as a designation of
calendula, with
cuvieri made a synonym. But it was not unusual for Giebel to designate multiple and clearly distinct species as the "Typus" of a genus – e.g., p. 256 of the same volume;
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/48113389 : “Acanthis Blasius und Keyserling […]
Typus: Fringilla spinus, Fr. carduelis, Fr. linaria.” – hence I don't think this is tenable.)
(In case anyone wonders – Baird, Brewer & Ridgway 1874 also listed
Phyllobasileus Cabanis 1850 (which is senior to
Corthylio) as having
Motacilla calendula as its type. Although
Cabanis 1850 included
calendula in
Phyllobasileus when he introduced it,
Phyllobasileus was a purist replacement name for
Reguloides Blyth 1847 (*), which had
Regulus modestus Gould 1837, a synonym of
Motacilla proregulus Pallas 1811 (= Pallas's Warbler), as its type by original designation.
Phyllobasileus Cabanis 1850 automatically takes the same type, and BB&R's designation has no standing.
(*) Probable reason, a zoological application of
Linnaeus' principle: "Nomina generica in
oides desinentia, e foro Botanico releganda sunt.")