Talk:Quetzalcoatlus

Dinotopia - Skybax redirect page
I was redirected to this page from the word "skybax" while searching for more info on Dinotopia. The reason for me writing this is that I was disappointed to not find any reason for why I was redirected to this page. The only reason I can see is that this is obviously the real name for the dinosaur that is called a Skybax in the Dinotopia series. However, I think that some sort of mention of this should be put on the page. Moreover, I would vote to have the skybax redirect page converted into it's own page that has more info about the Skybax from the series and that then links to this page.

--Lab Dragon 01:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha - I see what the problem is. The information probably was on this page at some point, then was transferred to a now-deleted Extinct Animals in Popular Culture article.  I've been working with a version of that article, and the Skybax mention is included.  I don't know much about Dinotopia, but I'd be fine with including a mention here. J. Spencer 02:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks --72.44.154.250 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I recently created that redirect. The skybax, as you call it, did not exist. The genus did, but the species didn't. The reason is that many species in the Dinotopia series are actually real by their genus, but not their species. A variant of skybax shown in the series, called "northies", are real, they're known as quetzalcoatlus northopi. More names which are real by genus but not species include arcticum longevus and chenopodium tluca, both of which are plants. Do you think we should have a "wikiproject dinotopia"? Thanks. – A  stroHur  ricane  00  1 ( Talk + Contribs + Ubx ) ( + sign here + How's my editing? ) 01:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, I don't know a thing about Dinotopia, so you're welcome to edit the mention to better fit the books' depiction. :) J. Spencer 03:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wingspan of Senckenberg Museum model?
Re the photo of the Senckenberg Museum model:

Does anybody know the wingspan of this model?? I'm wondering which guess the modellers went with. - 5 december 2005


