▁family , ▁but ▁is ▁instead ▁a ▁more ▁primitive ▁di pl od oc oid . ▁A ▁similar ▁situation ▁occurred ▁for ▁the ▁family ▁name ▁Atl ant osa ur idae , ▁named ▁by ▁O th n iel ▁Charles ▁Marsh ▁in ▁ 1 8 7 7 , ▁and ▁which ▁Hay ▁argued ▁had ▁priority ▁over ▁Am ph ico el idae . ▁George ▁O ls he v sky ▁declared ▁Atl ant osa ur idae ▁a ▁nom en ▁ob lit um ▁in ▁ 1 9 9 1 , ▁though ▁scient ists ▁such ▁as ▁Ste el ▁and ▁Now in ski ▁had ▁treated ▁Atl ant osa ur idae ▁as ▁a ▁valid ▁name ▁as ▁late ▁as ▁ 1 9 7 1 , ▁and ▁the ▁former ▁even ▁added ▁a ▁sub family , ▁Atl ant osa ur inae . ▁ ▁Some ▁din osa urs ▁have ▁been ▁considered ▁di pl od oc ids ▁in ▁the ▁past ▁but ▁have ▁not ▁been ▁found ▁to ▁be ▁members ▁of ▁that ▁group ▁in ▁later , ▁larger ▁anal ys es ▁of ▁the ▁family ' s ▁relationships . ▁Austral od ocus , ▁for ▁example , ▁was ▁initially ▁described ▁as ▁a ▁di pl od oc id , ▁but ▁may ▁actually ▁have ▁been ▁a ▁Mac ron arian . ▁Am ph ico el ias ▁was ▁tradition ally ▁considered ▁a ▁di pl od oc id ▁due ▁to ▁its ▁similar ▁an atom y , ▁but ▁ph y log en etic ▁studies ▁showed ▁it ▁to ▁be ▁a ▁more ▁bas al ▁member ▁of ▁the ▁Di pl od oco idea . ▁ ▁The ▁relationships ▁of ▁species ▁within ▁Di pl od oc