Naish and Martill 2003, 2005 promoted pterosaur myths that continue today
Recently uploaded to ResearchGate.net
two PDFs by Darren Naish and David Martill (both U of Portsmouth, UK) report on what we knew of pterosaurs at that time. Let’s see what they had to say some twenty years ago during a ‘surge on interest.’
“Prominent muscle attachment sites
on the arm, shoulder and chest bones show that pterosaurs were active ‘flappers’.” Elephants have ‘prominient muscle attachment sites’. What pterosaurs have that birds share is an elongate, locked-down coracoid. Bats substitute and similar clavicle. Elephants lack this trait. Naish and Martill did not know this. Such coracoids develop when the forelimbs stop moving left-right-left and start moving simultaneously, as in flapping. That can only happen in a biped, as in theropods transitioning to birds, or in bipedal lizards transitioning to pterosaurs (Peters 2000, Fig 5). Naish and Martill did not know this.
“Notably, there is little indication
that pterosaurs radiated as small forms of terrestrial environments, as both birds and bats did. In fact, pterosaurs seem to have been analogues of seabirds.” Tell that to the tiny Solnhofen pterosaurs, no larger than the bee hummingbird. Otherwise, Bergamodactylus (Fig 5), the basal-most pterosaur in the LRT and LPT was long-legged, like Sharovipteryx and Longisquama, so was more like a plover than a seabird.
“Wellnhofer is almost single-handedly responsible
for the present surge in interest in pterosaurs.” Unfortunately their next sentence undercuts this statement: “Significantly, Wellnhofer’s impetus coincided with new discoveries made in China, Kazakhstan, South America and elsewhere.”
Add to that, Wellnhofer promoted all the then current myths.
Add to that, Peters 1995, 2000a, b, 2002) were providing new (unwelcome) solutions.
Naish and Martill preferred the traditional myths rather than anything new.
Figure 1. Basal pterosaur wing membranes based on the Sordes illusion, from Bakhurina and Unwin (2004).
” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bakhurina-unwin-2004-sordes.jpg?w=300″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bakhurina-unwin-2004-sordes.jpg?w=584″ class=”size-full wp-image-10626″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bakhurina-unwin-2004-sordes.jpg” alt=”Figure 1. Basal pterosaur wing membranes based on the Sordes illusion, from Bakhurina and Unwin (2004).” width=”584″ height=”414″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bakhurina-unwin-2004-sordes.jpg?w=584&h=414 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bakhurina-unwin-2004-sordes.jpg?w=150&h=106 150w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bakhurina-unwin-2004-sordes.jpg?w=300&h=213 300w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bakhurina-unwin-2004-sordes.jpg 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />
Figure 1. Basal pterosaur wing membranes based on the Sordes illusion, from Bakhurina and Unwin (2004).
The authors figure 1
(Fig 1) showed a schematic of Sordes with deep chord wing membrane attached to the ankle and a uropatatgium stretched between the lateral pedal digit.
This is wrong. Peters 1995 (Fig 2) used the same data to show a shallow chord wing membrane, as in all other pterosaur fossils. Sordes is a roadkill smeared by events.
Figure 1. Sordes interpreted by me in Nature 1995. At that time. remember, no one had ever heard of a uropatagium. And the purported “fact” that this flap of skin spanned the hind limbs without connecting to the tail seemed pretty hard to swallow for a majority of paleontologists. The only images available were small and indistinct. Even so, an attempt was made here to understand the taphonomy of the specimen and how it came to sport such a strange autapomorphy that has not been seen since on any pterosaur fossil. Despite the sincerity of this effort, it includes several mistakes rectified now in ReptileEvolution.com/sordes.htm after publication of the specimen in a larger format with higher resolution.
” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/petes-1995-reinterpretation-wing-shape-in-sordes-july-2012-tiny.jpg?w=300″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/petes-1995-reinterpretation-wing-shape-in-sordes-july-2012-tiny.jpg?w=584″ class=”size-full wp-image-6510″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/petes-1995-reinterpretation-wing-shape-in-sordes-july-2012-tiny.jpg” alt=”" width=”584″ height=”373″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/petes-1995-reinterpretation-wing-shape-in-sordes-july-2012-tiny.jpg?w=584&h=373 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/petes-1995-reinterpretation-wing-shape-in-sordes-july-2012-tiny.jpg?w=150&h=96 150w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/petes-1995-reinterpretation-wing-shape-in-sordes-july-2012-tiny.jpg?w=300&h=192 300w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/petes-1995-reinterpretation-wing-shape-in-sordes-july-2012-tiny.jpg 600w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />
Figure 2. Sordes interpreted by me in Nature 1995. At that time. remember, no one had ever heard of a uropatagium. And the purported “fact” that this flap of skin spanned the hind limbs without connecting to the tail seemed pretty hard to swallow for a majority of paleontologists. The only images available were small and indistinct. Even so, an attempt was made here to understand the taphonomy of the specimen and how it came to sport such a strange autapomorphy that has not been seen since on any pterosaur fossil. Despite the sincerity of this effort, it includes several mistakes rectified now in ReptileEvolution.com/sordes.htm after publication of the specimen in a larger format with higher resolution.
Giving a nod to Padian 1983, the authors wrote,
“A paradigm shift in pterosaur palaeobiology, instigated during the 1980s by Kevin Padian of the University of California, also played a major part in renewing interest in pterosaurs.” (See notes on Wellnhofer above). “Based on perceived similarities of the pterosaur hindlimb and pelvis with that of cursorial (ground-running) dinosaurs and birds, Padian proposed that pterosaurs were capable bipeds; that they were close kin of dinosaurs; and that pterosaur wing membranes were narrow and did not incorporate the hindlimb.”
?Perceived similarities? Kids, that’s a not-so-subtle undercut (see below). Most of the above turns out to be correct, sans the kinship with dinosaurs.
Figure 3. Pterodactylus walking through the Crayssac tracks animated, in a manner contra the claims of Naish and Martill. The line drrawing diagram in gray shows Bennett’s interpretation, the one followed by Naish and Martill.
“Recent analyses of evidence for these claims,
combined with new data, better support claims for quadrupedality and extensive wing membranes. Pterosaur hindlimbs are not suited for bipedality or cursoriality; new, articulated specimens and abundant trackways reveal that pterosaurs were plantigrade quadrupeds, ill suited for fast running; and wing membranes, preserved under exceptional conditions, reveal attachment of the brachiopatagia to the shin or ankle.”
This is wrong. See the animation in figure 3 and the wing membranes in figure 2.
Figure 2. The flightless pterosaur, Sos 2428, along with two ancestral taxa, both fully volant. Note the reduction of the wing AND the expansion of the torso. We don’t know the torso of Q. northropi. It could be small or it could be very large.
” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/evolution-of-flightless-pterosaurs.jpg?w=300″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/evolution-of-flightless-pterosaurs.jpg?w=584″ class=”size-full wp-image-15583″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/evolution-of-flightless-pterosaurs.jpg” alt=”Figure 2. The flightless pterosaur, Sos 2428, along with two ancestral taxa, both fully volant. Note the reduction of the wing AND the expansion of the torso. We don’t know the torso of Q. northropi. It could be small or it could be very large.” width=”584″ height=”495″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/evolution-of-flightless-pterosaurs.jpg?w=584&h=495 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/evolution-of-flightless-pterosaurs.jpg?w=150&h=127 150w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/evolution-of-flightless-pterosaurs.jpg?w=300&h=254 300w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/evolution-of-flightless-pterosaurs.jpg 718w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />
Figure 4. The flightless pterosaur, Sos 2428, along with two ancestral taxa, both fully volant. Note the reduction of the wing AND the expansion of the torso. We don’t know the torso of Q. northropi. It could be small or it could be very large.
