Germanodactylus sp. 6592 plate and counterplate

Matching a fossil plate to a counterplate is easy.
Matching a photo of a plate to a photo of counterplate (Fig. 1) requires Photoshop, even if the differences are minute.

Figure 1. Plate and counterplate of the SMNS 6592 specimen referred to Germanodactylus matched in Photoshop.

Figure 1. Plate and counterplate of the SMNS 6592 specimen referred to Germanodactylus matched in Photoshop.

This is the first time I’ve seen
the counterplate to the SMNS 6592 specimen attributed to Germanodactylus. And I think this counterplate is composed of painted plaster. Photoshop was used to match the plate to the counterplate and to trace the resulting elements. As you can see, the pelvis is in an atypical position due to taphonomy (crash landing on its butt?), but everything else seems to be naturally posed with the exception of the displaced and overlapping femora (another results of the crash landing, perhaps).

Advertisements

A giant Romanian pterosaur mandible fragment

FIgure 1. LPB R 2347 largest pterosaur mandible compared to Bakonydraco.

FIgure 1. LPB R 2347 largest pterosaur mandible compared to Bakonydraco.

Vremir et al. 2018
describe a pterosaur mandible fragment (Figs. 1, 2), “This specimen represents the largest pterosaur mandible ever found and provides insights into the anatomy of the enigmatic giant pterosaurs.”

Figure 2. LPR pterosaur mandible compared to related taxa, like Eopteranodon, and to the largest known pterosaur, Quetzalcoatlus. Figure 2. LPR pterosaur mandible compared to related taxa, like Eopteranodon, and to the largest known pterosaur, Quetzalcoatlus.

Figure 2. LPR pterosaur mandible compared to related taxa, like Eopteranodon, and to the largest known pterosaur, Quetzalcoatlus to scale.

It’s worthwhile
to place the jaw fragment in context with other pterosaurs. We don’t have a similar jaw fragment for the big Quetzalcoatlus (Fig. 2), which likely stood twice as tall as the giant eopteranodontid owner of the jaw fragment. Bakonydraco is a likely eopteranodontid, larger than Eopteranodon, but much smaller than the jaw fragment owner.

Earlier this jaw fragment was used as the basis for restoring the rest of this pterosaur as a giant azhdarchid nicknamed, ‘Dracula’ (with beaucoup errors, Fig. 2).

Figure 1. Dracula the giant azhdarchid pterosaur museum mount. Hopefully it's not too late to fix the problems here.

Figure 2. Dracula the giant pterosaur model built and based on the jaw fragment in today’s post. That’s a lot of imagination!

References
Vremir M et al. 2018. Partial mandible of a giant pterosaur from the uppermost Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of the HaÈeg Basin, Romania. Lethaia doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/let.12268 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/let.12268

Elgin 2014 PhD dissertation: nits and picks, part 2

Yesterday we looked at
a misidentified pterosaur specimen from the State Museum of Natural History Karlsruhe (SMNK) that wasn’t a Tupuxuara, as originally considered by then PhD candidate, now Dr. Ross Elgin. Consider that blogpost an unlabeled part 1.

Today, in part 2,
we’ll take a look at several other aspects of the Ross Elgin 2014 PhD dissertation that deserve credit and discredit. 

FIgure 1. GIF animation of image from Elgin 2014 comparing wing membrane configurations and a more accurate rendition of what Peters 2002 proposed. See text for list of issues here.

FIgure 1. GIF animation of image from Elgin 2014 comparing wing membrane configurations and a more accurate rendition of what Peters 2002 proposed and Elgin distorted. See text for list of issues here. In reality, like birds, the wings and hind limbs are decoupled. Most pterosaur workers don’t believe the data.

Elgin mistakenly reported,
“The primary flight membrane is reconstructed with an ankle attachment of the trailing edge, a configuration that was never fundamentally altered throughout the evolutionary history of the group.” Elgin ignored the bipedal origin of the Pterosauria, and ignored the narrow-chord wing membrane data that attends every pterosaur fossil that preserves wing membranes, perhaps on the advice of his mentors. And he ignored, or distorted, what Peters 2000 actually proposed for a wing membrane and bone orientation in pterosaurs (Fig. 1).  This may be what happens when you have to feed the fever dreams of a teacher rather than recording actual data. Elgin reported, “I am indebted to both David Hone and Eberhard “Dino” Frey for the opportunity to undertake this project and continue my work on the enigmatic and curious group of animals known as pterosaurs.”

