Re: [dinosaur] Diplodocus status

To me, this is not so much about consequences as it is about having what's written conform to reality, rather than perpetuating the fantasy that YPM 1920 is the type specimen by which we judge other specimens to belong, or not belong, to Diplodocus. The reality is that CM 84 *is* functioning as the type specimen and has done for well over 100 years. I would _like_ to fix the unsightly wart that the ICZN thinks it ain't so; but in the end, it doesn't bother me too much, because people who are actually working on diplodocids are not significantly slowed down in their work by the mismatch between legalism and reality.

-- Mike.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 at 09:04, Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:

"I'd say that for any genus that

contains multiple species, each individual species should be

diagnostic at the species level - including the type species."

"When we say _D. longus_ is a separate species to _D. carnegii_, it
should be because we have anatomical evidence that they represented
distinct species in the Late Jurassic."

But that's just saying things should be how you feel they should be, without appealing to any specific consequence.Â You and Tschopp need to be able to say that "If we allow a type species to be indeterminate within its genus, then if we have problem X it would be more difficult to solve."Â I've yet to hear a valid problem X for the ICZN, Phylocode or any other logical construct.Â Just vague "insecurities and confusion" or in your case it being "bad."

Mickey Mortimer

From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 11:26 PM
To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Diplodocus status
Â

John D'Angelo <dangelojohne@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since you brought up the distinction between nomenclature and taxonomy, bear in mind that the concept of a type species is a nomenclatural concept, not a taxonomic one.

Yes, but it is still a *species*.Â A type species is a type AND a
species.Â Which brings me to...

Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:

> Since when are undiagnostic species not species?Â Are you saying the Diplodocus longus type individual wasn't part of an interbreeding population of organisms, or
> whatever species concept you follow?

No, I'm not saying that - that would be silly.Â The type of _D.
longus_ certainly came from a once-living species.Â (Actually, the
same is true of any fossil that came from a living organism - even
_Aachenosaurus_, a 'dinosaur' based on petrified wood).Â But I don't
see how your question is relevant.Â I'd say that for any genus that
contains multiple species, each individual species should be
diagnostic at the species level - including the type species.Â This
should be true irrespective of whichever species concept you prefer.
When we say _D. longus_ is a separate species to _D. carnegii_, it
should be because we have anatomical evidence that they represented
distinct species in the Late Jurassic.