About the SA Blog Network

Tetrapod Zoology

Tetrapod Zoology

Amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals - living and extinct
Tetrapod Zoology Home

Daisy’s Isle of Wight Dragon and why China has what Europe does not

Email   PrintPrint

Life reconstruction of Vectidraco in flight; image by Mark Witton, used with permission.

We’ve named another new pterosaur! Once again, the open-access online journal PLOS ONE hosts a paper that I and colleagues (Martin Simpson and Gareth Dyke, both of the University of Southampton) have published on a new taxon (Naish et al. 2013). This is the third paper I’ve published in PLOS ONE so far this year, and – ha ha – it’s only March. It’s also the second published contribution this year from our research group that focuses on Azhdarchoidea. This is the toothless, Cretaceous pterodactyloid clade that includes the sometimes small, short-snouted tapejarids, the larger, sail-crested thalassodromids, and the sometimes gigantic, long-snouted azhdarchids. The other paper was on the Romanian azhdarchid Eurazhdarcho langendorfensis (Vremir et al. 2013), covered here on Tet Zoo just a few weeks ago.

The new pterosaur is named Vectidraco daisymorrisae and it’s yet another new species from the Cretaceous rocks of the Isle of Wight in southern England. The name Vectidraco is not especially clever but means ‘dragon from the Isle of Wight’.

Map pf the Isle of Wight showing the location of Atherfield Point, the place where Vectidraco was discovered. Map by J. D. Radley.

The species name honours Daisy Morris, the Isle of Wight girl who discovered the only known specimen. Overall, then, the name can be imagined as meaning ‘Daisy Morris’s Isle of Wight dragon’. Daisy – an avid natural historian and collector of bones, taxiderm specimens, fossils and such – was just 4 years old when she made the find back in November 2008.

I’m always dismayed by the length of time it takes to get technical papers written up, completed, and published. The review process can be interminable (let me make it clear that, on this occasion, it most certainly was not), but just finding the time to complete a technical project itself is an ordeal, especially when you lack funding and time and are over-loaded with other commitments. Anyway, we got there in the end. Daisy and her family did what I and most of my colleagues would regard as “the right thing”. They wanted to see the specimen written up properly and stored in an appropriate collection, so they donated it to The Natural History Museum, London (where it’s now accessioned as NHMUK PV R36621).

The Vectidraco holotype, in (A) left lateral, (B) right lateral, (C) dorsal, and (D) ventral views. From Naish et al. (2013).

Vectidraco: when and where?

Vectidraco is not, unfortunately, based on anything like a complete skeleton. It’s a small but well preserved pelvis, just 40 mm long, that includes several of the associated vertebrae but no part of the prepubic bones. Nearly all of the sutures in the specimen are fully closed (one neurocentral suture and one intercentral suture are not), so we think that the specimen is a near-adult: close to, or at, skeletally mature size for this taxon (Naish et al. 2013).

If you’re wondering, I do not think that pterodactyloid pterosaurs grew continuously: instead, it seems that they reached a given adult size and stopped growing. While on that subject, note that indeterminate growth is certainly not as widespread in reptiles as people used to think. We now know that determinate growth is present in turtles, squamates and crocodylians, and it seems to have been widespread in dinosaurs.

Speculative silhouette of Vectidraco as the whole animal might have looked; image by Darren Naish, from Naish et al. (2013).

As discussed below, we also think that Vectidraco is an azhdarchoid, and probably a non-neoazhdarchian azhdarchoid (see the cladogram below for help) similar to the tapejarids. Our reconstructions here work on the not unreasonable assumption that Vectidraco was either tapejarid-like, or what you might expect for an azhdarchoid that was potentially ancestral to both tapejarids and neoazhdarchians. Based on the proportions of tapejarids (some of which are known from excellent remains), Vectidraco most likely had a wingspan of about 75 cm and a total length (snout to tail-tip) of 35 cm or so (Naish et al. 2013). As such, it’s the smallest azhdarchoid yet reported (excluding Nemicolopterus, which I’m pretty sure is a juvenile Sinopterus).

Atherfield Point vertebrates (that is, fossils from the same place as Vectidraco). All three shown here are from the Vectis Formation of the Wealden Supergroup, NOT from the younger Atherfield Clay Formation.

Cretaceous Isle of Wight fossils tend to be from the famous Wealden Supergroup – the Isle of Wight crocodyliforms, dinosaurs and plesiosaurs that I’ve worked on previously (Hutt et al. 2001, Naish et al. 2004, Benson et al. 2009, 2013, Naish 2011, Salisbury & Naish 2011) are all from this unit – but Vectidraco is from a younger and less well known unit called the Atherfield Clay Formation. Martin is a world authority on the Atherfield Clay and was able to identify the matrix on the specimen as that of a specific section – it’s called the Chale Clay Member – of the Atherfield Clay Formation (Naish et al. 2013). An excellent ammonite record allows the divisions of the Atherfield Clay to be dated quite precisely, and the Chale Clay Member is Early Aptian and thus about 124 million years old (Lehmann et al. 2009).