“Pterosaur hindlimb lengths also correlate with forelimb lengths and, so far as we know, pterosaurs never lost the ability to fly.”
This is wrong. See figure 4. Meet the first flightless pterosaur here.
Figure 1. The evolution of the pterosaur tail beginning with a basal lizard, Huehuecuetzpalli.
” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cosesaurustail.jpg?w=162″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cosesaurustail.jpg?w=554″ class=”size-full wp-image-8690″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cosesaurustail.jpg” alt=”The evolution of the pterosaur tail beginning with a basal lizard, Huehuecuetzpalli.” width=”584″ height=”1079″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cosesaurustail.jpg?w=584&h=1079 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cosesaurustail.jpg?w=81&h=150 81w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cosesaurustail.jpg?w=162&h=300 162w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cosesaurustail.jpg 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />
Figure 5. The evolution of the pterosaur tail beginning with a basal lizard, Huehuecuetzpalli. MPUM 6009 is Bergamodactylus. Blue areas are caudofemoralis muscles.
“New phylogenetic studies indicate that pterosaurs did not descend from dinosaur-like cursorial bipeds, but from more basal quadrupedal, climbing reptiles, though the exact ancestry of pterosaurs still remains controversial.”
True. Pterosaurs are not related to Dinosaurs.
This is wrong. Pterosaurs did not descend from quadrupedal climbing reptiles, but from cursorial bipeds (Padian 1983, Peters 2000), convergent with birds. See figure 5. Naish and Martill omitted pertinent taxa and citations, which is what academics do.
“Basal pterosaurs exhibit: a dorsoventrally shallow body [not true see figure 5]; sharply curved hand and foot claws [true for hands, not for feet see figure 5]; feet in which the penultimate phalanges are longest [not true in Bergamodactylus digit 4] ; and sesamoids on the extensor surfaces of either the hand or foot.” [not true in Bergamodactylus].
Naish and Martill ignore the major elements of basal pterosaurs and focus on tiny sesamoids on EITHER the hand or foot. They’re not sure which. See Peters 2002.
“Ctenochasmatoids include Pterodactylus and an array of Late Jurassic and Cretaceous forms with needle-like meshes of teeth, presumably employed in filter-feeding.”
This is wrong. Ctenochasma is not related to Pterodactylus in the LPT.
“Surprisingly, recent studies indicate that Cearadactylus, a large predatory ctenochasmatoid, named in 1985, is nested within this clade of filter-feeders.”
This is wrong. Cearadactylus is an ornithocheird in the LPT.
“This implies both the evolution of giant size within the clade and of a cranial morphology and dentition equipped to deal with bigger prey than those favoured by other ctenochasmatoids: something akin to a sea eagle evolving from a spoonbill.”
This is wrong. Naish and Martill doubled down on a dubious hypothesis and did not follow their gut to test this proposal that seemed untenable even to them when they wrote about a “sea eagle evolving from a spoonbill.”
“Frey et al. (2001) found that the ornithocheiroid condition [relatively high wing anchor on the torso] is a ‘stable’ wing configuration, well suited for soaring, while the azhdarchid condition [low, level with the sternum] is ‘unstable’, permitting more manoeuvrability.”
Azhdarchids were flightless due to the reduced = clipped wing tips, which enabled giantism, which closed the door to flight, as in giant flightless birds.
Naish and Martill remind us,
“The occurrence of a crest so near the base of the pterosaur family tree [in Austriadactylus] implies a strong genetic tendency for evolution of these ‘luxury’ organs.”
Not sure I would call a crest an ‘organ‘. It’s more of a decoration, a bump or a expansion. In any case, Cosesaurus (Fig 5) had a soft-tissue crest preceding Austriadactylus. In pterosaurs wings were ‘luxury’ organs, too, until they became standard on all.
“In some recent reviews of fossil reptile physiology, some authors have argued that pterosaurs lacked body hair. However, such views are misinformed and pterosaur hair is certainly present in forms both large and small.”