Solutions to problems with Figure 1.

  1. The scapula/coracoid should rotate laterally, as in all articulated fossils
  2. The elbow should angle further posteriorly, as in all articulated fossils (+ in birds and bats)
  3. The pteroid should point to the deltopectoral crest, as in all articulated fossils
  4. The free fingers should point ventrally (in flight). Crushing typically rotates the narrow claws anteriorly.
  5. Metacarpals 1-3 should line up anteriorly, not stack themselves against mc4
  6. Manual 4.4 should articulate at an angle to m4.3, deepening the wing tip
  7. The propatagium should extend only to the deltopectoral crest
  8. The brachiopatagium should stretch between the wingtip and elbow with a fuselage fillet to distal thigh, as in all articulated fossils
  9. The thigh should be more meaty based on the long anterior ilium
  10. The femur should extend laterally to form a horizontal stabilizer (and note the sprawling lepidosaur orientation!)
  11. The femur should be flipped, as shown in Elgin’s figure 3 below.
  12. The uropatagia do not extend to the tiny tail, as in all articulated fossils. Elgin’s essentially creates a single uropatagium, which is a decades-old false paradigm.

If the above illustration by Elgin 2014 looks familiar
it’s because we looked at it earlier here, after publication of Elgin, Hone and Frey 2011. Also check out all the images on this ReptileEvolution page. You might remember these authors employed the fiction of ‘wing membrane shrinkage’ to explain the data, instead of just accepting the data, as is. We have evidence of pterosaur ancestors with wings decoupled from the hind limbs, so there was never a gliding transitional phase. Flapping preceded flying.

Along the same lines
Hone and Benton (2007, 2008); and Nesbitt and Hone (2010a, b) preferred to see things their own way, rather than strict adherence to the data. So, maybe young Elgin was unduly influenced by his professors and mentors.

Elgin introduced us to
Microtuban altivolan, which he described as a non-azhdarchid azhdarchoid. In the large pterosaur tree (LPT, 1189 taxa) Microtuban indeed nests at the base of the azhdarchid clade, arising from certain dorygnathids, a relationship Elgin never tested.

Elgin suggested a possible sexual dimorphism,
“where the pelvic girdle lacks a symphysis and remains open even in large adults is observed within Coloborhynchus robustus.” (Fig. 2) Let’s blame this one partly on his teachers, and partly on sloppiness. The base of the pterosaur pelvis opens and closes in phylogenetic patterns, not gender patterns. That tricked up Bennett, too, and Elgin’s teachers followed Bennett’s mistakes. On the sloppiness point, the open pelvis of C. robustus is missing its ventral and posterior borders, exactly the bones needed to join the ischia together (Fig. 2). It doesn’t look like Elgin was cheating. He must have thought he was not cheating. But he was cheating by changing points of view, changing scales and not adding back missing bone to follow generic patterns. This was all resolved with a little tracing in Adobe Photoshop, the paleontologists’ best friend.

Figure 1. Elgin compared these two Coloborhynchus pelves together, but failed to align them, scale them and add back missing bone.

Figure 2. Elgin compared these two Coloborhynchus pelves together, but failed to align them, scale them and add back missing bone.

Elgin was also tricked by
traditional archosaur patterns and paradigms in ontogeny. He expected sutures to close at adulthood. This tricked up Bennett, too. Instead, since pterosaurs are lepidosaurs, sometimes they do, sometimes they never do, and sometimes they fuse sutures before maturity and reading their final size. It’s all phylogenetic, not ontogenetic with lepidosaurs, including pterosaurs.

Figure 2. Coloborhynchus robustus (bones and outlines from Elgin 2014) compared to C. spielbergi (b&w). Notes added.

