New Triassic basal dimorphodontid: Caelestiventus

Britt, et al. 2018
bring us a new desert-dwelling Triassic pterosaur, Caelestiventus hanseni (Figs. 1, 2; BYU 20707, Museum of Paleontology at Brigham Young University) from western North America. They nest it with Dimorphodon (Fig. 1), from the English Jurassic, although Preondactylus (Fig. 3) is also similar, with a huge naris, and also from the Late Triassic. Caelestiventus is larger than most Triassic pterosaurs, with a wingspan of at least 1.5 meters. Coeval Raeticodactylus is similar in size and also fills in the lower orbit with a thin sheet of bone.

Britt, et al. also confirm the nesting
of ‘Dimorphodon’ weintraubi with anurognathids, something first published by Peters 2011 and reported here the same year.

Unfortunately
Britt and colleagues nest anurognathids as the sister taxa to Dorygnathus due to taxon exclusion. In the large pterosaur tree (LPT, 234 taxa) anurognathids nest with and arise from dimorphodontids. Among the many taxa missing from the Britt et al. tree is the IVPP giant embryo anurognathid, a completely preserved specimen, and Mesadactylus, another Jurassic transitional sister basal to anurognathids… also from North America.

Figure 1. Triasic Caelestiventus skull compared to Jurassic Dimorphodon. Readers, don't do the easy thing and go to the Wellnhofer diagrams for your pterosaur skulls. Use real data.

Figure 1. Triasic Caelestiventus skull compared to Jurassic Dimorphodon. Readers, don’t do the easy thing and go to the Wellnhofer diagrams for your pterosaur skulls. Use real data.

It’s always wonderful to see a new pterosaur taxon.
Congratulations to all coauthors on this paper.

Figure 4. The skull of Bergamodactylus (MPUM 6009)

Figure 2. The skull of Bergamodactylus (MPUM 6009) the most primitive pterosaur in the LPT.  No antorbital fossa here and not tested by Britt et al.

The sculptor of the skull
(Fig. 1) put a ‘Roman nose’ on the restoration of Caelestiventus. That illustration will float around the paleo-universe forever. However, I take my cue from the Triassc age of the specimen and the downturned dentary, as in the Triassic basalmost pterosaur, Bergamodactylus (Fig. 2), which has an unexpanded naris, to create a more transitional naris (Fig. 1), and from Preondactylus (Fig. 3), a closer relative with a large, yet straight naris, rather than create a derived version with more of a curve than Dimorphodon had.

Figure 3. Preondactylus from the Late Triassic is basal to Dimorphodon in the LPT.

The staff or hired artist
charged with illustrating Caelestiventus in vivo (Fig. 4) made a few mistakes. These were generated, no doubt, by the many false paradigms floating around out there. Here they are shown and corrected. (Just found out the artist is Michael Skrepnick, Dinosaursinart.com)​

  1. The manual claws should point down toward the palm, as in most tetrapods
  2. Pedal digit 5 should be on the lateral side of a much larger foot and it should not be involved in the uropatagia.
  3. The tail should be shorter if closer to Dimorphodon than to Preondactylus. Otherwise it might be that long.
  4. The rostrum is straight inLate Triassic sister, Preondactylus, so  perhaps a straight angled rostrum is more appropriate here.
  5. The wing membranes were stretched between elbow and wing tip, as all soft tissue pterosaur fossils demonstrate.
  6. The cranium probably tipped down posteriorly, as all related taxa demonstrate (Figs. 1–3).
Figure 2. Pity the poor staff artist trying to get a pterosaur correct in today's climate. Here the original and revised morphologies are presented.

Figure 4. Pity the poor staff artist trying to get a pterosaur correct in today’s climate. Here the original and revised morphologies are presented. Digit 5 need to go to the outside of a large foot and the tail is short.

Perhaps hoping to support the invalid archosaur origin of pterosaurs hypothesis,
Britt et al report the margin of an antorbital fenestra bears a remnant of a fossa. We looked at a similar interpretation earlier when Nesbitt and Hone 2010 attempted to pull a Larry Martin with that single trait from Dimorphodon. Thankfully, Britt et al. did not attempt to use Euparkeria or any phytosaurs for outgroups. But, regrettably, they didn’t use Cosesaurus either (Fig. 5). Avoiding further controversy, they left the basalmost node generic: “Pterosauria”.

Addendum: checking the SuppMat .nex file,
I see they employed the tritiosaur lepidosaur, Macrocnemus, and two large archosauriforms, Postosuchus and Herrerrasaurus for outgroup taxa. That still does not get you very far based on the verified and validated taxa listed below. Neither Postosuchus nor Herrerasaurus are related to Macrocnemus and pterosaurs.

Figure 5. Basal pterosaurs in the LPT.

Figure 5. Basal pterosaurs and their outgroups in the LPT.

Late addendum
Adding Caelestiventus to the LPT nests it basal to the Dimorphodon clade, not with Dimorphodon.

Figure 1. Maxilla, nasal and jugal of Caeletiventus, plus full mandible.

Figure 1. Maxilla, nasal and jugal of Caeletiventus, plus full mandible casts created by CT scans. Colors added here.

References
Britt BB, Dalla Vecchia FM, Chure DJ, Engelmann GF, Whiting MF, and Scheetz RD 2018. Caelestiventus hanseni gen. et sp. nov. extends the desert-dwelling pterosaur record back 65 million years. Nature Ecology & Evolutiondoi:10.1038/s41559-018-0627-y.
Nesbitt SJ and Hone DWE 2010. An external mandibular fenestra and other archosauriform character states in basal pterosaurs. Palaeodiversity 3: 225–233
Peters D 2011. A Catalog of Pterosaur Pedes for Trackmaker Identification
Ichnos 18(2):114-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10420940.2011.573605

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caelestiventus

Dimorphodon revisited

The odd pterosaur, Dimorphodon
was one of the first taxa included in the large reptile tree (LRT, 1132 taxa). Here I revise earlier errors on the BMNH 41212 specimen (Fig. 1), including adding a short tail discovered a few days ago and also adding more dorsal vertebrae.

Figure 1. The three Dimorphodon specimens traced from the fossils.

Figure 1. The three Dimorphodon specimens traced from the fossils.

Here is the in situ fossil with bones colorized (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. The BMNH 4121 fossil of Dimorphodon here colorized using DGS.

Figure 2. The BMNH 4121 fossil of Dimorphodon here colorized using DGS. Colors match the reconstruction, except for the skull.

Earlier the skull was reconstructed. Here it is again (Fig. 3). This was done to show the mandible did not have a fenestra, only a shifted surangular.

The skull of Dimorphodon macronyx.

Figure 3. The skull of Dimorphodon macronyx. Above: in situ. Middle: Restored. Below: Palatal view. Not settled on the depth of the mandible. The long replaceable teeth suggest a deeper mandible is more appropriate.

References
Buckland W 1829. Proceedings of the Geological Society London, 1: 127
Owen R 1859. On a new genus (Dimorphodon) of pterodactyle, with remarks on the geological distribution of flying reptiles.” Rep. Br. Ass. Advmnt Sci., 28 (1858): 97–103.
Nesbitt SJ and Hone DWE 2010. An external mandibular fenestra and other archosauriform character states in basal pterosaurs. Palaeodiversity 3: 225–233
Padian K 1983. Osteology and functional morphology of Dimorphodon macronyx (Buckland) (Pterosauria: Rhamphorhynchoidea) based on new material in the Yale Peabody Museum, Postilla, 189: 1-44.
Sangster S 2001. Anatomy, functional morphology and systematics of Dimorphodon. Strata 11: 87-88

wiki/Dimorphodon

The other Dimorphodon skull (BMNH R 1035) unscrambled

We know of
several Dimorphodon (Buckland 1829, Owen 1859) Hittangian, Early Jurassic ~195 mya) specimens from Europe.

