And that’s unique for pterosaurs of all sorts. So, what’s the story here?
One of the largest Pterodaustro specimens
MIC V263 (Figs. 1-5), was reported (Codorniú, Chiappe and Cid 2013) to have stomach stones (gastroliths). That made news because that represented the first time gastroliths have been observed in 300 Pterodaustro specimens and thousands of pterosaurs of all sorts.
Codorniu, Chiappe and Cid followed tradition when they aligned pterosaurs with archosaurs, like dinos (including birds) and crocs. Those taxa also employ gastroliths for grinding devices. According to Codorniú, Chiappe and Cid, other uses include as a personal mineral supply, maintaining a microbial flora, elimination of parasites and hunger appeasement. Shelled crustaceans may have formed a large part of the Pterodauastro diet and stones could have come in handy on crushing their ‘shells’ according to the authors.
The authors also noticed
an odd thickening of the anterior dentary teeth and the relatively large size of the MIC V 263 specimen (Fig. 1) and suggested their use as devices for acquiring stones.
The wingspan of this big Pterodaustro is estimated at 3.6 meters.
the authors overlooked a wingtip ungual (Fig. 4), or so it seems… The confirming wingtip ungula is off the matrix block. But they weren’t looking for it…
The authors overlooked a distal phalanges on the lateral toe (Fig. 5). It is hard to see. And they were not looking for it. Note the double pulley joint between p2.1 and p2.2. That’s where the big bend comes in basal pterosaurs.
The authors overlooked a manual digit 5, the vestigial near the carpus (Fig. 6) displaced to the disarticulated carpus during taphonomy. Again, easy to overlook. And they were not looking for it…
labeled the unguals correctly (Fig. 7), but some of the phalanges escaped them. Note the manual unguals are not highly curved, like those of Dimorphodon and Jeholopterus. And for good reason. Pterodaustro is a quadrupedal beachcomber with the smallest fingers of all pterosaurs. It’s not a tree clinger. And for the same reason, pterosaurs with long curved manual claws are not quadrupeds. Paleontologists traditionally attempt to say all pterosaurs are quadrupeds, rather than taking each genus or clade individually. Beachcombers made most of the quadrupedal tracks. It’s also interesting to note that Pterodaustro fingers bend sideways at the knuckle, in the plane of the palm, probably in addition to flexing toward the palm. It’s easier for lizards to do this, btw. Not archosaurs. That’s how you get pterosaur manual tracks with digit 3 oriented posteriorly, different from all other tetrapods.
So the question is: why did this specimen have stones inside—
when other pterosaurs do not? Since MIC V263 is larger, it is probably older, closer to death by old age. Was it supplementing an internal grinding structure that had begun to fail? Was this some sort of self-medication for a stomach ailment? It’s not standard operating procedure for pterosaurs to have stomach stones. So alternate explanations will have to do for now. Let’s not assume or pretend that all pterosaurs had gastroliths. They don’t.
Compared to the largely complete and articulated Pterodaustro specimen,
PVL 3860, there are subtle differences in proportion (Fig 8) to the larger MIC V263 specimen. If metacarpals are the same length, then the wing is shorter in the larger specimen. This follows a morphological pattern in which no two tested pterosaurs are identical. Still looking for a pair of twins.
Codorniú L, Chiappe LM and Cid FD 2013. First occurrence of stomach stones in pterosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 33:647-654.
Crocs don’t. I’ve seen an X-ray movie of gastroliths basically not moving in an alligator’s stomach.
Sauropods didn’t either…
That picture is way too blurry to recognize anything.
You’ve overpainted a ridiculously blurry photo… and then you ask us to believe what you say it shows. Try again.
Have you ever seen a fossil preserved like this? I’m completely serious: have you?
Bones, you see, aren’t liquid. When two bones lie on top of each other, they stay visibly separate – even if they’re squished much flatter than this specimen. This isn’t necessarily visible from every angle under every kind of lighting, but if you have the 3D thing in your hands, it’s impossible to miss.
In you come with another ridiculously blurry photo and making grand pronouncements about pterosaur experts not being allowed to drive without thick glasses. That photo, or what you’ve left of it, doesn’t even establish that the irregular surface of the ulnare isn’t simply damaged.
That’s because they can tell rock from bone and you can’t.
They’re easier to tell apart when you can see the original colors and surface textures, of course. It’s not as easy on the blurry black-and-white photo you’re showing us… though it’s still pretty obvious.
Can’t they be quadrupedal climbers, like almost all climbing amniotes?
re: “Have you ever seen a fossil preserved like this? I’m completely serious: have you?”
It’s always there, often knocked around a bit. Check the links. You’ll see other examples.
re:”That’s because they can tell rock from bone and you can’t.”
That statement has been falsified, Dave. And blackwashing is beneath professionals like yourself. You don’t want to get caught doing that.
re: blurry photo. — When others produced clear photos of the same area I presented clear photos of the area. Check for other presented examples.
re: “Can’t they be quadrupedal climbers, like almost all climbing amniotes?”
Yes, they can, Dave! Excellent comment! But now you’ve segued off topic.