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: 3188295" data-attributes="member: 24811">The type species of Podamodus Kaup [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/item/129856#page/151/mode/1up" target="_blank">OD</a>] is Sylvia fluviatilis Wolf in Meyer & Wolf [<a href="https://archive.org/stream/taschenbuchderde131meye#page/n314/mode/1up" target="_blank">OD</a>] by original monotypy.In Gray 1855, as explained [<a href="http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/17136653#page/11/mode/1up" target="_blank">here</a>], the genera are given with their main synonyms and types, hence the species in parentheses can indeed be interpreted as the type of the genus name treated as valid. [<a href="http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/17136653#page/45/mode/1up" target="_blank">Here</a>], Gray listed Tiltria in the synonymy of Potamodus, and cited the type (of Potamodus) as "Sylvia fluviatilis, Mey." (this might have been a type designation, had the type not already been fixed).In Gray 1869, as explained [<a href="https://archive.org/stream/handlistofgenera01britrich#page/n4/mode/1up" target="_blank">here</a>], the species listed under a genus are those present in the British Museum collections (in bold), or wanted by the Museum (in thin), hence not (necessarily) the types of the genera. [<a href="https://archive.org/stream/handlistofgenera01britrich#page/210/mode/1up" target="_blank">Here</a>], Gray once more placed Tiltria in the synonymy of Potamodus, in which he included only "fluviatilis, Mey. & W.; <a href="http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/172167#page/55/mode/1up" target="_blank">Descr.de l'Egypte, t. 13. 3</a>; <a href="https://archive.org/stream/birdsEuropeIIGoul#page/102/mode/2up" target="_blank">Gould B. E. pl. 102.</a>"Note that Tiltria was indeed introduced without any nominal species included, in which case the first subsequently included nominal species are deemed to be the "originally included" nominal species. (The type species should normally be chosen among these, even if this conflicts with the illustration that made the name available.) In the present case, however, Gray did not actually include anything in Tiltria itself, because the "mere citation of an available genus-group name as a synonym of another" (which is what he did) "does not constitute inclusion of the nominal species of the latter in the former, or vice versa" (ICZN 67.2.4). Thus Tiltria may still never have had any included nominal species, and if so has no type species.To me, the graduated tail, with dark markings forming a subterminal band interrupted on the central rectrice, is quite strongly suggestive of a Cisticolid (if so, most likely a plain Cisticola sp., albeit I can't say which one; clearly not C. juncidis; note that the tail here is seen from above, while in the figure labelled "Cisticola" on the same plate it is shown from below).The very short hind nail is indeed intriguing, but it's probably hard to exclude the possibility that the nail was simply broken on the specimen which was illustrated.</blockquote>

Verification