Various anatomical details led us to identify Vectidraco as a member of the pterodactyloid clade Azhdarchoidea (an identification supported by the cladistic analyses we performed: read on). Regular Tet Zoo readers may know that, due to several lines of evidence, I regard azhdarchoids as pterosaurs of inland, terrestrial environments like floodplains, forests and tropical woodlands (Witton & Naish 2008, Vremir et al. 2013).

However, the Chale Clay Member is a marine unit, deposited under shallow shelf conditions. Does this tell us anything reliable about the palaeobiology of Vectidraco? Was it – for example – a marine azhdarchoid? That’s certainly not impossible, even if the majority of other azhdarchoid lineages were denizens of inland environments. As is well known, however, the remains of terrestrial animals frequently end up in marine sediments, so discoveries like this often don’t mean much, if anything.

Atherfield Point as it looks looking east (above) and looking west (below). Vectidraco wasn't found in the jagged boulder-fields seen here, but in one of the landslips at the cliff-edge. Photos by Martin Simpson.

Location-wise, Vectidraco was discovered in a landslip at Atherfield on the island’s south-west coast. This is really close to the classic ‘Tie Pits’ locality, well known as the source of the goniopholidid Anteophthalmosuchus hooleyi (originally described as a new specimen of Goniopholis, but renamed by Steve Salisbury and myself during 2011) and the iguanodontian Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis (originally described as a new species of Iguanodon). These fossils, however, are from the older Vectis Formation of the Wealden Supergroup.

From the global perspective, the presence of Vectidraco in the Atherfield Clay Formation is interesting, since it’s only the second pterosaur to ever be reported from this unit. The other one is a jaw fragment, listed in a table by Unwin et al. (2000) and identified by them as belonging to Ornithocheirus. Actually, a few ornithocheirid teeth have been found in the Atherfield Clay Formation more recently: I think our paper (Naish et al. 2013) is the first time they’ve been mentioned in print. For now, the Atherfield Clay pterosaur fauna therefore includes both large ornithocheirids and the small azhdarchoid Vectidraco.

Vectidraco: detailed anatomy, weirdness, pneumaticity

The detailed anatomy of Vectidraco forms part of the focus of our paper (Naish et al. 2013) and anyone seriously interested in the details should, of course, go there. Distinctive features include the long, rod-like preactabular process (a prong that points forwards from the front, upper part of the ilium), the giant, superficially T-shaped postacetabular processes (a structure that projects backwards and upwards from the rear upper part of the ilium), the depth of the pelvis ventral to the acetabulum, and the opening present between the pubis and ischium.

Close-up of the left side of the Vectidraco pelvis, showing the ventral interosseous space (= same thing as the thyroid fenestra?) and the subtriangular concavity posterior to the acetabulum.

That last feature (the opening between the pubis and ischium) is peculiar since it looks a lot like the structure (termed the thyroid fenestra) normally absent in pterosaurs. Its presence in Vectidraco (and some other pterosaurs) must be assumed to be a reversal, though the fact that some pterosaurs posses it when juvenile and close it during adulthood also suggests the possibility that we’re seeing an expression of paedomorphosis. And that’s something that I’ll have to come back to at another time, since there are suggestions from elsewhere in pterosaur evolution and anatomy that paedomorphosis played a role in the evolution of pterodactyloids.

The weird, T-shaped post-acetabular process on the ilium is especially interesting. Quite why some pterodactyloids had these processes remains unknown, though Hyder et al. (2012) made the worthy suggestion that they anchored enlarged hindlimb retractor muscles and perhaps correlated with a strong degree of terrestriality (cf. Witton & Naish 2008). Unlike reptiles with long, muscular tails, pterodactyloids started their history with proportionally short, flimsy ones, so perhaps the post-acetabular process represents a novel solution to the need for enlarged hindlimb muscles (Hyder et al. 2012).

I’m also really intrigued by the fact that there are deep, distinct fossae (concavities) on both the medial and lateral sides of the structure. Bony fossae in archosaurs are often pneumatic so… could these be pneumatic fossae? We already know that the pelvis was pneumatic in at least some pterodactyloid pterosaurs (Claessens et al. 2009), but our suggestion that the post-acetabular processes might be pneumatic is novel (so far as I know).

