One way or another it is a fine mess we are in.
Mickey's statement is fine. But what if some reasonably do what she does. But others go with the retraction and rename either the holotype, or give a different name to another specimen that is clearly the same species even if the O. k. holotype is diagnostic? (I am not entirely being specific to this situation, because it can arise again with other taxa).
Then we would have two competing names for the same taxon and maybe even same specimen for years if not forever. That is not entirely unprecedented, it sometimes happens when it is not clear what paper had time priority when more than one comes out at the same time and the temporal priority cannot be resolved, but it is not good to add to the problem.
Maybe it should be decided, perhaps by the ICZN, that a paper that is not fraudulent when it comes to the holotype that includes a new taxon tag cannot be retracted, at least not the systematics section. If the holotype is entirely fraudulent, or if enough of what is left over as legit is not diagnostic, then the paper can be disappeared. Another possible situation is if it is clear that the holotype even if legit is clearly nondiagnostic, or definitely belongs to a prior named species, and the rest of the paper is gravely deficient.
In any case, we are not talking about a medical or other study (maybe one a materials strength) that health and lives depend upon when it comes to paleo papers. Nor apparently a fraud in this case. Me thinks this paper should be reinstated with a major correction to the errant parts.
GSPaul