![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 22:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 09:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 09:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Calmeilles ( talk) 12:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
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.
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)
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).
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)
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)
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. ( [[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 12:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC))
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)
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)
Should this cryptozoological nonsense about the lizard people be in this article? I think not.-- 345Kai ( talk) 04:49, 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/?title=Troodon&diff=530811585&oldid=530810669
86.131.24.133 ( talk) 21:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - it's utter rubbish - get rid of it. 68.19.2.196 ( talk) 20:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 ( [3] [4] [5] [6]) 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)
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)
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)
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)
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't understand the many dinosaurs aren't what they used to be. ( talk) 12:14, 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't understand the many dinosaurs aren't what they used to be. ( talk) 23:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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.
Seems the Troodon article has to be exploded: [8] May be complicated, since so much of it is based on Stenonychosaurus. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
This new paper: [9] proposes a few changes to troodontid taxonomy, which as far as I can tell have been suggested elsewhere but never formalized:
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)
Apologies for my absence FunkMonk, 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)
Troodon is no more valid. [1]
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)
References
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)
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)
what would happen if the alaskan troodon.sp gt assigned to troodon?-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 14:38, 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)
Okay, I see-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
no /info/en/?search=Judith_River_Formation#Theropod_dinosaurs-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 18:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
huh, I will look for the source-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 18:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
The result was: rejected by
97198 (
talk)
09:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Created by Fossiladder13 ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 22:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 09:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 09:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Calmeilles ( talk) 12:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
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.
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)
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).
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)
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)
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. ( [[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 12:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC))
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)
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)
Should this cryptozoological nonsense about the lizard people be in this article? I think not.-- 345Kai ( talk) 04:49, 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/?title=Troodon&diff=530811585&oldid=530810669
86.131.24.133 ( talk) 21:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - it's utter rubbish - get rid of it. 68.19.2.196 ( talk) 20:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 ( [3] [4] [5] [6]) 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)
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)
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)
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)
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't understand the many dinosaurs aren't what they used to be. ( talk) 12:14, 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't understand the many dinosaurs aren't what they used to be. ( talk) 23:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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.
Seems the Troodon article has to be exploded: [8] May be complicated, since so much of it is based on Stenonychosaurus. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
This new paper: [9] proposes a few changes to troodontid taxonomy, which as far as I can tell have been suggested elsewhere but never formalized:
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)
Apologies for my absence FunkMonk, 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)
Troodon is no more valid. [1]
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)
References
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)
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)
what would happen if the alaskan troodon.sp gt assigned to troodon?-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 14:38, 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)
Okay, I see-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
no /info/en/?search=Judith_River_Formation#Theropod_dinosaurs-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 18:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
huh, I will look for the source-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 18:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
The result was: rejected by
97198 (
talk)
09:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Created by Fossiladder13 ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC).