Talk:Troodon/Archive 1

Diacritic Mark
Shouldn't the title of the article be Troödon, not Troodon? I just created a redirect from Troödon, so it's a valid Wikipedia name. 68.81.231.127 15:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The official name is Troodon, not Troödon. Latin doesn't have a "ö". However, whatever prevents the anglophonic pronunciation of "Truedon" is a blessing to the world. ;o).

MWAK--84.27.81.59 22:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Correct Latin isn't necessarily, well, correct ;) ... but I did find a useful cite: Per Olshevsky's Dinosaurs of North America, it's Troodon Leidy, 1856 emend. Sauvage, 1876. Troödon is an outdated misspelling. 68.81.231.127 02:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, invaluable man that Dinogeorge that! :o) But you see how it works? The mere fact that a single publication after the incorrect original (and thus at first nevertheless official) "Troödon" uses the correct "Troodon" makes the latter name the official one! No explicit emendation is necessary.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is useful to add that rule 32.5.2 of the ICZN code forbids the use of any diacritic sign.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the diacritic but there's no justification for adding it and here's why. The diaeresis is one of two diacritical marks native to English (the other being the grave) and when Leidy wrote Troödon it would have been correct and with the intent the the two vowels be read as separate and not a digraph.  This style (for that is what it is) was common then but has been in decline since.  It is barely recognised in British English, occurs occasionally in Canadian and is preserved famously (or infamously) in the New Yorker in the US which likes coöperate, reëlect, noël and so forth over the alternatives.


 * Sauvage did not "correct" the spelling; it was simply that writing in French the mark would not have served the same purpose and so it was reasonable to omit it.


 * Today it would be common to do without and permissible, if somewhat archaic, to use it in general English. However the ICZN is explicit and unarguable: in any taxonomic sense the name is Troodon and deviating from that in the context of an article such as this would indeed be incorrect.

Calmeilles (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Teeth Only?
The article says that this species is known only from its teeth, but it gives detailed information about Troodon's eyes and thumbs. Something must be inaccurate here.
 * Problem comes from the Troodon vs. Stenonychosaurus issue. If they are seperate, Troodon is (probably) known only from teeth. If Troodon = Stenonychosaurus, better skeletons are known.Dinoguy2 23:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Even more to the point, the article directly contradicts intself; claiming remains other than teeth, including nests and eggs. Troodon was one of the early names that Leidy applied to teeth and for over a century that was all that known about it (even to the point of the name being re-used for a pachycephalosaur now called Stegoceras). Then in 1978 John Horner attributed some of his finds to it, and these included whole skeletons and eggs. CFLeon 22:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving?
Can I move this too Troödon Elmo125.467/891.011.121.415.164.057.984.887.982.481.215.470.890.199.919.652.468.Yay 20:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No. "Troödon" is an old-fashioned spelling. Modern rules do not allow the use of special letters like "ö", and the spelling was changed quite a while ago.Dinoguy2 00:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, links using diacritic marks do not work. CFLeon 22:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Species of Troodon
Olshevsky (1991) has assigned Pectinodon bakkeri to the genus Troodon, thus Troodon bakkeri (Carpenter, 1982) n. comb. Whether his consideration of Pectinodon to be a species of Troodon is accepted remains to be seen, but the long time range of Troodon suggests that more than one species of Troodon. Besides T. formosus and T. bakkeri, there is a third species of Troodon, T. inequalis (Sternberg, 1932), as recognized by Russell (1969), who placed Polyodontosaurus grandis in synonymy with T. inequalis. Because Polyodontosaurus was found in the same formation as Stenonychosaurus, it is a junior synonym of the latter species.

For these reasons, Troodon bakkeri and T. inequalis (Polyodontosaurus is a synonym) should be added to the Taxobox under species.

Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings #2 (1st printing): iv + 196 pp.

