Troodon formosus is still valid!

[AlexSciChannel]

Sorry, but Troodon formosus is a valid taxon!

 

check it;

 

 

 

OK, I feel like I have to clear this up. This isn't meant to be trolling only posting some of the answers Jack Horner gave me on twitter answering my question. I am not trying to offend anyone. This is simply teasing and supposed to be fun in games.

[jpc]

at least according to Jack...

[AlexSciChannel]

37 minutes ago, jpc said:

at least according to Jack...

Also according to the judith river formation that has embryos assigned to the species that almost identically match those in Two Medicine

[Troodon]

The species Troodon formosus was originally established on a tooth from the Campanian Judith River Formation of Montana by Leidy in 1856.   In 1987,  Currie revised the taxon and synonymized several named species which included Stenonychosaurus inequalis into T. formosus.  In 2017 van der Reest and Currie recognized that material from Dinosaur Park Formation included two taxa, one of which they named Latenivenatrix mcmasterae and the other they referred to S. inequalis.  However  given that the latter had already been synonymized into the senior T. formosus and remained unused for 30 years, Troodon formosus continues to be used and is accepted as valid in JRF.   Material in the Two Medicine Fm, Hell Creek and Lance is typically referred to as being similar to (cf) Troodon formosus since no Troodontid has been formally described from those deposits 

[The Amateur Paleontologist]

What specimen is this? Has it been described in a paper?

[Troodon]

10 hours ago, The Amateur Paleontologist said:

What specimen is this? Has it been described in a paper?

MOR 748 not the skull is talked about here

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5909/1826.full

 

Skull but its not Troodon its Massospondylus

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/massospondylus-carinatus-eggs-08318.html

Paper

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-60292-z

 

[AlexSciChannel]

3 hours ago, Troodon said:

MOR 748 not the skull is talked about here

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5909/1826.full

 

Skull but its not Troodon its Massospondylus

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/massospondylus-carinatus-eggs-08318.html

Paper

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-60292-z

 

I used it instead of a troodon because I couldn't find any pictures of Troodon embryos. And btw aren't you team Troodon formosus? Do you know of any embryos with any discernable bones?

Edited June 7, 2020 by AlexSciChannel

[Troodon]

40 minutes ago, AlexSciChannel said:

Do you know of any embryos with any discernable bones?

@CBchiefski. Might be able to address

[AlexSciChannel]

What about you? Do you think the Two Medicine Troodon is T. formosus or Stenonychosaurus? To me the ecosystem of Two Medicine seemed to be most comprable to Judith river and would assume to have similar fauna. I would not be surprised if Daspletosaurus horneri were eventually found in the lower members of Judith river. There are already tyrannosaurid teeth found there originally said to be Deinodon. Seeing how that's dubious and most compared to Daspletosaurus, I think scientists are afraid to synonymize it because they might lose the name Dapletosaurus since it was named after. ANyway I ran on a tangent.

[Troodon]

I'll let the professionals decide what to call the Troodontid in the TMF.   One really needs to look at the sketal features to make that call not just teeth, may wind up being a new genus or species.   Right now its cf Troodon formosus and I'm fine with that. 

[jdp]

Worth noting that smaller dinosaurs appear to have been pretty diverse, so it's not crazy to believe that whatever troodontid that's present in TMF is different from the troodontid in JRF is different from the troodontids described from DPF. 

[dinosaur man]

I found this in the Princeton Dinosaur Guide.

 

[AlexSciChannel]

2 hours ago, dinosaur man said:

I found this in the Princeton Dinosaur Guide.

 

 

Do you know what the specimen # for it is?

[AlexSciChannel]

4 hours ago, Troodon said:

I'll let the professionals decide what to call the Troodontid in the TMF.   One really needs to look at the sketal features to make that call not just teeth, may wind up being a new genus or species.   Right now its cf Troodon formosus and I'm fine with that. 

Doesn't cf. Troodon formosus imply that there had to be other body fossils of T. formosus? If we're going by the criteria they have to come from Judith River I dont think such remains exist. There are however more body fossils in Two Medicine that are attributed to T. formosus like MOR 553-1 & MOR 748

[Troodon]

Just means that items teeth are similar to those described in the JRF.   Im not aware that any Troodontid  taxon is described from TMF so you cannot compare against it.

[AlexSciChannel]

12 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Just means that items teeth are similar to those described in the JRF.   Im not aware that any Troodontid  taxon is described from TMF so you cannot compare against it.

Jack Horner who excavated TMF specimens says the adult Troodontid fossils are of T. formosus as the first comment shows. Phil Currie believes it to be Stenonychosaurus. 

