Talk:Troodon

There should probably be more information on the Prince Creek Remains

The page mentions that Troodon fossils there are from much larger species, but we should probably have the exact sizes listed Crylophosaurus (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if much has been published on it, and I suspect it will be named as a new genus, so the info won't belong here anyway in the end. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

highly doubt it is a new genus, but okay Crylophosaurus (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if it isn't a new genus, it might just as well be Stenonychosaurus. Better to wait until there's actually a publication that determines it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wut...

... the heck you mean "potentially dubious"? Troodon is nothing but a nomen dubium, no potentially, because it's indeed dubious Touch some grass (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A group of researchers is still using the name for specimens from the Two Medicine Formation, so it is quite a bit less settled than that. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The scientists in the paper which is often said to be the paper that proved Troodon invalid actually only said it may become dubious in the future, so that paper essentially said that Troodon is potentially dubious Crylophosaurus (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Troodon is not a valid genus

Troodon has a possibilty of being non valid,we know it so far by 2 teeth 86.98.182.204 (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The name is being applied by some workers to skeletal remains as well, and it seems efforts are underway to apply the name more widely, so it's not a clear-cut case anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• So now the cat's out of the bag and Troodon has been suggested as valid with Stenonychosaurus as a synonym on pretty vague grounds. This is very likely not the last word on the matter, so we have to treat it carefully without jumping the gun. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)