  1. BMNH (NHUK PV) R1034a Mary Anning’s discovery and the holotype, a misarticulated skeleton lacking a skull and tail (Fig. 1)
  2. BMNH (NHUK PV) R 1035 includes a skull, cervicals and wings (Figs. 1, 2)
  3. BMNH 41212 is a nearly complete specimen lacking a tail (Fig. 1).
  4. BMNH? a complete tail (Fig. 1)
  5. Other BMNH specimens. presumably disarticulated bones
  6. YPM 350, YPM 9182 and other Yale specimens, several disarticulated bones including a partial skull

Dimorphodon? weintraubi (IGM 3494, Clark et al. 1994, 1998; Early to Middle Jurassic, ~175 mya) nests several nodes away, with basal anurognathids. It lived 20 million years later in North America.

Figure 1. The three most complete Dimorphodon specimens, BMNH 41212, BMNH R1034, and BMNH R1035.

Figure 1. The three most complete Dimorphodon specimens, BMNH 41212, BMNH R1034, and BMNH R1035. BMNH (British Museum of Natural History) used to be NHUK (Natural History United Kingdom).

The BMNH R1035 specimen of Dimorphodon
has not been figured very often because the skull is somewhat scrambled  Here it is traced (Fig. 2) and reconstructed (Fig. 1). It is quite similar to that of the BMNH 41212 specimen, with only slight modifications.

Figure 2. Dimorphodon specimen BMN R1035 with elements traced. Here the complete wing was recovered along with cervicals and occipital elements.

Figure 2. Dimorphodon specimen BMNH (formerly NHUK) R1035 with elements traced and segregated to reduce the chaos. Here the complete wing was recovered along with cervicals and occipital elements. Click to enlarge.

The ‘scrambled’ 1035 material differs
from the 41212 material in several traits:

  1. The naris is slightly larger relative to the antorbital fenestra
  2. The sclera ring is smaller
  3. The mandible is deeper
  4. The metacarpus and wing are longer

When you look up Dimorphodon online
at Wikipedia the authors do not identify D. weintraubi as an anurognathid. And they follow Clark et al. in asserting that Dimorphodon had plantigrade pedes based on the metatarsalphalangeal butt joint. We looked at that problem earlier here and Peters (2000) also covered that topic, but essentially the metatarsophalangeal butt joint was immobile, but the cylindrical interphalangeal joints provided the required extension to create a digitigrade pes that matches digitigrade pterosaur and Rotodactylus ichnites in which the proximal phalanges are always elevated. It’s a common pattern: Sometimes it takes the paleo crowed a long time to accept certain facts.

Figure 3. from Wikipedia, my sculpture of Dimorphodon now found in several museums. The curly-cue tail, anteriorly-planted fingers and plantigrade feet are all unnatural.

Figure 3. from Wikipedia, my sculpture of Dimorphodon now found in several museums. The curly-cue tail, anteriorly-planted fingers and plantigrade feet are all unnatural and not part of the original model.

And then, of course manual digit 5 and wing ungual
are both present in the 1035 specimen (Figs. 4, 5).

Figure 4. Wingtip ungual in the BMNH 1035 specimen of Dimorphodon.

Figure 4. Wingtip ungual in the BMNH 1035 specimen of Dimorphodon.

Yes, they are difficult to see
unless you look for them and trace them. But think how long it took to find hind limbs in fossil whales, known for over 150 years prior to that discovery.

Figure 5. Manus of the BMNH 1053 specimen of Dimorphodon highlighting vestigial digit 5 in pink.

Figure 5. Manus of the BMNH 1053 specimen of Dimorphodon highlighting vestigial digit 5 in pink.

A while back
Nesbitt and Hone 2010 attempted to show that the 41212 specimen of Dimorphodon had a mandibular fenestra in a desperate and misguided attempt at providing archosaur traits to pterosaurs. That was bogus, as noted earlier. Those two didn’t want to take into account the slipped surangular on the specimen. In the 1035 specimen the surangular is in place and no mandibular fenestra is present.

