Talk:Pteranodon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Pterosaurs
This article is supported by the Pterosaurs WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Pterosaur-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

Contents

[edit] Reference?

A fossil preserving fish in the throat region of Pteranodon indicates that the animal was a fish eater.

Reference? John.Conway 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen A COW this mentioned on a museum display interpretation panel, so although I don't have a reference, I'd be fairly certain it is correct - MPF 23:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's good, but it would be nice to have more particulars on the specimen. -- John.Conway 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't think to take any notes :-( MPF 01:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there no mention of the various species?

What happened to the various species?

You have a small sexy list which is wrong ohh...InGen's no longer exists...it's the female version of Longiceps if I'm not mistaken.

But where are

sexy Longiceps Quetzocoatlyus (sp?) etc.

There are many many versions but they are not mentioned or not described nor have I been able to find seperate articles for these.

This leaves the article highly fragmentary and misleading to have mention of only one form. --Voyager1 10:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a reference to P.oregonensis (Bennettazhia oregonensis).--Gazzster 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

On the issue again, apparently Marsh identified Pteranodon as "distinguished from all previously known genera of the order {pterosauria} by the entire absence of teeth." This meant that any toothless pterosaur jaw fragment, wherever it was found in the world, was attributed to Pteranodon. Hence a plethora of species and a great deal of confusion. So the name became a wastebin taxon, rather like Megalosaurus, to identify any pterosaur which could not be distinguished other than by the absence of teeth. So I think the principal author of this article is sensibly avoiding getting into the morass by making a cursory comment bout the number of species. And yes, Pteranodon ingens =P.longiceps. I've added some remarks to express what I've just written.--Gazzster 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the citation for the paper synonymizing longiceps and ingens? I remember reading about it years ago but seem to have lost the ref. A section on sexual dimorphism would be very useful in the article. Dinoguy2 18:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking for it myself. I remember coming across it on the Net, (and was surprised that the two were the same -they have very different crests) but I've lost it now. I'm still lookig; the citation does have to be made.--Gazzster 22:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Do ingens and longiceps have very different crests? I thought they looked pretty much the same, and a quick search seems to have both morphs labelled with both species names. Dinoguy2 03:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pteranodon ingens

I've done some scouting round the Net. The Pterosaur Database equates P. ingens and P.longiceps in a passing reference in the entry about longiceps, but oddly, does not list P.ingens as a synonym. It does however equate an Ornithostoma ingens with P.ingens. The Dinosauricon has an image titled P.ingens, and images of specimens mounted in museums are labelled P.ingens. Wellnhofer has ingens as a separate species (Mikko's Phylogeny). Marsh (www.oceansofkansas.com/Marsh76.htm) in his The Characteristics of American Pterodactyls equates P.ingens Marsh (1872) with Cope's Ornithochirus umbrosis. This entry mentions a P.umbrosus. Could that be ingens? Overall, not very helpful. Perhaps we should ommit any reference to P.ingens until we straighten this thing out?--Gazzster 23:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I found what appears to be the brief taxonomic history of P. ingens in an old DML post:[1]

P. longiceps Marsh, 1876 = Pterodactylus ingens Marsh, 1872 nomen dubium = Ornithostoma ingens (Marsh, 1872) Williston, 1893 [nomen dubium] = Pteranodon ingens (Marsh, 1872) Marsh, 1876 [nomen dubium]

Still no cite on who synonymized ingens with longiceps. Unwin 2006 doesn't mention ingens and I can't find my copy of Wellnhofer 1991 :( Dinoguy2 03:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Some info from Mike Taylor: "Actually, it is a somewhat confusing story. P. longiceps based on a skull that was likely a juvenile, based on its size. P. ingens was based partial postcranial on material, several other species were also named based on a couple fragments, but the majority of Pteranodon specimens subsequently found were pretty much randomly assigned to P. longiceps or P. ingens. Marsh appears to have assigned larger specimen to P. ingens, but he never really adequately described the collection of Pteranodon specimens he amassed, and this led to an incredible amount of confusion that later workers tried to correct. Eaton produced an extensive description of the osteology of P., but did nothing to correct the nomenclatural issues, in fact, he caused more problems by assuming a P. longiceps skull to be the holotype of P. ingens. Miller created a complex system of three subgenera and assigned Eaton's skull to its own species P. (Longicepia) marshi, but any differences between this specimen and those he considered to belong to P. (L.) longicpes were likely only sexual, and he even invented some of the supposedly diagnostic features of P. (L.) marshi. He also described a new species based on fragmentary P. longiceps material; P. walkeri. By this point there were four species assigned to fairly similar material. Finally, Bennett, in his doctoral dissertation overhauled the entire genus and determined that all of these species belonged to a single species, P. longiceps. The holotypes of P. longiceps and P. ingens cannot be compared, but other specimens demonstrate they were exactly the same, likely only differing in age."

Wow. And I thought the history of Anatotitan was complicated.--Gazzster 20:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomic history of Pteranodon

Bennett (1994) concluded that : (1) only two species of Pteranodon are valid, P. longiceps Marsh, 1876 and P. sternbergi, and (2) P. occidentalis (Marsh, 1872), P. ingens (Marsh, 1872), P. velox (Marsh, 1872) P. comptus Marsh, 1876, P. harpyia (Cope, 1872), and P. umbrosus (Cope, 1872) are nomina dubia.

Bennett, S. C., 1994. Taxonomy and systematics of the Late Cretaceous pterosaur Pteranodon (Pterosauria, Pterodactyloidea). Occasional Papers of the Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, 169:1-70. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Please don't revert last pop culture edit

... about Petrie being inaccurately portrayed as being able to speak English. I think it's an excellent little joke (and it's true!) and should be left in. -- John.Conway 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Right, because pteranodons only spoke German.