Lateral and medial fossae on the post-acetabular processes of the Oker dsungaripterid (above: from Fastnacht 2005) and Tapejara (below: from Elgin & Frey 2011). Note the vertical partitions in Tapejara.

Similar fossae are seen in other pterosaurs, including in Tapejara and the Oker dsungaripterid (an animal that definitely needs a distinct taxonomic moniker but, strangely, wasn’t given one by its describer). In Tapejara the large, oval-shaped, medial fossa is subdivided by vertical partitions (Eck et al. 2011): this reminds me very much of the sort of thing you sometimes see in the pneumatic fossae of saurischian dinosaurs. Even better, Vectidraco‘s honeycomb-like arrangement of bony walls on the anterior part of the medial side clinches it, I think: the various fossae and internal cavities here were indeed pneumatic (Naish et al. 2013). At least some azhdarchoids, then, had pneumatized bone in this part of this pelvis. This is new information and it’s something that surely has some bearing on the palaeobiology of these animals.

Pneumatic fossae and camellate bone texture on the medial side of the post-acetabular process of Vectidraco. Image by Darren Naish.

The pterosaur pelvis and the pterosaur tree

Everyone who’s ever written about pterosaur skeletal anatomy has drawn attention to the fact that pterosaur pelves differ substantially in form. This isn’t exactly surprising given the variation present across the group (despite occasional inferences from some pterosaur specialists that pterosaurs are all pretty much the same as soon as you get beyond the skull). In fact there’s a noble tradition in the pterosaur literature whereby pterosaur researchers have published diagrams that feature the pelves of different taxa alongside one another (see Naish et al. (2013) for the full list).

The noble tradition whereby pterosaur workers produce illustrations that compare the pelves of different pterosaur taxa: 8 such montages are shown here (representing 7 different published sources).

Most recently, this diversity in pelvic form was discussed by Elaine Hyder and colleagues: like our team, they were interested in establishing the phylogenetic affinities of an isolated pterodactyloid pelvis (an azhdarchoid specimen from the Brazilian Crato Formation) and set about surveying pelvic diversity across the whole of Pterosauria (Hyder et al. 2012). That study could be seen as a forerunner to the Vectidraco one – it certainly proved useful as a source of data – but I have to emphasise that it didn’t appear until some time after our work on Vectidraco was well underway.

We wanted to know if the variation seen across the pterosaur pelvis was in any way concordant with our general understanding of pterosaur phylogeny. Hyder et al. (2012) were interested in this too, but only went as far as matching pelvic morphologies to different cladograms. We did the next logical thing and compiled and ran a cladistic analysis of characters from the pelvis alone (after compiling those pelvic characters, we also added them to an existing data set and ran that as well) (Naish et al. 2013).

Simplified cladogram showing hypothesised relationships among the main azhdarchoid clades. Images by Mark Witton. Click to embiggen.

The results are fairly encouraging, but not thrillingly so. Basically, a pelvis-only phylogenetic analysis generates a trees that has some similarities with the total-evidence tree produced by different research groups, but resolution is very poor and (in the strict consensus tree, anyway) many taxa that really should group together failed to do so (Naish et al. 2013). It would seem, however, that azhdarchoids are especially ‘obvious’ in pelvic anatomy, since one of the few clusters obviously present in the tree consists of azhdarchoid taxa (Vectidraco included). Takehome: there is some phylogenetic signal in the pelvis, but it’s weak and you need data from elsewhere in the skeleton to get a half-decent tree. Things could be improved, perhaps, if we included more specimens.

A ‘total-evidence’ tree – based on the dataset used by on Wang et al. (2012) – has far better resolution. Vectidraco was again recovered as an azhdarchoid, though Azhdarchoidea pretty much consisted of a polytomy in this instance. My gut feeling is that Vectidraco is not a member of Neoazhdarchia (the azhdarchoid clade that includes thalassodromids and azhdarchids), so ideally it should group close to, or with, tapejarids.

On the whole issue of pterosaur phylogenies, it’s difficult not to bring attention to a problem we have at the moment: the fact that published phylogenies of pterosaurs are disparate in several aspects, and (in my opinion) not nearly comprehensive enough in terms of how much character data they include. In fact, two of the best known, ‘go to’ phylogenetic studies of Pterosauria include, respectively, just 74 and 60 characters (Kellner 2003, Unwin 2003). Do these numbers really reflect the amount of information we should be incorporating in our analyses? Well, consider that those two analyses include, respectively, precisely ZERO characters from the pelvis. Several other studies have also failed to use a single pelvic character, while there are others that have used a massive 1, or even 3, characters.

