Talk:List of pterosaur genera

How many are valid?
The article currently (Aug 20, 2021) states that the list has 247 genera. How many of these are valid? The similar article on dinosaur genera states both the total number and the valid number. It would also be great to add the number of species and the number of genera that are monospecific.

Campylognathus
Hi. I've been going through the red names, and when I came to Campylognathus, I discovered it is a preoccupied name, replaced by Strand in 1928 by Campylognathoides (Pterosaur database, www.pterosaur.co.uk). I've made a note and a reference in the article Hope no-one objects. Cheers --Gazzster 10:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

V and X
I notice that X is a listed section in this article despite the fact that it contains no items, however V is not listed at all. I don't know if there are any pterosaurs starting with either V or X, but it still seems a bit inconsistent- unfortunately, I also don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on blank letter categories. Perhaps someone should look into this and resolve the inconsistency? - green_meklar  22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, there might as well be a V, so I stuck one in. J. Spencer (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Largest Pterosaur
Which one was the largest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishlover3 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that it is Quetzalcoatl. It lived during the late Cretateous in Montana.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Hatzegopteryx beats even the Quetz. Abyssal (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it's Quetzalcoatlus and its fossils have been found in Texas, but no verified remains are known from Montana. You talk about the animal like you're a dino expert but obviously not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Small font?
is the font supposed to be this small, or is it just my computer? --Spotty11222 (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to be small text, but if its excessively small it may be your browser settings. Try adjusting the zoom or text size if it's too small for your taste. The text seems smaller on large monitors, on smaller monitors the text size seems a bit more proportionate and regular sized text seems to deform the table a tad. Abyssal (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am using a wide-screen to view it, so that may be the problem. It's just that I have seen other lists of extinct creatures, and none of them hurt my eyes as much as this one. I'll just try and increase zoom then when I'm on the page. --Spotty11222 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the column width in the first table. Nothing to do with text size, but maybe making it less cramped made it look like less of an eyesore? Abyssal (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cathayopterus, Yixianopterus, and "Nessov"
Both of these genera are valid, I also have the descriptions on hand, these are:

Cathayopterus grabaui Wang, X. and Zhou Z. 2006. Pterosaur adaptational radiation of the Early Cretaceous Jehol Biota, pp. 665–689, 937–938. In: Rong J., Fang Z., Zhou Z., Zhan R., Wang X., and Yuan X. (eds), Originations and Radiations—Evidences from the Chinese Fossil Record. Beijing: Science Press.

Yixianopterus jingangshanensis Lü, J., Ji, S., Yuan, C., Gao, Y., Sun, Z. and Ji, Q. 2006. New pterodactyloid pterosaur from the Lowe Cretaceous Yixian Formation of Western Liaoning, p. 195–203. In: Lü, J., Kobayashi, Y., Huang, D. and Lee, Y. (eds), Papers form the 2005 Heyuan International Dinosaur Symposium. Beijing: Geological Publishing House.

Also, the correct spelling of Несов is Nesov, not Nessov, this is an oddly common mistake that typically appears in reference listings written in English.

Apatomerus (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC) —Mike Hanson


 * That's good news on those two taxa; will have to update the articles. Nessov will take a little more work.  For anyone who wants to work on it, the pages with the incorrect spelling are linked here.  J. Spencer (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cathayopterus's article says it's a nomen nudum. That's what I was going on. Someone who knows what they're doing should fix that. Hint hint Apatomerus. :P Thanks for the help. Abyssal (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done the Nessov->Nesov change. Wonder why we don't have an article? J. Spencer (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ingridia, Lacusovagus & Uktenadactylus
These three names are still lacking in the list — even though Lacusovagus does have its own article!--MWAK (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, they're in there now. J. Spencer (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch, MWAK! Abyssal (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I must admit I was aware of this for some time now. I waited until I was ready to create the Uktenadactylus article :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You sneaky bastard. Abyssal (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

List of pterosaur-bearing stratigraphic units
Hi. I created a list of pterosaur-bearing stratigraphic units a while back. You guys should check it out. I would really appreciate some input. Thanks!Dgrootmyers (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

scleromochus not included.
Argument aside of whether or not sceromochus should be considered a pterosaur. It's current classification is Pterosauria, should it not be included in the list?. p.s. the row above quetzalcoatius is off to the left. CptPugwash (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its current classification is Pterosuaromorpha, although it could be a more basal Avemetatarsalian. It's not a Pterosaur, so no, it should not be included. Dgrootmyers (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about Pterosaurs beyond what little i read. However, is it not true to say that a) Sceromochus has previously been classed as a Pterosaur & b) Pterosauromorpha is synonymous with Pterosaur, therefore to be classified as Pterosaromorpha is to be  classified as Pterosaur (rightly or wrongly). I'm not arguing that Sceromochus is a Pterosaur, i have zero opinion on the subject, only that it should be included in the list with a note about its classification.CptPugwash (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Senter erected Pterosauromorpha for Scleromochlus + Pterosauria, and as far as I know, nobody's ever considered Scleromochlus a Pterosaur. If Scleromochlus isn't the sister taxon to Pterosauria, then Pterosauromorpha would be synonymous with Pterosauria. Dgrootmyers (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of pterosaur genera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105174323/http://www.azhdarcho.com/Art/Paleoart/azhdarch3.htm to http://www.azhdarcho.com/Art/Paleoart/azhdarch3.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.mnhn.fr/museum/foffice/science/science/DocScientifique/publications/presentation/publicationAP/ficheContenu.xsp?CONTENU_ID=4592&PARUTION_ID=2966&PUBLICATION_ID=21&idx=6&nav=listeParution
 * Added tag to http://rparticle.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/rparticle/AbstractTemplateServlet?calyLang=eng&journal=cjes&volume=48&year=2011&issue=1&msno=e10-083
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721224926/http://www.pterosaur.co.uk/archive/SO-1876-Marsh.pdf to http://www.pterosaur.co.uk/archive/SO-1876-Marsh.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928074222/http://www.hceis.com/book.asp?id=4803 to http://www.hceis.com/book.asp?id=4803

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of pterosaur genera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329093343/http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/deuterostoma/Chordata/Archosauria/Pterosauria/pterosauria_1.htm to http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Archosauria/Pterosauria/Pterosauria_1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701145445/http://www.archosauria.org/pterosauria/taxonomy/genera.html to http://www.archosauria.org/pterosauria/taxonomy/genera.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070729075625/http://archosauria.org/pterosauria/taxonomy/species.pdf to http://archosauria.org/pterosauria/taxonomy/species.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720142743/http://www.igme.es/internet/boletin/2010/121_3/ARTICULO%206.pdf to http://www.igme.es/internet/boletin/2010/121_3/ARTICULO%206.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927185431/http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2027/Pages%20407-413.pdf to http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2027/Pages%20407-413.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027072916/http://www.ivpp.ac.cn/pdf/magazine205.pdf to http://www.ivpp.ac.cn/pdf/magazine205.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Agadirichnus
According to this, Agadirichnus returns to be a valid ichnogenus. Could someone more specialized in ichnology eliminate the redirection towards Pteraichnus and create its own article? Super  Ψ   Dro  14:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)