But ... as Rüppel's (third) foot-note reads "Es sind dieses die unter dem Namen Malurus acaciae und M. squamiceps abgebildeten Vögel. Lichtenstein in seinem Doubletten-Verzeichniss des Berliner Museums.
Seite 40, beschrieb den erste als den Typus einer neuen von ihm unter dem Namen Sphenura aufgestellten Gattung." ... doesn't this indicate that it was referring to page 40 in the far more well-known
Verzeichniss der Doubletten des Zoologischen Museums der Königl. Universität zu Berlin (
nebst Beschreibung vieler bisher unbekannter Arten von Säugethieren, Vögeln, Amphibien und Fischen), of 182
3 (
here):
The (sale catalogue) "
Verzeichniss von Vögeln, Conchylien und Insecten, ..." (of 1822) apparently only have 31 pages.
Yes, Rüppell's designation applies to the name taken from the 1823 publication. So does Gray's. In both, the designated type was a species that was not included in 1822.
These designations are potentially important only if (as suggested by Norbert in his last post) the name is deemed nude in the 1822 list, because "
Sphenura coraya n." without any description (what I think would/will be found in the 1822 work) cannot "be unambiguously assigned to a nominal species-group taxon or taxa" (ICZN 12.2.5 not fulfilled;
contra Mathews). If so, the name must be taken from the 1823 work and, given that the "type designation" there cannot possibly be interpreted as valid, its application will depend on the first subsequent designation as its type of any of the nominal species included in the genus in this work, which was either by Gray 1840, or by Rüppell 1840 -- more likely the former.
(If the name is accepted as available from the 1822 list, its type is fixed originally by monotypy (the so-called 'virtual' monotypy -- only one species denoted by an available name in the OD, even though more were included). If so, no subsequent designation can affect it. The 1823 instance is then either (as suggested by Norbert above) a junior homonym, to which one of these two designations might still apply but which cannot possibly become valid because it is preoccupied by the 1822 name; or (my preference) a mere subsequent use without any standing, incorrectly flagged as new (i.e., Lichtenstein himself did not regard his earlier use of the same name for a subset of the species included in 1823 as having established it, while we now do), which had its type fixed from the start in the 1822 work. Under the latter reading: the two subsequent designations of species not included in 1822 are both simply invalid; there is no such thing as a "
Sphenura Licht. 1823", but only a
Sphenura Licht. 1822 -- in the original sense (Licht. 1822
and 1823 -- the 5 spp names cited in 1822 were all still included in 1823; I see absolutely no suggestion that Lichtenstein's own concept had changed),
sensu Gray 1840 (a misidentification), or
sensu Rüppell 1840 (another misidentification).)
