Lacking a phylogenetic analysis authors describe ‘allometry’ in the pterosaur Rhamphorhynchus

Cequieria et al 2026 opted out
of a traditionally required phylogenetic analysis and dived head-first into statistics. Thus they made the same mistake that Bennett made several years ago with his Pteranodon studies. The authors assumed their 127 specimens were conspecific, so differences were attributed to ontogeny. This followed the same myth other academics have followed uncritically.

The authors also made statistical comparisons to other pterosaur clades.
No outgroups were specified for any pterosaur clade.

Don’t put your fingers on your keyboard
anticipating building a manuscript and figures until AFTER performing a phylogenetic analysis.

In a competing study
Peters 2018 ran a phylogenetic analysis and recovered a cladogram that showed small adult Rhamphorhynchus specimens evolved from small adult Campylognathoides specimens. Thereafter variation took over. No two tested taxa scored the same – except for a mid-sized specimen and one of the two so-called ‘giants’ – thereby establishing only one juvenile-adult interrelationship among the tested taxa. The rest of the 200+ tested pterosaur specimens were lumped and split into distinct species and clades.

Remember, embryos and hatchlings had adult proportions, only 8x smaller. This demonstrates isometry, not allometry in pterosaurs. This follows the growth pattern of the lepidosaur, Huehuecuetzpalli, a late-surviving (Cretaceous) ancestor to the entire tanystropheid clade, which includes pterosaurs.

The opening sentence of Cequieria et al 2026
spelled doom for this paper, “Pterosauria was a clade of flying archosaurs…” The authors had license to make this mistake because their academic referees were likewise making that same mistake – all due to taxon exclusion = lack of curiosity to test competing analyses, citations and taxon lists. We’ve known better since 2007.

Archosaurs do demonstrate allometry during growth.
Lepidosaurs demonstrate isometry. That fact is what makes separating juveniles from small adult pterosaurs possible.

The authors reported,
“The measurements were obtained from direct access to specimens, literature, and photographs.”

In the old days direct access to specimens was the only data permitted. I’m glad to see authors, editors and referees have adopted a less restrictive attitude nowadays. The paper is richly provided with relatively hi-rez color photographs of familiar specimens.

The authors reported,
“Collectively, these results highlight that, while most elements in R. muensteri scale isometrically, the forelimb elements exhibit contrasting allometric patterns, with the wing phalanges elongating disproportionately whereas the proximal forelimb elements exhibit more conservative scaling relationships.”

A phylogenetic analysis would have also scored skull details and proportions, along with other elements from teeth to fingers to toes to tail.

The authors’ figure 12
includes a VERY simple cladogram of 4 branches with the suprageneric clade “Lagerpetidae” as the outgroup.

Again, the authors felt they had license to spread this myth and it was approved by the editors and referees.

The authors concluded,
“Overall, these findings emphasize the functional significance of skeletal allometry in shaping the diversity of flight behaviors and paleoecological roles within Pterosauria. The results also demonstrate that variation in skeletal allometric patterns may influence the phylogeny of the group, underscoring the importance of incorporating allometric analyses into phylogenetic studies. These findings provide new insights into the evolutionary trajectories of pterosaur anatomy, contributing to more accurate phylogenetic reconstructions.”

Did you learn anything from this conclusion? I did not. Seems like ‘make work’ to me. There are many problems to tackle in paleontology. This is not one of them.

If the authors were serious
about ‘contributing to more accurate phylogenetic reconstructions’, whatever that means, perhaps they should have 1. Considered running a phylogenetic analysis and 2. Provided a few accurate specimen reconstructions demonstrating allometry, isometry or whatever their results indicated. Freehand drawings and in situ photos will not do.

If you find yourself chiding academics
for not testing their assumptions with analyses and precise reconstructions, I understand your predicament and frustration. Given the present evidence, today’s young pterosaur experts are being steered into traditions and myths for the purpose of increasing their publication count and supporting the long-established business model based on out-of-date textbooks and lectures.

‘Publish or perish’ is restricted to Academia with its peer-group and mentor/advisor pressures. That includes the pressures put on the advisors to keep the students interested and busy – and not discovering something, anything that upsets the status quo.

As an independent researcher,
I don’t have those – or any other pressures. I’m just here to learn and tell you what I’ve learned. In 2026, as in 2000, it remains better to be independent, able to follow clues, study specimens, and reach logical conclusions that can be falsified, supported or modified.

Having 6 co-authors, some of whom, are advisors/professors in charge of assignments and funding, did not help in this case.

All my papers were single-author. That shows it can be done.

References
Cequieria GM et al (6 co-authors) 2026. Allometric patterns in Rhamphorhynchus muensteri and their role in the paleoecology, life habits, and taxonomic framework of pterosaurs. Journal of Anatomy.   DOI: 10.1111/joa.70146 Available now at researchgate.net/

Peters D 2018. First juvenile Rhamphorhynchus recovered by phylogenentic analysis.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28636.03206 Available now at esearchgate.net

Source: https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2026/05/08/lacking-a-phylogenetic-analysis-authors-describe-allometry-in-the-pterosaur-rhamphorhynchus/