re: So called 'Rhamphorhynchoid' tracks

[David Peters <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>]

David Unwin wrote:


If I recall correctly, at the Toulouse meeting, many
pterosaur workers expressed considerable doubt over Mazin's
identification, so it would be premature to refer to these tracks as
'rhamphorhynchoid' other than in a highly qualified manner.

>>>  Of course, they expressed doubt -- they were shocked!!  New ideas
are always hard to swallow. As I recall, it wasn't until 1995 when
scientists started to accept Stokes 1957. And still there were
hold-outs.



 DU:

These are not
the only so called 'rhamphorhynchoid' tracks, however (see e.g.
Southwell, E. H. & Connely, M. 1997 Preliminary report of a new
pterosaur
track morphotype from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Wyoming.
J. Vert. Paleont. 17 (3), 78A),

>>>  The above tracks were made by a small ornithocheirid-grade
pterosaur, not a rhamph. The trackmaker was plantigrade.


DU:

but even if these and Mazin's tracks
eventually prove to have been made by members of one (or more) of the
basal clades of pterosaur it is clear that, at present, basal clades
have
a vanishingly small track record compared to the 1000's of prints and
tracks already reported for pterdactyloids.

>>> Vanishingly small is okay... for now...

David Peters
St. Louis