References
Buckland W 1829. Proceedings of the Geological Society London, 1: 127
Clark J, Montellano M, Hopson J and Fastovsky D. 1994. In: Fraser, N. & H.-D Sues, Eds. 1994. In the Shadows of Dinosaurs. New York, Cambridge: 295-302.
Clark J, Hopson J, Hernandez R, Fastovsk D and Montellano M. 1998. Foot posture in a primitive pterosaur. Nature 391:886-889.
Nesbitt SJ and Hone DWE 2010. An external mandibular fenestra and other archosauriform character states in basal pterosaurs. Palaeodiversity 3: 225–233
Owen R 1859. On a new genus (Dimorphodon) of pterodactyle, with remarks on the geological distribution of flying reptiles.” Rep. Br. Ass. Advmnt Sci., 28 (1858): 97–103.
Nesbitt SJ and Hone DWE 2010. An external mandibular fenestra and other archosauriform character states in basal pterosaurs. Palaeodiversity 3: 225–233
Padian K 1983. Osteology and functional morphology of Dimorphodon macronyx (Buckland) (Pterosauria: Rhamphorhynchoidea) based on new material in the Yale Peabody Museum, Postilla, 189: 1-44.
Peters D 2000. Description and Interpretation of Interphalangeal Lines in Tetrapods. – Ichnos 7(1): 11-41.
Sangster S 2001. Anatomy, functional morphology and systematics of Dimorphodon. Strata 11: 87-88

wiki/Dimorphodon

 

Data denial you can listen to on a podcast

Dr. Mark Witton

Dr. Mark Witton

Dr. Mark Witton is a paleontologist,
author and illustrator, but based on a Liz Martin interview podcast denies the existence of pterosaur ancestors. Like his friends, Dr. David Hone (another data denier), and Dr. Darren Naish, Dr. Witton believes pterosaurs “appeared fully formed in the fossil record. We don’t have the pterosaur Archaeopteryx.”

Sadly this purposefully ignores 
the published literature (Peters 2000 is now 15 years old) online phylogenetic analyses (now 4 years old) and YouTube videos (just a few weeks old) that all provide a long list of pterosaur ancestors that demonstrate a gradual accumulation of pterosaur traits. Why does Dr. Witton prefers to hide his head in the sand rather than examine, test and/or accept published studies? Could this be academic bigotry? (definition: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself)

Witton believes pterosaurs “are close relatives of dinosaurs.”
If so, then were are the common ancestors that show a gradual accumulation of character traits? Answer: You can’t find them because they are not there. Other taxa share more traits with pteros and dinos than either does with each other. This is the outmoded “Ornithodira” concept.
Witton says he did not expect
that the Jurassic pterosaur, Dimorphodon would be adept at walking on the ground (despite having digitigrade pedes and fully interned femoral heads). Again, published literature demonstrates just the opposite (Padian 1983). Glad to see that Dr. Witton is getting on board with a more terrestrial Dimorphodon.
Dr. Witton waxed on about Solnhofen juvenile and subadult pterosaurs,
agreeing with Bennett (1995) who lumped Rhamphorhynchus into one species by plotting long bone lengths on a graph. Witton thought different species should have a dramatic difference in wing shape. Not so. He didn’t mention foot shape and overall morphology, which varies quite widely and logically when phylogenetic analysis is employed (Fig. 2).
Figure 3. Bennett 1975 determined that all these Rhamphorhynchus specimens were conspecific and that all differences could be attributed to ontogeny, otherwise known as growth to maturity and old age. Thus only the two largest specimens were adults. O'Sullivan and Martill took the brave step of erecting a new species. The n52 specimen is at the lower right. Click to enlarge.

Figure 2 Bennett 1975 determined that all these Rhamphorhynchus specimens were conspecific and that all differences could be attributed to ontogeny, otherwise known as growth to maturity and old age. Thus only the two largest specimens here were adults. Witton agrees that all these are conspecific. Do you agree with Witton? Decide for yourself. Click to enlarge.

Witton follows the Lü et al. (2009) analysis
that nested Darwinopterus as a transitional fossil combination of pterodactyloid skull and basal pterosaur post crania. Other analyses ( Wang et al 2009, Andres 2013, Peters online) do not support that hypothesis. Only Peters online (based on Peters 2007) includes a large selection of sparrow-sized Solnhofen pterosaurs, keys to the origin of all later clades. Along the same lines, Witton believes in Modular Evolution, which is falsified in phylogenetic analysis and apparently occurs only in their vision of Darwinopterus.
Witton reports that some azhdarchids had short necks.
Not sure which azhdarchids he is talking about. Evidently that is sneak preview on unpublished papers. The large pterosaur tree indicates that going back to the Late Jurassic, all azhdarchids and their ancestors had very long necks, even as hand-sized taxa (Fig. 3).
The Azhdarchidae.