Those ‘recent reviews’ were uncited by Naish and Martill 2003.
“At least some pterosaur fossils reveal the presence of webbing between the three free fingers of the hand. This confirms a controversial reconstruction of the pterosaur wing, where the free fingers support a propatagium, more extensive than that depicted conventionally (Frey and Riess, 1981).”
This is wrong. Unfortunately this freshman mistake had to be debunked by an amateur enthusiast (Peters 2009) 18 years later. Pterosaur experts, like Naish and Martill, had plenty of time to publish on this mistake earlier, and since then, but failed to do so.
Moving ahead two years later, Naish and Martill 2005 reported,
“wing membranes may have initially evolved as signalling devices.”
This was first reported by Peters 2002, left uncited in Naish and Martill.
“The lack of a definite ‘proto-pterosaur’ has made it difficult to understand pterosaur origins, although some possible contenders have been described (see below).”
Peters 2000b provided three ‘proto-pterosaurs’ recovered by three phylogenetic analyses, but this paper was not cited by Naish and Martill.
“An array of primitive pterosaurs had mostly died out by the end of the Jurassic but, by
this time, the advanced pterosaur group, the Pterodactyloidea, had evolved.”
This is wrong. The LPT shows the pterodactyloid-grade evolved 5x. Add taxa to find this out for yourself.
“the pteroid was probably mobile and used to control the attitude of the propatagium.”
This is wrong. The pteroid was immobile and formed the leading edge of the proptagium, as in birds (Peters 2002, 2009), helping to prevent over-extension as well.
“The coracoids attach to an enlarged keeled sternum that anchored most of the major flight muscles.”
Pterosaurs had a sternal complex (Wild 1993) composed of overlapped sternum interclavicle and clavicle. Pterosaur experts should know this. Many don’t.
Figure 5. Origin and evolution of the prepubis in tritosaurs.
” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/prepubes588.jpg?w=300″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/prepubes588.jpg?w=584″ class=”size-full wp-image-49149″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/prepubes588.jpg” alt=”Figure 5. Origin and evolution of the prepubis in tritosaurs.” width=”584″ height=”294″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/prepubes588.jpg?w=584&h=294 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/prepubes588.jpg?w=150&h=76 150w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/prepubes588.jpg?w=300&h=151 300w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/prepubes588.jpg 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />
Figure 6. Origin and evolution of the prepubis in tritosaurs.
“Pterosaurs have a pair of unique rod- or plate-like bones called the prepubes projecting forwards from the bottom of the pelvis.”
Not unique. Pterosaur ancestors also had prepubes (Fig 6).
“Like the gastralia (‘belly ribs’) that all pterosaurs possessed, they may have helped support the gut or keep the abdomen rigid.”
This is wrong. Prepubes anchored femoral muscles, a necessary transfer because the traditional anchors on the caudals and chevrons were disappearing.
“Because of the twisted end of the fourth metacarpal, the wing finger would have lain parallel to the body’s long axis when thewing was folded up.
This is wrong. The wing finger would have lain parallel to the ulna + radius, in the plane of the wing for folding, as in birds. This axial rotation that prevented ventral flexion was first reported by Peters 2002, uncited.
“The pterosaur hind limb is lightly built and the head of the femur is only slightly offset from the long axis of the shaft.”
Sometimes. Sometimes not. See Dimorphodon, for instance.
BTW, that observation by Naish and Martill makes the femur more lepidosaur-like, less dinosaur-like.
“During flight, the hind limb was probably held in a bat-like orientation and could have been used to control the shape of the wing membranes.”
This is wrong. Naish and Martill ignored the literature (Peters 2002 and citations therein) that showed the wing was stretched between the wing tip and elbow.
Figure 4. Click to enlarge. Cosesaurus and Rotodactylus, a perfect match. Elevate the proximal phalanges along with the metatarsus, bend back digit 5 and Cosesaurus (left) fits perfectly into Rotodactylus (right).
” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/cosesaurus-rotodactylus.jpg?w=297″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/cosesaurus-rotodactylus.jpg?w=300″ class=”size-full wp-image-1147″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/cosesaurus-rotodactylus.jpg” alt=”Cosesaurus and Rotodactylus, a perfect match.” width=”300″ height=”303″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/cosesaurus-rotodactylus.jpg 300w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/cosesaurus-rotodactylus.jpg?w=297&h=300 297w” sizes=”(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px” />
Figure 7. Cosesaurus and Rotodactylus, a perfect match. Elevate the proximal phalanges along with the metatarsus, bend back digit 5 and Cosesaurus (left) fits perfectly into Rotodactylus (right).
“Basal pterosaurs are five-toed, with a prominent curving fifth digit that is hooked towards the tail.”
Not toward the tail. Impressions in the matrix of Rotodactylus tracks show this (Fig 7).
“An articulated Dimorphodon
foot shows, however, that only limited motion was possible at the metatarsophalangeal joint, thus
supporting a plantigrade posture.”
This is wrong. Peters 2000a (Fig 7) showed the proximal phalanges were all elevated in Cosesaurus and basal pterosaurs, like Dimorphodon. Only the distal phalanges contacted the substrate, as in birds, in these digitigrade basal pterosaurs. Later, derived beachcombing pterosaurs evolved flat feet. In the absence of ichnites, PILs help segregate one configuration from another. Naish and Martill kept this a secret.
“The presence of a distinctive bone texture on the pterosaur snout, jaw, and palate indicates that pterosaurs were beaked.”
This is wrong. Pterosaurs with teeth do not have beaks = toothless jaws.
“A membrane called the propatagium extended from the shoulder to the pteroid and perhaps distally to encompass the first three fingers.”
Not to encompass the first three fingers. That never happened.
“The main flight membrane, the brachiopatagium (also called the cheiropatagium), extended from the tip of the wing finger to the hind limb, extending as far distally as the knee, shin, or ankle.”
This is wrong. No pterosaur has this Bauplan (Peters 1995, 2002, not cited). See Fig 1.
“Another membrane, the uropatagium, was present between the hind limbs.” See Fig 1.
This is wrong. No pterosaur has this Bauplan (Peters 1995, 2002, not cited).
“The presence of an antorbital fenestra has conventionally meant that pterosaurs have been regarded as archosaurs, the so-called ruling reptile group that incorporates crocodilians, dinosaurs, and kin. Among archosaurs, pterosaurs share a simple hingelike
ankle joint with dinosaurs and consequently have been regarded as close relatives of dinosaurs in most studies.”
This is wrong. Peters 2000b (not cited) showed that other taxa, like Cosesaurus, Sharovipteryx and Longisquama, shared these traits by convergence.
“A small bipedal, long-legged archosaur from Late Triassic Scotland, Scleromochlus, was argued to be a pterosaur ancestor, but recent studies refute this idea.”
That ‘recent study’ was Peters 2000b.
On a side note, Naish don’t cite the author of the Scleromochlus paper, Benton 1999. That 1999 fad was refuted in Peters 2000.
“An alternative hypothesis argues that pterosaurs belong instead to a group of archosaur-like diapsids, the Prolacertiformes.”
That ‘alternative hypothesis’ was Peters 2000b, uncited.
“It [Sharovipteryx] has pterosaur-like hind limbs and vertebrae and membranes between its hind limbs and tail.”
As everyone knows, those membranes trail each hind limb, not between.
“climbing features and of various details in the hind limb and pelvis indicative of a leaping ability suggest that pterosaurs first evolved as tree-climbing leapers.”
Naish and Martill are closing in on the truth here, but remain steadfast that pterosaurs were not bipedal, even during leaping.
“Perhaps the most basal pterosaur is Preondactylus from the Late Triassic of Italy. This form has a shorter coracoid and humerus and longer legs than other pterosaurs.”
