[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: tiny-armed theropods
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:11:38 +1100
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: tiny-armed theropods
> Anthony Docimo <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
> Not exactly.
> 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.
It would seem to me that, if the _Troodon_ tooth morphology matches two or
more troodontid genera (I assume you meant genera), then you'd know which
troodontid clade _Troodon_ belongs to (which, granted, it was probably already
Is it possible for multiple genera to have identical teeth? Even if they're
99% similar, surely that remaining 01% could be used to determine the closest
relatives of the _Troodon_ type fossil tooth.
> 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.
There's nothing unique about _Deinodon_ at all? That's depressing.
> > (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. :-|
Oh good, I was worried the required tone didn't come through.
(though on a serious note, if nomia dubia have no scientific value, why bother
with them? (is it the Slippery Slope argument - if we let people buy nomia
dubia, then they'll want to buy the scientifically valuable fossils too?))
> > 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).
I'll ask for it.