Look again at the images of pterosaur pelves above. I don’t think you need to know anything in particular about pterosaurs, or about pelves, to realise that there are clearly quite a few characters here that are variable across the group and hence potentially codeable and worthy of inclusion in phylogenetic analyses. We identified 23 characters of the prepubis, pelvis and sacral vertebrae that came in discrete states and hence could be coded (Naish et al. 2013): I’m not sure that all of these will stand the test of time, but it’s a start. We’re working on expanding and improving all of this stuff as part of a larger study of pterodactyloids.

Some of the different characters (and their respective states) we were able to identify in pterosaur pelves: see Naish et al. (2013).

Western Europe vs China: so similar, yet why so different?

I said somewhat earlier that Vectidraco is from the early Aptian, and that it comes from a geological unit (the Atherfield Clay Formation) that also yields ornithocheirid fossils. Which other sorts of pterosaurs were present in early Aptian western Europe? Actually, not that many: only the long-jawed Prejanopterus curvirostra from La Rioja in Spain and Istiodactylus latidens from the Isle of Wight are from the western European record of this time (Naish et al. 2013).

However, Aptian pterosaurs are fairly well represented elsewhere, being known from the Yixian and Jiufotang formation of China and also from various other Chinese, Mongolian and Russian strata. What kinds of pterosaurs are represented by these fossils? Essentially, we see similar assemblages of lineages to what’s present in western Europe at the same time. That’s all very well and good, but a major difference between the western European fauna and that of China is that the latter region is home to a far, far greater number of species and specimens. Why?

Pterosaur lineages present in early Aptian western Europe: long-jawed pterodactyloids (like Prejanopterus), small azhdarchoids (like Europejara and Vectidraco), and istiodactylid and ornithocheirid ornithocheiroids.

Part of the reason comes from the fact that the Chinese assemblage is – in the opinion of at least some pterosaur workers, myself included – horrendously over-split, with several or many of the ‘species’ actually being individuals or growth variants of other species. However, other factors are at play here too, and an important one that I think deserves discussion concerns the different environmental and depositional settings of these different areas.

While “the Yixian and Jiufotang formation are dominated by fine-grained lacustrine deposits, interspersed by volcanic sediments that resulted in mass death assemblages and the rapid burial of small vertebrate carcasses” (Naish et al. 2013, p. 7), “western European deposits of coeval age (e.g. the sediments of the Wealden Supergroup) are typically dominated by floodplain and estuarine depositional settings where vertebrate remains were typically broken apart, scattered and scavenged before the more resistant parts were incorporated into the sediment record” (Naish et al. 2013, p. 7).

China gives us complete maniraptoran theropod skeletons. The UK? It's not so kind. I give you: the Ashdown maniraptoran (from Naish & Sweetman 2011).

The end result is a Chinese record where small theropod, pterosaur, mammaliaform, squamate and lissamphibian skeletons are preserved in large numbers and in complete or near-complete fashion; meanwhile, western European members of the same groups are represented by odd bones belonging to just one or two individuals. Exhibit A: compare Vectidraco to the many Chinese specimens of Sinopterus and Huaxiapterus. Another example: compare the Ashdown maniraptoran (Naish & Sweetman 2011) with all those Chinese oviraptorosaurs and paravians!

In short, we’re seeing a strongly biased fossil record in Europe where small tetrapods are poorly preserved and, mostly, probably not preserved at all.

Vectidraco is certainly not an especially significant or game-changing fossil; it’s merely a small, nicely preserved specimen that allows the recognition of an interesting new taxon. But in terms of the new information it provides on detailed anatomy and pterosaur distribution in time and space, I think it’s a very worthy addition to our understanding of this group. Continuing work will build on various of the hypotheses and conclusions we present in our paper, and we hope that future discoveries in the Atherfield Clay will bring more of ‘Daisy’s dragon’ to light!

A popular book on the story of Daisy’s pterosaur – written by Martin Simpson and including copious original artwork by Mark Witton no less – has just been published but I don’t yet have information on it (will add a link as soon as it’s available).

Vectidraco: the book! And Daisy Morris herself.

For previous Tet Zoo articles on azhdarchoids and other pterosaurs, see…

And for articles on various of the other Cretaceous animals mentioned here, see…

Refs – -

Benson, R. B. J., Brusatte, S. L., Hutt, S. & Naish, D. 2009. A new large basal tetanuran (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Wessex Formation (Barremian) of the Isle of Wight, England. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29, 612-615. [free pdf]

Benson, R. B. J., Ketchum, H. F., Naish, D. & Turner, L. E. 2012. A new leptocleidid (Sauropterygia, Plesiosauria) from the Vectis Formation (Early Barremian-early Aptian; Early Cretaceous) of the Isle of Wight and the evolution of Leptocleididae, a controversial clade. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology DOI: 10.1080/14772019.2011.634444 [free pdf]

Claessens, L. P. A. M., O’Connor, P. M. & Unwin, D. M. 2009. Respiratory evolution facilitated the origin of pterosaur flight and aerial gigantism. PLOS ONE 4(2): e4497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004497

Eck, K., Elgin, R. A., Frey, E. 2011. On the osteology of Tapejara wellnhoferi Kellner 1989 and the first occurrence of a multiple specimen assemblage from the Santana Formation, Araripe Basin, NE-Brazil. Swiss Journal of Palaeontology 130, 277-296.

