The purpose of this application, under Articles 78.1 and 81.1 of the Code, is to replace Diplodocus longus Marsh, 1878 as the type species of the sauropod dinosaur genus Diplodocus by the much better represented D. carnegii Hatcher, 1901, due to the undiagnosable state of the holotype of D. longus (YPM 1920, a partial tail and a chevron). The holotype of D. carnegii, CM 84, is a well-preserved and mostly articulated specimen. Casts of it are on display in various museums around the world, and the species has generally been used as the main reference for studies of comparative anatomy or phylogeny of the genus. Both species are known from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of the western United States. The genus Diplodocus is the basis for the family-level taxa diplodocinae Marsh, 1884, diplodocidae Marsh, 1884, diplodocimorpha Marsh, 1884 (Calvo & Salgado, 1995) and diplodocoidea Marsh, 1884 (Upchurch, 1995). It is also a specifier of at least 10 phylogenetic clades. With the replacement of D. longus by D. carnegii as type species, Diplodocus could be preserved as a taxonomic name with generally accepted content. Taxonomic stability of the entire clade diplodocoidea, and the proposed definitions of several clades within Sauropoda, could be maintained.

Diplodocidae are among the best known sauropod dinosaurs. Several species were described in the late 1800s or early 1900s from the Morrison Formation of North America. Since then, numerous additional specimens were recovered in the USA, Tanzania, Portugal, and Argentina, as well as possibly Spain, England, Georgia, Zimbabwe, and Asia. To date, the clade includes about 12 to 15 nominal species, some of them with questionable taxonomic status (e.g., ‘\textit{Diplodocus}’ \textit{hayi} or \textit{Dyslocosaurus polyonychius}), and ranging in age from Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous. However, intrageneric relationships of the iconic, multi-species genera \textit{Apatosaurus} and \textit{Diplodocus} are still poorly known. The way to resolve this issue is a specimen-based phylogenetic analysis, which has been previously implemented for \textit{Apatosaurus}, but is here performed for the first time for the entire clade of Diplodocidae.The analysis includes 81 operational taxonomic units, 49 of which belong to Diplodocidae. The set of OTUs includes all name-bearing type specimens previously proposed to belong to Diplodocidae, alongside a set of relatively complete referred specimens, which increase the amount of anatomically overlapping material. Non-diplodocid outgroups were selected to test the affinities of potential diplodocid specimens that have subsequently been suggested to belong outside the clade. The specimens were scored for 477 morphological characters, representing one of the most extensive phylogenetic analyses of sauropod dinosaurs. Character states were figured and tables given in the case of numerical characters.The resulting cladogram recovers the classical arrangement of diplodocid relationships. Two numerical approaches were used to increase reproducibility in our taxonomic delimitation of species and genera. This resulted in the proposal that some species previously included in well-known genera like \textit{Apatosaurus} and \textit{Diplodocus} are generically distinct. Of particular note is that the famous genus \textit{Brontosaurus} is considered valid by our quantitative approach. Furthermore, “\textit{Diplodocus}” hayi represents a unique genus, which will herein be called \textit{Galeamopus} gen. nov. On the other hand, these numerical approaches imply synonymization of “\textit{Dinheirosaurus}” from the Late Jurassic of Portugal with the Morrison Formation genus \textit{Supersaurus}. Our use of a specimen-, rather than species-based approach increases knowledge of intraspecific and intrageneric variation in diplodocids, and the study demonstrates how specimen-based phylogenetic analysis is a valuable tool in sauropod taxonomy, and potentially in paleontology and taxonomy as a whole.

dinosaur genera Diceratops Lull, 1905 and Microceratops Bohlin, 1953 are preoccupied by the Hymenoptera insects, Diceratops Foerster, 1868 and Microceratops Seyrig, 1952, respectively. Therefore, the name of the ceratopsian dinosaur Diceratops Lull, 1905 from the Late Cretaceous of United States is a junior homonym of the hymenoptera Diceratops Foerster, 1868. Diceratus n. gen. (Greek di ‘‘two,’’ Greek ceratos ‘‘horned’’) is proposed as the replacement name of Diceratops Lull, 1905. Some workers have considered Diceratops synonymous with Triceratops (e.g., Dodson and Currie, 1990) but it was reinstated by Forster (1996) after analysis of the characteristics of all existing ceratopsid skulls, and recent reviews (e.g., Dodson et al., 2004) have considered Diceratops a valid genus.
Due to preoccupation, the name of the ceratopsian dinosaur Microceratops Bohlin, 1953 from the Cretaceous of the Gobi is
a junior homonym of the insect Microceratops Seyrig, 1952. Microceratus n. gen. (Greek micro ‘‘small,’’ Greek ceratos ‘‘horned’’) is proposed as the replacing name of Microceratops Bohlin, 1953.
Sereno (2000:489) has declared Microceratops a nomen dubium since the holotype material lacks any diagnostic features, a
convention followed by You and Dodson (2004:480). However, the name is still used by Le Loeuff et al. (2002), Lucas (2006),
Alifanov (2003) and Xu et al. (2002), and such practice justifies the renaming of the genus.
In order to preserve some stability, the names chosen here deliberately preserve the same prefixes.