[Fossildude19]

17 hours ago, AlexSciChannel said:

Sorry, but Troodon formosus is a valid taxon!

 

check it;

 

 

OK, I feel like I have to clear this up. This isn't meant to be trolling only posting some of the answers Jack Horner gave me on twitter answering my question. I am not trying to offend anyone. This is simply teasing and supposed to be fun in games.

Perhaps phrasing your title differently, and removing the meme would make it look less like trolling, and pervent you having to explain yourself.     

 

Insisting on answers from people trying to remain neutral is a bit disingenuous, in my opinion. Teasing really has no place here on the Forum.  

[AlexSciChannel]

3 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Perhaps phrasing your title differently, and removing the meme would make it look less like trolling, and pervent you having to explain yourself.     

 

Insisting on answers from people trying to remain neutral is a bit disingenuous, in my opinion. Teasing really has no place here on the Forum.  

I have no problem with having to explain myself. I just feel like getting a laugh out of people would help peak interest. I am very interested in the topic at hand and just want to approach it in way that seems funny. I am open to the idea that T. formosus and Stenonychosaurus being being the same species and agree that there isn't enough info to be conclusive. I just want to get people hooked in a way that can draw people to more likely express their opinions. 

 

If you found it to silly, it wasnt my intention

[Fossildude19]

I found it a bit off-putting, ... not silly. Or funny.    

 

"Sorry not sorry."  and memes without the use of emoticons comes off as trollish, to me.  Feeling the need to explain that it was not meant to be offensive indicates that you understood that it could be taken as such. Why then post it without setting tone?    and  help to convey a joking tone. 

 

Perhaps I just do not enjoy the same sense of humor as you.

Judicious use of emoticons can give a better indication of tone in posts. 

Tone of text on the internet is very hard to interpret without visual clues. 

 

A good rule of thumb is to consider - do I have to explain myself? Maybe I should just couch this in a different manner. Or set the tone with emoticons. 

Just my 2 cents. 

[dinosaur man]

7 hours ago, AlexSciChannel said:

Do you know what the specimen # for it is?

Sorry, but no

[CBchiefski]

Howdy @AlexSciChannel, I should be able to help with the overall question you are asking but please understand like much of paleontology, there are many unknowns and in time more discoveries will better our understanding of troodontids. I consider Troodon formosus to be valid and present in both the Two Medicine and Judith River.

A prior discussion on the topic:

The major papers from near egg mountain are Varricchio et al 1997, which described MOR 748, and Varricchio et al 2002 which described embryonic skeletal material- MOR 246-1 and MOR 246-11 @dinosaur man. See the figure for MOR 246-1 and MOR 246-11 and PM if you would like the paper. Elsewhere in the Two Medicine, at Jack’s birthday site, skeletal remains were found which Varricchio 1995 referred to T. formosus.

It is also useful to see how the rest of the scientific community reacts to a proposal, either accepting T. formosus as present within the Two Med or instead considering those specimens to be S. inequalis or even stating they are neither. Like @jdp mentioned, there are many possibilities and ultimately more specimens are needed.

 

Varricchio et al 1997: https://www.nature.com/articles/385247a0

Varricchio et al 2002: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1671/0272-4634(2002)022[0564%3AEAEFTC]2.0.CO%3B2

Varricchio 1995: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003101829400084L

[AlexSciChannel]

9 hours ago, CBchiefski said:

Howdy @AlexSciChannel, I should be able to help with the overall question you are asking but please understand like much of paleontology, there are many unknowns and in time more discoveries will better our understanding of troodontids. I consider Troodon formosus to be valid and present in both the Two Medicine and Judith River.

A prior discussion on the topic:

 

 

The major papers from near egg mountain are Varricchio et al 1997, which described MOR 748, and Varricchio et al 2002 which described embryonic skeletal material- MOR 246-1 and MOR 246-11 @dinosaur man. See the figure for MOR 246-1 and MOR 246-11 and PM if you would like the paper. Elsewhere in the Two Medicine, at Jack’s birthday site, skeletal remains were found which Varricchio 1995 referred to T. formosus.

It is also useful to see how the rest of the scientific community reacts to a proposal, either accepting T. formosus as present within the Two Med or instead considering those specimens to be S. inequalis or even stating they are neither. Like @jdp mentioned, there are many possibilities and ultimately more specimens are needed.

 

Varricchio et al 1997: https://www.nature.com/articles/385247a0

Varricchio et al 2002: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1671/0272-4634(2002)022[0564%3AEAEFTC]2.0.CO%3B2

Varricchio 1995: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003101829400084L

Wow thanks for all the info. I'll sure be looking through it. What a madlad.