mb1848
Well-known member
If you read Laurent's October 2021 post and read the links Bonaparte in 1830 creates Erythrospiza with 8 species as cotypes and does not pick a solo type. In that situation we are dealing with Code art. 69.1 type by subsequent designation.
Laurent in October 2021 post lists what I call Bonaparte 1832 as the publication which chose purpurea as the type. In Bp 1832 is a footnote that quotes a letter from Swainson where he says to (whom I do not know?) Bonaparte sent me Bonaparte 1830 and I accept genus Erythrospiza and pick purpurea as type. Swainson 1837 sets up Haemorhous and lists purpurea and frontalis in the genus. I do not see him picking one only as the type there but perhaps some other author does elsewher? The taxa frontalis is now a subspecies of (H.?) mexicanus.
Laurent in October 2021 post lists what I call Bonaparte 1832 as the publication which chose purpurea as the type. In Bp 1832 is a footnote that quotes a letter from Swainson where he says to (whom I do not know?) Bonaparte sent me Bonaparte 1830 and I accept genus Erythrospiza and pick purpurea as type. Swainson 1837 sets up Haemorhous and lists purpurea and frontalis in the genus. I do not see him picking one only as the type there but perhaps some other author does elsewher? The taxa frontalis is now a subspecies of (H.?) mexicanus.
Last edited: