Talk:Camarasaurus lewisi

Synonymy with Camarasaurus

As far as I am aware, more or less all published literature on C. lewisi in recent years has regarded it as a species of Camarasaurus. The one claim to the contrary is an unpublished study from the 2013 SVP meeting, the abstract of which is the basis provided in the article for treating the genus as valid. However, one of the authors of the abstract has apparently abandoned the idea, as reflected in some of the citations I recently added to the article. Furthermore, what appears to be a poster on the research by the authors of that abstract concludes that Cathetosaurus is synonymous with Camarasaurus: [1]. Frustratingly, there's a lack of recent published research to explicitly weigh in on the debate, despite the clear lack of support for the idea of Cathetosaurus as a valid taxon. I think this page should probably be merged with Camarasaurus. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Aren't there some indication that even more species will be split off from Camarasaurus at some point? I think I've read such a sentiment being expressed informally. FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Lots of sentiments have been expressed informally. Doesn't mean we have to cover them yet. As is, the latest word on Tschopp's specimen-level Camarasaurus phylogeny (the poster from SVP 2014) is that C. lewisi belongs to Camarasaurus, and pretty much all published papers in the last couple of decades treat it as a species of Camarasaurus. Now, personally, I'm an inclusionist, so I see nothing wrong with having a separate page for Camarasaurus lewisi, but at the very least our coverage should treat it as a species of Camarasaurus, as seems to be the clear scientific consensus at the moment. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2022

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. per WP:COMMONNAME. Recent sources favour the proposed name. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Cathetosaurus → Camarasaurus lewisi – Cathetosaurus is widely regarded as a junior synonym of Camarasaurus, with only a single (not peer-reviewed) conference abstract disagreeing in recent years—and it appears that the actual conference presentation associated with the abstract concluded that Cathetosaurus was invalid after all (see above). Multiple papers published since the abstract have continued to assign C. lewisi to Camarasaurus. I see nothing wrong with keeping this article as its own page, as there are several things to say about it that are specific to this species and not other members of the genus (mostly pertaining to taxonomic history), but it should be about the valid species Camarasaurus lewisi, not the invalid genus Cathetosaurus. As such, I am proposing we rename this page to Camarasaurus lewisi; I would also be open to simply merging this page into Camarasaurus. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. We have to be careful here. When dinosaur genera are considered synonyms, this usually means their type species are deemed identical. This is not the case here. So, we have to ask ourselves: in what way is Cathetosaurus lewisi "invalid"? It is not nomenclaturally invalid, for it was validly named. Was it then empirically shown to be part of Camarasaurus? No, because the concept Camarasaurus has no published operational definition (yet), so it is in principle impossible to provide scientific proof for an assignment to Camarasaursus. What you refer to as a consensus, is nothing more than a bunch of paleontologists being intellectually lazy and either clinging, against their better judgement, to the protoscientific Linnaean system, or avoiding the tiresome work of splitting the genus. So, there is nothing "invalid" about the name Cathetosaurus. It's just a matter of choice, the lazy choice being for Camarasaurus lewisi and the competent choice being for Cathetosaurus. Of course, Wikipedia is not a biology textbook. The leeway allowed by WP:Common names had best been used to provide the reader with a title which is the least confusing and the most likely to be the term causing him to consult an encyclopedia.--MWAK (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I've read multiple places that Camarasaurus is considered overlumped, and I wonder if the latest papers using the name Camarasaurus lewisi simply just do that because none of the other species in the genus have received their own genera yet, and that such a split is inevitable down the line once more detailed work is done? FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

We have to be careful here. When dinosaur genera are considered synonyms, this usually means their type species are deemed identical. Tell that to Anatosaurus, Archaeornis, Elosaurus, Eobrontosaurus, Seismosaurus, and Morosaurus. in what way is Cathetosaurus lewisi "invalid"? It is not nomenclaturally invalid, for it was validly named. You're completely right, C. lewisi is a valid species. It is currently assigned to Camarasaurus, in the combination Camarasaurus lewisi. No, because the concept Camarasaurus has no published operational definition (yet), so it is in principle impossible to provide scientific proof for an assignment to Camarasaursus. What you refer to as a consensus, is nothing more than a bunch of paleontologists being intellectually lazy and either clinging, against their better judgement, to the protoscientific Linnaean system, or avoiding the tiresome work of splitting the genus. The fact that you don't like the fact that this species is consistently called Camarasaurus lewisi in the published literature, and have philosophical criticisms of the decision to do so, does not give us the right to do otherwise. Remember, we can't use original research here, and I think your opinion that the consensus of the peer-reviwed literature is wrong counts as such. Besides, there exists an unpublished taxonomic revision of Camarasaurus (this poster) that concludes that C. lewisi belongs to Camarasaurus, so no, the inclusion of C. lewisi in Camarasaurus is probably not mere laziness. The leeway allowed by WP:Common names had best been used to provide the reader with a title which is the least confusing and the most likely to be the term causing him to consult an encyclopedia. WP:COMMONNAMES hardly gives us the right to present as correct a different scientific name for a taxon than the one used in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Also, Camarasaurus lewisi gets 103 results on Google Scholar, whereas Cathetosaurus lewisi gets only 22, most of which are not peer-reviewed papers. As such, it is Camarasaurus lewisi that is in fact the common name. Do you really think that using a less-common, incorrect name would be less confusing? I think I've read multiple places that Camarasaurus is considered overlumped... Vague grumblings by splitters that they think Camarasaurus is overlumped because it has more than one species in it are not our concern until there's actually a peer-reviewed study proposing an alternative taxonomy. Our duty here is not to predict hypothetical future taxonomic revisions (see: WP:CRYSTAL), it is to present the consensus of the scientific literature. That consensus is very clearly in favor of calling the species in question Camarasaurus lewisi. Even if Camarasaurus were to be shown to be overlumped, there is no guarantee that the genus Cathetosaurus in particular would become viewed as valid again. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, my objections are philosophical, in the sense they reflect the standard philosophy of science criteria for what constitutes science. We must avoid OR, but that does not absolve us from our duty to determine what sources are reliable. Any source using the name Camarasaurus lewisi is not a reliable source as to a scientific consensus, as such a consensus would by its nature be unscientific. It could, of course, be a reliable source of what is a common name. Should we want to use Google as an argument, the more fair comparison would be between "Camarasaurus lewisi" for which I get 2070 hits, and "Cathetosaurus", 258 000 hits. In limiting ourselves to Google Scholar, we forget the typical reader will not be a scholar. That reader should also be spared the suggestion that Camarasaurus lewisi would somehow be the "official", "correct" or "more scientific" name. It is just a prevalent contingent convention within a very small circle of persons. Indeed, analyses might show Cathetosaurus to be nested within a clade of traditional Camarasaurus species. If we want to be non-Linnaean by rejecting the paraphyly, the more consistent reaction would be to split the genus!--MWAK (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources supporting your assertion that assigning C. lewisi to Camarasaurus is inherently unscientific? I would be very interested in knowing what such sources would be. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is of course a vast literature about the question whether genera are natural objects. In general: I doubt Camarasaurus lewisi will be specifically addressed :o). But by asking for reliable sources at this point, you are committing a category mistake: we need reliable sources for the text, not for our judgment whether sources are reliable. That would get us into an infinite regression. You could make a much more cogent argument. If you look carefully at the poster you refer to, you will notice that Tschopp and Mateus in fact do provide a definition, proving I was right in asking for one. The criterion they use is the possession of at least seventeen autapomorphies. Poor Cathetosaurus has only twelve and so is sunk. So they do perform science. Should they publish and repeat this result and methodology, we would at last have some serious reason for merging. The method has its problems, though. The limit of seventeen traits was chosen to confirm traditional genus boundaries, so science was adapted to prop up protoscience. It has not become a popular practice :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