Figure 3. Coloborhynchus robustus (bones and outlines from Elgin 2014) compared to C. spielbergi (b&w). Notes added.

Elgin described and did not illustrate the missing wing finger:
“The wing finger phalanges in almost all pterosaurs are similar in form with expanded proximal and distal margins, the shafts of which show various degrees of curvature. Those preserved in SMNK PAL 1133 are not exception and agree well with other descriptions of pterodactyloids.” This description can only be the result of naiveté and inexperience. In reality phalanx proportions change between genera and species. It would have been helpful to see the wing finger of C. robustus since the C. spielbergi wing finger is missing.

Elgin 2014 mistakenly considered

  1. pterosaurs to be archosauromorphs.
  2. anurognathids to be basal pterodactyloids
  3. Darwinopterus to be ‘an animal intermediate’ linking basal to derived pterosaurs

These issues are resolved and settled
here and here when you add more taxa. It’s good for science to be critical. If nothing else this blog will hopefully show all readers that published scientific text and figures can sometimes include errors that can be exposed and corrected by colleagues.

It’s not okay
to disfigure the figures of other workers and then claim that’s the essence of their work (contra Fig. 1). We’ve seen this before with other PhDs.

References
Elgin RA, Hone DWE and Frey E 2011. The extent of the pterosaur flight membrane. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 56 (1), 2011: 99-111. doi: 10.4202/app.2009.0145
Elgin RA 2014. Palaeobiology, Morphology, and Flight Characteristics of Pterodactyloid Pterosaurs. Innaugural Dissertation. Zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde Fakultät für Chemie und Geowissenschaften Institut für Geowissenschaften Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg. Available online  here.
Hone DWE and Benton MJ 2007. An evaluation of the phylogenetic relationships of the pterosaurs to the archosauromorph reptiles. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 5:465–469.
Hone DWE and Benton MJ 2008. Contrasting supertree and total evidence methods: the origin of the pterosaurs. Zitteliana B28:35–60.
Nesbitt SJ and Hone DWE 2010a. An external mandibular fenestra and other archosauriform character states in basal pterosaurs. Palaeodiversity 3: 225–233
Nesbitt SJ and Hone DWE 2010b. An external mandibular fenestra and other archosauriform character states in basal pterosaurs. Palaeodiversity 3: 225–233

https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/a-supertree-of-pterosaur-origins-hone-and-benton-2007-2009/

http://www.reptileevolution.com/pterosaur-wings.htm

https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/did-dimorphodon-have-an-external-mandibular-fenestra/

https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/a-closer-look-at-the-antorbital-fossa-in-two-pterosaurs-raeticodactylus-and-dimorphodon/

A Brazilian stem pteranodontid, and Brazil wants its fossils back!

Figure 1. The cf.Tupuxuara specimen is larger than sister taxa in the LPT.

Figure 1. The cf.Tupuxuara specimen is larger than sister taxa in the LPT.

cf.Tupuxuara (SMNK??? Elgin 2014, Early Cretaceous). Originally considered close to Tupuxuara, here this specimen nests between Eopteranodon and the base of the Pteranodontia. The metacarpals and antebrachium are relatively short. The large pentagonal sternal complex anchors large flight muscles. Distinct from the Pteranodontia, but like the Eopteranodon clade, the carpal and tarsal elements were not co-ossified. The ventral pelvis remained open, as in Eopteranodon and most tested nyctosaurids. In other words, this is NOT a female…necessarily.

Figure 2. Early Cretaceous cf.Tupuxuara from the Elgin 1914 dissertation. This taxon nests between the Solnhofen specimen B St 1878 VI 1 and Eopteranodontia + Pteranodontia in the LPT, far from Tupuxuara. Reconstruction from underlying in situ specimen from the Elgin 2014 dissertation available online.

Figure 2. Early Cretaceous cf.Tupuxuara from the Elgin 1914 dissertation. This taxon nests between the Solnhofen specimen B St 1878 VI 1 and Eopteranodontia + Pteranodontia in the LPT, far from Tupuxuara. Reconstruction from underlying in situ specimen from the Elgin 2014 dissertation available online. Missing parts filled in.

