Talk:Troodon

Diacritic Mark

Shouldn't the title of the article be Troödon, not Troodon? I just created a redirect from Troödon, so it's a valid Wikipedia name. 68.81.231.127 15:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The official name is Troodon, not Troödon. Latin doesn't have a "ö". However, whatever prevents the anglophonic pronunciation of "Truedon" is a blessing to the world. ;o).

MWAK--84.27.81.59 22:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Correct Latin isn't necessarily, well, correct ;) ... but I did find a useful cite: Per Olshevsky's Dinosaurs of North America, it's Troodon Leidy, 1856 emend. Sauvage, 1876. Troödon is an outdated misspelling. 68.81.231.127 02:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, invaluable man that Dinogeorge that! :o) But you see how it works? The mere fact that a single publication after the incorrect original (and thus at first nevertheless official) "Troödon" uses the correct "Troodon" makes the latter name the official one! No explicit emendation is necessary.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it is useful to add that rule 32.5.2 of the ICZN code forbids the use of any diacritic sign.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Teeth Only?

The article says that this species is known only from its teeth, but it gives detailed information about Troodon's eyes and thumbs. Something must be inaccurate here.

Problem comes from the Troodon vs. Stenonychosaurus issue. If they are seperate, Troodon is (probably) known only from teeth. If Troodon = Stenonychosaurus, better skeletons are known.Dinoguy2 23:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Even more to the point, the article directly contradicts intself; claiming remains other than teeth, including nests and eggs. Troodon was one of the early names that Leidy applied to teeth and for over a century that was all that known about it (even to the point of the name being re-used for a pachycephalosaur now called Stegoceras). Then in 1978 John Horner attributed some of his finds to it, and these included whole skeletons and eggs. CFLeon 22:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving?

Can I move this too Troödon Elmo125.467/891.011.121.415.164.057.984.887.982.481.215.470.890.199.919.652.468.Yay 20:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No. "Troödon" is an old-fashioned spelling. Modern rules do not allow the use of special letters like "ö", and the spelling was changed quite a while ago.Dinoguy2 00:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, links using diacritic marks do not work. CFLeon 22:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Species of Troodon

Olshevsky (1991) has assigned Pectinodon bakkeri to the genus Troodon, thus Troodon bakkeri (Carpenter, 1982) n. comb. Whether his consideration of Pectinodon to be a species of Troodon is accepted remains to be seen, but the long time range of Troodon suggests that more than one species of Troodon. Besides T. formosus and T. bakkeri, there is a third species of Troodon, T. inequalis (Sternberg, 1932), as recognized by Russell (1969), who placed Polyodontosaurus grandis in synonymy with T. inequalis. Because Polyodontosaurus was found in the same formation as Stenonychosaurus, it is a junior synonym of the latter species.

For these reasons, Troodon bakkeri and T. inequalis (Polyodontosaurus is a synonym) should be added to the Taxobox under species.

Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings #2 (1st printing): iv + 196 pp.

D. A. Russell. 1969. A new specimen of Stenonychosaurus from the Oldman Formation (Cretaceous) of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 6:595-612. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Star Trek

About the Star Trek thing in pop culture--I haven't actually seen this, so I could be wrong, but on Hadrosaurus and Voth (the article about this star trek race), there's no mention of Troodon, Parasaurolophus, or "dinosauroids". The Hadrosaurus entry states they were Hadrosaurus, nd since this one specifies Parasaurolophus, I'm guessing it was not specified what kind of intelligent hadrosaur they were, and all these possibilities are original research, as is linking them to Russell's dinosauroid. It therefore, unless somebody comes in to correct me on this, doesn't have a place in any pop culture section but maybe Hadrosauridae. Dinoguy2 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Little more checking up on this, at hte Star Trek wiki.[1][2] Apparently, according to the show, the Voth evolved from "hadrosaurs" (looks like a Parasaurolophus to me), they and humans shared a common dinosaurian ancestor, which in turn evolved from Eryops. I think the writers of Star Trek need to give up the pretence of using the word "science" in science fiction... ::) Dinoguy2 05:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, with explanation. The whole thing sounds odd, and I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What's a skull capsule?

Someone's just added a bit about Troodon having a skull capsule, the same as "ostrich dinosaurs". What's a "skull capsule"? Also, I have a feeling ostrich mimic was the phrase that was meant, although I think it's too informal. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they mean the braincase is similar? Anyway, any actual relationship with ornithomimids has been pretty well disproven. Dinoguy2 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeh it must mean that, I pretty much copied the phrase used in the book, you can edit it if you want, another thing the book doesn't make the claim that ornithomimids were related and has pretty much the same classification. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 12:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

What other dinosaur Troodon ate

Troodon ate the Velociraptor. The Troodon will circle around the Velociraptor. They will attack with their sickle claws. The Velociraptor had claws like those and a vicious battle began. Soon,the encounter was over and the Troodon will now enjoy some Velociraptor meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.69.139 (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting scenario, but those two animals did not live in the same time or place. ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

New taxobox image

The old one had a big grasshopper, but it was at least anatomically accurate, the new one is wrong in several respects (eyes, wings, proportions, colour), can we not just photoshop the grasshopper out, or replace it with something else? FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Now it's vamoosed entirely for some reason.

