[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: [dinosaur] Diplodocus status



Yes, it's based on Diplodocus longus: the ICZN rejected a petition to change the type species to D. carnegii a couple of years ago. I submitted a comment in support; IIRC Mickey Mortimer submitted one against :-)

What does this mean? The petition was rejected partly on the grounds that the D. longus material was (wrongly in my opinion) considered sufficiently diagnostic, so the genus is OK. (I mean, by definition it's OK nomenclaturally, but it should be OK taxonomically.) But in practical terms, everyone who works on sauropods still means "kinda like D. carnegii" when they say "Diplodocus". No-one cares about the type material. So all that's happened is that the rejection of petition means that the nominal type species is not the same as the effective type species. If it ever turns out the D. carnegii is generically separated from D. longus, you can bet for sure that it will be carnegii that retains the name Diplodocus, whatever the ICZN may say.

-- Mike.




On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 20:14, Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the status of Diplodocus's type genus? Is it still D. longus, which is apparently dubious?Â

I hope Diplodocus doesn't end up as a dubious genus.