An unpublished abstract by Tschopp apparently puts Cathetosaurus as a seperate species from Camarasaurus, so I think the seperation has some validity to it. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

RE:MWAK: Any source using the name Camarasaurus lewisi is not a reliable source as to a scientific consensus, as such a consensus would by its nature be unscientific. Your reasoning is tautological: you have seemingly decided that the name Camarasaurus lewisi is, a priori, incorrect, and therefore that any evidence I provide supporting the use of the name is inadmissable. Should we want to use Google as an argument, the more fair comparison would be between "Camarasaurus lewisi" for which I get 2070 hits, and "Cathetosaurus", 258 000 hits. In limiting ourselves to Google Scholar, we forget the typical reader will not be a scholar. Apples to oranges. A two-word exact phrase is naturally going to be less common than a single word. A statement like "Cathetosaurus is a junior synonym of Camarasaurus" or "Camarasaurus contains four species: C. grandis, C. lentus, C. lewisi, and C. supremus" would support use of "Camarasaurus lewisi" without necessarily using the exact term. I can aver that the majority of results turned up by my Google Scholar search do indeed support using "Camarasaurus lewisi". It is just a prevalent contingent convention within a very small circle of persons. That "very small circle of persons" you refer to is also known as "almost every expert in the relevant field." The very notion of taxonomic nomenclature itself is a "prevalent contingent convention"—it is not some platonic entity that exists independently of the terms scientists actually use! But by asking for reliable sources at this point, you are committing a category mistake: we need reliable sources for the text, not for our judgment whether sources are reliable. Nearly all reliable sources to discuss C. lewisi use Camarasaurus lewisi, not Cathetosaurus lewisi, as the correct name for the taxon. You are the one who has made the claim that those sources are not reliable; it is on you to provide evidence for that claim. You could make a much more cogent argument. So could you—your arguments are both fallacious and in violation of Wikipedia policy.

RE:TimTheDragonRider: An unpublished abstract by Tschopp apparently puts Cathetosaurus as a seperate species from Camarasaurus, so I think the seperation has some validity to it. As I have already said more than once, a poster that appears to correspond to the same study concludes that Cathetosaurus is invalid, and moreover, a more recent paper by Tschopp and colleagues has assigned SMA 0002 and C. lewisi to Camarasaurus. As such, it appears that Tschopp has changed his mind since writing the abstract—and regardless, a single non-peer-reviewed abstract of an unpublished study cannot overturn the consensus of the published literature, which is that Camarasaurus lewisi is the name that should be used.

The fact of the matter is, as far as I am aware, all or nearly all peer-reviewed papers published in the last thirty years have called this taxon Camarasaurus lewisi. Does anyone deny that? If so, please provide reliable sources proving otherwise. If you don't deny that but still oppose renaming this page, please provide an argument based on Wikipedia policy justifying your decision to ignore the consensus of reliable sources on the topic. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't say or believe Camarasaurus lewisi is "incorrect". You are the one thinking that a name being "correct" or "valid" is relevant here. I simply pointed out that Cathetosaurus was validly named and that any assignment to Camarasaurus in principle cannot be sanctified by science because Camarasaurus is an operationally undefined concept. When the venerable McIntosh sunk Cathetosaurus, his only argument was that the differences were not "great" enough, not indicating which differences would be, after which he went on to describe a taxon that is quite apomorphic. Subsequent authors simply adopted the new combination. So the only question is now, what is the most functional name of the article? The reader is much more likely to encounter the name Cathetosaurus than Camarasaurus lewisi (or C. lewisi, which also gets few hits despite meaning Cyclura lewisi as well).

