Re: [dinosaur] Do people still use Troodon?

[Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>]

I don't think it's sensible to have families named after nomina dubia.
So from that perspective, Troodontidae should be called
Saurornithoididae.  I also think it would be practical to discard
Ceratopsidae and split it up into two families, Centrosauridae and
Chasmosauridae.

The reason why families should NOT be named after indeterminate genera
is because a family must include the name-giving genus (which makes
sense).  So Ceratopsidae must include _Ceratops_.  But if _Ceratops_
is a nomen dubium, it should not be treated as a taxon, and it should
not be used as an OTU in a phylogenetic analysis.  There is/was no
creature called _Ceratops_; it's just a name.   Genus _Ceratops_ is a
zombie: it's a dead name that's kept alive purely for bookkeeping
reasons, simply because it gives its name to Ceratopsidae.   I know
the ICZN allows this sort of thing, but from a biological standpoint
it's antiquated and bizarre.


On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 4:48 PM Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Isn't Ceratops already obsolete? It's technically the type genus of 
> Ceratopsidae, but it might as well not be.
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 12:46 AM Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.