D. A. Russell. 1969. A new specimen of Stenonychosaurus from the Oldman Formation (Cretaceous) of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 6:595-612. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Star Trek
About the Star Trek thing in pop culture--I haven't actually seen this, so I could be wrong, but on Hadrosaurus and Voth (the article about this star trek race), there's no mention of Troodon, Parasaurolophus, or "dinosauroids". The Hadrosaurus entry states they were Hadrosaurus, nd since this one specifies Parasaurolophus, I'm guessing it was not specified what kind of intelligent hadrosaur they were, and all these possibilities are original research, as is linking them to Russell's dinosauroid. It therefore, unless somebody comes in to correct me on this, doesn't have a place in any pop culture section but maybe Hadrosauridae. Dinoguy2 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Little more checking up on this, at hte Star Trek wiki. Apparently, according to the show, the Voth evolved from "hadrosaurs" (looks like a Parasaurolophus to me), they and humans shared a common dinosaurian ancestor, which in turn evolved from Eryops. I think the writers of Star Trek need to give up the pretence of using the word "science" in science fiction... ::) Dinoguy2 05:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction, with explanation. The whole thing sounds odd, and I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Firsfron of Ronchester  07:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What's a skull capsule?
Someone's just added a bit about Troodon having a skull capsule, the same as "ostrich dinosaurs". What's a "skull capsule"? Also, I have a feeling ostrich mimic was the phrase that was meant, although I think it's too informal. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe they mean the braincase is similar? Anyway, any actual relationship with ornithomimids has been pretty well disproven. Dinoguy2 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeh it must mean that, I pretty much copied the phrase used in the book, you can edit it if you want, another thing the book doesn't make the claim that ornithomimids were related and has pretty much the same classification. (&#91;&#91;User:Giani g&#124;Giani g]] 12:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

What other dinosaur Troodon ate
Troodon ate the Velociraptor. The Troodon will circle around the Velociraptor. They will attack with their sickle claws. The Velociraptor had claws like those and a vicious battle began. Soon,the encounter was over and the Troodon will now enjoy some Velociraptor meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.69.139 (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting scenario, but those two animals did not live in the same time or place. ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

New taxobox image
The old one had a big grasshopper, but it was at least anatomically accurate, the new one is wrong in several respects (eyes, wings, proportions, colour), can we not just photoshop the grasshopper out, or replace it with something else? FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now it's vamoosed entirely for some reason.
 * I guess it's another thing to get a picture of at the AMNH when I go, then. Crimsonraptor (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be ideal! The other image was deleted because of some permission issues. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK! I'm going to make a list of new images that we'll need, so once I get around to it I'll add Troodon. Crimsonraptor (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's listed here now. Crimsonraptor (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's nice! Is there a list somewhere of what specimens they have on display so I can see what of it we need? I have a pretty good idea of what we have from there already, because I transferred most of it from Flickr myself. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick check | here (special thanks to Dinoguy2 for showing me this tool) reveals some specimens, but I can't tell if they're on display or not. We'll have to see. Crimsonraptor (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice! There are pictures of four or five of those specimens, all appear to be teeth... FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, teeth are good for the article, it's what they were identified from after all... :) Crimsonraptor (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless they've revamped their small maniraptora section since the last time I was there, I don't think the AMNH has any Troodon on display, unfortunately (though there may be a tooth or two out somewhere I missed). It does say they have two casts of the type specimen, so maybe. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All my recent museum capers were focused on the 1st floor, unfortunately, so my memory of the smaller theropods on display is a bit hazy. There were quite a few of the deinonychosaurs though, so they might have slipped in a Troodon or two. Crimsonraptor (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dinosauroid?
Should this cryptozoological nonsense about the lizard people be in this article? I think not.--345Kai (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not cryptozoological. No one is asserting that the dinosauroid exists today, or indeed ever existed. It's just a paleontological thought experiment.  Serendi pod ous  06:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some kind of organized attempt to keep the dinosauroid section here, in plain view, with the comical anthropomorphized dinosaur image? Obviously ordinary wikipedia users won't be able to oust you, but we can reach a compromise. I will change the title of this section of the article to something more appropriate. 86.131.24.133 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

All I did was change the title to "Troodon in popular culture" and within 7 minutes Serendipodous undid it.

Proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Troodon&diff=530811585&oldid=530810669

86.131.24.133 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So? It was an ill-conceived edit. I had nothing to do with the moving of "Dinosauroid" to this article but, right or wrong, here is where it now redirects to. So unless you want to change the redirects, then the title stays. And how exactly is Dr Russell's paper "popular culture"? It may not be particularly useful scientific speculation, but it is still scientific speculation.  Serendi pod ous  21:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - it's utter rubbish - get rid of it. 68.19.2.196 (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it notable, relevant, and well sourced? Yes. That's all that matters. I think it could be made part of the history section, though. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Reclassification
Dinosaur classification has changed a lot since the book from which I learned it was written (probably early 1980s). It gave Troödon as an ornithischian, specifically an ornithopod, and possibly the only carnivorous ornithischian.

Combining this with the current History and classification section, it would appear that it's been back and forth between the two orders a few times. It would be good if we could work out how to incorporate this into the section and at the same time keep everything fitting together. -- Smjg (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to include, could you provide a full cite for your book? I know of the "carnivorous ornithopod" thing but I don't think it was ever actually proposed in the scientific lit, though a few popular books did float this idea, so it would be good to be able to cite one of them. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I probably still have the book but don't know where it is at the moment. I forget what family under Ornithopoda it was listed under, but the book describes Troödon as having teeth suggesting it was a meat eater, and then closes with (as close to the exact words as I can recall) "If Troödon did eat meat, it was the only ornithischian dinosaur to have done so."
 * (According to Amazon - I'd remembered the title and publisher, but not the rest) -- Smjg (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (According to Amazon - I'd remembered the title and publisher, but not the rest) -- Smjg (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dinotopia digest series
Not usually a Wikipedia editor, here, so I will give this info and let someone better qualified decide if it's worthwhile - in the Dinotopia digest series, there are three books by Scott Ciencin centering on Troodon/Stenonychosaurus (they are assumed as the same species in the Dinotopia series). The books are Lost City, Return to Lost City, and The Explorers. All of them focus on a hidden, highly ritualized society of Troodon 'knights' on the fictional island of Dinotopia.

In the original Dinotopia books A Land Apart From Time and The World Beneath by James Gurney, as well as in Scott Ciencin's Lost City, Malik, the time-keeper of Waterfall City, is a Troodon/Stenonychosaurus.

Should this information be added to the In Popular Culture section of the article?

The books are mentioned on the Dinotopia article, and the Dinotopia Wiki has individual articles on Scott Ciencin's books and on Malik the time-keeper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.139.103 (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking in here first! Too many people will simply add lists of every appearance they can think of without giving a thought to relevance. Usually, the litmus test for a "good" pop culture section is if there are secondary sources discussing their role in the book/film/TV show, hopefully with a discussion of some aspect of actual 'culture' (i.e. has this changed or added anything to the way people think about this animal?). Are there any articles aside from the Dinotopia books which talk about the role of Troodon specifically? If not, it's probably what's known as connective trivia, basically a big game of "spot the dinosaur." Another way to look at it is, sure Troodon is important to Dinotopia since they represent several prominent characters. But in what way is Dinotopia relevant to Troodon (other than, "Troodon was in the Dinotopia series")? MMartyniuk (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pectinodon valid
The article indicates that recent studies show Pectinodon to be valid, doesn't it need an article then? FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably. The problem is that like Anatosaurus, this is a simple reclassification that's supported in some recent studies but isn't really consensus yet, so the question is, at what point do we pull the trigger? MMartyniuk (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't two or three papers be enough? Two are already cited, and there's no mention of opposition... FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd support it. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally would not, I consider Pectinodon bakkeri to be a species to Troodon because from what we know of Pectinodon it is almost exactly the same as Troodon. so until i see good evidence for Pectinodon being a separate genus i think the pages should be merged.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, our opinions as editors don't really matter. What matters is that all recent studies consider it separate. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Update possibly needed

 * Russell's thought experiment has been met with criticism from other paleontologists since the 1980s, many of whom point out that his Dinosauroid is overly anthropomorphic. Gregory S. Paul (1988) and Thomas R. Holtz, Jr., consider it "suspiciously human" (Paul, 1988) and Darren Naish has argued that a large-brained, highly intelligent troodontid would retain a more standard theropod body plan, with a horizontal posture and long tail, and would probably manipulate objects with the snout and feet in the manner of a bird, rather than with human-like "hands".

