Contents

Talk:Tusoteuthis

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:

Cephalopods (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:WikiProject CephalopodsCephalopods articles Palaeontology Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Colorado / North Dakota / Wyoming Mid‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to improve, create, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the New section tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us! This article is supported by WikiProject North Dakota. This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming. South Dakota Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofSouth Dakota 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.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada: Manitoba Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba. Kansas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofKansas 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.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

With 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)[reply]

It was proposed in this section that Tusoteuthisberenamed and movedtoEnchoteuthis. result: Procedural close. The nom has created Enchoteuthis, so as an article with significant content, its title becomes ineligible as a "new" title in a move request. Thank you for the new article! Kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] 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.

– 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.