Figure 3. The Azhdarchidae. Click to enlarge. No short necks here, except way down toward the left. Not saying they could not evolve. Just saying I haven’t seen them yet. 

Witton reports there are small birds but no small pterosaurs
from the Upper Cretaceous — but no small dinosaurs either — so suggests there may be a preservational bias in the lack of small pterosaurs… but no such bias for small birds. Actually there are small bird fossils from the Late Cretaceous, and they ARE dinosaurs, and no small pterosaurs. Lacking tiny pteros in the Late Cretaceous spelled their doom. Only small and tiny pterosaurs survived the Latest Jurassic extinction event and only these were basal to later giants. So no darwinopterids had descendants in the Cretaceous. Because there were no tiny Late Cretaceous pterosaurs, none survived the Late Cretaceous extinction event.
Can we blame this on a bad mentor?
Dr. Witton has accumulated a great deal of pterosaur knowledge and expresses it wonderfully in his many paintings. Unfortunately, like Hone and Naish, he was ‘raised’ by wrong-minded mentors and continues his false beliefs (= he has not tested his or competing hypotheses in phylogenetic analyses) to this day. Earlier we looked at the many problems in Dr. Witton’s book on pterosaurs.
Dr. Don Prothero

Dr. Don Prothero

Some insight into that sort of thinking…
it’s not that uncommon.
Dr. Don Prothero in a YouTube Video provides great insights into the Creationist mindset that finds strong parallels in the current thinking of Dr. Mark Witton, Dr. David Hone and Dr. Darren Naish.

Notes from the Prothero video
  1. Humans are not rational machines
  2. We all employ motivated (emotional, wants and needs) reasoning, not logical reasoning
  3. We are all belief engines and we all create a world view or core belief
  4. Because of that we don’t like to hear anything that does not fit our world view
  5. AND we use reason to do what we want data to do, not what its telling us. We use ANY tricks to make the evidence of the world fit our beliefs, or twist it to fit, or deny it or ignore it. Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society and author of “The Believing Brain” writes, “We all support the world we already have.”

Bottom line:
Witton, Hone and Naish don’t like ReptileEvolution.com because it doesn’t support the paleo world they already have. Like Creationists they display the following traits raised by Prothero:

  1. Reduction of cognitive dissonance (= the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change) when presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted.
  2. Tribalism = we learn our world from whoever we were raised by. And all three professors are friends of one another.
  3. Deep innate psychological tendencies are genetic = there are some people who readily accept new ideas and there are some people who do not. Unfortunately, all three appear to have the same gene.
  4. Confirmation bias (= the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories.) Thus when Hone and Benton (2007, 2009) come out with the worst paper I have reviewed, Naish and Witton support it anyway.
  5. Cherry picking (= remembering the hits, forgetting the misses). Hone, Witton and Naish like to pick on poor Longisquama, which was difficult, but not impossible to interpret and all three like to ignore the whole point of ReptileEvolution.com, the cladograms, both the large reptile tree and the large pterosaur tree. Note that no other pterosaur worker has produced competing interpretations of Longisquama of equal detail nor competing cladograms that include tiny pterosaurs. In this regard these pterosaur workers are exactly like Dr. Feduccia and the late Dr. Martin (who deny the theropod-bird link and never employ phylogenetic analysis) and also like extant Creationists, who likewise never employ phylogenetic analysis. Remember when Hone and Benton first deleted the taxa that Peters 2000 proposed, then deleted Peters 2000 from the competition? This was cherry picking at its best.
  6. Qiuote mining (= in this case finding images and hypotheses that have been long ago trashed in order to undermine the site. These are essentially ad hominem (directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining) attacks as they blackwash my methods (which they practice too) and the entire website while they could have gotten specific about one problem or another.
  7. Missing the forest for the trees (= The big picture) is the large reptile tree cladogram. This is created by a huge mass of data and becomes strengthened with every additional taxon – all of which affect every other taxon. In such an analysis you can remove data, remove taxa, remove characters and nothing falls apart. The subsets are just as strong as the dataset itself. But Hone, Naish and Witton refuse to acknowledge that, preferring to continue their thinking that pterosaurs appeared suddenly in the fossil record, like on the fourth day of Creation. Phylogenetic analysis would solve their quandary, if only they would give it a chance.