Hutt, S., Naish, D., Martill, D. M., Barker, M. J. & Newbery, P. 2001. A preliminary account of a new tyrannosauroid theropod from the Wessex Formation (Early Cretaceous) of southern England. Cretaceous Research 22, 227-242. [free pdf]

Hyder, E. S., Witton, M. P. & Martill, D. M. 2012. Evolution of the pterosaur pelvis. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica doi: [free preprint pdf]

Kellner, A. W. A. 2003. Pterosaur phylogeny and comments on the evolutionary history of the group. In Buffetaut, E. & Mazin, J.-M. (eds) Evolution and Palaeobiology of Pterosaurs. Geological Society Special Publication 217. The Geological Society of London, pp. 105-137.

Lehmann, J., Heldt, M., Bachmann, M. & Hedi Negra, M. E. 2009. Aptian (Lower Cretaceous) biostratigraphy and cephalopods from north central Tunisia. Cretaceous Research 30, 895-910.

Naish, D. 2011. Theropod dinosaurs. In Batten, D. J. (ed.) English Wealden Fossils. The Palaeontological Association (London), pp. 526-559.

- ., Martill, D. M., Cooper, D. & Stevens, K. A. 2004. Europe’s largest dinosaur? A giant brachiosaurid cervical vertebra from the Wessex Formation (Early Cretaceous) of southern England. Cretaceous Research 25, 787-795. [free pdf]

- ., Simpson, M. I. & Dyke, G. J. 2013. A new small-bodied azhdarchoid pterosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of England and its implications for pterosaur anatomy, diversity and phylogeny. PLoS ONE 8(3): e58451. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058451

- . & Sweetman, S. C. 2011. A tiny maniraptoran dinosaur in the Lower Cretaceous Hastings Group: evidence from a new vertebrate-bearing locality in south-east England. Cretaceous Research 32, 464-471. [free pdf]

Salisbury, S. W. & Naish, D. 2011. Crocodilians. In Batten, D. J. (ed.) English Wealden Fossils. The Palaeontological Association (London), pp. 305-369.

Unwin, D. M. 2003. On the phylogeny and evolutionary history of pterosaurs. In Buffetaut, E. & Mazin, J.-M. (eds) Evolution and Palaeobiology of Pterosaurs. Geological Society Special Publication 217. The Geological Society of London, pp. 139-190.

- ., Lü, J. & Bakhurina, N. N. 2000. On the systematic and stratigraphic significance of pterosaurs from the Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation (Jehol Group) of Liaoning, China. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, Geowissenschaftliche Reihe 3, 181-206.

Vremir, M., Kellner, A. W. A., Naish. D. & Dyke, G. J. 2013. A new azhdarchid pterosaur from the Late Cretaceous of the Transylvanian Basin, Romania: implications for azhdarchid diversity and distribution. PLoS ONE 8(1): e54268. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054268

Wang, X., Kellner, A. W. A., Shunxing, J. & Xin, C. 2012. New toothed flying reptile from Asia: close similarities between early Cretaceous pterosaur faunas from China and Brazil. Naturwissenschaften 99, 249–257.

Witton, M. P. & Naish, D. 2008. A reappraisal of azhdarchid pterosaur functional morphology and paleoecology. PLoS ONE 3 (5): e2271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002271

Darren Naish About the Author: Darren Naish is a science writer, technical editor and palaeozoologist (affiliated with the University of Southampton, UK). He mostly works on Cretaceous dinosaurs and pterosaurs but has an avid interest in all things tetrapod. His publications can be downloaded at He has been blogging at Tetrapod Zoology since 2006. Check out the Tet Zoo podcast at!

Nature Blog Network

Follow on Twitter @TetZoo.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 29 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. JennDeland 7:43 pm 03/18/2013

    You know what would be cool? If we could hear you, or someone else who knew how to pronounce the names and technical terms, reading the post. I’m one of your lay-followers, as it were, and although your writing is clear, the unknown words trip me up. Sometimes I almost give up. If there was a podcast I would listen.

