2016 Palaeontological Predictions and Wishes

[Yutyrannus]

I think it is about the right time to start this thread. As always, post whatever you predict or hope will be discovered in 2016 .

Here are mine:
1. The new Utahraptor material will finally be published
2. The mother of the pair of frozen cave lion cubs will be found
3. At least one entirely new genus will be named from the Yixian Formation
4. The Spinosaurus monograph will be published
5. At least two new odd ceratopsians will be discovered, probably in either Utah or Alberta
6. A specimen of Gorgosaurus with preserved feathers will be discovered
7. Troodon will become a nomen dubium, and Stenonychosaurus will become the official genus name
8. Troodon will be split into several species and/or genera
9. More Dakotaraptor material will be found
10. The paper about Ichthyovenator being a spinosaurine will be published
11. A specimen of Tyrannosaurus that is intermediate between the ''Nanotyrannus'' specimens and adults will be found
12. Anatosaurus will be split from Edmontosaurus
13. Quercylurus and Dinailurictis will be synonymized
14. A new genus of phorusrhacid will be discovered
15. The "Lightning Ridge megaraptoran" will be referred to Rapator
16. The giant titanosaur from Argentina that was discovered in 2014 will be named
17. More material of Leaellynasaura will be discovered
18. A new basal ursid will be discovered
19. The megaraptoran from Dinosaur Cove will be named and described
20. A flightless azhdarchid will be discovered

[Balaur]

So you mean 2016?

[Yutyrannus]

You're right, apparently I'm a year ahead .

[E.D.G.E. (PainterRex)]

1. Hopefully some therizinosaurus/therizinosaurid material is uncovered
2. A new species of spinosaur that lived after Spinosaurus that shows evidence of further evolution into an aquatic form
3. An ancestor of spinosaurus more primitive than ostafrikosaurus/baryonyx
4. A giant alvarezsaur would be awesome, but also scary
5. Another new pterosaur larger than quetzacoatlus/hatzegopteryx that was mostly if not entirely terrestrial
6. Actual aquatic dinosaurs
7. Dinosaurs with powered flight not using feathers
8. Obviously Carnivorous/Omnivorous ankylosaur
9. Evidence that shows Dakotaraptors preyed on young Tyrannosaurs
10. Another "Fighting Dinosaurs" find, perhaps from asia?
11. Some evidence that proves one way or the other for the pacy/stgy/draco theory
12. Trailer for Jurassic World showing that the makers finally listened to us and there are accurate animals in it (This is a joke)
13. Evidence of a new large species of monitor living in the congo (does this count?)
14. Perhaps a new genus of Glyptodont, they need some more love! also we have not, of my knowledge, found a new one of those in a while!
15. Tyrannosaurus feather impressions that suggest it had ALL THE FEATHERS!

[Takama]

A new Megaraptor like dinosaur will be found and it will settle the dispute about rather or not they are Allosaurs or Colurosaur

[PaleoMatt]

Troodon please don't become a nodem dubium!! It's my favourite dinosaur and honestley how will it become a nobem dubium??

[PaleoMatt]

Also this is a duplicate thread :/

[Yutyrannus]

Troodon please don't become a nodem dubium!! It's my favourite dinosaur and honestley how will it become a nobem dubium??

It's named based on a tooth, I just mean the name Troodon would become a nomen dubium, the name Stenonychosaurus would just become the correct name for the same animal.

Also this is a duplicate thread :/

No, I just accidentally put 2016 on the last one when I meant 2015 (hence why the title of this thread initially said 2017) .

[PaleoMatt]

Troodon please don't become a nodem dubium!! It's my favourite dinosaur and honestley how will it become a nobem dubium??

It's named based on a tooth, I just mean the name Troodon would become a nomen dubium, the name Stenonychosaurus would just become the correct name for the same animal.

I get it now, however
1) eggs have been assigned to Troodon formosus
2) I'm pretty sure if a name has been used for over 50 years it is the one that is kept right? Remember Tyrannosaurus-Manospondylus and Lesothosaurus-Fabrosaurus?

I'm confused again

[Yutyrannus]

Troodon please don't become a nodem dubium!! It's my favourite dinosaur and honestley how will it become a nobem dubium??

It's named based on a tooth, I just mean the name Troodon would become a nomen dubium, the name Stenonychosaurus would just become the correct name for the same animal.

I get it now, however
1) eggs have been assigned to Troodon formosus
2) I'm pretty sure if a name has been used for over 50 years it is the one that is kept right? Remember Tyrannosaurus-Manospondylus and Lesothosaurus-Fabrosaurus?

