Undescribed rail, probably a new taxon of Woodford's Rail, bathing on road.
Foto Guy Dutson
The Santa Marta Screech-owl has a provisional scientific name: Otus gilesi. But still no official scientific description.
http://www.arkive.org/santa-marta-screech-owl/otus-gilesi/photos.html
As used in the websites / webzines that Melanie has pointed to, the name Otus / Megascops gilesi is undoubtedly a nomen nudum, but that doesn’t make it unavailable for future use (see the Code’s glossary). It’s merely the case that its use in such ‘literature’ has not satisfied the requirements of availability under Art. 13, although the ABC magazine write-up might technically not have gone much further before it would have done.
All the same, “bad form”.
The discrepancy that Melanie has pointed to presumably merely reveals that the folks responsible for ARKive haven’t caught up with modern generic taxonomy … yet.
The Santa Marta Screech-owl has a provisional scientific name: Otus gilesi. But still no official scientific description.
http://www.arkive.org/santa-marta-screech-owl/otus-gilesi/photos.html
The holotype must be designated explicitly (article 16.4.1), i.e. a statement like "we designate the photographed specimen as holotype" would be required. So that door is closed, too!...has a photograph of an individual that could serve as a holotype, ...
Agreed.
Basically if the paper said "the bird in the photo is the type specimen" and "it's got a different song and plumage from other owls", that might be it.
As used in the websites / webzines that Melanie has pointed to, the name Otus / Megascops gilesi is undoubtedly a nomen nudum, but that doesn’t make it unavailable for future use (see the Code’s glossary).
From what I read above, consensus is that Megascops gilesi is not an 'available' name at present
Using a different name in the formal publication might create even more confusion: better to have arguments (if any) restricted to the date and authors than over two different names?