It might be that you misunderstand Tschopp e.a (2014). They did not "change their minds", they began adopting an entirely new methodology, in which genera are defined and thus scientific concepts. On the one hand this shows that not much value can be attached to the previous "consensus", on the other hand it might be a strong argument to change the article title when their study is published. The methodology might not be generally accepted though, because it is still arbitrary and quite cumbersome besides.--MWAK (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You are making the truly astonishing claim that the scientific consensus about what name to use for a taxon is entirely irrelevant to the matter of what the Wikipedia article on that taxon should be called. Wikipedia naming conventions do not say that the name that gets the most Google results is the correct name, they say that the name most commonly used in reliable sources is generally preferred. A Google Scholar search turns up mostly reliable sources; a regular Google search does not—as such, a Google Scholar result Wikipedia naming conventions specific to pages on animals indicate that the vernacular name should be preferred if an acceptable one exists, and otherwise the scientific name should be used. The correct scientific name for the taxon being discussed here is Camarasaurus lewisi, and it has no vernacular name. So far, I have checked 49 papers that mention the taxon, including all Google Scholar results for "Cathetosaurus". Five of those were published before McIntosh synonymized Cathetosaurus with Camarasaurus in 1996; of the remaining 44, only five can be construed as giving even tentative support to the validity of Cathetosaurus: Foster and Peterson (2016) note that a paper that treated Cathetosaurus as a synonym of Camarasaurus "pre-date[s] recent taxonomic proposals" but do not explicitly indicate whether they consider Cathetosaurus to be valid; Mateus et al. 2017 call SMA 0002 a specimen of Cathetosaurus lewisi (but Waskow and Mateus 2017 call it a specimen of Camarasaurus sp.); Houssaye et al. 2016 call SMA 0002 a specimen of Cathetosaurus sp.; Tschopp et al. 2019 state that Camarasaurus lewisi "may even constitute a distinct genus, Cathetosaurus"; and Taylor 2022 calls BYU 9047 "the Cathetosaurus lewisi holotype" and regards Camarasaurus as over-lumped, but includes the C. lewisi holotype in a count of Camarasaurus individuals. Additionally, Tschopp et al. 2016 regard SMA 0002 as a specimen of Camarasaurus but do not explicitly say whether they regard Cathetosaurus as valid or not. I still have several more pages of Google Scholar results for "Camarasaurus lewisi" to go through, but presumably they would not regard Cathetosaurus as valid, as any papers I haven't checked yet do not come up when "Cathetosaurus" is searched. As such, there are at least 38 papers, perhaps significantly more, that regard Camarasaurus lewisi as the correct name, versus only five papers that provide even tentative support for the validity of Cathetosaurus: three seem to be open to the idea of the validity of Cathetosaurus without explicitly supporting it, one is an incidental inclusion of the name in a table, and one is contradicted by another paper by some of the same authors. In summary, Camarasaurus lewisi is the more common name in reliable sources by an overwhelming margin, and Wikipedia policy clearly supports its use as the page title. Most of your other arguments are in violation of WP:SYNTH. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This issue can be clarified by making a clear distinction between the nomenclatural and scientific aspects. Obviously the lemma title of a taxon should, if no vernacular name is available, be a nomenclaturally valid genus or species name. Indeed, the technical literature on this point consists of reliable sources and provides us with two valid names: Cathetosaurus and Camarasaurus lewisi. A choice should then made between these, based on the criterion which name is the more common. Must we then again limit ourselves to the technical literature? No, because "common" here means "common in general" and not "common in the technical literature". Each instance of Cathetosaurus is a reliable source as to the occurrence of this instance, no matter how unreliable that source might otherwise be in its content. Cathetosaurus seems to be the more common name by far.

Now, an argument could be made that the principle of the common name should be overruled by science. If empirical research shows that Cathetosaurus belongs to Camarasaurus, the reader would be best served by expressing this fundamental fact from the outset, in the article title. No such research has been published. McIntosh did not base his reassignment on a previous independent definition of Camarasaurus. He basically judged "Methinks it is Camarasaurus". In this he was no exception. Genera are rarely operationally defined. So, in referring to a "scientific consensus", you are employing a double definition. It could mean a convention between scientists, or an agreement between scientists about what empirical science has discovered. Such an agreement is absent. Published empirical science could, as everyone is well aware of, not possibly have discovered that Cathetosaurus belongs to Camarasaurus as that concept has not been empirically defined. This is an important reason not to rename, as this would strongly suggest to the reader that it was somehow "discovered" of "found" that Cathetosaurus is incorrect or invalid, while no such empirical basis could exist. Am I committing a forbidden synthesis by bringing this up? No, because I'm not suggesting we should spell this out in the text. We must be guided by such considerations in our higher order collective decision-making process.

