Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Troodon formosus "no longer valid classification"
Topic Started: Aug 9 2017, 06:38 AM (1,335 Views)
Okeanos
Member Avatar


https://phys.org/news/2017-08-dino-hips-discovery-unravels-species.html

Quote:
 
New research from University of Alberta paleontologists shows one of North America's most broadly identified dinosaur species, Troodon formosus, is no longer a valid classification, naming two others in its stead. The discovery by graduate student Aaron van der Reest leaves North America's paleontology community in upheaval.

In June 2014, van der Reest discovered an intact troodontid pelvis in Dinosaur Provincial Park, leading him to take a closer look at previously collected troodontid cranial bones from southern Alberta.

"That's when everything fell together and we were able to confirm that there were in fact two different species in the Dinosaur Park Formation, instead of just one," said van der Reest.

He named one of the new species Latenivenatrix mcmasterae and resurrected another, Stenonychosaurus inequalis.

Aside from being a new species, Latenivenatrix is in a league of its own. "This new species is the largest of the troodontids ever found anywhere in the world, standing nearly two metres at the head and close to 3.5 metres long," van der Reest said. "It's about fifty per cent larger than any other troodontids previously known, making it one of the largest deinonychosaurs (raptor like dinosaurs) we currently recognize."

Here is the actual paper:
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/cjes-2017-0031#.WYrlrYTyvDc
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


Damn, if they had to rename such a popular dinosaur, they could have used an easier name :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheCrimsonFKing666
No Avatar


That's just horrible... Goodbye Troodon, we will all miss you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
babehunter1324
No Avatar


While kinda of convoluted, I do like Latenivenatrix as a generic name. It's pretty original.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TigressDragonblade
Member Avatar


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Komodo
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Denomon3144
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

Komodo
Aug 9 2017, 03:17 PM
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.
It was named because it was originally thought to be a pachycephalosaur, and the unusually sharp teeth were of note.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


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. :P
Edited by Flish, Aug 10 2017, 12:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
magpiealamode
Member Avatar
No good hero is a one-trick phony.

Tfw when you miss Troodon, before remembering that it died out 66 million years ago.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Ok so, for Manospondylus:

Wikipedia
 

According to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the system that governs the scientific naming of animals, Manospondylus gigas should therefore have priority over Tyrannosaurus rex, because it was named first.

However, the Fourth Edition of the ICZN, which took effect on January 1, 2000, states that "the prevailing usage must be maintained" when "the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899" and "the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years ..."


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1