Re: [dinosaur] Do people still use Troodon?

[Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>]

Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've seen some recent papers on the DML that use it as valid, but Zanno et 
> al. 2017 declared it dubious due to its non-diagnostic holotype. Basically, 
> what people worried would happen to Diplodocus, hence the petition.

Yes.  Hence the petition,   :-Z

> I wonder if, in a few decades, if not sooner, Troodon will be where Trachodon 
> is now - a name you only see in old books
>
> But I think that declaring that we can no longer use a name that's been 
> widely used for over 150 years is a bad idea.

While it's true that the name _Troodon_ has been around since 1856,
it's had a very tortuous taxonomic history.  For a while (~1924-1945)
_Troodon_ was considered a pachycephalosaur., before being recognized
(again) as some kind of theropod.  It was only in 1987 that _Troodon_
was recognized as belonging to the same family as the better known
_Stenonychosaurus_ and _Saurornithoides_, and the family was therefore
given the name Troodontidae.  (I prefer Saurornithoididae, but I'm
fighting a losing battle on that front.)  So although the name
_Troodon_ has been used for over 150 years, it hasn't been
consistently used.

Personally, I'd like to see _Troodon_ retained as a valid genus via
nomination of a neotype (subject to ICZN approval).  But unless that
happens (which seems unlikely), the name _Troodon_ will indeed go the
way of _Trachodon_.  Sadly, _Ceratops_ and _Titanosaurus_ will
inevitably suffer the same fate.