Re: [dinosaur] Diplodocus status

["John D'Angelo" <dangelojohne@gmail.com>]

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. All it means for something to be the type species of a genus is that it marks the spot where the genus name is anchored. Whether or not Diplodocus longus is taxonomically valid (and I disagree with Tschopp et al. on that matter), it succeeds in anchoring the name Diplodocus to the spot corresponding with its common usage. Until such a time that it no longer does so (which there is no reason to believe will arise in the foreseeable future), changing the type species doesn't actually accomplish anything meaningful.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 10:06 PM Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> wrote:

Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:

> My question is- What bad outcome could occur because a species undiagnosable within its genus is the type species?

Because in that case it's not a species at all. It's just a name.


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

> Surely it's bad practice to change the type species of a genus because the type species _might_ be non-diagnostic and there _could_ be taxonomic confusion in the future?

Tschopp and Mateus (2016) (and later Tschopp et al. 2008) ascertained
that the _D. longus_ type was non-diagnostic. So this is not a
hypothetical. As such, we already have taxonomic confusion.