What did the rest of Microtuban look like?

According to
the large pterosaur tree (LPT, 271 taxa) what little is known of Microtuban (Fig 1, Elgin and Frey 2011) most closely matches the unnamed specimen JME-Sos 2428 the first flightless pterosaur identified (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Microtuban wing compared to scale with the unnamed flightless pterosaur, SOS2428. ” data-image-caption=”

Figure 1. Microtuban wing compared to scale with the unnamed flightless pterosaur, SOS2428.

” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sos2428.jpg?w=290″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sos2428.jpg?w=584″ tabindex=”0″ role=”button” class=”size-full wp-image-87986″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sos2428.jpg” alt=”Figure 1. Microtuban wing compared to scale with the unnamed flightless pterosaur, SOS2428.” width=”584″ height=”604″ />

Figure 1. Microtuban wing compared to scale with the unnamed flightless pterosaur, SOS2428. The humerus is larger in Microtuban. Wing phalanx 4 is smaller in Microtuban. The manual unguals are large in Microtuban. The length of the antebrachium in Microtuban is estimated.

Wing phalanx 4 is the giveaway.
As in all flightless pterosaurs it is tiny, a vestige (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Vestigial wing phalanges 4 and 5 are shown here to scale with fingers 1–3 and 2x scale. ” data-image-caption=”

Figure 2. Vestigial wing phalanges 4 and 5 are shown here to scale with fingers 1–3 and 2x scale.

” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/microtuban-fingers588.jpg?w=189″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/microtuban-fingers588.jpg?w=584″ tabindex=”0″ role=”button” class=”size-full wp-image-87988″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/microtuban-fingers588.jpg” alt=”Figure 2. Vestigial wing phalanges 4 and 5 are shown here to scale with fingers 1–3 and 2x scale.” width=”584″ height=”927″ />

Figure 2. Vestigial wing phalanges 4 and 5 are shown here to scale with fingers 1–3 and 2x scale.

Compared to JME Sos 2428
The humerus is larger in Microtuban. Wing phalanx 4 is smaller in Microtuban (Fig 1). The manual unguals are large in Microtuban. The length of the antebrachium in Microtuban is estimated due to taphonomic breakage. Both pre-azhdarchid pterosaurs in the LRT.

Elgin and Frey 2011
did not mention flightlessness. They considered Microtuban “the most complete pterosaur yet discovered from the African plate” though headless, crushed and with broken legs. “The specimen was purchased by the SMNK from a fossil dealer with local contacts and thus the exact provenance of the specimen is uncertain and worthy of discussion.”

Ontogeny
Elgin and Frey reported, “The identification of unfused sutures in the skeleton, and the sequence in which they occur, has proven useful to determine the morphological age of a variety of archosauromorphs (Brochu 1995, 1996; Irmis 2007), included pterosaurs (e.g., Bennett 1993; Kellner and Tomida 2000).

This is outdated thinking as of Peters 2007 who nested pterosaurs and tanystropheids with lepidosaurs like Huehuecuetzpalli.

“While Bennett (1993) further noted an immature bone grain, and pitting about the articular extremities as being indicative of osteological immaturity in pterosaurs, the bone grain of M. altivolans appears to be well developed.”

This is also outdated thinking. Lepidosaur fusion patterns are phylogenetic, not ontogenetic according to Maisano 2002a,b) and the LRT and LPT.

“Immaturity is however indicated by the lack of skeletal fusion where the cervical and thoracic ribs are separate from their respective vertebrae, the scapula and coracoid have no formed a scapulocoracoid, and the presence of a large suture between the extensor tendon process and the first wing-finger phalanx. As such the animal did not live to a late ontogenetic state and is inferred as being juvenile or sub-adult.”

This is also outdated thinking. Lepidosaur fusion patterns are phylogenetic, not ontogenetic according to Maisano 2002a,b) and the LRT and LPT.
Add taxa to find this out for yourself.

Phylogeny
Elgin and Frey reported, “The phylogenetic placement of M. altivolans within the Azhdarchoidea therefore remains uncertain and while postcranial characteristics support the erection of a new genus within either the Thalassodromidae (Witton 2009) or
Chaoyangopteridae (Lu¨ et al. 2008), no more specific a diagnosis can, or should, be reliably made at this time.”

The SOS2428 specimen (Fig 1) was not mentioned nor tested.

Aerodynamics
Elgin and Frey reported, “The biomechanical reasoning behind the extreme reduction or loss of the fourth phalanx remains uncertain but must have been linked to either the aerodynamic forces acting on the distal section of the wing, and the subsequent deformation of the leading edge spar/membrane, or acted as one possible means of lowering the overall aspect ratio.”

Flightlessness was likewise not mentioned. These authors mistakenly believed in the bat-wing, deep chord wing membrane hypothesis, which is not found in any fossil, but was presented by them and their co-author (Elgin, Frey and Hone 2011). Whenever a narrow chord wing membrane was reported, which was always, they attributed that to postmortem ‘shrinkage’. Some myths take a long time to die. Especially if they reside in current university textbooks.

The authors concluded,
“The hyper-reduction without loss of the fourth wing-finger phalanx within M. altivolans indicates that this feature was present throughout the Azhdarchoidea and was not solely restricted to the largest azhdarchids.”

Not true. A specimen-by-specimen examination and analysis is needed
– not a broad guess.

You might be surprised how much taxon exclusion, like this, affects so many aspects of paleontology. The LRT and LPT are here to minimize it.

Years ago,
Dr David Hone reviewed and rejected the manuscript for the “First flightless pterosaur”. His only comment was, “the author didn’t look at the specimen long enough.” That’s when I knew my traditional publishing days were over. Since then no one has published on this specimen. That turned out to be unfortunate for Elgin and Frey in 2011, who then lacked a closely comparable fossil.

Figure this out for yourself. Go visit specimens. Trace using DGS methods to untangle roadkill fossils.

Remember this fact: Science, especially paleontology, goes through a human filter.
Workers are terrified to venture beyond what they think their colleagues, acting as referees, will accept. And yes, I’m still learning and making corrections = housekeeping.

References
Elgin and Frey 2011. A new azhdarchoid pterosaur from the Cenomian (Late Cretaceous) of Lebanon. Swiss Journal of Geoscience. DOI 10.1007/s00015-011-0081-1
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
Maisano JA 2002a. The potential utility of postnatal skeletal developmental patterns in squamate phylogenetics. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22:82A.
Maisano JA 2002b.Terminal fusions of skeletal elements as indicators of maturity in squamates. Journal of Vertebrae Paleontology 22: 268–275.
Peters D 2007. The origin and radiation of the Pterosauria. In D. Hone ed. Flugsaurier. The Wellnhofer pterosaur meeting, 2007, Munich, Germany. p. 27.

wiki/Microtuban