You might want to think of this pterosaur
as the first of the large Pteranodontia, still nesting with the Germanodactylus clade not leading to dsungaripterids, Shenzhoupterus and tapejarids, including Tupuxuara). Elanodactylus is another large member of this clade (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Subset of the large pterosaur tree (LPT) with the addition of cf. Tupuxuara apart from Tupuxuara and at the base of the Pteranodontia.

Figure 3. Subset of the large pterosaur tree (LPT) with the addition of cf. Tupuxuara apart from Tupuxuara and at the base of the Pteranodontia.

The Elgin 2014 thesis was completed in May 2014.
Just a few months earlier, in March 2014 a paper appeared in Nature entitled, “Brazil clamps down on illegal fossil trade.” The first sentence reads, “Thirteen people are scheduled to go on trial in Brazil for smuggling fossils out of the country, apparently to private collectors and to museums in Germany and the United Kingdom.” Do you think Dr. Elgin was worried? Evidently not. In his PhD thesis Elgin wrote, The large numbers of [Chapada do Araripe] specimens that at the time of writing lacked any full or proper description was one of the major influences in the creation of this body of work, creating a catalogue of fossils that increase our understanding of this enigmatic group and permitting ready access to photographs and descriptions for future workers.” And for making those images available, Dr. Elgin, thank you!

Dr. Elgin further notes
“Brazil has banned the commercial sale of all fossil originating from its territories since 1942.” Then concludes, “The pterosaurs described within this body of work are presented for the good of the scientific community. While discouraging illicit trafficking is to be encouraged, the fact that the featured specimens are interred within a registered museum, rather than ending up within a private institution as would have certainly been their fate otherwise, guarantees the continued and universal access to any and all persons, to the benefit of the international community.”

Worried about the loss of Brazilian fossils to German museums,
Brazilian paleontologist, Alexander Kellner, cites the loss of cultural heritage. On the other hand, English paleontologist, David Martill quips, Knowing “dodgy” people is the only way to get samples, because the DNPM ignores requests to dig.” Brazilian paleontologist, Max Langer says, “Fossils must be kept in the country to help to improve Brazilian science.” And he expects fellow researchers to hold Brazil’s laws in higher regard than the private collectors who also fuel the trade.

David Martill expressed more of his thinking
in this online report, “In an email interview, Martill said that he “doesn’t care a damn how the fossil came from Brazil”, because that is “irrelevant to the scientific significance of the fossil. I am critical of all laws that interfere with the science of paleontology; and blanket bans on fossil collecting are indiscriminatory and only hinder science, No countries existed when the animals were fossilized.”

Bottom line:
Firsthand access to fossils… can sometimes get you into trouble with Brazil. You can see how the side line up here, with Brazilians hoping to stop exports and Europeans hoping to continue exports.

More tomorrow
on the Elgin dissertation…

References
Elgin RA 2014. Palaeobiology, Morphology, and Flight Characteristics of Pterodactyloid Pterosaurs. Innaugural Dissertation. Zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde Fakultät für Chemie und Geowissenschaften Institut für Geowissenschaften Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg. Available online here.

Help fix ‘Dracula’ the giant Romanian pterosaur

This comes from a press release with photos,
not an academic paper. Evidently there is a new giant azhdarchid pterosaur named Dracula, known from ‘a majority of bones’, from which the following museum mount was created (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Dracula the giant azhdarchid pterosaur museum mount. Hopefully it's not too late to fix the problems here.

Figure 1. Dracula the giant azhdarchid pterosaur museum mount. Hopefully it’s not too late to fix the problems here. Most will just take some twisting, some disassembly and reassembly.

Here are the visible problems:

  1. The ridged sternal complex looks like it was created from gastralia. No other sternal complex has such ridges and those from azhdarchids are not big and square.
  2. Fingers 1–3 are located laterally. They should be medially.
  3. The pteroid should anchor on the radiale (not the ulnare), the pre-axial carpal on the medial side of the distal carpal. And the pteroid should always point back to the deltopectoral crest.
  4. In azhdarchids m4.4 is always tiny,
  5. This looks like a dinosaur pterygoid.
  6. Pedal digit 5 should be on the lateral side of the foot.
  7. Twist metacarpal 4 90º laterally so the wing finger extends posterior to the forelimb.