Dr. Prothero asks: Why is science different?
Prothero answers his own question in this fashion:

  1. Science (like ReptileEvolution.com) is always testing with falsification, prove things wrong, correcting mistakes. Presently I’ve made over 50,000 corrections in drawings and scores and look forward to many more. Getting it right is important.
  2. Science (like ReptileEvolution.com) is always tentative, no claim to final truth. I am always looking for a competing hypothesis. Witton, Hone, Naish, Bennett and other referees are making sure my papers are not getting published. They don’t like it when their claims are disputed here at PterosaurHeresies.
  3. Science (like ReptileEvolution.com) works! It provides answers that make sense, can be replicated, and can provide predictions.
  4. In Science peer review cancels individual biases. Sadly the current pterosaur referees, Hone, Witton, Naish and others, are all from the same school of thought. Every day I hope to change that, to open them up to accept more valid hypotheses that work!
  5. In Science, if you’re not pssing people off, you’re not doing it right. Well, I must be doing something right, because Witton and Naish are never praising my work. It would be great if we could argue about it. I guess we’re doing that here.

Prothero finished with a cartoon
of a professor who was showing his cognitive dissonance: “If P is false, I will be sad. I do not wish to to be sad. Therefore, P is true.”

This is human nature.
We all have it. We all get jealous, ambitious. disappointed. As scientists we have to get over our human nature and let testing and experimentation rise above human nature. We have to be like Galileo, not Aristotle.

References
Bennett SC 1995. A statistical study of Rhamphorhynchus from the Solnhofen limestone of Germany: year classes of a single large species. Journal of Paleontology 69, 569–580.
Lü J, Unwin DM, Jin X, Liu Y and Ji Q 2009. Evidence for modular evolution in a long-tailed pterosaur with a pterodactyloid skull. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B  (DOI 10.1098/rspb.2009.1603.)
Padian K 1983. Osteology and functional morphology of Dimorphodon macronyx (Buckland) (Pterosauria: Rhamphorhynchoidea) based on new material in the Yale Peabody Museum, Postilla, 189: 1-44.
Peters D 2000. A Redescription of Four Prolacertiform Genera and Implications for Pterosaur Phylogenesis. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 106 (3): 293–336.
Peters D 2007. The origin and radiation of the Pterosauria. Flugsaurier. The Wellnhofer Pterosaur Meeting, Munich 27
Wang X, Kellner AWA, Jiang S, Meng X. 2009. An unusual long-tailed pterosaur with elongated neck from western Liaoning of China. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 81 (4): 793–812.

SVP 5 – Triassic pterosaur from Utah

Britt et al. (2105) found a Late Triassic pterosaur in Utah, described in the following SVP abstract.