I'm confused again

I mean the name-bearing specimen of Troodon formosus is a single tooth, just like Trachodon and Deinodon, both of which are now considered nomen dubiums because they were not initially named based on sufficient material. Does the way I'm explaining it make sense?

But, yes, since Troodon is such a famous name and has been used for so long it will probably be the name that is kept. That doesn't change that it will most likely be split into several different species and/or genera, however .

[Tyto_Theropod]

I have to say that Stenonychosaurus would make way more sense to keep, though, seeing as it's based on better material.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading up on everyone's hopes, most of which I pretty much share. If I have any (very far-fetched) ones myself that haven't already been mentioned, I would like:

- Solid evidence that the Thylacine is still extant (not impossible, but unlikely, I know )
- A new British dinosaur, preferably a well-preserved Dromaeousaurid or...
- A Scottish dinosaur with enough material to warrant a name or at least referral to a known genus
- More work on Yi qi - I'm still not satisfied with the current interpretation
- An Andrewsarchus fossil that includes postcranial remains so we can finally get a good size estimate
- More work on the Dakotaraptor material, since it is clearly needed.

As for what I expect, I honestly can't say. Every year there seems to be at least palaeontological discovery that's either amazing (the frozen cave lions) or a complete surprise (the aforementioned Yi qi), so honestly all I can say is that I'm expecting the unexpected. That's why I love nature - it's still throwing new things at us.

[PaleoMatt]

Thanks Yutyrannus! I understand now. Here are my hopes:

A late Cretaceous whale-like Spinosaurid.
T.rex feathers.
New Nuthetes fossils.
A Nanuqsaurus skull with Giant Troodon scars.
A terrestrial Pterosaur.
Dracorex and Stygimoloch to be synonymous with Pachycephalosaurus.

[Halichoeres]

A rediscription of Helodus.

The promised Spinosaurus monograph, which will resolve nothing.

A good titanosaur skull.

[Sim]

Troodon please don't become a nodem dubium!! It's my favourite dinosaur and honestley how will it become a nobem dubium??

It's named based on a tooth, I just mean the name Troodon would become a nomen dubium, the name Stenonychosaurus would just become the correct name for the same animal.

I get it now, however
1) eggs have been assigned to Troodon formosus
2) I'm pretty sure if a name has been used for over 50 years it is the one that is kept right? Remember Tyrannosaurus-Manospondylus and Lesothosaurus-Fabrosaurus?

I'm confused again

Here's my understanding of the situation:

I've just re-read the Manospondylus section of the Tyrannosaurus Wikipedia page, and what you mention in your second point doesn't seem to be the case.  For what it's worth, Stenonychosaurus has actually been used for over 50 years.  It was named in 1932 and considered a synonym of Troodon in 1987.  I don't know enough about the Lesothosaurus and Fabrosaurus situation to comment on it.

The situation with Tyrannosaurus and Manospondylus is different from the Troodon situation though for a number of reasons. One of these is Troodon is the older name (like Manospondylus), while Tyrannosaurus is the newer name, and what could allow Tyrannosaurus to remain valid doesn't apply to Troodon.  Another reason is Tyrannosaurus and Manospondylus are regarded as the same species, while Troodon is named based on a tooth which might not be enough to identify any other specimens as Troodon.

It seems a number of different species have all been considered specimens of the original Troodon species, Troodon formosus.  Troodon formosus is named based on a tooth (so this tooth is the type specimen for Troodon).  This means this tooth is what all subsequent fossil finds are compared to.  If this tooth lacks the necessary features to allow comparison with other specimens, Troodon becomes a nomen dubium unless the name Troodon is transferred to a new type specimen.

Some specimens originally named as non-Troodon species, were later considered to be specimens of Troodon formosus but this was soon doubted, and they were reclassified as new species of Troodon.  Of these, Troodon bakkeri has already been reverted to Pectinodon bakkeri.  Another one is Troodon inequalis, which was originally Stenonychosaurus inequalis.  If the original Troodon tooth can't be used for comparison, it seems to me genera made synonyms of Troodon would go back to being valid (well, some of this has already started happening) and any new species currently in T. formosus could become new species of these already existing genera, like Stenonychosaurus, if they're enough closely related.  Maybe among the new species, a new type species for Troodon could be created?  The large Alaskan Troodon hasn't been named yet and it's the largest troodontid as far as I know!  I'm curious about what it will be named.  Will it be a species of Troodon, or Stenonychosaurus, or a new genus?

Currently, Troodon remains a valid name.  It seems in the future what is Troodon, or Troodon formosus, could change.

[PaleoMatt]

Troodon please don't become a nodem dubium!! It's my favourite dinosaur and honestley how will it become a nobem dubium??

It's named based on a tooth, I just mean the name Troodon would become a nomen dubium, the name Stenonychosaurus would just become the correct name for the same animal.

I get it now, however
1) eggs have been assigned to Troodon formosus
2) I'm pretty sure if a name has been used for over 50 years it is the one that is kept right? Remember Tyrannosaurus-Manospondylus and Lesothosaurus-Fabrosaurus?

I'm confused again

Here's my understanding of the situation:

I've just re-read the Manospondylus section of the Tyrannosaurus Wikipedia page, and what you mention in your second point doesn't seem to be the case.  For what it's worth, Stenonychosaurus has actually been used for over 50 years.  It was named in 1932 and considered a synonym of Troodon in 1987.  I don't know enough about the Lesothosaurus and Fabrosaurus situation to comment on it.

The situation with Tyrannosaurus and Manospondylus is different from the Troodon situation though for a number of reasons. One of these is Troodon is the older name (like Manospondylus), while Tyrannosaurus is the newer name, and what could allow Tyrannosaurus to remain valid doesn't apply to Troodon.  Another reason is Tyrannosaurus and Manospondylus are regarded as the same species, while Troodon is named based on a tooth which might not be enough to identify any other specimens as Troodon.

It seems a number of different species have all been considered specimens of the original Troodon species, Troodon formosus.  Troodon formosus is named based on a tooth (so this tooth is the type specimen for Troodon).  This means this tooth is what all subsequent fossil finds are compared to.  If this tooth lacks the necessary features to allow comparison with other specimens, Troodon becomes a nomen dubium unless the name Troodon is transferred to a new type specimen.

Some specimens originally named as non-Troodon species, were later considered to be specimens of Troodon formosus but this was soon doubted, and they were reclassified as new species of Troodon.  Of these, Troodon bakkeri has already been reverted to Pectinodon bakkeri.  Another one is Troodon inequalis, which was originally Stenonychosaurus inequalis.  If the original Troodon tooth can't be used for comparison, it seems to me genera made synonyms of Troodon would go back to being valid (well, some of this has already started happening) and any new species currently in T. formosus could become new species of these already existing genera, like Stenonychosaurus, if they're enough closely related.  Maybe among the new species, a new type species for Troodon could be created?  The large Alaskan Troodon hasn't been named yet and it's the largest troodontid as far as I know!  I'm curious about what it will be named.  Will it be a species of Troodon, or Stenonychosaurus, or a new genus?

Currently, Troodon remains a valid name.  It seems in the future what is Troodon, or Troodon formosus, could change.

Very Interesting!

[Newt]

A rediscription of Helodus.

The promised Spinosaurus monograph, which will resolve nothing.

A good titanosaur skull.

This. Also, more drepanosaurs.

[alexeratops]

More Stegosaurs.
THERIZINOSAURUS SKULL/NECK/BACK/TAIL
Something that resembles Indominus 
another antarctican dinosaur
more evidence of feathers or quills on ceratopsians
more color confirmations of feathers, preferably on Yutyrannus.

That's all.

[LophoLeeVT]

more fossils of dilophosaurus found and evidence that they had feathers!!!

[Sim]

more evidence of feathers or quills on ceratopsians

Keep in mind, the filaments of Psittacosaurus are not known to be feathers or quills.  So, there's currently no evidence of feathers or quills in ceratopsians.

more color confirmations of feathers, preferably on Yutyrannus.

The member who started this thread is a Yutyrannus, isn't he?  Maybe he can tell us what colour Yutyrannus feathers are!

[alexeratops]

more evidence of feathers or quills on ceratopsians

Keep in mind, the filaments of Psittacosaurus are not known to be feathers or quills.  So, there's currently no evidence of feathers or quills in ceratopsians.

more color confirmations of feathers, preferably on Yutyrannus.

The member who started this thread is a Yutyrannus, isn't he?  Maybe he can tell us what colour Yutyrannus feathers are!

Oh, I didn't realize that Psittacosaurus wasn't confirmed with quills... thanks for that!
Hmm.. yes, we could ask the local Yutyrannus... but I feel as though he would either lie or not tell us at all...