Translated from German:
“In Denkendorf you can now marvel at a bone of “Dracula”, several dozen other bone fragments of the animal are located in Florida, where they are scientifically studied with elaborate technology. A publication on the sensation finding, the researchers have announced for the fall. Until then, “Dracula” remains only the unofficial name of the pterodactyl.”

Maybe it is all based on just the one cervical and some shards. We’ll find out later.

Some links below,
courtesy of Ben Creisler on the Dinosaur Mailing List.

http://www.donaukurier.de/nachrichten/panorama/Denkendorf-DKmobil-Dracula-in-Denkendorf;art154670,3721531

https://www.n-tv.de/wissen/Museum-stellt-Riesensaurier-Dracula-aus-article20350242.html

Pteranodon quad hopping water takeoff, according to the AMNH

Hopefully this is going to be the last time
the American Museum of Natural History embarrasses itself with bogus pterosaur tricks. We looked at problems from the original 2014 AMNH pterosaur display here and elsewhere. Evidently they have decided to stop using math, physics and modern analogs, alas, to their disgrace… while cartooning (Fig. 1) the bird-like pterosaurs under the guise of a scientific exhibition.

Figure 1. GIF animation from the American Museum of Natural History showing how their Pteranodon managed to hop off the surface of the water until suddenly able to flap and fly. Totally bogus.

Figure 1. GIF animation from the American Museum of Natural History showing how their Pteranodon managed to hop off the surface of the water until suddenly able to flap and fly. Totally bogus. It won’t develop any lift or thrust with wings folded. …Unless Pteranodon was filled with helium?? Those deep chord wing membranes are likewise not preserved in any fossil. 

Above is how the American Museum of Natural History
(AMNH) imagines the takeoff of Pteranodon from calm seas (Fig. 1, AMNH webpage). Not credible. Not accurate, either with those deep chord wing membranes, not yet found in any fossils.

Pelican take-off sequence from water.

Figure 2. Pelican take-off sequence from water. Click to enlarge.

Above is how the living pelican
(Pelecanus) actually takes off from gulf waters (Fig. 2 and YouTube video above it in slow motion, click to view). The Pteranodon-like pelican lifts its great wings out of the water to develop lift and thrust. Ground effect keeps it out of the water after one flap. Water is where drag occurs. And legs kicking or hopping has never lifted any pelican out of the water. The wings, fully extended as taut airfoils, do 99% of the work. The foot hops off of wave tops after flight has been initiated, are negligible thrust producers.

Figure 3. Triebold Pteranodon in floating configuration. Center of balance marked by cross-hairs.

Figure 3. Triebold Pteranodon in floating configuration. Center of balance marked by cross-hairs.

Above is how ReptileEvolution.com
imagines Pteranodon floating on the sea (Fig. 4) using its air-filled wing bones as lateral floatation devices. The torso and skull were also lighter than an equal volume of water, as in all floating birds.

Pterosaur water launch

Figure 4. Ornithocheirid water launch sequence in the pattern of a pelican launch. LIke ducks, geese and pelicans, pterosaur probably floated high in the water. Here the wings rise first and unfold in an unhurried fashion, keeping dry and unencumbered by swirling waters. Then the legs run furiously, like a Jesus lizard, but with such tiny feet, they were not much help in generating forward motion. The huge wings, however, did create great drafts of air, thrusting the pterosaur forward until sufficient airspeed was attained, as in the pelican.

Earlier we looked at several water take-off scenarios
for pterosaurs using Anhanguera as a model (Fig. 4). Keep those wings out of the water where they can develop thrust and lift with full extension and taut membranes. A sagging wing membrane (Fig. 1) develops neither lift nor thrust.

