[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: [dinosaur] Latenivenatrix, new troodontid from Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta (validity of Troodon)

Thomas Richard Holtz <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:

> There is a little more to the 1980s Troodon-as-"hypsilophodont". At Egg
> Mountain there was a space of years that the distinction between Troodon &
> its eggs and Orodromeus wasn't clear. The Horner team had the eggs and
> troodontid teeth as well as postcrania of Orodromeus. There were some SVP
> talks (and SVP Bulletin news items) following the idea that Troodon was a
> small hypsilophodont, for which they had the eggs. Horner discusses this in
> Digging Dinosaurs.

Yes, certainly.  Lambert's entry for _Troodon_ in _Collins Guide to
Dinosaurs_ (I still have my original copy) specifically mentions
Horner and Makela and their Egg Mountain discoveries in support of
_Troodon_ being a carnivorous ornithopod.

> And I think THIS is the actual inspiration for Lambert, although perhaps
> Galton's was.

I suspect more Lambert's than Galton's.  I mentioned Galton (1983)
because AFAIK this was the first mention (albeit only in passing) in
the scientific literature of a proposed _Troodon_-hypsilophodont

David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

> > Even after reading the description of _Pisanosaurus_ (a translated
> > version, 
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__paleoglot.org_files_Casamiquela-5F67.pdf&d=DwIBaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=Ry_mO4IFaUmGof_Yl9MyZgecRCKHn5g4z1CYJgFW9SI&m=jj7MMBP2b2t1mg-dqK02peNNchgCm1IWIdxgpu60Ml0&s=dYveddEEJH3t47IVVrR4pH7MIIqulz2HoQd1FDgyaD8&e=
> >   ) I'm not
> > certain Pisanosauridae conforms to Article 13.1.1.
> I am certain: it does not. "Diagnosis: as for genus and species" would have
> sufficed, but no such thing is in there.

Great - that makes things much easier then.  As with Lewisuchidae,
Pisanosauridae is not a valid family-level taxon - so Silesauridae