I think Richard Dawkins indirectly countered this criticism (although he wasn't talking about Dinosauroids) in one of his discussions with Neil deGrasse Tyson. I seem to recall Dawkins saying that at least one scientist thought that evolution favored humanoid body structure in extraterrestrials. In other words, the humanoid body structure might be a probable outcome. Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Applying it here would be original synthesis then, which is not allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, in that context, but criticizing Russell for anthropomorphism when evolution might favor humanoid structures invalidates the criticism. In other words, it may not be suspicious for it to look human, but only one probable outcome. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because one scientist thinks it doesn't make it so. Has he published a case with his rationale, something we could cite other than an indirect anecdote? Frankly, it would be synthesis anyway, unless he specifically addresses theropods. Very close relatives of Troodon with nearly identical anatomy survived the extinction and have been evolving ever since. Birds are no closer to humanoid anatomy than they were i the Cretaceous, and to those familiar with bird and other theropod anatomy, the idea that it could result in a human-like form is ridiculous. The anatomy and function of the forelimbs in particular would have to be totally redesigned from the ground up. Troodonts had wings. What evolutionary pressure would these scientists propose to cause wings to evolve into ape-like arms? MMartyniuk (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I don't have an answer. My point is that there are a number of sources discussing this topic in terms of the likelihood of convergent evolution of humanoid morphology, so this isn't OR or off-topic.  It looks like Dawkins was citing Simon Conway Morris, so he was probably poking fun at the idea, as Dawkins is against it. According to that link, in addition to Morris, Dawkins also cites E. O. Wilson as supporting the idea.  Now, while you might not take Morris and Wilson seriously, they are nowhere to be found in this article.  This is covered here. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To avoid synthesis, what we need is an article on likelihood of convergent anthropomorphism or something that discusses views on this topic in general, that we could link to without implying that these people are specifically talking about Russell's Dinosauroid. Without being familiar with the sources, I have a hunch that these guys suggest (and I would personally agree) that given enough time and starting from a single cell-like organism, it's likely a human-like form will evolve again somewhere in the universe. I'm assuming their starting point for this process is a single cell or at least a baseline vertebrate or tetrapod-like organism, not a highly derived bird-like animal. No matter what the arguments, the facts as we know them are that a very troodontid-like animal that an observer would generally describe as a "troodont" probably was the ancestor of modern birds, which did not go extinct and did ot apparently evolve into highly intelligent hominid-like forms by the Holocene (instead, they evolved into the highly intelligent corvids). MMartyniuk (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Should there be a In Popular Media section?
We seem to have such a section for every notable dinosaur, kind of odd how Troodon is left out. I was thinking of making one to refer to it's appearances in Dinosaur Planet and Jurassic Park: The Game, but I'll wait for one of the more experienced Wiki editors to judge the idea. --Paleontology is a wonderful thing. Shame many people outside of science don&#39;t understand the many dinosaurs aren&#39;t what they used to be. (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Many articles that have such sections should not. These sections are only for items where something in culture has significantly impacted public understanding of the biology of the animal (e.g. Jurassic Park and Velociraptor). In many cases, though, it's a totally pointless list of "spot the dinosaur" that has nothing to do with the animal itself. The examples you mentioned don't seem to have any bearing on our understanding of Troodon, unless there is a good source discussing the topic. If all we can say is that "Troodon appeared in X", it's the filmography of a movie character, not appropriate for an article on an animal. Another test of what's appropriate - if the same idea can be applied to modern animal (i.e. there's no Pop Culture section in Horse listing every video game and TV show featuring horses!). MMartyniuk (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I had this in mind for the paragraph (rough outline, of course, not the final quality):