BTW, your analysis of the literature would make an excellent addition to the article!--MWAK (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Each instance of Cathetosaurus is a reliable source as to the occurrence of this instance, no matter how unreliable that source might otherwise be in its content. That is not a reasonable interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME or WP:RELIABLE. Am I committing a forbidden synthesis by bringing this up? Yes, you are. You are making a novel intepretation of the sources to come to a conclusion not present in any of them, namely "Cathetosaurus is valid because McIntosh et al. did not adequately justify their synonymization of it with Camarasaurus." In any case, we clearly have irreconcilable differences about how to interpret Wikipedia policy, and whether the consensus of experts in a given field is relevant, so I'm not sure if continuing this discussion without input from other editors is productive. Maybe FunkMonk, Hemiauchenia, Lythronaxargestes, or IJReid might have something to say? Ornithopsis (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Cathetosaurus lewisi was lumped into Camarasaurus, with the osteology of the specimen in 1996. Since then, papers and books (eg The Dinosauria 2004; Mannion ea 2013; Upchurch ea 2021) retained the genera as synonyms without comment, until the conference abstract of Mateus and Tschopp in 2013. The Sauropod Facts and Figures book (Molina & Larramendi 2020) follows the Catheto split. That about sums up the entire literature on Cathetosaurus, so I can't conclude that there is really any consensus. A book on either side, two recent papers lumping without comment, and one conference abstract splitting as the result of a detailed analysis (embargoed information that shouldn't be revealed notwithstanding). I don't think there's compelling evidence to either retain or rename the article, so I would advocate to leave it as it is. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't really consider the Molina and Larramendi book a reliable source, at least not on the same level as the scholarly literature. It contains numerous errors and is an non-peer-reviewed book for a popular audience. Conference abstracts aren't reliable sources either, and as I keep saying, it seems Tschopp and Mateus have walked back on at least some aspects of that abstract. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, it isn't "two recent papers". I count at least fourteen papers published since the abstract that include C. lewisi in Camarasaurus, three of which were authored by Tschopp. The fact that the research has yet to be published after nearly a decade makes one wonder if their research did not make it past peer review, and Tschopp himself has said his results have changed since then in a published paper—as such, I do not consider the abstract particularly trustworthy. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that the poster you keep referencing is supposed to be embargoed information, we cannot cite it (and see also comments here showing the poster and abstract of the same conference contradict). Conference abstracts authored by published researchers definitely count as reliable sources, and we can cite them much the same way as any other reference. No other papers discuss the possibility of synonymy or reasons for retaining the species in the genus, and we can't reference synonymization without comment as a reliable source for continuing synonymy. The page should have probably never been created as Cathetosaurus to begin with, but there is not much of a consensus to follow for moving the page from the destination it is currently at. I would support changing all references of "Cathetosaurus" within the text to "C. lewisi", and adding a note in the first sentence of the lead that "Cathetosaurus (also referred to as Camarasaurus lewisi)". A genus-level article is easier to reference in other articles or templates, making it more accessible, and given we lack clear consensus there shouldn't be significant issues with its retention. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology abstracts are not peer-reviewed, and should not be given equal weight to peer-reviewed journal articles. I only bring up the poster to emphasize the point that such abstracts are often preliminary; I am not suggesting that we cite it in the article itself. What part of "over 90% of published papers to mention the taxon in the last decade use the name Camarasaurus lewisi" does not strike you as a reasonable consensus? There are some recent papers that contain a non-incidental mention of C. lewisi, such as Woodruff and Foster 2017 and Woodruff et al. 2021. We are not supposed to predict future taxonomic revisions on Wikipedia; even if you think the current assignment of the species is unsatisfactory, the fact remains that it is nearly universally called Camarasaurus lewisi in the published literature. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Two mentions of "C. lewisi" in a paper (such as in Tschopp ea 2015) should not be used as a reference that a placement in Camarasaurus is consensus. It stands that of those 90% of papers, the only mentions of the species is cursory statements without any form of importance for the subject matter of this article. As it is currently, the genus-level article would be mentioned in Camarasauridae and the Sauropoda template, where C. lewisi would not. Consensus does not depend on the pure numerical amount of papers, but the value of those papers. A SVP abstract is as peer-reviewed as a blog such as TheropodDatabase, which we draw conclusions from elsewhere, or Theropoda or SVPOW. It remains a reliable primary source regardless of if it is peer-reviewed or not, much the same as The Dinosauria or countless other books by Witton or Paul or Brusatte or Barrett. If a conference poster cannot be cited in the article, what value does it have in a discussion about the contents of the article? There are two quality references that discuss the synonymy of Camarasaurus and Cathetosaurus, McIntosh ea 1996 and Mateus & Tschopp 2013. The incomplete and preliminary nature of the latter does not preclude its importance in establishing that there is not a consensus here to act upon, and I will retain my opposition of the page move proposed in this discussion. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but I really don't think a non-peer-reviewed conference abstract is enough to overturn dozens of published references to the name Camarasaurus lewisi, even if the abstract does go into more detail than most of those papers. Edited volumes published by reputable academic publishers are generally regarded as reliable sources on par with peer-reviewed journals. A conference abstract is more akin to a preprint, which are not considered reliable. Blogs are generally not considered reliable either, and we should use them with caution. I think it would be a violation of due weight to title an article off of the basis of a single source that has not been peer-reviewed, and your assertion that all mentions of C. lewisi published since the abstract are cursory is incorrect: for one, Woodruff and Foster (2017) argue that some of the diagnostic characters of C. lewisi may be ontogenetic, meaning it would just be based on a mature specimen of another species of Camarasaurus—and unlike the abstract, that source has been peer-reviewed. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

At this point its also not only Mateus & Tschopp 2013 that support distinction. Tschopp ea 2014 also does, Tschopp ea 2019 suggests it and advocates for Camarasauridae indet instead of Camarasaurus sp., and Taylor 2022 uses Cathetosaurus without comment (much in line with his and Wedel's opinions on SVPOW). So there are more than two independent groups of authors using Cathetosaurus, some with and without comment, including two peer-reviewed sources in the last 5 years, in a similar vein to those using C. lewisi. I don't think we can conclude there's any clear consensus to follow. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Taylor's use of Cathetosaurus, which I acknowledged above, cannot strictly speaking be interpreted as clearly regarding the genus as valid, though he's clearly at least open to the idea. He includes the specimen as a Camarasaurus specimen, so his calling BYU 9047 the "Cathetosaurus lewisi holotype" appears to be similar to calling CMNH 7541 the "Nanotyrannus lancensis holotype", it is not necessarily implying that Cathetosaurus is valid. Tschopp has called BYU 9047 a Camarasaurus specimen in some papers (e.g. Tschopp et al. 2015 and Tschopp and Upchurch 2018). As such, Tschopp and Mateus appear to be undecided, leaving an incidental referral of SMA 0002 to Cathetosaurus by Houssaye et al. 2016 as the only published paper to clearly treat Cathetosaurus as valid without Tschopp or Mateus involved. If you get to disregard the dozen or so incidental mentions of Camarasaurus lewisi published in the last several years, I get to disregard Houssaye et al. 2016 and Taylor 2022. Regardless, there is still a clear, significant majority of papers that treat C. lewisi as Camarasaurus, even if you only look at papers published since 2013, and they are not all incidental. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

