Talk:Pteranodon

Reference?
A fossil preserving fish in the throat region of Pteranodon indicates that the animal was a fish eater.

Reference? John.Conway 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen this mentioned on a museum display interpretation panel, so although I don't have a reference, I'd be fairly certain it is correct - MPF 23:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's good, but it would be nice to have more particulars on the specimen. -- John.Conway 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't think to take any notes :-( MPF 01:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the various species?
What happened to the various species?

You have a small inconsequential list which is wrong btw... InGen's no longer exists...it's the female version of Longiceps if I'm not mistaken.

But where are

Sternbergi Longiceps Quetzocoatlyus (sp?) etc.

There are many many versions but they are not mentioned or not described nor have I been able to find seperate articles for these.

This leaves the article highly fragmentary and misleading to have mention of only one form. --Voyager1 10:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a reference to P.oregonensis (Bennettazhia oregonensis).--Gazzster 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

On the issue again, apparently Marsh identified Pteranodon as "distinguished from all previously known genera of the order {pterosauria} by the entire absence of teeth." This meant that any toothless pterosaur jaw fragment, wherever it was found in the world, was attributed to Pteranodon. Hence a plethora of species and a great deal of confusion. So the name became a wastebin taxon, rather like Megalosaurus, to identify any pterosaur which could not be distinguished other than by the absence of teeth. So I think the principal author of this article is sensibly avoiding getting into the morass by making a cursory comment bout the number of species. And yes, Pteranodon ingens =P.longiceps. I've added some remarks to express what I've just written.--Gazzster 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know the citation for the paper synonymizing longiceps and ingens? I remember reading about it years ago but seem to have lost the ref. A section on sexual dimorphism would be very useful in the article. Dinoguy2 18:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking for it myself. I remember coming across it on the Net, (and was surprised that the two were the same -they have very different crests) but I've lost it now. I'm still lookig; the citation does have to be made.--Gazzster 22:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do ingens and longiceps have very different crests? I thought they looked pretty much the same, and a quick search seems to have both morphs labelled with both species names. Dinoguy2 03:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Pteranodon ingens
I've done some scouting round the Net. The Pterosaur Database equates P. ingens and P.longiceps in a passing reference in the entry about longiceps, but oddly, does not list P.ingens as a synonym. It does however equate an Ornithostoma ingens with P.ingens. The Dinosauricon has an image titled P.ingens, and images of specimens mounted in museums are labelled P.ingens. Wellnhofer has ingens as a separate species (Mikko's Phylogeny). Marsh (www.oceansofkansas.com/Marsh76.htm) in his The Characteristics of American Pterodactyls equates P.ingens Marsh (1872) with Cope's Ornithochirus umbrosis. This entry mentions a P.umbrosus. Could that be ingens? Overall, not very helpful. Perhaps we should ommit any reference to P.ingens until we straighten this thing out?--Gazzster 23:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I found what appears to be the brief taxonomic history of P. ingens in an old DML post:

P. longiceps Marsh, 1876 = Pterodactylus ingens Marsh, 1872 nomen dubium = Ornithostoma ingens (Marsh, 1872) Williston, 1893 [nomen dubium] = Pteranodon ingens (Marsh, 1872) Marsh, 1876 [nomen dubium]
 * Still no cite on who synonymized ingens with longiceps. Unwin 2006 doesn't mention ingens and I can't find my copy of Wellnhofer 1991 :( Dinoguy2 03:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Some info from Mike Taylor: "Actually, it is a somewhat confusing story. P. longiceps based on a skull that was likely a juvenile, based on its size. P. ingens was based partial postcranial on material, several other species were also named based on a couple fragments, but the majority of Pteranodon specimens subsequently found were pretty much randomly assigned to P. longiceps or P. ingens. Marsh appears to have assigned larger specimen to P. ingens, but he never really adequately described the collection of Pteranodon specimens he amassed, and this led to an incredible amount of confusion that later workers tried to correct. Eaton produced an extensive description of the osteology of P., but did nothing to correct the nomenclatural issues, in fact, he caused more problems by assuming a P. longiceps skull to be the holotype of P. ingens. Miller created a complex system of three subgenera and assigned Eaton's skull to its own species P. (Longicepia) marshi, but any differences between this specimen and those he considered to belong to P. (L.) longicpes were likely only sexual, and he even invented some of the supposedly diagnostic features of P. (L.) marshi. He also described a new species based on fragmentary P. longiceps material; P. walkeri. By this point there were four species assigned to fairly similar material. Finally, Bennett, in his doctoral dissertation overhauled the entire genus and determined that all of these species belonged to a single species, P. longiceps. The holotypes of P. longiceps and P. ingens cannot be compared, but other specimens demonstrate they were exactly the same, likely only differing in age."