"Troodon appeared in the episode of the TV series Dinosaur Planet "Little Das' Hunt", where it was depicted as a highlands animal that hunted Orodromeus, with speculative group behaviours. The animal was potrayed with a healthy amount of integument, and altered the image of the genus in popular media. The genus also appeared, albeit modified a fair amount, in Jurassic Park: The Game, where it was depicted as a nocturnal creature that uses it's enormous, disk-like eyes to ambush prey at night. This depiction of the genus only sported sparse quills on it's back, tail and neck, and also having highly speculative venom."

But if you feel it's not Wiki-standard, I won't put it in. Paleontology is a wonderful thing. Shame many people outside of science don&#39;t understand the many dinosaurs aren&#39;t what they used to be. (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Any citations for those statements? If not, they can't be included regardless of notability. Playing the game/watching the show yourself and reporting what you see there is original research. Somebody else has to have written about it in a reasonably official published context for it to count. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Images
I've been going through commons and I've found these. Are any of them accurate or not? For the fourth one, if it is not accurate, would it be okay to crop off the featherless body and just lave the head and feathered neck? Iainstein (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, all are inaccurate in most aspects.. are you sure that last one is even supposed to be Troodon? It looks more like an inaccurate take on Coelophysis... MMartyniuk (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to crop them, there's hardly even room in the article for more images, and the heads are wrong anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all of them are inaccurate in some way, so none of them are really good for the article. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Pseudo-separation
τρώω < αρχαία ελληνική τρώγω

τρώω and τρώγω literally mean eat but can secondarily mean wound. They are variants of the same word with the same range of definitions. Some US Americans tried to separate the words, to promote the sense of Troodon as a word, but without data. Γαμάω - γαμώ are two variant forms of the same word, and if you don't feel it well, don't blame it on some word! Also these (probably one person, and more copy-pasters) word distorters, weren't linguists but dinopaleontologists.
 * Any source? FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Stenonychosaurus is back
Seems the Troodon article has to be exploded: May be complicated, since so much of it is based on Stenonychosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

What to do about troodontid taxonomy
This new paper: proposes a few changes to troodontid taxonomy, which as far as I can tell have been suggested elsewhere but never formalized:


 * New genus and species Latenivenatrix mcmasterae
 * Stenonychosaurus inequalis revived
 * Possibly dubious Troodon formosus

What I suggest is for parts of this article to be split out into the Stenonychosaurus article, with only the portions truly pertinent to Troodon being retained in this article. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like FunkMonk beat me to it, as usual... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * OR... perhaps we could move Troodon to Stenonychosaurus and write a new Troodon. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I guess we're both addicted to the DML! Yeah, the split has been anticipated for years, so it isn't exactly controversial either... It will just be a pain to do... I'm in the process of recategorising images on Commons, at least... By the way, it is better for article history to split unrelated info off from this article into the new one. Some of the info also seems to not necessarily pertain to either Troodon or Stenonychosaurus... But I'd say only info about fossils that have been specifically reassigned should be moved so far. So this doesn't include the Alaskan species and whatever else is still referred to as Troodon sp... FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, the paper doesn't seem to discuss the Alaskan T. sp in much depth... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems Stenonychosaurus was once a separate article, so I've just reverted back to that point... FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you're working on the article,, so I'll refrain from editing there, to prevent edit-conflicts. But it seems there are whole sections from this article that could be cut-pasted to the new one. And I'm thinking it may be most appropriate to just show the teeth in the taxobox here, the Alaskan species probably won't remain in the genus for long... FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I heard from Deinodon and Trachodon that this was inevitable... I agree, just move this article to Stenonychosaurus since those specimens are what 99% of Troodon information is based on. Anything that is tentatively "Troodon" for now like the Prince Creek species can stay here until they are also inevitably split (just makes our job easier to keep them centralized for now). Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't read the paper, but from the abstract alone, it seems it may be more complicated than just moving all Dinosaur Park info to the Stenonychosaurus article, since some of this material has been re-assigned from Stenonychosaurus to Latenivenatrix... So we'll have to figure out what specimens the text here refers to before we know where to move it... I wonder whether even former restorations of Stenonychosaurus will turn out to be chimaeric? FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and moved most text that doesn't belong here. Hope it won't result in any edit-conflicts... FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for my absence, I was reading the Lemmysuchus paper. Here are the specimen assignments as far as I can tell: Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Latenivenatrix
 * CMN 12340 (H)
 * UALVP 55804
 * TMP 1982.019.0023
 * TMP 1980.016.1478 (1748?)
 * TMP 1979.008.0001
 * TMP 1986.036.004
 * AMNH 6174
 * Stenonychosaurus
 * CMN 8539 (H)
 * UALVP 52611
 * TMP 1986.036.0457
 * TMP 1992.036.0575
 * TMP 1986.078.0040
 * TMP 1988.050.0088