In an attempt to gain some information on Tschopp's standing on the subject I have sent out an email. I don't think it's safe to assume that researchers have changed their minds, we'd need confirmation on that. --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A personal communication by Tschopp is not admissible evidence on Wikipedia. I'm not saying Tschopp definitely has changed his mind, I'm saying that published sources strongly suggest that we cannot rely on the conclusions of the 2013 or 2014 abstracts as accurately representing the current status of Tschopp's analysis, and as such should view their conclusions skeptically. Because we very much cannot cite a personal email, neither him saying "I am 100% certain that Cathetosaurus is a valid genus" nor "I changed my mind, Cathetosaurus is invalid after all" would significantly move this debate. If you're communicating with Tschopp, tell him to hurry up and publish the dang thing—it's been nearly a decade, we wouldn't be having this debate if he'd published his analysis by now! Ornithopsis (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think saying that anything is "strongly suggested" by Tschopp's recent literature is misrepresenting the situation. The 2019 paper still cites the 2014 abstract as possible proof of Catheto validity, the 2015 and 2016 papers never discuss taxonomy, and the 2013 and 2014 abstracts support Catheto validity. I already removed the mention of "one of the authors changing his mind" from the article already because that statement and suggestion is far more OR and unsourced than anything promoting Catheto distinctness. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The edits you removed, which you describe as my saying Tschopp changed his mind, is the following statement: An unpublished study suggested splitting the two genera again, based on the recognition of a second specimen, but subsequent research by one of the authors of that study has since concluded this specimen belonged to Camarasaurus after all. Subsequent research has referred to C. lewisi as a species of Camarasaurus, including research by one of the authors of the unpublished study. The first sentence is a reference to Tschopp et al. 2014/2016 (online-first/final date), which states: [SMA 0002] It was identified as Cathetosaurus, based on the morphology of the pelvic girdle and dorsal transverse processes (Mateus and Tschopp 2013), but a more recent preliminary specimen-based phylogenetic analysis favors an identification as Camarasaurus (ET, unpublished data). As such, the claim made in the first sentence is fully supported by the source provided, with Tschopp explicitly stating that the results of his research have changed since the 2013 abstract. So you're right, it isn't "strongly suggested" that the results have significantly changed, it's explicitly stated. There are at least three papers by Tschopp that regard C. lewisi as belonging to Camarasaurus: Tschopp et al. 2015A: Hundreds of bones of the four established species C. supremus Cope, 1877 (the type species), C. grandis (Marsh, 1877), C. lentus (Marsh, 1889), and C. lewisi (Jensen, 1988) were collected in the North American, Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation, covering a large part of its spatial and temporal range. Tschopp et al. 2015B: ...Camarasaurus also appears to show intrageneric variation: C. lewisi has narrow troughs throughout its bifurcated presacral vertebrae, whereas other Camarasaurus species have wide bases. and Tschopp and Upchurch 2018, which includes BYU 9047 in a table of Camarasaurus specimens. Perhaps all of those are incidental mentions, but they hardly suggest Tschopp is committed to the notion of Cathetosaurus validity. As such, the second sentence you removed is also supported by multiple sources. I don't appreciate your putting words in my mouth or falsely accusing me of making OR, unsourced statements. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Support. I cannot understand where MWAK is coming from. Wikipedia is not beholden to the gold standard of taxonomy, it is beholden to the actual usage in the literature. See also the variety of terrible or malformed published names that are necessarily transcribed verbatim onto Wikipedia. If a majority of recently published papers use Camarasaurus lewisi, the article is titled Camarasaurus lewisi. It really is that simple. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, WP:COMMONNAME nowhere states that the usage in the technical literature should be decisive, let alone equates "reliable sources" with "peer-reviewed papers". As regards the quantitative aspect of usage, each source reliably proves its own contribution. There can be qualitative aspects. Sources misspelling Cathetosaurus as Catetosaurus are not reliable as to the nomenclature and thus disqualify themselves regarding the spelling.

It might be useful to go back to basics. WPCOMMONNAME indicates five main criteria by which to decide what name to choose.

1. Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. In view of the Google hits, it seems much more likely that such a person will recognise Cathetosaurus than the rather undistinctive C. lewisi.
2. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. The Google hits seem to show that the reader is much more likely to encounter the term Cathetosaurus (so that is what the phenomenon is actually called) and that this will be the term causing him to consult Wikipedia. Our editors seem to have no trouble in directly linking to Cathetosaurus.
3. Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. Cathetosaurus is obviously just as precise and much more distinctive than Camarasaurus lewisi, which, though it is nomenclaturally unambiguous, might easily be confused with other Camarasaurus names.
4. Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Cathetosaurus is shorter than Camarasaurus lewisi.
5. Consistency - The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Most dinosaur articles use genus names only (they have better recognisability, naturalness, precision and concision, after all).

So, by the Five Pillars of good title selection, Cathetosaurus is the superior choice.