 * According to their web site, the wingspan is 12 meters (40 feet). This was long considered a high-end estimate, but now that pterosaurs have been found with wingspans approaching 80 feet, I don't think it's so improbable. Dinoguy2 00:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 80 foot (24 m) wingspan? In other words a pterosaur eight times bigger than Quetzalcoatlus, if their proportions are similar. Sounds like utter BS to me.
 * Well, wait for the paper, I guess.Dinoguy2 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you'll be waiting a long time. John.Conway 06:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Something else should be considered regarding wingspan limits. The claim that creatures with such a large wingspan "violate fundamental structural limits imposed on biological fliers" was calculated using our current atmosphere. According to Biblical account, our atmosphere was completely different prior to the flood. This would not only account for much larger creatures but also longer life spans, faster healing, and generally a different world than what we observe today. On a side note, this could easily cause problems with dating methods we base on our currently observable atmosphere.
 * According to Biblical account, The Bible says this? I'm not trying to be combative, but I'm interested in religious scholarship and I doubt people in the 4th century knew what an "atmosphere" was, let alone that it changed due to the flood.Dinoguy2 22:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Dinoguy2. Don't expect to find words like "atmosphere" or "dinosaur" in the Bible. The word atmosphere is a mixture of Greek and Latin, neither of which existed when Genesis was written. The Greek atmos(vapor) + the Latin sphaera(sphere) form the word atmosphere which means vapor which surrounds the earth. The Hebrew word used to describe the air around the earth in Genesis 2:6 is translated as mist. You may notice the description of the Arabic word used to confirm this meaning actually does contain the word atmosphere, and is even described as a defense or something that guards and strengthens. I don't want to read too much into that, but I found that description pretty interesting. As far as the change occurring with the flood, you need to look closely at the scriptures. The flood is not only caused by rain but is referred to as "the flood of waters" in Genesis 7:6. This becomes more clear in Genesis 7:11 where it is written that "...the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." If you read other scriptures that refer back to the flood you will find mention of the fountains of the deep. Something I don't think most people realize is that although it rained 40 days, the water rose and didn't begin receeding until after 150 days. Noah didn't even get to leave the ark for over a year. If you study the geneologies following the flood you will see the lifespan of man became shorter and shorter. The conclusion that makes logical sense to me is that the atmosphere that had previously protected and shielded life from the destructive force of the sun had changed greatly. I hope this helps Dinoguy2. Something to think about too, if people lived alot longer pre-flood, is it possible that on an individual basis they knew more about life than we do today :)
 * The conclusion that makes logical sense to me is that the atmosphere that had previously protected and shielded life from the destructive force of the sun had changed greatly. The thing is, the composition of the atmosphere at a given time in prehistory can be tested in several ways. The largest change was when oxygen levels *increased* sharply during the precabrian due to the advent of photosynthesis. (Of course ancient Jewish scholars would have been unaware of this, heh). I hadn't heard the bit about the connection between mist and atmosphere, etymologically, are there any (maybe less POV) cites that corroborate this?Dinoguy2 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dinoguy2, the "Precambrian" era is part of the evolutionary theory that exists only within that theory. The belief that everything in this world evolved from single-celled organisms, and that those single-celled organisms just somehow sprang to life from dead matter is exactly that, a belief. All the "proof" for the theory is inferred from defective or presumptive evidence (or in a number of cases fraud). Nowhere in our world do we see transition from one species to another, and nowhere is it even demonstrated through fossil evidence. As scientists have discovered DNA and discover no "simple" cell even exists, it continually becomes more apparent that macro-evolution is wrong. Irreducible complexity is something that does exist, is testable, provable, visible, and logical. Please see the micro-biology section on http://creationevolution.net/. We have all been indoctrinated with evolutionary theory and taught to see everything through the eyes of an evolutionist from a very early age. Please don't just go with the flow, look into this more deeply from all types of sources and I think you might be glad you did. I provided you with the Biblical account you asked for, including the original language, because you said you were interested in "religious scholarship". If you refer to what I shared from the Bible as a "bit" I am not sure any other Bible believers word is going to do much to satisfy you. I would however recommend Dr. Kent Hovind's DVD series on the subject. My wife was a biology major and I can't put into words how much she got out of watching them. I will gladly make you a copy of any or all 7 DVD's and send them to you if you would like? What were we talking about anyway?? Oh yeah, an explanation of how the flight of a creature with a 50+ foot wingspan is possible :)
 * I'm interested in Biblical scholarship just as I'm interested in scholarship relating to he Illiad or other mythological texts.Dinoguy2 14:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Name
On the question of the naming raised some time ago- which someone used as evidence for the Quetzalcoatlus being alive along with the Aztecs- did it ever occur to anyone that the person who discovered it named it after the Quetzalcoatl, rather than the other way around? --Ragestorm 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah that was a kinda flawed question, Quetzalcoatl is a feathered-snake god, not a leathery membraned-wing beaked-reptile god. Feathered snakes might very well have existed, and feathered reptiles almost certainly did/do, but the pterosaur was just given a kitschy name based on mythology. Nobody argues that Titanosaurus was the Titans in Greek mythology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Just to nitpick, I think it's highly unlikely that feathered snakes existed... feathers are a pretty complex structure that almost certainly evolved only once. Not to say there couldn't be snakes with some kind of feather-like "snake-fuzz" akin to ptero-fuzz or something ;) Dinoguy2 17:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * no, snakes are not dinosaurs, and only one branch of the many branches of dinosaurs ever had feathers, therefore, nope 2603:6080:21F0:6140:1DCA:1EDB:6575:99DB (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Feathered Snake:
If you look at the legs of the ostrich birds, you can tell they are reptilian alike, kind of what you would think dinosaur legs would look like, and yet these birds have feather all over their bodies. These characteristics are very common in birds, and if you really use your imagination, many dinosours do look like big chickens.

I highly doubt that the quetzalcoatlus had feathers, but the ethymology is more likely allegoric to represent its ability to fly. When you think about feather, you tend to think about wind and flying. Stratogustav (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Gustavo Avilés