 * Judging by this list, a lot of the text which is currently at Stenonychosaurus doesn't belong there either...... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The Egg Mountain troodontid stuff - nesting, in particular - is not Stenonychosaurus, it is an unnamed taxon. That should probably go in the article for that taxon when it is named. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Hmmm, so maybe the egg-stuff (and other commented out text) should be moved back here, since the nests are still de-facto referred to Troodon? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it may be more appropriate for the newly-created Troodontinae. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, thats the idea I had, which is why I created it. I can try to work on Troodon itself, so that we are conflicting as little as possible. IJReid  discuss 19:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Could work, but on that note, where is Stenonychosaurus in that cladogram? FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It doesn't look like they included it. IJReid  discuss 20:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This part of the new paper indicates that the Two Medicione material may be better off discussed in the Stenonychosaurus article for the time being: "Similarities between frontals and metatarsals of Stenonychosaurus inequalis from the Dinosaur Park Formation and those of the Two Medicine troodontid suggest that the two taxa may in fact be the same species. Further investigation into the Two Medicine Formation troodontids is required to confirm the assignment of these specimens to Stenonychosaurus inequalis." FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't see that. Good catch. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm wondering whether all the Dale Russell stuff, including the "Dinosauroid", isn't based on what is now Latenivenatrix? FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed it was based on CMN 12340.--MWAK (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

No longer a valid genus
Troodon is no more valid.
 * It is still "valid", it is just only restricted to the type specimen. But all that is already explained in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest calling Troodon "a dubious genus" at the start of the article is misleading since Varricchio et al. 2018 determined it to be valid. If anything, it should state "potentially dubious" since there is disagreement in the literature. Varricchio et al. link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30085-6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epaleowiki (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that they did not "determine" anything. All they said was "Troodon had previously been synonymized with Stenonychosaurus for 30 years, so we continue to use it exclusive of Latenivenatrix". This is simply an opinion, not a finding, and also completely misses the point of the dubious designation: that the type teeth of Troodon are not distinguishable from those of Latenivenatrix or Stenonychosaurus, therefore Troodon fossils cannot be assigned to one or the other newer genus. Varricchio et al. give no reason at all for continuing to synonymize Troodon with Stenonychosaurus rather than with Latenivenatrix, other than tradition (a tradition from before Latenivenatrix was known to exist!). Unless someone can demonstrate that Latenivenatrix and Stenonychosaurus have different-looking teeth, and that the type Troodon teeth look more like Stenonychosaurus, their claim holds no water. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

