[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: bipedality in pterosaurs (was:climbing dromaeosaurs and friends)
Larry,
Well, you raise some good questions, although they delve further into
pterosaur anatomy than I'd intended to go. But here goes:
Certainly, the late Jurassic pterosaurs found in the Solnhofen limestone
represent a good deal of evolutionary development and specialization of
the pterosaur form. It is my opinion that the earlier pterosaurs of the
Triassic might more closely resemble the basic theropod form.<<<
Maybe, but I doubt it. Sharovipteryx doesn't look particularily
theropod-like. I'm not convinced that pterosaurs aren't related to
prolacertiforms, like Dave Peters thinks (see:
http://home.stlnet.com/~azero/Pterosaur_Homepage.htm for details). Even if
pterosaurs are fairly close to basal dinosaurs, they don't seem to have any
of the same pelvic girdle adaptations that theropods have for bipedal
cursoriality. This doesn't mean that they couldn't have been bipedal, but
if so, they did it in a different way.
From what I`ve read, I gather that Padian sees all pterosaurs as being
capable of bipedal locomotion, whereas Unwin declares them all to be
quadrupedal on the ground. I myself would compromise by saying that
Dimorphodon and other earlier pterosaurs were capable of bipedal
locomotion, and that later forms lost this capability.<<<
I'm not sure what Kevin Padian thinks about pterosaurs now. He
certainly has been a staunch supporter of bipedal pterosaurs inthe past, but
at the Denver or Snowbird SVP (I forget which now) he seemed to be softening
to a position similar to yours. I actually think the situation is more
complex. I susect that the antecedant of pterosaurs was arboreal, and
probably a quadreped. There is evidence though, that many Dimorphodonts did
indeed evolve some form of bidpedal locomotion, although I'm sure they were
faculative quadrapeds.
Certainly Pterodactylus and Ptenochasma appear to have been true
quadrapeds, and the Tate Museum houses a large collection of tracks that are
extremely well preserved tracks that are almost certainly pterosaur in
origin, and they are all quadrapedal. Despite this, derived pterosaurs
(e.g. Quetzacoatlus) _may_ have evolved s faulative bipedality. So who
knows, eh? Hopefully we'll soon see what Cliff and friends have to say on
Quetzy and friends.
I'll tell you one thing I know for sure; it would sure be nice to find
more three dimensionally preserved pterosaurs.
If one considers BCF, there exist many examples of secondarily flightless
theropods from the Triassic right on through to present time. One might
expect the same for pterosaurs, however, I can only see a couple of
candidates for secondarily flightless pterosaurs ...Scleromochlus and
Lagosuchus, both Triassic. Perhaps the lack of others beyond the Triassic
reflects the loss of bipedal ability in the later pterosaurs.<<<
While the BCF is certainly worth considering, until more and better
specimens are found from the appropriate strata, I have a hard time
considering it the most likely hypothesis. Of course, I have my own ideas
on how birds evolved... Either way I think Lagosuchus is more
repsresentative of a dinosaur ancestor than a secondarily flightless
pterosaur. Schleromochlus as a grounded pterosaur is certainly an
interesting idea. If you haven't already, I recomend doing a phylogenetic
analysis to see which characters support your hypothesis. If you have, I'd
love to see it.
I will say this, that while terretrial cursoriality has evolved numerous
times in the avian linneage, neither pterosaurs not bats have ever evolved
into cursors. I suspect that this partially reflects differences in their
origins, specifically bipedal cursor vs. arboreal quadraped.
Scott
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com