Re: Hone and Benton 2007 (their second paper)

[Michael Habib <mhabib5@jhmi.edu>]

> > Eudimorphodon was capable of digitigrade bipedal progression. You
> > evidently missed my paper in Ichnos 2000.
> > Peters D., 2000, Description and interpretation of interphalangeal
> > lines in tetrapods. Ichnos 7, 11–41 which covers all your issues with
> > bipedality and trackways.
>
> Well, unless you found trackways _of *Eudimorphodon*_, interphalangeal 
> lines won't help you finding out whether the beast was capable of 
> sustaining digitigrade bipedal locomotion for any serious amount of 
> time. I can walk and run digitigradely; I just can't sustain it for 
> more than a few minutes because it hurts...

In addition, the build and mechanics of most pterosaurs are not set up 
such that they would gain a great deal by bipedal locomotion (as best I 
can tell, in any case).  I doubt that bipedal running would be faster 
for them, and quadrapedal launching would be more powerful (and is 
supported by several aspects of morphology, especially in larger 
pterosaurs).  Just because we cannot see the benefit does not mean it 
did not exist, but it does make me more skeptical of the concept of 
bipedal progression in pterosaurs as a common means of transport.  The 
fact that the interphalangeal lines do not preclude bipedality in 
pterosaurs is useful to know, but I suspect it is not a result of 
bipedal running.

Cheers,

--Mike H.