I guess it's another thing to get a picture of at the AMNH when I go, then. Crimsonraptor (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be ideal! The other image was deleted because of some permission issues. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK! I'm going to make a list of new images that we'll need, so once I get around to it I'll add Troodon. Crimsonraptor (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's listed here now. Crimsonraptor (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's nice! Is there a list somewhere of what specimens they have on display so I can see what of it we need? I have a pretty good idea of what we have from there already, because I transferred most of it from Flickr myself. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick check here (special thanks to Dinoguy2 for showing me this tool) reveals some specimens, but I can't tell if they're on display or not. We'll have to see. Crimsonraptor (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice! There are pictures of four or five of those specimens, all appear to be teeth... FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Still, teeth are good for the article, it's what they were identified from after all... :) Crimsonraptor (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless they've revamped their small maniraptora section since the last time I was there, I don't think the AMNH has any Troodon on display, unfortunately (though there may be a tooth or two out somewhere I missed). It does say they have two casts of the type specimen, so maybe. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

All my recent museum capers were focused on the 1st floor, unfortunately, so my memory of the smaller theropods on display is a bit hazy. There were quite a few of the deinonychosaurs though, so they might have slipped in a Troodon or two. Crimsonraptor (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dinosauroid?

Should this cryptozoological nonsense about the lizard people be in this article? I think not.--345Kai (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not cryptozoological. No one is asserting that the dinosauroid exists today, or indeed ever existed. It's just a paleontological thought experiment. Serendi^podous 06:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some kind of organized attempt to keep the dinosauroid section here, in plain view, with the comical anthropomorphized dinosaur image? Obviously ordinary wikipedia users won't be able to oust you, but we can reach a compromise. I will change the title of this section of the article to something more appropriate. 86.131.24.133 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

All I did was change the title to "Troodon in popular culture" and within 7 minutes Serendipodous undid it.

Proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Troodon&diff=530811585&oldid=530810669

86.131.24.133 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Reclassification

Dinosaur classification has changed a lot since the book from which I learned it was written (probably early 1980s). It gave Troödon as an ornithischian, specifically an ornithopod, and possibly the only carnivorous ornithischian.

Combining this with the current History and classification section, it would appear that it's been back and forth between the two orders a few times. It would be good if we could work out how to incorporate this into the section and at the same time keep everything fitting together. -- Smjg (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to include, could you provide a full cite for your book? I know of the "carnivorous ornithopod" thing but I don't think it was ever actually proposed in the scientific lit, though a few popular books did float this idea, so it would be good to be able to cite one of them. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I probably still have the book but don't know where it is at the moment. I forget what family under Ornithopoda it was listed under, but the book describes Troödon as having teeth suggesting it was a meat eater, and then closes with (as close to the exact words as I can recall) "If Troödon did eat meat, it was the only ornithischian dinosaur to have done so."

Michael Benton (1984). Pocket Book of Dinosaurs. Kingfisher.

(According to Amazon - I'd remembered the title and publisher, but not the rest) -- Smjg (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dinotopia digest series

Not usually a Wikipedia editor, here, so I will give this info and let someone better qualified decide if it's worthwhile - in the Dinotopia digest series, there are three books by Scott Ciencin centering on Troodon/Stenonychosaurus (they are assumed as the same species in the Dinotopia series). The books are Lost City, Return to Lost City, and The Explorers. All of them focus on a hidden, highly ritualized society of Troodon 'knights' on the fictional island of Dinotopia.

In the original Dinotopia books A Land Apart From Time and The World Beneath by James Gurney, as well as in Scott Ciencin's Lost City, Malik, the time-keeper of Waterfall City, is a Troodon/Stenonychosaurus.

Should this information be added to the In Popular Culture section of the article?

The books are mentioned on the Dinotopia article, and the Dinotopia Wiki has individual articles ([3] [4] [5] [6]) on Scott Ciencin's books and on Malik the time-keeper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.139.103 (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in here first! Too many people will simply add lists of every appearance they can think of without giving a thought to relevance. Usually, the litmus test for a "good" pop culture section is if there are secondary sources discussing their role in the book/film/TV show, hopefully with a discussion of some aspect of actual 'culture' (i.e. has this changed or added anything to the way people think about this animal?). Are there any articles aside from the Dinotopia books which talk about the role of Troodon specifically? If not, it's probably what's known as connective trivia, basically a big game of "spot the dinosaur." Another way to look at it is, sure Troodon is important to Dinotopia since they represent several prominent characters. But in what way is Dinotopia relevant to Troodon (other than, "Troodon was in the Dinotopia series")? MMartyniuk (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pectinodon valid

The article indicates that recent studies show Pectinodon to be valid, doesn't it need an article then? FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably. The problem is that like Anatosaurus, this is a simple reclassification that's supported in some recent studies but isn't really consensus yet, so the question is, at what point do we pull the trigger? MMartyniuk (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't two or three papers be enough? Two are already cited, and there's no mention of opposition... FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd support it. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)