This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Diplodocus longus cannot be both a nomen dubium and a valid taxon as stated under the section Nomina dubia. The ICZN rejected replacing D. longus with D. carnegii, therefore D. longus is valid no matter how bad of a holotype. The ICZN did not take up the issue of whether D. carnegii is a junior subjective synonym of D, longus, leaving that to taxonomist. The ugly reality is that D. carnegii cannot be differentiated from D. longus,and therefore D, longus actually and technically has priority, making D. carnegii a junior synonym.
Due to Wikipedia's policy on no original research, we can't put forward arguments that haven't been presented in the published literature, and to my knowledge the notion that D. carnegii and D. longus are synonyms has not recieved much support in the published literature to date (despite a few passing suggestions that it's possible). Likewise, because some researchers have considered D. longus a nomen dubium in the recent published literature, that is a viewpoint we have to acknowledge due to Wikipedia's policy on keeping a neutral point of view. Keep in mind that validity in a nomenclatural sense (i.e. whether the name is available under the ICZN) and validity in a taxonomic sense (i.e. whether the taxon is recognizeable as a distinct species) are different issues. This isn't to say I disagree with you from a scientific standpoint, though. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
