Talk:Tusoteuthis
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Paine Ellsworth in topic Requested move 10 March 2021
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) 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. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Enchoteuthis?
editWith the publication of a recent paper,[1] it seems that Tusoteuthis might be a nomen dubium, and Enchoteuthis might be valid. Thoughts? Borophagus (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 10 March 2021
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
 | It was proposed in this section that Tusoteuthis be renamed and moved to Enchoteuthis.
result: Links: current log • target log
This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}} |
Tusoteuthis → Enchoteuthis – With the publication of a recent paper,[1] it seems that Tusoteuthis might be a nomen dubium, and Enchoteuthis, which was named later than Tusoteuthis, may be the valid name. This does not appear to have been picked up as of yet, and it may be somewhat controversial, so I'm putting in a move request.
References
– Borophagus (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Borophagus (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a well-cited article, I don't think that one paper can overturn what all the other references are saying. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- But the given references are just going along with the consensus of their time, which was Tusoteuthis being valid because nobody really checked (or officiated) whether the name was even viable based on taxonomic rules. The new source simply made that check and found that the taxon isn't following the rules, so this can only be disputed in a future study that argues that the type specimen is indeed rule-abiding (which is unlikely IMO). Macrophyseter | talk 21:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Given how the holotype is described I doubt that the declaration of Tusoteuthis as a nomen dubium will be challenged in the future. However, it's important to remember that this does not necessarily mean that Enchoteuthis is the "correct name" but rather the authors argue that many of the more complete fossils traditionally attributed to Tusoteuthis better align with Enchoteuthis. In other words, the holotype wasn't reidentified, just diagnostically meaningless. I would personally wait for more papers on the taxonomic issue that follow-up the situation before making a conclusive opinion on merging/renaming, but for now I recommend creating Enchoteuthis as a separate article page, adapting the non-taxonomic contents of this article there, and editing this article is that it reflects the taxon's dubious status. Macrophyseter | talk 21:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think that's probably the best course of action for now, now that some additional points have been made. I'll try and get to work on a separate Enchoteuthis article now, I think.Borophagus (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.