Wow. And I thought the history of Anatotitan was complicated.--Gazzster 20:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomic history of Pteranodon
Bennett (1994) concluded that : (1) only two species of Pteranodon are valid, P. longiceps Marsh, 1876 and P. sternbergi, and (2) P. occidentalis (Marsh, 1872), P. ingens (Marsh, 1872), P. velox (Marsh, 1872) P. comptus Marsh, 1876, P. harpyia (Cope, 1872), and P. umbrosus (Cope, 1872) are nomina dubia.

Bennett, S. C., 1994. Taxonomy and systematics of the Late Cretaceous pterosaur Pteranodon (Pterosauria, Pterodactyloidea). Occasional Papers of the Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, 169:1-70. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Please don't revert last pop culture edit
... about Petrie being inaccurately portrayed as being able to speak English. I think it's an excellent little joke (and it's true!) and should be left in. -- John.Conway 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, because pteranodons only spoke German.

What kind is this?
I found these free pictures on Flickr, and they apparently show a Pteranodon skeleton cast at the Field Museum. But the crest is unfamiliar to me, and isn't featured on the species diagram in this article, so what is it? FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously some variation of P. longiceps, but that's pretty weird. Would be interested to know the specimen number and how much is reconstructed. I doubt the beak would be that broad or straight, should be narrower laterally and up-curved. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could it be another genus then? And good job expanding this article, by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just saw this, so it's just a crappy sculpt? FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most likely. Most (all?) Pteranodon specimens are crushed flat so I'm guessing the "cast" making process leaves some room for incorrect interpretation. Most are also missing the anterior jaws so many incorrectly have their beaks straight as an arrow. I still wonder if there's some justification for that crest, seems too deviated from the standard to just be a mistake. But it still would be within range of individual variation for P. longceps (it's certainly not as different as the crest of P. sternbergi, though elsewhere at DinoForum there was an indication that the crest of the type on that one was pathological and P. sternbergi may be invalid too). Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

