tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post7167389549783913293..comments2023-12-24T07:02:43.274+08:00Comments on Catalogue of Organisms: The Ornithocheirids: Misunderstood GiantsChristopher Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-88546723621362806552012-01-19T22:09:30.159+11:002012-01-19T22:09:30.159+11:00Well the vast majority of pterosaurs are either ma...Well the vast majority of pterosaurs are either massively incomplete, or flat and 2D. I can think of only a handful of specimens that are mostly complete and in 3D, so this is an issue no matter how you cut the pterosaur cake. Ludodactylus is much better than most since it's actually pseudo 3-D and the preservation is exquisite as you can see here: http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/ludodactylus/#more-1830Dave Honehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15154020254590603978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-69738456353508604422012-01-19T11:30:46.038+11:002012-01-19T11:30:46.038+11:00The Martill & Unwin (2011) paper that I cited ...The Martill & Unwin (2011) paper that I cited refers to 'popular myth' about the maximum size of ornithocheirids, but doesn't cite a source for said misconception. I'm guessing that it may be exaggeration, it may be due to confusion between ornithocheiroid and azhdarchoid remains, or it may be due to over-enthusiastic extrapolation from the fact that most well-preserved ornithocheirid specimens are not fully mature. It's worth also noting at this point that the 7 m estimate is not based on well-preserved remains; it's based on a rostral fragment, and the potential wingspan was estimated by comparing the size of that piece to the rostrum of smaller but better preserved individuals.<br /><br />Thanks for the update, Dave. I see that they did recover a monophyletic Ornithocheiridae excluding the toothless species. I had been concerned that <i>Ludodactylus</i> might not be amenable to phylogenetic analysis due to the way it had passed through the taphonomic steamroller.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-26790831136723859802012-01-19T04:21:55.451+11:002012-01-19T04:21:55.451+11:00I've seen enormous wingspans claimed for Ornit...I've seen enormous wingspans claimed for <i>Ornithocheirus</i> (the Swedish Wikipedia says 12m, frex). Is this just exaggeration of the same kind that gave us 25m <i>Liopleurodon</i>, or has ideas on wing shape or something changed? Or does it belong to <i>Lonchodectes</i>? And if so is it accurate for that genus?Andreas Johanssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08802392912541974977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-52012513803689982702012-01-19T01:12:22.554+11:002012-01-19T01:12:22.554+11:00Nice review of some horribly complex taxonomy and ...Nice review of some horribly complex taxonomy and systematics. Pterosaur work has suffered for years with all the problems surrounding the ornithocheirids. <br /><br />Incidentally, Ludodactylus has been put in one analysis (Lu et al.'s paper on Darwinopterus) and it comes out unsurprisingly as sister-taxon to a polytomy of Ornithocheirus, Anhanguera and Coloborhynchus.Dave Honehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15154020254590603978noreply@blogger.com