Guess Who's Back? Bronto's Back (Maybe)!

For you laymen out there who wonder what "Brontosaurus" would be brought back from, it's probably worth noting that, despite its frequent use in popular culture, the name "Brontosaurus" was merged into the name Apatosaurus way back in 1903 (you heard me. Still in use 106 years after it was 'deleted' from taxonomy books). The reason lies with the famous Bone Wars of the late 19th Century, between famed paleontologists Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Charles Marsh. These two bitter rivals raced throughout the American West, going to extreme lengths (shoot-outs, stealing fossils, breaking said fossils, etc.) to name more species of dinosaur than each other. In 1877, Marsh named Apatosaurus ajax, the type species of the new genus Apatosaurus. Two years later, in 1879, he named another new species, "Brontosaurus" excelsus. Marsh could never have known that this second genus would soon become the bane of every paleontologist's existence. In 1903, 24 years later, Elmer Riggs pointed out the obvious similarities between the two, and put out buddy "Brontosaurus" into the earlier genus, christening it Apatosaurus excelsus. Obviously, the public was not told about this development. As of May 2009, there are four accepted species of Apatosaurus: A. ajax, A. louisae, A. excelsus, and A. parvus (formerly Elosaurus) In this frame of time, the Diplodocidae family of dinosaurs (the family that includes Apatosaurus and Diplodocus) has continued to cause massive headaches for dinosaur scientists (See Amphicoelias, Eobrontosaurus, etc.). And they aren't finished yet! Recent studies have shown that another diplodocid long-neck, Supersaurus, is more closely related with A. ajax and A. louisae than either are to A. excelsus (Bronto). By ICZN regulations, this should mean that A. ajax and A. louisae and A. excelsus should be placed in separate genera; and by the same ICZN rules of naming priority, "Brontosaurus" would be the name used for a new genus. I realize that as a chronic 'splitter', I may be a bit biased, but it does seem that the taxonomical rules obligate that "Brontosaurus" be brought back as a genus name. Feel free to discuss this, argue with it, or support it in the comments. I'm open for ideas here. xD