BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 3375985" data-attributes="member: 24811">Macabra is problematic.Macabra Bonaparte 1854 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13681612" target="_blank">OD</a>]. (The name was apparently used first [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13470564" target="_blank">here</a>], where it is nude.)Originally included nominal species:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"hylophila Temm." = Strix hylophila Temminck 1825 - [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35246589" target="_blank">OD</a>] - now in use as Strix hylophila Temminck 1825</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"fasciata Vieill." = Strix fasciata Vieillot 1817 - [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/18035768" target="_blank">OD</a>]</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"suinda Vieill." = Strix suinda Vieillot 1817 - [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/18035781" target="_blank">OD</a>] - now in use as Asio flammeus suinda (Vieillot 1817)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"melanonota Vieill." - Vieillot did not publish such a name; has been presumed to be Noctua melanota Tschudi 1844 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13704169" target="_blank">OD</a>], emended to N. melanonota by Tschudi 1845 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40008160" target="_blank">here</a>] - now in use as Pulsatrix melanota (Tschudi 1844)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"cayanensis Gm." = Strix cayennensis Gmelin 1788 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2896896" target="_blank">OD</a>]</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"albigularis Cassin" = Syrnium albo-gularis Cassin 1849 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/5445387" target="_blank">OD</a>] - now in use as Megascops albogularis (Cassin 1849)</li> </ul>Gray 1855 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/17136774" target="_blank">here</a>] designated "Strix cayanensis, Gm." as the type. Strix cayennensis Gmelin is based on Buffon's "Chat-huant de Cayenne" [<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=gM87AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA391" target="_blank">description</a>] [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35214505" target="_blank">plate</a>] (and on Latham's "Cayenne Owl" [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33727658" target="_blank">description</a>], which itself is based on Buffon's bird). It is not known what this bird was.The next subsequent type designation was apparently by Sharpe 1875 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8306858" target="_blank">here</a>], who designated Syrnium hylophilum.The name has also been used for Megascops albogularis alone (implying this is the type) by several workers, the first one possibly Wolters in Vogelarten der Erde, but I'm unclear on which base.Penhallurick & Gregory 2001 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40086478" target="_blank">here</a>] rejected Gray's designation, arguing that the bird being unidentifiable made it "invalid"; they accepted Sharpe's designation and placed the name in the synonymy of Strix. I'm unclear which provision of the Code can be used to support this interpretation, however. In my reading, as long as the designated nominal species was originally included and is denoted by an available name, the designation should be valid. If the designated type species cannot be identified, then the generic name itself cannot be identified either.</blockquote>

Verification