on Stenonychosaurus
Since Stenonychosaurus is now the smartest dinosaur, does that make troodons intelligence dubious or can we speculate using cladistics?--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't bracket intelligence. However you can bracket the encephalization quotient and other measures provided you have a) a solid phylogeny and b) a good sample of endocasts. 2001:569:782B:7A00:9C9D:6A8D:9ED6:ADD (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a misinterpretation of the history of these concepts. Stenonychosaurus (S. inequalis was later assigned to Troodon, which has lately been overturned) braincases, or actually specimens that are now assigned to Latenivenatrix, were used to show that some dinosaurs had proportionally big brains, not that one particular genus was "the smartest". At most, it would apply to troodontids in general. Troodon formosus was never known from more than teeth, so we have no idea about its particular brain size. FunkMonk (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

is this section still valid?
Additional specimens currently referred to Troodon come from the upper Two Medicine Formation of Montana and the Prince Creek Formation of Alaska. There is some evidence that Troodon favored cooler climates, as its species seem to have been particularly abundant in northern and even Arctic areas and during cooler intervals, such as the early Maastrichtian.-Bubblesorg (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Alaska troodontid has not been reassigned elsewhere (it will probably end up in its own genus). But the Two Medicine specimens have been reassigned to Stenonychosaurus for the moment. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

what would happen if the alaskan troodon.sp gt assigned to troodon?--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It probably won't, since there is not any overlapping, diagnostic material, but if it did in theory, it could become a neotype, or if a new species we could end up in a situation similar to what happened to Iguanodon, where an assigned species later became the type species. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I see--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Then another question, what would happen if the 2017 study was a mistake and Stenchyosaurus and lateniventrix got reassigned to troodon? what would happen then? --Bubblesorg (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That would not be a mistake rather than a case of lumping vs splitting. Whether sister species belong in the same genus or not is an arbitrary decision, and depends on scientific consensus. That is why we still have ongoing discussions on whether Vagaceratops represents a species of Chasmosaurus and so on. Neither scheme can be considered "true", because there is no consensus, and there is no objective way to decide it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Case to be made on troodon validity
Okay, in 1856 troodon was discovered by teeth, the article mentions this like its the only ossils found but they have been other teeth that look exactly like the holotype and are still asrcibed to t. formosus and these teeth are found in south dakota, a bit further than the orignal holotypes location, so why is  Pectinodon bakkeri being treated differently if it has the same issue?--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the teeth of Troodon are undiagnostic, they look indistinguishable to those of many other troodontids, but those of Pectinodon can be distinguished. For Troodon not to be dubious, another specimen with identical teeth preserving more (diagnostic parts) of the skeleton would have to be found in the same formation as the original teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

but what about the eggs and vetebre found in the Judith river formation?Oh and the separate teeth from S.dakota?--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which eggs? You mean those from the Two Medicine Formation? FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_River_Formation#Theropod_dinosaurs--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure, it isn't sourced... FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

huh, I will look for the source--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

More in the way of Troodons name
Most papers since 2019 are using Troodon. For example the paper "Possible Late Cretaceous dromaeosaurid eggshells from South Korea: a new insight into dromaeosaurid oology" states that "questioned the validity of taxon name Troodon formosus, but Varricchio et al. (2018) provided a reason to maintain its validity, which we followed in this study". Another study from 2018 uses the name Troodon as well, this paper is "Puncture-and-pull biomechanics in the teeth of predatory coelurosaurian dinosaurs". A 2019 study called "Respiration of​ Troodon formosus" Uses Troodon once again. Actually let me give the rest of the list here

1. Trends in embryonic and ontogenetic growth metabolisms in nonavian dinosaurs and extant birds, mammals, and crocodylians with implications for dinosaur egg incubation 2019 2.Eggshell geochemistry reveals ancestral metabolic thermoregulation in Dinosauria 2020 3. A new and unusual microfossil assemblage from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation of southern Alberta, Canada 2018 This is just a small list as there are many more.

What should we do?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We can't really do anything until the Two Medicine Formation specimens are reassessed. Unless the proponents want to make one of them the neotype of T. formosus, I'm not sure how the referral can be defended. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A classic case of non-taxonomic papers not bothering to update their taxonomic terminology. "Hadrosaurinae" does a similar rodeo.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 01:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, than lets just wait and leave it alone for now--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)