    Link to this
  2. 2. naishd 7:47 pm 03/18/2013

    Interesting comment, thanks. I’ll admit that I tend to take many or all of the terms concerned for granted. Re: podcast… waitaminute: you know that there >is< a TetZoo podcast, right? Here. I’ll consider your comment a request and will pronounce all those words in the next episode – seriously :)


    Link to this
  3. 3. Heteromeles 8:38 pm 03/18/2013

    Fascinating that you can restore the skull from a pelvis :D

    I wonder if you can get some interesting information doing a bit of biogeography, mapping pelvis diversity against paleolocation. For example, if you find identical forms in many locales, you might infer that the clade ranged widely. Locally grouped pelvises would suggest they didn’t disperse frequently (and therefore likely didn’t fly so far), and finding analogous forms in different locales might suggest either they diversified locally to fill the same niches in different places.

    Link to this
  4. 4. naishd 5:21 am 03/19/2013

    Heteromeles: I know you’re kidding about the skull comment…. but I did say that the silhouette is based on that of related pterosaurs :)

    As for biogeography and pelvis form: the taxa that have similar pelvic forms (e.g., azhdarchoids like Vectidraco and the tapejarids) are indeed very widely distributed. As you’d predict, pterosaurs seem to have been highly capable dispersers, with members of groups being known from far-flung locations. It’s thought that the big ones could make non-stop flights of 1000s of km, and substantial flights were probably normal for at least some small-bodied forms too.


    Link to this
  5. 5. jtdwyer 9:46 am 03/19/2013

    Well done! BTW – indeterminate growth would likely have severe consequences for a flying reptile, wouldn’t it? I’d guess that even if there was no biological constraint on growth, eventually they’d eventually become to big & heavy to fly, very effectively limiting growth…

    Link to this
  6. 6. Jerzy v. 3.0. 9:47 am 03/19/2013

    Congats Darren, and to little Daisy Morris!

    Link to this
  7. 7. David Marjanović 1:03 pm 03/19/2013

    but, strangely, wasn’t given one by its describer

    And he won’t give it one anytime soon. Do you know the story of how he was, shall we say, taken out of circulation?

    In fact, two of the best known, ‘go to’ phylogenetic studies of Pterosauria include, respectively, just 74 and 60 characters (Kellner 2003, Unwin 2003).



    Seriously. Martín Ezcurra has a 1,000-character analysis of theropod phylogeny, with most Cretaceous (and later) representatives excluded.

    74. And there I was thinking the matrix with 283 characters x up to 138 taxa I’m working on is bad because it lacks so many characters that other people have used and others that nobody has used but that are pretty obvious. *facepalm* As a reviewer, I’d probably have recommended rejection of an analysis of pterosaur phylogeny with just 74 characters – yes, even in 2003. Maybe not in 1993 (…but back then I’d have been utterly unqualified as a reviewer, heh).

    No wonder Kellner, Unwin, Bennett and Andres find results that are upside-down and inside-out with respect to each other! At such laughable numbers of characters, it’s all just accidental sampling bias!!! How many characters does Andres use?

    Link to this
  8. 8. Dartian 6:06 am 03/20/2013

    And he won’t give it one anytime soon. Do you know the story of how he was, shall we say, taken out of circulation?

    Admittedly being incarcerated is an impediment to the scientific publishing process, but it does not necessarily need to prevent it completely. Remember Robert Stroud a.k.a. the Birdman of Alcatraz. ;)

    (N.B. No offense is intended with this slightly flippant comment; I know there’s a real human tragedy behind what you’re alluding to.)

    Link to this
  9. 9. David Marjanović 7:33 am 03/20/2013

    Robert Stroud a.k.a. the Birdman of Alcatraz

    Never heard of him. I’ll ask teh Google.

    Link to this
  10. 10. chris y 8:07 am 03/20/2013

    You’ve no doubt noticed that the BBC is covering this under the headline, “Dinosaur species named after girl”. Under the circumstances you’re probably relieved that they quote Simpson rather than yourself.

    Link to this
  11. 11. David Marjanović 11:01 am 03/20/2013

    Wikipedia: Robert Stroud

    Link to this
  12. 12. chris y 11:35 am 03/20/2013

    Small victory for good over evil. The BBC has corrected it.

    Link to this
  13. 13. naishd 12:11 pm 03/20/2013

    Thanks for comments. The story seems to be hitting the newswires today, with quite a few online newspapers and such referring to the animal as a dinosaur. What the hell — this is 2013, isn’t it?

    Fastnacht: I, personally, know the story well (we actually discussed it in the Tet Zoo comments a few years ago: David, you even translated a German newspaper article for me).

