Diplodocoidea vs. Diplodocimorpha redux

[Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>]

OK, I am really confused now.

I see Diplodocoidea widely attributed to Upchurch 1995.  That paper
informally says that it contains diplodocids and dicraeosaurids, but
does not give a phylogenetic definition.  Neither does Hunt et
al. 1994 (plus it misspells the clade-name), or indeed Upchurch 1994.
And I understand that since those papers were published, Diplodocoidea
has been widely taken to include rebbachisaurs too, although there is
no reason to think that Upchurch or Hunt et al. intended it to.

Now we have a formally established name for {Diplodocidae +
Dicraeosauridae} (that is, Flagellicaudata Harris & Dodson 2004).  So
there seems to be no point in enforcing the same definition for
Diplodocoidea.  Especially as Salgado seems to be the only person
using Diplodocimorpha :-)

So has Diplodocoidea in fact _ever_ been given a phylogenetic
definition?

Sorry if I'm flogging a dead horse here.  Or maybe I should say
_flagellating_ a dead horse?  Har har.


References
----------

Hunt, A. P., M. G. Lockley, S. G. Lucas and C. A. Meyer.  1994.  The
global sauropod fossil record.  Gaia 10:261-279.

Upchurch, P. (1994). Manus claw function in sauropod dinosaurs. Gaia
10, 161-1171

Upchurch, Paul (1995).  The evolutionary history of sauropod
dinosaurs.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
Series B 349:365-390.