Again, by pointing out that the purported "scientific consensus" has in fact no basis in empirical science, I do not violate WP:SYNTHESIS because that part of the policy regulates the content of articles, and is not about limiting our freedom to bring up any fact or consideration when trying to reach consensus in title choice. If we correctly claim in the article "McIntosh in 1996 applied an already outdated methodology, while subsequent authors failed as scientists by following him", this is forbidden as no source expresses these sentiments in relation to Cathetosaurus. But they are, in our discussion, admissible arguments against any claim that C. lewisi would be more "correct", "valid" or "scientific".--MWAK (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I think keeping Cathetosaurus seperate would be the best course of action to take, at least until a clear consensus on the genus' validity can be achieved. --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Besides, if the article is going to be moved, shouldn't it be merged into Camarasaurus itself? --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggested we could merge this article into Camarasaurus as an alternative. However, the reason why most paleontology articles are kept at the genus level is to avoid the creation of unnecessary stub articles. For many species (for instance, the two species of Triceratops), there is very little information that needs to be said about each species in particular, so an article on the species would be somewhat redundant. I think there's enough information specific to C. lewisi, such as its taxonomic history, the uncertainty over the validity of Cathetosaurus, and Jensen's rearing hypothesis, that a standalone article is justified, however, so I would prefer to keep the article but retitle it to reflect the most widely used name for the taxon in the scientific literature, rather than a name generally viewed as invalid. I'd be open to merging it with Camarasaurus if other editors wanted, though—but it looks like the main debate here is whether Cathetosaurus or Camarasaurus lewisi is a preferable title, whereas we're all in agreement over keeping the page. Also, I want to reiterate that my stance is not a judgment of the validity of Cathetosaurus per se; I'd be perfectly open to the idea of it being valid, but I don't think we should treat it as valid until an actual published paper makes that argument. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Considering the relative shortness of the Camarasaurus article itself, I tink this article could be neatly rolled into that one if we decide to go with that genus, as we're basially just talking about a pelvis, and there isn't that much uniue to say about it that couldn't be said about any other little known species. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The holotype of Camarasaurus lewisi is a nearly complete skeleton lacking only the skull, hindlimbs, and a few bits and pieces. It's not only a pelvis. The taxonomic history of the species can be more readily discussed in a standalone article, in my opinion. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Must have been misled by the picture, but anyhow, the same can be said about many other prehistoric species that we don't keep separate. In this case, all we really need to list is the diagnostic features, when it was found, and that it has at times been placed in another genus. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The main reason for that guideline is to avoid the creation and maintenance of unneccessary stubs, as I understand it; since we've already got the article and it's more than a stub, we might as well keep it around. I won't strongly object, though; my primary concern is having the article name and contents accurately reflect the preponderance of reliable sources. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A merge seems uncalled for: this really seems a very specialised form. I'll further expand the text.--MWAK (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards keeping this at Cathetosaurus in any case, until more in-depth studies are published. What we have now simply seems to be mentions of this or that name in the literature, instead of much argumentation. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, it's clear that I'm losing this argument. Nontheless, I maintain that titling this article Cathetosaurus is giving undue weight to a non-peer-reviewed study. The reason why there hasn't been a published counterargument to either of Mateus and Tschopp's abstracts is, no doubt, the fact that the study hasn't been published yet. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

One last comment: let me put it this way—if there was an SVP abstract that argued that Nanotyrannus was a valid genus, we'd presumably all agree that it would be jumping the gun to make Nanotyrannus its own article again. I don't see how this is really all that different. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I've taken some time to think about it and would like to have one last chance to state my case. I'm honestly surprised by the amount of opposition my proposal has recieved; from my perspective, this seems like it should be a fairly open-and-shut case of an article needing to be renamed to reflect the scientific consensus of what the valid name for the taxon is. I want to be clear that this is not about the validity of Cathetosaurus per se: I am not particularly invested in whether C. lewisi is recognized as belonging to a distinct genus from Camarasaurus. If a properly published study makes an adequate case for separating the genera, I would happily support titling this page Cathetosaurus. My stance on this is a matter of principle about how we use sources and represent scientific consensus here on Wikipedia. The way I see it, the vast majority of reliable sources indicate that the currently correct name for this taxon is Camarasaurus lewisi, and we should title the article accordingly.

Firstly, I would like to review the published scientific literature (i.e. excluding conference abstracts) for mentions of Camarasaurus lewisi or Cathetosaurus. For the period prior to 1996 (i.e. before McIntosh et al. synonymized Cathetosaurus with Camarasaurus), I have found five papers that mention the taxon. These comprise the original description (Jensen 1988), two incidental mentions of Cathetosaurus as a valid genus (Jensen 1987 and Haubold 1990), one incidental mention that provisionally accepts Cathetosaurus as valid but notes it may be synonymous with Camarasaurus (Upchurch 1995), and one incidental mention of C. lewisi as a species of Camarasaurus (McIntosh 1990). From 1996 to 2013 (i.e. from McIntosh et al.'s synonymization up to before Mateus and Tschopp's abstract), there are approximately 30 papers that mention Camarasaurus lewisi and none that treat Cathetosaurus as valid. Most of these papers are incidental mentions of the taxon, but a few merit specific mention: McIntosh et al. 1996, of course, synonymized Cathetosaurus with Camarasaurus. Wilson and Sereno 1998 provided a phylogenetic definition for Camarasaurus that includes C. lewisi within the genus by definition. Upchurch et al. 2004 is a chapter in the important secondary source The Dinosauria. Ikejiri 2005 discusses the taxonomy of Camarasaurus in some detail and concludes that C. lewisi may be a junior synonym of C. grandis. From 2014 to present, there have been 30 papers published to mention the taxon. Of these, twenty-five regard C. lewisi as belonging to Camarasaurus, two include it within Camarasaurus but note that Camarasaurus may need to be split (Tschopp et al. 2019 and Taylor 2022), one acknowledges the proposal that Cathetosaurus is valid but does not clearly indicate whether they agree with it (Foster and Peterson 2016), and two are incidental mentions of SMA 0002 as a specimen of Cathetosaurus (Houssaye et al. 2016 and Mateus et al. 2017). All in all, there are nearly 60 papers that use the name Camarasaurus lewisi and only five that treat Cathetosaurus as valid, plus four others that mention the taxon without clearly coming down on one side or the other. Of these nearly seventy papers, only five can be considered as giving more than incidental consideration to the taxonomic status of C. lewisi: Jensen 1988, McIntosh et al. 1996, Ikejiri 2005, Woodruff and Foster 2017, and Woodruff et al. 2021. Of these, only the original description (Jensen 1988) treats C. lewisi as valid, and two of the studies (Ikejiri 2005 and Woodruff and Foster 2017) express doubt over whether C. lewisi even represents a distinct species, let alone genus.