    Numbers of characters in pterosaur analyses: I haven’t seen Brian Andres’s two most recent papers, nor his PhD analysis, but his ‘basal pterosaur’ phylogeny from 2012 (Sericipterus paper in JVP) coded just 75 characters. I tell palaeontologists all the time that they’re not including enough characters. I work with Andrea Cau, so my conscience is clean on this issue.


    Link to this
  14. 14. Heteromeles 12:24 pm 03/20/2013

    @Darren: It’s not all bad. Wired’s website posted an article about some new lizard species from the Peruvian Andes. Their first sentence? “If these lizards were larger, they’d look like featherless dinosaurs.”

    So at least one media outlet has a clue.

    My personal hope is that, in 20 years, theropods will routinely be labeled “thunderchickens.”

    Link to this
  15. 15. Heteromeles 12:25 pm 03/20/2013

    Argh! Can you fix that link, Darren?

    Link to this
  16. 16. Heteromeles 3:39 pm 03/20/2013

    Thank you!

    Link to this
  17. 17. Gigantala 7:09 pm 03/20/2013

    To be honest, the sample disparity is not very surprising, since it pretty much represents all we can find in non-lagerstatte environs: a couple of azhdarchs and ornithocheiroids..

    Link to this
  18. 18. naishd 7:28 pm 03/20/2013

    Gigantala: that’s an interesting claim that may have >some< truth in it.. but it may also be misleading, since there are plenty of non-lagerstatten units where we do indeed find evidence for other pterosaur lineages. However, another point that should perhaps be explored here is that pterosaur diversity at the time concerned isn't that tremendous anyway.


    Link to this
  19. 19. Heteromeles 9:32 pm 03/20/2013

    Dumb question Darren (et al), but how does shearwater and albatross skeletal diversity compare with pterosaur diversity?

    On the one hand, we know that breeding on oceanic islands seems to promote speciation, often at levels where it is difficult to describe even when you have the DNA. On the other hand, we’ve got fragmentary bits of pterosaurs that give every indication of liking to breed on islands. While I agree that there’s no reason to think that pterosaur diversity was low, I’d argue that there’s no reason to think it wasn’t quite high, either.

    Link to this
  20. 20. David Marjanović 10:23 am 03/21/2013

    just 75 characters

    OK. I’ll shake him next time I meet him. :-)

    I work with Andrea Cau, so my conscience is clean on this issue.

    I approve. :o )

    Link to this
  21. 21. David Marjanović 10:24 am 03/21/2013

    …Oh, yeah. I forgot that I can’t type a colon in front of an o without the smiley parser pouncing on it.

    Link to this
  22. 22. JAHeadden 7:41 am 03/22/2013

    The horrible state of pterosaur phylogenetics is lamentable. Regarding the use of Wang et al., 2010, and its variant Wang et al., 2012, used to test the value of pelvic characters, it should be noted that there are earlier published analyses dating later than the “go to” phylogenies that are FAR more comprehensive.

    When describing Elanodactylus prolatus, Andres & Ji produced the phylogeny that forms the backbone of the Wang analyses, but included more characters and more taxa. Wang chose to eliminate taxa, despite using it to test pterodactyloid basal relationships and the influence of Wukongopteridae, and many of those where ctenochasmatoids, which tend to cluster near the base of Pterodactyloidea.

    Lü et al. 2009 and Brian Andres’ unpublished thesis are the most comprehensive phylogenetic analyses produced to date, with the former produced to test what Wang et al. were also about: influence of Wukongopteridae on pterosaur phylogeny, with a major focus on non-monofenestratan taxa. The character formulation is unique to other analyses, which is why it is probably not followed, as the system developed by Andres and in Wang et al. is preferred of late (see Wang et al., 2010, 2012, and Vullo et al., 2012 who added Europejara olcadesorum to the first but removed the lone pelvic character!). Lü et al., 2009, for all it’s oddness, included four (4!) pelvic characters.

    I wholeheartedly agree, however, with testing phylogeny by examining differences when combining seemingly correlated characters, versus splitting them as this analysis does. Combining this with Wang et al., who do the opposite by lumping many character complexes into massive polystate monstrosities, which is partly how character counts differ among these phylogenies. I cannot figure out, though, why Wang et al. chose only ONE pelvic character, versus Lü et al.’s FOUR.