Preondactylus was not a bad cherry-picked guess. The LRT and LPT do not depend on cherry-picked taxa, but recover all tested taxa based on their interrelationship with all other tested taxa going back to Ediacaran worms.
“differing crest shapes seen in various genera, most notably Pteranodon, are suggestive of sexual dimorphism. Individuals with large, long crests are inferred males and those with small, short crests are inferred females. This is supported by the pelvic structure, as small-crested individuals have wider pelvic canals than large-crested individuals.”
This is wrong. Larger crests belong to more derived species. Smaller crested specimens were phylogenetically closer to small-crested germanodactylids. The pelvic structure of Nyctosaurus is deeper and wider than in Pteranodon. Simple mistake.
“Virtually nothing is known about pterosaur reproduction, and eggs and nests are unknown.”
The IVPP embryo pterosaur was described a year earlier by Wang and Zhou 2004. The time between submission and publication must be responsible for this mis-statement.
Figure 10. Quetzalcoatlus running like a lizard prior to takeoff. Click to animate.
” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/quetzalcoatlus72running588.gif?w=300″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/quetzalcoatlus72running588.gif?w=584″ class=”size-full wp-image-1036″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/quetzalcoatlus72running588.gif” alt=”Quetzalcoatlus running like a lizard prior to takeoff.” width=”584″ height=”357″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/quetzalcoatlus72running588.gif?w=584&h=357 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/quetzalcoatlus72running588.gif?w=150&h=92 150w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/quetzalcoatlus72running588.gif?w=300&h=183 300w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/quetzalcoatlus72running588.gif 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />
Figure 8. Quetzalcoatlus running like a lizard prior to takeoff. Click to animate.
“How pterosaurs took off is mysterious given that they were probably not proficient
runners.”
Mistakes made by experts like Unwin, Martill and Naish are the reason why these authors think pterosaurs were not proficient runners. How they took off is easy (Fig 9). They were like birds.
FIgure 8. Dimorphodon take off (with the new small tail).
” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/dimorphodon-leap3.gif?w=300″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/dimorphodon-leap3.gif?w=584″ class=”size-full wp-image-29094″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/dimorphodon-leap3.gif” alt=”FIgure 8. Dimorphodon take off (with the new small tail).” width=”584″ height=”438″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/dimorphodon-leap3.gif?w=584&h=438 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/dimorphodon-leap3.gif?w=150&h=113 150w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/dimorphodon-leap3.gif?w=300&h=225 300w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/dimorphodon-leap3.gif 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />
FIgure 9. Dimorphodon take off (with the new small tail).
“Small forms may have leapt from trees, rocks, or cliffs, while larger kinds may have relied on headwinds and updraughts.”
This enfeebling statement by Naish and Martill oddly comes shortly after they reported, “Although pterosaurs were imagined in the past as weak gliders, largely unable to flap, the evidence for substantial wing muscles… indicates that even the biggest forms were powerful flappers.” Their statement demonstrates the debilitating strength of tradition, paradigm and university teaching.
“Dubbed Pteraichnus, these tracks support the view of pterosaurs as plantigrade quadrupeds.”
This statement comes five years after Peters 2000a (not cited) showed that only beachcombing pterosaurs were quadrupedal and plantigrade. Basal taxa and many derived forms were digitigrade, like their digitigrade ancestors (Figs 5, 7).
“However, although at least some pterosaurs seem to have been quadrupeds, it is still not certain that this was the case for all of them.”
Nice way to end a paper. “Still not certain.”
The world of pterosaurs for paleontologists.
like Darren Naish and David Martill, include many vacuums of knowledge like this. For reasons known only to them, they prefer it that way. They are not interested in filling these vacuums of knowledge. Otherwise they would have done so in the last 25 years.
Editorial comment:
My disappointment with pterosaur workers, like Naish and Martill, grows with every day they don’t test to confirm, refute or modify competing hypotheses. Or build new hypotheses that can withsand competing hypotheses and Wellnhofer traditions. Or apologize for papers full of errors and omissions, like Naish and Martill 2003, 2005.