Next, I would like to consider the status of the two abstracts: Mateus and Tschopp 2013 and Tschopp et al. 2014. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology conference abstracts undergo very little review and no editing, and as such, cannot be considered as reliable sources on the same level as peer-reviewed journal articles, edited volumes, or books published by a reputable academic publisher. Moreover, such abstracts often represent work-in progress studies, and may not be representative of the final results published. There is ample evidence that the results of the research by Tschopp and Mateus represented by these two abstracts has changed. Tschopp explicitly says that he no longer regards SMA 0002 as a specimen of Cathetosaurus in one paper.[2] He does not indicate whether he considers Cathetosaurus to be valid, but given that the case for the validity of Cathetosaurus they originally presented was based largely on autapomorphies recognized in SMA 0002, and a copy of Tschopp's poster reveals they presented results that Cathetosaurus was synonymous with Camarasaurus after all,[3] there is reason to suspect that that result has changed as well. Moreover, Tschopp has included C. lewisi within Camarasaurus in no less than four papers since those abstracts. [4] [5] [6] [7] In summary, the abstracts are not particularly reliable sources, and even if they were, there would be ample reason to question their results.

FunkMonk pointed out that there has not been much argumentation in favor of keeping C. lewisi within Camarasaurus since McIntosh et al. 1996. This is arguably true (though note the multiple studies indicating that it is difficult to distinguish C. lewisi from C. grandis), but not particularly relevant. As far as the published literature is concerned, there is virtually no controversy over whether C. lewisi belongs to Camarasaurus; there simply has been no impetus to respond to a study that hasn't even been published yet.

Put all of this together, and the situation is clear: there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature that the taxon should be called Camarasaurus lewisi, with over 85% of all papers to mention the taxon clearly using the name Camarasaurus lewisi as correct and only 7% clearly using Cathetosaurus as correct (all but one of which are incidental mentions). The only sources that seriously challenge McIntosh et al.'s synonymization are two conference abstracts by the same authors, which are of questionable reliability, and for which there is ample reason to doubt whether the results presented nearly a decade ago have held up. Given all of this, it is a clear violation of due weight to title this article Cathetosaurus. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The expansive literature review is nice to have, but much of it has already been discussed. Incidental mentions of Camarasaurus lewisi form the large majority of references, and are of as much taxonomic value in this discussion as the four that do not state a taxonomic opinion. Before 1996, theres 1 taxonomic reference splitting, and 1 taxonomic reference lumping, one being a book. From 1996 to 2012 theres 4 papers that provide a taxonomic statement, one being a book. Since 2013 theres 2 conference abstracts advocating separation, and one source suggesting synonymy, along with Woodruff ea 2021 which doesn't state whether they agree with McIntosh's position but acknowledge the suggested synonymy. The revival of a distinct species to genus level in a conference abstract is not to the same significance as reviving Nanotyrannus, we can't ignore the abstracts simply because Tschopp hasn't universally used Cathetosaurus since, there is the SVPOW post that is both a reliable-enough source *and* states Camarasaurus may be overlumped, and we have more specimens currently in the works that are relevant to the systematic position of SMA 002 (per Tschopp ea 2016, which does use Cathetosaurus as valid, refers to SMA 0002 as a "camarasaurid", and gives the only citable reference to the poster that we otherwise shouldnt discuss because its not supposed to be public). The discussion regarding the name of the article doesn't hinge on the dozens of papers that use the words "Camarasaurus lewisi", so they should not be used to establish a consensus where there is not clearly one among recent published literature. And where there isn't a consensus, the genus-level title is the best for the sake of the article, because it is concise, easy to understand, and more visible, since we can mention it on the family page of in the sauropod template as well as anywhere Cam. lewisi could be mentioned. Since it's been named, theres 1 paper and 2 abstracts that discuss why Catheto is distinct, and 3 papers that discuss why Catheto isn't distinct. But the chronological distribution is not even, with only one paper since the release of the abstracts stating Cathetosaurus is a synonym and discussing why. The incidental mentions of Cam. lewisi by McIntosh 1990, Upchurch ea 2004, and Wilson & Sereno 1998 can be cited as saying C. lewisi is within Camara, but not why, and so aren't of importance to an in-article discussion of the synonymy.