From the abstract:
“We previously reported on a wealth of tetrapods, including multiple individuals each of a coelophysoid, a drepanosauromorph, two sphenosuchian taxa, and two sphenodontian taxa. All are preserved along the shoreline of  a Late Triassic oasis in the Nugget Sandstone at the Saints & Sinner Quarry (SSQ). Recently, we discovered a non-pterodactyloid pterosaur at the quarry, represented by a partial uncrushed, associated/articulated skull imaged via micro CT. The premaxillaries are spoon-shaped rostrally; the maxilla is a simple bar with a needle-like nasal process, the suborbital jugal/quadratojugal blade is high; the nasal is a short, narrow rectangle; and the fused frontals are wide with a moderately high, tripartite sagittal crest. The lower jaws are complete, with a long, slender dentary terminating rostrally in a downward-bend with a ventral expansion, a short postdentary complex and a short retroarticular process. The quadrate-articular joint is well above the tooth row. At least three, widely spaced, conical teeth are in the premaxilla; maxillary teeth are mesiodistally long (3 widely-spaced mesially and 7 close together distally); and on the dentary there are two apicobasally high, widely-spaced mesial teeth and ~20 small, multicusped, low-crowned distal teeth. The frontals and lower jaws are extensively pneumatized. With a 170 mm-long lower jaw, this is two times larger than other Triassic pterosaurs and only the second indisputable Triassic pterosaur from the Western Hemisphere (the other is from Greenland). This is the only record of desert-dwelling nonpterodactyloids and it predates by >60 Ma all known desert pterosaurs. Whereas most pterosaurs are known from fine-grained marine or lacustrine environments, and other Triassic forms are smaller, the SSQ specimen shows that early pterosaurs were widely distributed, attained a large size, and lived in wide range of habitats, including inland deserts far (>800 km) from the sea. Finally, the SSQ pterosaur corroborates the Late Triassic age of the fauna based on drepanosaurs because pterosaurs with multicusped teeth are presently known only from the Upper Triassic.”

The description
sounds like an early dimorphodontid, but withe the deep jugal of Raeticodactylus. The size of the skull is similar to both. Unfortunately, too few clues to go on. I’ll wait for the paper… eagerly!

References
Britt BB, Chure D, Engelmann G and Dalla Vecchia F et al.  2015.
A new, large, non-pterodactyloid pterosaur from a Late Triassic internal desert environment with the eolian nugget sandstone of Northeastern Utah, USA indicates early pterosaurs were ecologically diverse and geographically widespread. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology abstracts.

 

 

At Jurassic World size matters (and so do feathers)

Everyone it seems
is excited by the prospect of a new Jurassic Park 4/Jurassic World movie coming this summer, June 12. While most will be wowed by the special effects (yours truly among them), there will be a few who will roll their eyes so far back inside their skull that they will actually see their brain.

Two issues to the forefront: size and feathers (Figs. 1-5).

Figure 1. Click to enlarge. The giant sea monster (not sure if this is a pliosaur or a mosasaur) is feeding on a great white shark.  Actual size comparisons below.

Figure 1. Click to enlarge. The Jurassic Park 4 giant sea monster (not sure if this is a pliosaur or a mosasaur) is feeding on a great white shark. Actual size comparisons below, from Giants and A Gallery of Dinosaurs by yours truly, 1986, 1989. Even the largest prehistoric sea monsters could not swallow an average great white shark whole. If the great white in JW is a typical 15 foot length, the skull of the monster is 2x or 30 feet in length. Based on the skull/neck ratio of the monster it appears to be a mosasaur possibly 250 feet long.

Bigger is better.
And let’s face it, we go to the movies to be thrilled. We go to the library to learn something. Here (Fig. 1) The JW sea monster (pliosaur? or mosasaur?) is a wee bit too large for our great white shark former supervillain, now relegated to being a prehistoric dog biscuit or sardine. Based on the skull/neck ratio of the monster it appears to be a mosasaur possibly 250 feet long.

Figure 2. Jurassic Park 4 giant Apatosaurus/Diplodocus-like sauropod. Inset, Diplodocus to scale.

Figure 2. Jurassic Park 4 giant Apatosaurus/Diplodocus-like sauropod. Inset, Diplodocus to scale.

Sauropods (Fig. 2), the largest of all land animals, are made twice their original size in Jurassic World.

Figure 3. Jurrasic Park 4 giant Stegosaurus (above, highlighted by Photoshop) and to scale with President Obama (below).

Figure 3. Jurrasic Park 4 giant Stegosaurus (above, highlighted by Photoshop) and to scale with President Obama (below).

Jurassic World Stegosaurus (Fig. 3) might be on the large side as well.

Figure 4. Here they got the scale right, but not the scales. Jurassic Park 4 scaly velociraptors (presumeably Deinonychus, above) and below feathered Deinonychyus (below) from A Gallery of Dinosaurs by David Peters, from 1989.  JP4 is at least 24 years behind in its depiction because I saw feathered 'raptors' in various books a few years before that.

