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: 3377322" data-attributes="member: 24811">But, if so, suinda should be called cayennensis (as it indeed was by <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=T4g-AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA2-PA120" target="_blank">Kaup</a>). Shaw's plate is but a redraw of Martinet's plate, associated to Buffon's work (link in my earlier post above). I might perhaps construe the plate as showing a Short-eared Owl; I have a much harder time with Buffon's description: the whole bird was said to be rufous, and marked, both above and below, with very thin transversal wavy barring. Short-eared Owl is streaked longitudinally below, and has no thin wavy transversal barring anywhere in the plumage.OK, this is the source of the name having been used for albogularis alone, then. But this is not correct. Peters (and probably other authors of his time) accepted quite a few similar fixations "by tautonymy", due to the mere existence of a tautonymous name synonymous with one of the included species. None of these is acceptable under the present rules. To have a type fixation by tautonymy, the tautonymous species name MUST be CITED and included in the genus in the OD. (Which names are subjective synonyms of one another is taxonomy, not nomenclature: different authors might disagree on this. The type species of a generic name must in principle be determinable objectively, in a way fully independent from subjective opinions. Thus subjective synonymy cannot be used in determining the type species, unless the synonymy statement is made explicitly by the author.) This is definitely not the case here, hence Syrnium macabrum Bp is absolutely not eligible to be the type of the Macabra.Pseudociccaba Kelso [<a href="http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?q1=pseudociccaba;id=mdp.39015006168986;view=1up;seq=45;start=1;sz=10;page=search;num=39" target="_blank">OD</a>] seems OK (nomenclaturally, at least).</blockquote>

Verification