As it stands, the current paragraph is about as good a compromise as I think we can get, though I find the discussion of subsequent Tschopp papers to be a little bit nitpicky and should be balanced by the other ones my Tschopp or Mateus that use Catheto without comment (Tschopp ea 2016, Mateus ea 2017). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The two abstracts are essentially two separate instances of what appears to be an ongoing study of Camarasaurus taxonomy by Mateus and Tschopp, and shouldn't be weighed as fully independent studies. They also aren't peer-reviewed, decreasing their weight further. I'm not saying we should ignore them entirely (I fully support their mention in the article), but I am saying that I don't think they provide enough evidence, for now, to justify giving Cathetosarurus preferable treatment. Going by teams of researchers, two (Jensen; Mateus, Tschopp, and colleagues) have weighed in in favor of Cathetosaurus validity and three (McIntosh and colleagues; Ikejiri; and Woodruff and colleagues) have weighed in in favor of synonymy, so the majority opinion would appear to be in favor of synonymy. Moreover, since you brought up chronology, the most recent word on the topic is Woodruff and Foster's argument that nearly all distinguishing characteristics of C. lewisi appear to be ontogenetic in nature. It's true that incidental mentions of Camarasaurus lewisi carry little weight, but that weight isn't zero either. Tschopp et al. 2016 is ambiguous on whether it supports Cathetosaurus validity: neither It was identified as Cathetosaurus, based on the morphology of the pelvic girdle and dorsal transverse processes (Mateus and Tschopp 2013), but a more recent preliminary specimen-based phylogenetic analysis favors an identification as Camarasaurus (ET, unpublished data). nor assignment of SMA 0002 to Camarasauridae serves as unequivocal support of Cathetosaurus validity; one could say ""Jane" was identified as Nanotyrannus, but more recent research favors an identification as Tyrannosaurus" without necessarily implying Nanotyrannus is valid, for instance. Could you link to the SVPOW post that says Cathetosaurus is valid? I agree that SVPOW is a reliable enough source to merit mention in the article (I'd weigh its reliability as on par with a conference abstract but below a peer-reviewed paper, based on my reading of WP:RELIABLE), although it won't sway me that Camarasaurus lewisi is the preferable name for this article, because there has never been a peer-reviewed counterargument to McIntosh et al. 1996's synonymization. Your argument that Cathetosaurus is a more flexible article title for use on Wikipedia is a fair point, but I don't think it's enough to overcome the fact that Cathetosaurus is generally regarded as invalid. Redirects exist, after all, so we have that flexibility regardless. Moreover, I think that Cathetosaurus should not be included in a template without at least some indication that its validity is questionable. Despite our disagreements, though, I do want to thank you for responding to my request for comment on the issue, and I think we have made progress on at least improving the article, if not coming to an agreement on the title. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The article itself is certainly better off regardless. I have no more points to say apart from that, while Tschopp ea 2016 are inconclusive about SMA 0002, the context shows pretty well that they use Catheto regardless of where SMA places, since it's only a referred specimen after all. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. While it's clear that Tschopp et al. consider camarasaurid taxonomy unresolved enough to merit caution in assigning SMA 0002 to Camarasaurus, and that is presumably at least partially because they consider Cathetosaurus to be at least potentially valid, I see no indication anywhere in the paper that they outright support the validity of Cathetosaurus. The single use of Cathetosaurus in the text is in a context that does not necessarily indicate validity, as I have already explained my reasoning for above. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Support. Per the detailed survey by Ornithopsis above, it seems pretty clear that Camarasaurus lewisi is the most widely used name for this taxon in relevant primary literature. Albertonykus (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Weak Support - I was initially swayed towards oppose by IJReid's point about whether the continuing Camarasaurus lewisi uses are significant or not, but Ornithopsis' above explanation seems to pretty clearly demonstrate that even restricting things to studies that meaningfully weigh in on taxonomy does not settle things in favor of a distinct genus - which, as the newer alternative proposal, has the burden on proof on it. That said, things very much could go either way so I'm not of an especially strong mind towards one name or the other. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Weak Support - Ignoring the unstable status of Cathetosaurus "behind the scenes" and going only by recorded usage, it seems evident to me that the consistent incidental use of C. lewisi as a species of Camarasaurus is indicative of it being the accepted taxonomy following McIntosh 1996 up until 2013-14, thereby setting precedent for its usage. From 2014 onwards following the two Tschopp et al. abstracts, outside of papers explicitly acknowledging the suggested split, the fact that authors have continued to refer to C. lewisi as a species of Camarasaurus in incidental usage, rather than adopting Cathetosaurus, leads me to support renaming the article to Camarasaurus lewisi (or to merge it with Camarasaurus, if that is preferred). In my opinion, I believe that using Cathetosaurus as the title gives undue weight to the suggestion that it constitutes a distinct genus, as it has not yet been adopted as the name in prevalent usage over the continued use of Camarasaurus lewisi, regardless of whether either option is likely to be substantiated.

That being said, I do not have a strong opinion on this, and I can very much see the utility of the visibility of the genus-level title outside of the article itself, hence the choice of weak support. I would certainly not pursue the issue if the final decision ultimately was to keep the genus-level title, and I find the current state of the text satisfactory for highlighting the potential generic synonymy. Nonetheless, I emphasise that I ultimately agree with the logic for using Camarasaurus lewisi as the article title and consider it to be the more appropriate option. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 19:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Weak Oppose for now Despite the fact that Camarasaurus lewisi seems to be ever so slightly more common in the general public, and very common in scientific literature, there is still no exact scientific consensus. As for now, with the article adequately addressing this issue, I think that keeping the two articles separate is our best currently available option. I personally believe that the articles can and probably will be merged at some point in the future, but it is just too soon to tell at this point. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand how you can read the above and come to the conclusion that Camarasaurus lewisi is only "ever so slightly" more common. Exactly two published papers in the last 26 years use the name Cathetosaurus as a valid taxon, whereas roughly 60 papers use Camarasaurus lewisi. That's like saying the United States is "ever so slightly" larger than Belgium. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ornithopsis: I was referring to the usage of the names in the more general public, sorry if that was unclear. I have now updated my original comment to make my point clearer. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2022 (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.

First mentioned name

@Ornithopsis:, in your most recent article you've decided to start the article with the name Camarasaurus lewisi. However, as the article's name is still Cathetosaurus, would it not make more sense to keep Cathetosaurus as the first mentioned name? (I made this post instead of simply reverting your edit, no reason we can't discuss it right?) --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, and justified in detail above, it is giving undue weight to a single non-peer-reviewed study (that's been presented twice) to present Cathetosaurus lewisi as a preferable name to Camarasaurus lewisi in the body of the text. Some of the arguments for keeping the title Cathetosaurus made above were about which name was more practical as the title per se, regardless of which name was deemed scientifically valid, particularly the arguments made by MWAK. Those particular arguments, though perhaps pertinent to what the title should be, have little bearing on how to phrase the text. The first name highlighted in the lede does not necessarily need to be the title of the article proper: see 50 Cent or Jay-Z, for instance. As long as the article title shows up reasonably early, it doesn't strictly need to be the beginning of the first sentence. While I ultimately maintain that the article title should also be changed to reflect the scientific consensus, I acknowledge that concerns over which title is more practical and recognizable have merit when it comes to the title itself. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:Lead states: If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. The syntactical subject, that is.--MWAK (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that a first sentence that violates due weight is not encompassed within what is meant by "if possible". Ornithopsis (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A bit of a moot point now the article has been moved. But ideally, those changes shouldn't have been done while the discussion was in progress. Vpab15 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning for why I felt the lead sentence was appropriate regardless of what was chosen as the title, but as you said, it's a moot point now. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)