Successful heretical bird-style Pteranodon wing launch

Figure 5. Click to play. Successful heretical bird-style Pteranodon wing launch in which the hind limbs produce far less initial thrust because the first downstroke of the already upraised wing provides the necessary thrust for takeoff in the manner of birds. This assumes a standing start and not a running start in the manner of lizards. Note three wing beats take place in the same space and time that only one wing beat takes place in the Habib/Molnar model. Compare to a similar number of wingbeats in the pelican.

Above is how the heretical hypothesis
imagines the takeoff of Pteranodon from the ground (Fig. 4): just like a crane, pelican or other large bird. For a water takeoff, just add water and keep the wings off the surface. Flapping so close to the water takes advantage of ‘ground effect’ where lift is increased when the wing is close to the ground.

By contrast,
either the AMNH model is made of helium or hung on a string, or the sea is made of jello, because against all laws of physics somehow those tiny fingers and feet are keeping the head and torso above the watery surface. If anyone can defend the AMNH scenario, please make comment below.

Just found out: The quad fly hypothesis goes back to 1943!
Daffy Duck in “To Duck or Not to Duck” was using the quad style to fly (Fig. 6) back in 1943, just before Elmer Fudd fired a shotgun at him. Compare this technique to Pteranodon in figure 1 and you’ll see convergence on a massive scale.

Figure 8. Daffy Duck in "To Duck or Not to Duck" 1943 uses the quad fly method. See figure 1 for comparable take-off technique.

Figure 8. Daffy Duck in “To Duck or Not to Duck” 1943 uses the quad fly method. See figure 1 for comparable take-off technique.

At the AMNH
Dr. Mark Norell, curator and chair of the Museum’s Paleontology Division, oversaw the pterosaur exhibition with Dr. Alexander Kellner of Museu Nacional in Rio de Janiero.

 

 

New flightless and giant nyctosaurs: Alcione and Barbaridactylus

Scale bar problems
and a lack of reconstructions in the original paper are issues here.

Longrich, Martill and Andres 2018
bring us news of “a diverse pterosaur assemblage from the late Maastrichtian of Morocco that includes not only Azhdarchidae but the youngest known Pteranodontidae and Nyctosauridae. [This] dramatically increases the diversity of Maastrichtian pterosaurs. At least 3 families —Pteranodontidae, Nyctosauridae, and Azhdarchidae — persisted into the late Maastrichtian. These patterns suggest an abrupt mass extinction of pterosaurs at the K-Pg boundary.”

The authors summary starts off with an invalid statement:
“Pterosaurs were winged cousins of the dinosaurs.”  That was invalidated by Peters 2000, 2007 and ignored every since. We looked at that problem earlier here, here and here in a 3-part series testing all candidates. It’s time to realize that no one will ever find pterosaur kin among the dinos. They’ve already been clearly identified among the lepidosaurs.

The authors failed to include the Maastrictian tupuxuarid
found in southern Texas (Fig. 1; TMM 42489-2) and did not consider the Maastrichtian footprints discovered in 1954 and reexamined in 2018 that include two ctenochasmatids we will look at tomorrow.

TMM 42489-2, the tall crested Latest Cretaceous large rostrum and mandible. It's a close match to that of Tupuxuara, otherwise known only from Early Cretaceous South American strata.

Figure 1. TMM 42489-2, the tall crested Latest Cretaceous large rostrum and mandible. It’s a close match to that of Tupuxuara, otherwise known only from Early Cretaceous South American strata.

Alcione elainus gen. et sp. nov.
The new 1.5x larger nyctosaurid, Alcione elainus, known from disassociated bones including a shorter radius + ulna, a shorter metacarpal 4, a larger femur, and a tiny sternal complex (identified as a ‘sternum’ in the text) only 40 percent the size of a standard nyctosaur sternal complex (if the scale bars are correct). When placed on a reconstruction of a more complete Nyctosaurus (UNSM 93000; Fig. 2), scaled to the humerus, the result produces a likely flightless nyctosaur. Strangely, the authors called this a “small nyctosaur” even though it is half again larger than UNSM 93000. The authors mislabeled the shorter, straighter scapula as a coracoid, and vice versa.

Figure 2. GIF movie of Nyctosaurus and Alcione showing a likely flightless nyctosaur based on the parts preserved.

