Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Troodon formosus "no longer valid classification" | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 9 2017, 06:38 AM (1,333 Views) | |
| Okeanos | Aug 9 2017, 06:38 AM Post #1 |
![]() ![]()
|
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-dino-hips-discovery-unravels-species.html
Here is the actual paper: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/cjes-2017-0031#.WYrlrYTyvDc |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Aug 9 2017, 06:44 AM Post #2 |
![]() ![]()
|
Damn, if they had to rename such a popular dinosaur, they could have used an easier name
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Aug 9 2017, 06:53 AM Post #3 |
![]()
|
That's just horrible... Goodbye Troodon, we will all miss you. |
![]() |
|
| babehunter1324 | Aug 9 2017, 07:55 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
While kinda of convoluted, I do like Latenivenatrix as a generic name. It's pretty original. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Aug 9 2017, 10:49 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Stenonychosaurus is fine. But Latenivenatrix... Bit of a tongue-twister, no? Real talk though, this is why you do not give a tooth taxon a species classification. Decades of what is likely the worst cladistic clusterf*** in dinosaur paleontology. Thank god it's resolved. Edited by Incinerox, Aug 9 2017, 10:52 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| TigressDragonblade | Aug 9 2017, 02:29 PM Post #6 |
![]() ![]()
|
Considering that the name Troodon has been used a lot in both technical and non-technical publications over the past 30 years, would it be possible to conserve the genus for use by designating a new type specimen? It's still likely that there are more than one species of 'troodon' though. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Aug 9 2017, 02:56 PM Post #7 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
Troodon is still "valid" as a nomen dubium in reference to the original teeth given their date doesn't match any current specimens. It could still be a valid genera pending new specimens in the future. |
![]() |
|
| Komodo | Aug 9 2017, 03:17 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Varanus komodoensis
![]()
|
Oh damn, not one of my favorite dinosaurs! What a shame that they used a name as Troodon ("wounding tooth" is an impressive nickname for sure) for just a handful of teeth, instead of those overlong names which I thought were discarded and buried for good. Troodon, you will be fondly remembered... I guess that's how many people felt back in the day when Trachodon was deemed dubious and mostly reclassified. |
![]() |
|
| Denomon3144 | Aug 9 2017, 03:34 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Pick a god and pray!
![]()
|
I'd like to note that from my understanding Latenivenatrix does not represent any previously known Troodon specimens. I've been hearing that it's much larger. Stenonychosaurus and Pectinodon represent the previously described specimens. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Aug 9 2017, 04:51 PM Post #10 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
It was named because it was originally thought to be a pachycephalosaur, and the unusually sharp teeth were of note. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Aug 10 2017, 10:55 AM Post #11 |
![]() ![]()
|
What about the "Troodon" from Two Medicine formations ? Does this reclassification affect them too ? If so, what genus do they fall under now ?
Edited by Furka, Aug 10 2017, 10:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Aug 10 2017, 12:33 PM Post #12 |
![]() ![]()
|
Why was Troodon not given the same treatment as Tyrannosaurus was in the whole mess with Manospondylus? It's certainly old enough and I seriously doubt it hasn't been used in publication enough. I'm not an expert on it, but it honestly seems like Troodon should have been the name used for Stenonychosaurus if I am reading into all this right, because it should be recognized as a nomen protectum. That said, I am not an expert on nomenclature, so someone who knows better would probably look into it.
Edited by Flish, Aug 10 2017, 12:38 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Aug 10 2017, 12:46 PM Post #13 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
This whole thing feels very pandering to me, it doesn't make the actual specimens any easier to understand or recognize. I would think Troodon is widely enough used to be a nomen protectum. |
![]() |
|
| magpiealamode | Aug 10 2017, 01:36 PM Post #14 |
![]()
No good hero is a one-trick phony.
![]()
|
Tfw when you miss Troodon, before remembering that it died out 66 million years ago. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Aug 10 2017, 02:56 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Ok so, for Manospondylus:
Manospondylus was never recognised formally in any paper between 1899 and 1942, basically, thus rendering itself forever a dubious agathaumid-then-tyrannosaurid taxon that's forgotten about by science. In contrast, Troodon does indeed qualify as a valid name... for a tooth that cannot be attributed to post-cranial remains. And as a result, all the post-cranial data we have goes to Stenonychus specimens, which is diagnostic, and therefore valid. Simple as that, really. Edited by Incinerox, Aug 10 2017, 03:02 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups



