Figure 4. Here they got the scale right, but not the scales. Jurassic Park 4 scaly velociraptors (presumeably Deinonychus, above) and (below) feathered Deinonychyus from A Gallery of Dinosaurs by yours truly from 1989. That means JP4 is at least 24 years behind in its depiction because I saw feathered ‘raptors’ in various books a few years before that.

The movie villains are here turned heroes as the scaly 2015 velociraptors are trained by the dude in the Paul Sereno vest (Fig. 4). Below a 1989 feathered Deinonychus. So the scale is right. The scales are wrong…

And finally, 
Look, out of the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No its a flock of pterosaurs (Fig. 5). At first they seem like Dimorphodon. And hey, look! They have a narrow chord wing membrane attached to the front of the femur. But wait! The shadow is gigantic and has no tail. Then the lightweight pterosaur grabs a much more massive primate on holiday and without even an umphhh takes its prey aloft using its feet, like an eagle does with a salmon. Let me say that again, “with a salmon.” Then the metacarpals are revealed to be elongate. Perhaps not as exciting as all that, a few to scale images of pterosaurs are also shown below.

Figure 5. Jurassic Park 4's giant Dimorphodon(?) (probably weighing 36 lbs) picking up a tourist (probably weighing 120 pounds) in a tribute to Raquel Welch and Faye Wray who were taken aloft by Pteranodon.  Below the rather feeble feet of several Pteranodon specimens, none of which had trenchant claws and mighty toe tendon anchors. These feet, some flat-footed others not, were made for walking. The foot of Dimorphodon with trenchant claws, but look how small it is to scale! Below that the even more feeble feet of the ornithocheirid Anhanguera.

Figure 5. Jurassic Park 4’s giant Dimorphodon(?) (probably weighing 36 lbs) picking up a tourist (probably weighing 120 pounds) in a tribute to Raquel Welch and Faye Wray who were taken aloft by Pteranodon. Below the rather feeble feet of several Pteranodon specimens, none of which had trenchant claws and mighty toe tendon anchors. These feet, some flat-footed others not, were made for walking. The foot of Dimorphodon with trenchant claws, but look how small it is to scale! Below that the even more feeble feet of the ornithocheirid Anhanguera.

To read Giants and A Gallery of Dinosaurs free online, click here.

Click here to see the Jurassic Park 4 trailer on YouTube.
Click here to see the Jurassic Park 4 SuperBowl trailer on YouTube.
See you at Jurassic World this summer!

 

ITunes disfigures Dimorphodon

Figure 1. ITunes SM Dinosaurs Dimorphodon. In a word: "awkward." Credit does go to the narrow chord wing membrane.

Figure 1. ITunes SM Dinosaurs Dimorphodon. Upper image, not too bad. Lower image, awkward. Is it getting ready to leap with forelimbs? Pedal digit 5 is useless here.  Tail vanes are unknown in dimorphodontids. Fingers appear too small. Credit goes to the narrow chord wing membrane. Let’s hope the wing finger is short due to foreshortening, but why run with the wing finger deployed? Image lightened to show detail.

Apple ITunes
is offering a dino app. Unfortunately it includes a badly configured Dimorphodon (Fig. 1) in a quadrupedal pose with hands far ahead of the shoulders. Perhaps it is getting ready to launch with forelimbs. While the Seeley inset was the inspiration, the app image takes it over the top. Missing a few fingers apparently and they’re too small as is. Great color and texture!

Here’s what Dimorphodon should look like: (Fig. 2).

Dimorphodon588What’s wrong with a bipedal Dimorphodon?
Like theropod dinosaurs, it has a right angle femoral head, appressed metatarsals, and long fingers with trenchant claws not well made for touching the ground. Sure the arms are long enough to reach the ground, but why should it? The closest known pterosaur tracks are single pedal ichnites matching anurognathids (Peters 2011).

References
Peters D 2011. A Catalog of Pterosaur Pedes for Trackmaker Identification. Ichnos, 18: 2, 114-141.