Figure 2. GIF movie of Nyctosaurus and Alcione showing a likely flightless nyctosaur based on the parts preserved. Three frames change every 5 seconds. The sternum is tiny (assuming the scale bars are correct), the metacarpus and antebrachium are short and the femur is long.

They did not mention the possibility of flightlessness.
They did report, “The abbreviated distal wing elements in Alcione indicate a specialized flight style. The short, robust proportions suggest reduced wingspan and increased wing loading, implying distinct flight mechanics and an ecological shift. Short wings would increase lift-induced drag at low speeds, but reduced wing areas would decrease parasite drag at high speeds, suggesting that Alcione may have been adapted for relatively fast flapping flight compared to other nyctosaurids. Alternatively, reductions in wingspan might represent an adaptation to underwater feeding, i.e., plunge diving of the sort practiced by gannets, tropicbirds, and kingfishers, where smaller wings would reduce drag underwater.”

Not sure why they mentioned
‘distal wing elements’ here. They did not list or discuss distal wing elements elsewhere. Perhaps they meant proximal.

The reconstructed mandible of Alcione
is narrower than the rostrum in UNSM 93000.

Based on the vestigial fingers of UNSM 93000
and the short metacarpus of the new specimen, Alcione might have been the first pterosaur to walk on metacarpal 4, albeit at the very end of the reign of pterosaurs.

Other flightless pterosaurs include:
the basal azhdarchid form the Solnhofen, Jme-Sos 2428 and the Late Jurassic anurognathid PIN 2585/4 from the Sordes slab. They demonstrate that the distal wing elements reduce first. Thus the reconstruction, based on nyctosaur patterns restores a wing that was not volant.

Longrich, Martill and Andres did find a giant nyctosaur
which they named Barbaridactylus grandis based on a large humerus (Fig. 3). The humerus of the more complete UNSM 93000 specimen is 9.5 cm. By comparison the humerus in Barbaridactylus is 22.5 cm. I’m going to trust the text comment that the ulna + radius are 1.3x longer than the humerus. The scale bars indicate about half that length. Similar problem possible in the scapula/coracoid, according to the nyctosaur bauplan.

Figure 3. Barbaridactylus, a giant nyctosaurid. If the wing was like UNSM 93000, then it could fly. If the wing was like Alcione, then it could not. The scale bars did not match the text description on the ulna + radius, so both sizes are shown.

Figure 3. Barbaridactylus, a giant nyctosaurid. If the wing was like UNSM 93000, then it could fly. If the wing was like Alcione, then it could not. The scale bars did not match the text description on the ulna + radius, so both sizes are shown. Sometimes you have to be prepared for the occasional mistake in a published paper.

Other giant nyctosaurs
Earlier and here we noted giant nyctosaurs were flying over the Niobrara Sea (midwest North America) based on a large wing finger with unfused extensor tendon process (YPM 2501) and a large nyctosaur pelvis (KUVP 993; misinterpreted by Bennett (1991, 1992) as belonging to a female Pteranodon). 

No reconstructions were provided
by Longrich, Martill and Andres 2018. Reconstructions and a nyctosaur blueprint might have helped these paleontologists with firsthand access to the specimens discover the issues they missed.

It’s good to know
more pterosaurs made it to the latest Cretaceous.

References
Bennett SC 1991. Morphology of the Late Cretaceous Pterosaur Pteranodon and Systematics of the Pterodactyloidea. [Volumes I & II]. Ph.D. thesis, University of Kansas, University Microfilms International/ProQuest.
Bennett SC 1992.
 Sexual dimorphism of Pteranodon and other pterosaurs, with comments on cranial crests. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 12: 422–434.
Longrich NR, Martill DM, Andres B 2018.
Late Maastrichtian pterosaurs from North Africa and mass extinction of Pterosauria at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. PLoS Biol 16(3): e2001663. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001663
Peters D 2000b. 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. In D. Hone ed. Flugsaurier. The Wellnhofer pterosaur meeting, 2007, Munich, Germany. p. 27.

Press coverage
Smithsonian
Newswise
PhysOrg