    The major differences among pterodactyloids in phylogenies generally occur only with the relative positions of Pteranodontoidea/Ornithocheiroidea and Ctenochasmatoidea; the relationship of Germanodactylidae to Dsungaripteridae; and the latter’s position in relation to other Tapejaroidea. There’s the even more minor concern of where Nyctosauridae or Thalassodromidae falls (the former at the base of Pteranodontoidea/Ornithocheiroidea, basal to it and other pterodactyloids, or sister to Pteranodontidae; the latter either with Tapejaridae, which tends to pull them close to Dsungaripyeridae, or closer to Azhdarchidae). These are influenced by inclusion of several cranial characters — especially oft-neglected mandibular characters, though not as poor as pelvic characters — and the inclusion of mandibular characters helps muck with topology by quite a bit. So, as with pelvic characters, sampling methodology is not being pursued rigorously, and nor are pelvic characters, in such a way that they are conducive to resolving phylogeny: no one is testing for character support in phylogeny (save, I think, Andres) but rather doing what might be termed a “code and pray” — and the poor resolution that results from pelvic characters is likely due to the absence of any rigo(u)r in qualification of the characters and states.

    I look forward to seeing a more complete review of these pelvic characters from you guys!

    Andres B, Ji Q (2008) A new pterosaur from the Liaoning Province of China, the phylogeny of Pterodactyloidea, and convergence in their cervical vertebrate. Palaeontology 51: 453–469.
    Lü J.-c., Unwin, D. M., Jin X.-s., Liu Y.-q. & Ji Q. 2009. Evidence for modular evolution in a long-tailed pterosaur with a pterodactyloid skull. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 277: 383-389.
    Vullo, R.; Marugán-Lobón, J. S.; Kellner, A. W. A.; Buscalioni, A. D.; Gomez, B.; De La Fuente, M.; Moratalla, J. J. 2012. A new crested pterosaur from the Early Cretaceous of Spain: The first European tapejarid (Pterodactyloidea: Azhdarchoidea). PLOS ONE 7 (7): e38900.
    Wang X.-1., Kellner, A. W. A., Jiang S.-a., Cheng X., Meng X.. 2010. New long-tailed pterosaurs (Wukongopteridae) from western Liaoning, China. Anais de Academia Brasileira de Ciências 82: 1045–1062.
    Wang X.-l., Kellner, A. W. A., Jiang S.-x. & Cheng X. 2012. New toothed flying reptile from Asia: Close similarities between early Cretaceous pterosaur faunas from China and Brazil. Naturwissenschaften 99: 249-257.

    Link to this
  23. 23. farandfew 11:14 am 03/22/2013

    thought you might like to know this has been reported in the Vietnamese media:

    Link to this
  24. 24. Dprus 6:55 pm 03/22/2013

    Out of curiosity, did Ornithocherids and Azdarchids have different adaptations for different ecological niches, or was there a competition between the two Cretaceous pterosaur clans?

    Link to this
  25. 25. David Marjanović 9:35 am 03/23/2013

    The ornithocheirids had long scary teeth. The azhdarchids had no teeth at all. They must have been doing something different…

    Also, the ornithocheiroids all lack the terrestrial adaptations seen in azhdarchids.

    Finally, global competition that lasts for tens of millions of years is hard to imagine.

    Link to this
  26. 26. leecris 3:10 pm 03/29/2013

    Looking at the ‘speculative silhouette’ of Vectidraco, of course you must use your imagination to show what the entire animal might have looked like since all you have to go on is the pelvic bones. However, the head is so large and the apparent center of gravity so far forward that it’s a wonder it doesn’t tip over forward and crumple its beak/snout/whatever while standing still. As for feeding, it will almost certainly fall over forward from this stance if it reaches downward to pluck a morsel from the ground. If you were to shrink the head of Quetzalcoatlus down to the scale of this animal, would the beak/head be this large in relation to the body?

    Link to this
  27. 27. David Marjanović 5:33 pm 03/29/2013

    of course you must use your imagination to show what the entire animal might have looked like

    Yes, but not all that much; it’s mostly scaled from other azhdarchids, particularly the infamous “Quetzalcoatlus sp.”.

    it’s a wonder it doesn’t tip over forward and crumple its beak/snout/whatever while standing still. As for feeding, it will almost certainly fall over forward from this stance if it reaches downward to pluck a morsel from the ground.

    The head and the neck contained a lot of air.

    If you were to shrink the head of Quetzalcoatlus down to the scale of this animal, would the beak/head be this large in relation to the body?

    Yes, if not more so.

    Link to this
  28. 28. helderdarocha 10:45 am 04/15/2013

    Hi Darren. Great article. I am very interested in pterosaur pelves right now. I am researching them for a Tupuxuara foam skeleton I am making out of foam ( In fact I just finished making a pelvis (before reading your article), but I might need to fix it since it was based it on partial views of a fossil; I had to guess what I couldn’t discover through the photos. Do you have a larger image of that montage with several pterosaur pelves?

    Link to this
  29. 29. kilianh 7:50 am 04/25/2013

    Is it just me, or do the fingers of the pterosaur on the book’s cover appear to be somewhere midway the wingfinger?

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American MIND iPad

Give a Gift & Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now >>


Email this Article