If you want to test any published paper, just follow the scientific method.
References
Benton MJ 1999. Scleromochlus taylori and the origin of dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, Series B 354 1423-1446. pdf
Frey E and Riess J 1981. A new reconstruction of the pterosaur wing. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 161, 1–27.
Frey E, Buchy M-C and Martill D M 2001. ‘Schulter’ and ‘Tiefdecker’ in pterosaurs continued: surprising consequences for flying and walking. Strata Série 1, 11, 39.
Naish D and Martill DM 2003. Pterosaurs – a successful invasion of prehistoric skies. Biologist 50 (5):213–216.
Naish D and Martill DM 2005. Fossil Vertebrates / Flying Reptiles. In Encyclopedia of Geology, 2005.
Padian K 1983. A functional analysis of flying and walking in pterosaurs. Paleobiology, 9, 218–239.
Peters D 1995. Wing Shape in Pterosaurs Nature 374: 315–316.
Peters D 2000a. Description and Interpretation of Interphalangeal Lines in Tetrapods
Ichnos, 7: 11-41.
Peters D 2000b. A redescription of four prolacertiform genera and implications for pterosaur phylogenesis. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 106: 293-336
Peters D 2002. A New Model for the Evolution of the Pterosaur Wing – with a twist.
Historical Biology 15: 277-301.
Peters D 2009. A Reinterpretation of Pteroid Articulation in Pterosaurs – Short Communication. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29(4):1327–1330,
Wang X-L and Zhou Z 2004. Palaeontology: pterosaur embryo from the Early Cretaceous. Nature 429: 623.
Wild R 1993. A juvenile specimen of Eudimorphodon ranzii Zambelli (Reptilia, Pterosauria) from the upper Triassic (Norian) of Bergamo. Rivisita Museo Civico di Scienze Naturali “E. Caffi” Bergamo 16: 95–120.
Source: https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2024/12/11/naish-and-martill-2003-2005-promoted-pterosaur-myths-that-continue-today/
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world. Anyone can join. Anyone can contribute. Anyone can become informed about their world. "United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
LION'S MANE PRODUCT
Try Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend 60 Capsules
Mushrooms are having a moment. One fabulous fungus in particular, lion’s mane, may help improve memory, depression and anxiety symptoms. They are also an excellent source of nutrients that show promise as a therapy for dementia, and other neurodegenerative diseases. If you’re living with anxiety or depression, you may be curious about all the therapy options out there — including the natural ones.Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend has been formulated to utilize the potency of Lion’s mane but also include the benefits of four other Highly Beneficial Mushrooms. Synergistically, they work together to Build your health through improving cognitive function and immunity regardless of your age. Our Nootropic not only improves your Cognitive Function and Activates your Immune System, but it benefits growth of Essential Gut Flora, further enhancing your Vitality.
Our Formula includes: Lion’s Mane Mushrooms which Increase Brain Power through nerve growth, lessen anxiety, reduce depression, and improve concentration. Its an excellent adaptogen, promotes sleep and improves immunity. Shiitake Mushrooms which Fight cancer cells and infectious disease, boost the immune system, promotes brain function, and serves as a source of B vitamins. Maitake Mushrooms which regulate blood sugar levels of diabetics, reduce hypertension and boosts the immune system. Reishi Mushrooms which Fight inflammation, liver disease, fatigue, tumor growth and cancer. They Improve skin disorders and soothes digestive problems, stomach ulcers and leaky gut syndrome. Chaga Mushrooms which have anti-aging effects, boost immune function, improve stamina and athletic performance, even act as a natural aphrodisiac, fighting diabetes and improving liver function. Try Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend 60 Capsules Today. Be 100% Satisfied or Receive a Full Money Back Guarantee. Order Yours Today by Following This Link.
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,659,133,882 |
| Stories: | 8,303,996 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