AMNH image
There's a P. longiceps at the AMNH that might work for the article: It gives a good view of the whole animal. Then there's this one in flight that I don't remember seeing, but it's apparently there. Would any of those specimens do, when I embark on my quest for pictures? Crimsonraptor (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the plaque mount would be ideal, if we can remove any glare etc. Any 3D mounted skeleton will necessarily be a replica (not even a true cast) due to the mode of preservation. The 2D gives a sense of how these fossils are really found. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few photos of both on Flickr, but they're not too good: . The head of the plaque mount is drawn, and looks like it was created in a way similar to this Nyctosaurus one which was inaccurate: FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is an actual fossil (3D casts are hard enough to make as it is). And I think the posture could be okay---haven't figured out how they installed it yet, so it could just be compressed from being under another rock. Crimsonraptor (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no Pteranodon skeleton that complete in existence I believe, and certainly not in that condition. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a cast, then. Crimsonraptor (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost all pterosaur fossils from the Niobrara Chalk are so compressed that parts are paper-thin (which is why the skulls and crests are so rarely preserved) so any display piece that has 3D elements is almost certainly at least partially a model (NOT a cast, a cast of a 2D preserved bone is still 2D). Many incomplete chalk-slab specimens simply have missing elements painted on. Often the entire slab is painted white to make it look more uniform (including the infamous nyctosaur crested specimens, where Dave Peters claimed to have found outlines of soft tissues, being unaware that the entire thing was painted). MMartyniuk (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to paint the slab. But getting back to the original question, is the mount accurate enough? Crimsonraptor &#124; (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 01:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC) (And yes, I changed my sig)
 * Close enough, I'd say. The only major thing that stands out is the non-wing finger hands are too big and their finger lengths reversed (they should increase in length from 4 to 1). Here's a good recent composite skeletal for comparison: MMartyniuk (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. OK. I'll keep looking for other mounts then. Crimsonraptor &#124; (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 17:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This photo is interesting, but has some problems. Does include a lot of the AMNH Pteranodon stuff on exhibit. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks like the same cast that's currently in the taxobox... but it's among the best we're going to do I'm afraid. Nobody gets Pteranodon right, apparently. The lack of any complete male skulls in existence doesn't help. By the way I'm working on a revised version of the new comparison diagram already, mainly tweaking the grayed-out beak shape of longiceps to match some known isolated jaws. Should I upload both a Kellner and Bennet taxonomy versions just to be safe? MMartyniuk (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be a good idea...Crimsonraptor &#124; (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 02:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and maybe put letters next to the heads so it's easier to see what description they correspond to? Also, one thing that might confuse readers is this "Unpreserved portions of skulls and jaws depicted in gray", since grey patterns have been used on the crests of male specimens. Some might be lead to believe this means the crests are incomplete, especially since the crest of Dawndraco is also grey and incomplete. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After uploading some PD photos of specimens, it appears that one of the specimen numbers in the diagram is wrong (YPM 2437 should be 2473), and the crests are drawn slightly more complete than they are? This diagram also shows the "male" Sternbergi as less complete than in the one we have: FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That link isn't working...Crimsonraptor &#124; (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, just Google sternbergi skull, it's one of the first that pop up. FunkMonk (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This one? Crimsonraptor &#124; (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 01:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This one: http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/4746/pteranodonskulls.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct reference #2
Hi -- I don't know where to put this, but the 2nd reference is incorrect. It lists the author as Benton instead of Bennett. The correct reference is:

Bennett, S. C. The pterosaurs of the Niobrara Chalk. The Earth Scientist, 11(1):22-25.

I would fix it but I don't know how. Can someone else do it?

71.191.255.82 (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Martin Bullock, martinbullock@gmail.com


 * It's fixed. Thank you! J. Spencer (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Specie box
I noticed that a lot of the invalid species treated as valid,they aren't labeled valid but there notes and status boxes don't indicate that there invalid either,I can imagine someone skimming(no pun intended) would think that there valid.Secondly the notes of Pteranodon sternbergi should say that it's potentially Geosternbergia and the Geoternbergia section( sternbergi and maysei.)are synonyms of  Pteranodon sternbergi ,no question, shouldn't this be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure hat you mean. All the species are classified as either nomen dubium or valid, or list which genus they were transferred to. The Geosternbergia issue is discussed in the text. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it possible it got changed between the original comment and your response? I swear I'm not crazy....142.176.114.76 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Classification
Shouldn't classification go over the actual classification and not just the species? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Size, Genus and Geosternbergia
The largest fossils of Pteranodon Longiceps/Ingens are up to 8 metres or more precisely 7.5 metres, not 7.2 metres. It was Pteranodon Sternbergi/Geosternbergia Sternbergi which was up to 7.2 metres. My question is Geosternbergia part of the Pteranodon genus since it is a synonym of P.Sternbergi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.14.176 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That depends on which palaeontologists you ask, as is the case with many other pterosaur species/genera. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)