Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What annoys you about paleontology?; Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM (256,138 Views) | |
| heliosphoros | Sep 7 2016, 05:11 PM Post #5431 |
![]() ![]()
|
Beipiaopterus: long-necked form, possibly a filter-feeder, spoonbill analogue or terrestrial stalker Boreopterus: facultative filter-feeder Cathayopterus: spoonbill-like trapper Feilongus: stork-like form with overbite Gladocephalus: merganser-like piscivore Ningchengopterus: crow-like omnivore Among these alone you've got a fairly large diversity of body types and speciations.
You seem very hang up on this. Thalassodromeus, Hatzegopteryx and Campylognathoides are various forms with known raptorial habits (former two are the classical azhdarchoid model twisted to predate on larger prey, while the latter is the pterosaur analogue of a falcon) Edited by heliosphoros, Sep 7 2016, 05:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Sep 7 2016, 05:16 PM Post #5432 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
So many different ideas have been purposed for Thalassodromeus that I'm skeptical of any at this point without something solid. *edit* Alright fine, I admit phrased that poorly, but really was that necessary? I'm aware large azhdarchids were hyper carnivores, but they didn't hunt (or at very least definitely didn't attack) prey from the air. Which from what I gathered was the implication of the original comment. As for Campylognathoides, I'll just be frank say that fast flight does not a raptorial predator make. It lacks sufficient bulk to have been snatching significantly sized vertebrate prey while in flight, and its feet are even abnormally small. Even if it was hunting solely using its beak (highly unlikely) the legs would need to be bulkier for balance while holding prey. Edited by stargatedalek, Sep 7 2016, 05:24 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| heliosphoros | Sep 7 2016, 06:05 PM Post #5433 |
![]() ![]()
|
You've complained about this in the past. It's an observation worth making.
I don't think he was implying that, he just said 2deadly predators".
It was also compared to vesper bats ("mastiffs", though I'm pretty sure Mark Witton meant noctules), which do happen to kill flying prey with just their mouths. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Sep 7 2016, 08:39 PM Post #5434 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I don't recall complaining in the past about people suggesting pterosaurs were hyper-carnivores, besides Darwinopterus because that was nothing but sensationalism. I have complained about people thinking they were skim feeders, or that they "snatched" fish from the water though. Doing a bit more reading on these bats was pretty interesting. One detail however has eluded me, do they kill prey in flight or do they actually carry it off on the wing afterwards? (which I thought was the defining trait of a "raptorial" hunter [as are falcons], but I may be wrong there). Also how large is Campylognathoides? I clearly let the comparisons to Pterodactylus in the Wikipedia article get into my head but it actually doesn't even include a size. |
![]() |
|
| heliosphoros | Sep 7 2016, 09:09 PM Post #5435 |
![]() ![]()
|
The Dsungaripterus thing. They appearently catch passerines and other birds in flight, which is unique (most other predatory bats snatch perched/grounded birds). Campylognathoides' wingspan, according to Mark Witton, is around 1.5 meters. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 8 2016, 09:48 AM Post #5436 |
![]()
|
I still wish that Dendrorhynchoides was a Yixian Pterosaur instead of a middle Jurassic Pterosaur, hopefully someday evidence will be found that will place it into the Yixian formation because I really love the idea of a Yixian Anurognathid so much |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Sep 8 2016, 12:07 PM Post #5437 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I genuinely don't remember anything happening recently about Dsungaripterus. Wasn't it a shellfish eater? Aah ok, that makes a lot more sense now knowing its size. |
![]() |
|
| heliosphoros | Sep 8 2016, 12:12 PM Post #5438 |
![]() ![]()
|
The discussion on Pteros.com's decision to refer to the hypothesis that it was a terrestrial predator/omnivore. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Sep 8 2016, 12:47 PM Post #5439 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I vaguely recall that now. But it was intended as a brief example as part of a larger complaint regarding the websites objective tone and overall disappointment. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 9 2016, 02:06 AM Post #5440 |
![]()
|
if Dendrorhynchoides was a part of the Yixian formation I would have included it into the Story that I am making for My Book that I am trying to make because I love Anurognathids so much |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Sep 9 2016, 11:47 AM Post #5441 |
![]() ![]()
|
Hatzegopteryx is shaping up to be one as well. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 9 2016, 12:01 PM Post #5442 |
![]()
|
Then again considering that according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrorhynchoides
so no actual 100% percent pure proof huh? well I am going to go on and believe that Dendrorhynchoides was indeed a part of the Yixian Formation all along since Compsognathids survived into the time of the Yixian Formation so Anurognathids could have survived into that time as well Edited by YixianIsLoveYixianIsLife, Sep 9 2016, 12:03 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| TheNotFakeDK | Sep 9 2016, 01:29 PM Post #5443 |
|
200% Authentic
![]()
|
What should have also been written there is that the reason they consider D. curvidentatus to be Jurassic in age is because the second Dendrorhynchoides specimen and species, D. mutoudengensis, is definitively middle Jurassic in age, in addition to what's already written. The two specimens are nigh-on identical, the only identifiable distinction being the shape of some of the teeth and slight proportions of the limb. So we've got two very similar species of anurognathid, one dated to the middle Jurassic, while the other's age is ambiguous. So far, all other anurognathid species have dated to the Jurassic, and the only other putative Cretaceous anurognathid specimens (Jeholopterus) have since been re-dated to the Jurassic also. That leaves us with no Cretaceous anurognathids, and the closest relative to this one is middle Jurassic in age. What's the more reasonable assumption, that this species is also middle Jurassic in age, or that it uniquely comes from Cretaceous sediments? |
![]() |
|
| heliosphoros | Sep 9 2016, 01:37 PM Post #5444 |
![]() ![]()
|
Keep in mind that those sediments have at times been given a Cretaceous rather than Jurassic age, so it's a controversy still far from over. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 9 2016, 09:57 PM Post #5445 |
![]()
|
This gives Me really big hopes for Dendrorhynchoides Edited by YixianIsLoveYixianIsLife, Sep 9 2016, 09:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 3 users reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups









