Troodon is back?

[Prehistory Resurrection]

Link to paper: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-paleontology/article/troodontid-specimens-from-the-cretaceous-two-medicine-formation-of-montana-usa-and-the-validity-of-troodon-formosus/3E58F1FDA3FE53DE569E0D0B20E79F22

[Trenchcoated Rebbachisaur]

Would be neat to have Troodon back (sorry Stenonychosaurus) but I think I'll wait a while in case anybody re-removes Troodon before celebrating.
I feel like this might barely affect the toy figure side of at all (I mean who cares what the figure is called store-side, not like the specimens its based on disappear), but I guess it could convince accuraccy oriented companies to use Troodon, and by extension Troodontids since Troodon is their de facto poster boy?
Not sure that applies to anything whatsoever outside of specifically the videogame Prehistoric Kingdom and 3D printable figure modellers like Doq and Dinosaurs or MiniatureMuseum; since most other media can either use "Troodont(id)" or fully ignore proper nomenclature.

[stargatedalek]

If Tyrannosaurus can be a nomen protectum over Manospondylus, Troodon probably should over Stenonychosaurus too. If that's going to be the standard it should be applied evenly.

[Sim]

Tyrannosaurus is equivalent to Stenonychosaurus in being the younger name.  Troodon is equivalent to Manospondylus.  Also there's no doubt Tyrannosaurus and Manospondylus are the same animal, while it's uncertain Troodon and Stenonychosaurus are.

If a neotype for Troodon is established I will accept it, but without it it's an invalid name.  I will also mention that two of the authours of this new paper are quite desperate to make Troodon valid, this is their second attempt now after trying to state it is valid simply because of how long it's been used for (which is wrong).  The proposed Troodon neotype isn't even from the same formation as the Troodon holotype.

I think this could go either way, a neotype could be accepted like it was for Coelophysis, or the newer name could be the one that stays in use like it has been for Allosaurus.

[Sim]

Also, Troodon doesn't meet the criteria to be a nomen protectum as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomen_oblitum

[DinoToyForum]

The authors say they are preparing a petition to the ICZN to designate a neotype for Troodon. Fine... this would resolve the matter if it succeeds. But if the petition fails, what then? They should have done that before this paper, or held off from making any systematic decisions in this paper.

The situation is also seriously overcomplicated, with lots of distracting irrelevant sidelines. It is simple, either the holotype of Troodon is anatomically diagnostic (today, not in 1856) or it isn't. And according to the authors, it isn't, since their diagnosis doesn't mention the tooth anatomy. So, there is no anatomical basis for referring other material to the genus Troodon. To be frank, on the face of it, I can't see the ICZN petition succeeding.

[Over9K]

[Spinokaprogorgon]

Guess who's back? back again. Troodons back, tell a friend!

[DinoToyForum]

Guess who's back? back again. Troodons back, tell a friend!

They created a monster,
'Cause nobody wants to see Steno no more, they want Troodon, it's chopped liver,
Well, if you want formosus, this is what they'll give ya,
A little bit of tooth mixed with referred pieces.