[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: tiny-armed theropods
Anthony Docimo <email@example.com> wrote:
> Let me make sure I understand this: the type tooth _Troodon formosus_ is not
> the same as other known Troodon teeth (while being a
> likely member of the Troodont group)...
> ...yet despite its differentness, we shouldn't call it distinct? Or we
> shouldn't pay it any attention?
The genus _Troodon_ is based on a single tooth. If it turns out that
the tooth morphology of _Troodon_ is shared by two or more troodontid
species, then this morphology can no longer be considered unique (and
therefore diagnostic) for _Troodon_. In this situation, _Troodon_
would have to be considered a nomen dubium.
My example of _Deinodon_ is to show what *could* happen to _Troodon_
(it hasn't yet). _Deinodon_ was originally named from teeth that were
once considered distinctive. However, later discoveries of
tyrannosaurid specimens showed that the tooth morphology of _Deinodon_
was actually common to several tyrannosaurid genera. So the
_Deinodon_ teeth were therefore no longer distinctive (= diagnostic)
at the genus or species level. Result: _Deinodon_ is a nomen dubium.
> (and if we're not going to bother with
> it, why not just sell it and the other nomia dubia - we already know there's
> a market)
Yeah, very funny. :-|
> I think I lost track of the thrust of the argument a few posts back.
For the woes of the genus _Troodon_, the description of _Talos_ is
worth a read (Zanno et al., 2011).