Hmm - I just realized that people may have widely varying interpretations of what rises to the level of prodigiousness. Perhaps even more widely disparate then the use of the PG label. For example, Davidson appears to apply the PG label even when just one index or GAI on the WISC reaches the 145 (99.9%) level. Other authorities would not consider even a full scale IQ at 160 on a modern/current IQ test as sufficient to merit of the use of the PG label.
Then there is the issue of age in determining prodigiousness. Many people associate the term prodigy with child prodigy. Furthermore, the term "child" in this context often references young children (not usually tweens and rarely teens).
Sports provide interesting examples. Do we often hear of child athletes refer to as prodigies? What about sports associated with early peaks and are dominated by teens like women's figure skating? Certainly not all internationally prominent athletes (actual Olympic medal contenders) would qualify for child prodigy status, but at least some of them must have been at a prodigious level at a young age.
This is an interesting thread -- and apologies to the OP for going off tangent.