 * I'm not sure why you're trying to suss out deeper meaning in the etymology. It was named by scientists in the 1970s, not the ancient Aztecs.The name was designed to sound cool, not reflect how it might have appeared in life. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of Quetzalcoatlus northropi
Why was Quetzalcoatlus northropi named after John Knudsen "Jack" Northrop?
 * My guess is that the namers of Qn were paying homage to Northrop's aircraft designs, since Qn itself was the size of a small aircraft, and so it was a sort of biological precursor to them. A round about way of using a name that would mean "plane-like".Dinoguy2 00:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Dinotopia pterosaurs
The article makes is sound like the fiction Skybax is featured in Walking with Dinosaurs. Is this the case? It could use some clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.4.4 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay I fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.4.4 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the largest flying animals
The lead paragraph says this is "one of the largest flying animals." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that this is "the largest flying animal"?Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, since Hatzegopteryx was larger. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is still debate over whether Hatzegopteryx or Quetzalcoatlus was larger. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 02:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently there's a new study in press that downsizes Hatz as happened to Quetz, making it a bit smaller. But Wait for the paper on that one. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So Quetzalcoatlus is bigger than Hatzegopteryx? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 01:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably, but this hasn't been published yet. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a persistent misunderstanding that it has ever been claimed in a scientific article that Hatzegopteryx were much bigger than Quetzalcoatlus. The describers of Hatzegopteryx merely stated that because its remains are fragmentary but its humerus is roughly of the same size, it could possibly have been larger, especially since the skull seemed broader. They did claim it could have been twelve metres or more in wingspan but that was based on an estimated wingspan for Quetzalcoatlus itself of 11-12 metres. So when estimates for Quetzalcoatlus go down, Hatzegopteryx automatically shrinks with it. Witton's last published estimate for Quetzalcoatlus was a "mere" 9.64 metres. Obviously Hatzegopteryx then cannot be twelve metres, as this would make it about 1.93 times larger which would give it, extrapolating from Witton's mass estimate of 259 kilogrammes for Quetzalcoatlus, a weight of almost exactly half a tonne! This apart from any considerations regarding the correctness of the original interpretation of the fossil material.--MWAK (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sightings of living Quetzalcoatlus
I have read about reports of sightings of living Quetzalcoatlus. Has anyone else heard anything about this? Maybe it should be included in the article. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)l
 * Sounds very silly, to say the least. Got any sources? In any case, it could hardly be Quetz itself, how could it have remained unchanged for 65 million years? That's the main giveaway that such sightings of prehistoric animals are fake, you'd expect them have evolved from the point they were thoguht to be extinct until now. Apart from the fact that a population of flying animals with a 12 meter wing span could not go unnoticed today by any strech of the imagination. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it really happened, I'm just saying that maybe the reports should be included in the article. If we would not include any material that "sounds very silly", we would have to delete our articles on Kasai rex, Muhuru, Ngoubou, and Mokele mbembe. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 00:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the sheer unlikelihood, what would be the point of including such reports in this *particular* article? i.e., upon what evidence did the reporters identify their sightings as Quetzalcoatlus? Were they able to observe a set of anatomical markers that allowed them to say "yes, this is a Quetzalcoatlus, and not a Hatzegopterus or Montanazhdarcho or some other large pterosaur", or did they just pull Quetzalcoatlus out of the air because it's big and they'd heard of it?  And why is it no one ever observes some mundane prehistoric reptile, like a living champsosaur?  That group at least made it to the Miocene and possibly the Pliocene, and its last members were small and could be mistaken for lizards, qualifications which beat the heck out of proposed sauropods (Mokele), pterosaurs (thunderbirds), and plesiosaurs (Nessie). J. Spencer (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe it shouldn't be included in this article, maybe the article on Pterodactyloids, but again, I'm not saying it really happened, I'm saying maybe it ought to be included. You can't exclude material here just because it sounds crazy. It may well have been a hoax, but we have lots of articles about hoaxes. The story I heard was of two Texas ranchers who saw a large pterosaur and shot it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 21:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is to be included in any form anywhere, we need some external sources first. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to refer to the hoaxes discussed here: http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/12/pterosaurs_alive.php --MWAK (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Flight" section update needed
See

"'Body masses for 14 species of pterosaur spanning four orders of magnitude were estimated using three-dimensional, digital models. [...] The reliability of the mass estimation methods were tested with equivalent models of six extant species of bird with masses that spanned three orders of magnitude. The close agreement between model bird mass estimates and those of the living forms provides a level of confidence in the results obtained for the extinct pterosaurs. [...] The estimated mass for the largest pterosaur known, Quetzalcoatlus northropi, exceeds the previous highest estimates by more than 100%, and it is argued that this extremely large pterosaur is better interpreted as a secondarily flightless form.' (emphasis added)"

Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Noite also the relevant discussion on Dinosaur Mailing List. Their estimate seems to be far too large (fide Mike Habib), but even it it is merely closer to the real weight than the estimates on the light end of the scale, flightlessness (or flight reserved for long-distance migrations?) becomes a possibility not easily dismissed. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it should at least be mentioned, and the high weight estimate agrees with some previously (un)published. Though the paper did apparently use some very outdates reconstructions for their models, i.e. from before the general azhdarchid bodyplan was known. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

GalileoScience (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)The flying ability of the Quetzalcoatlus is a controversial scientific topic and so this section should be kept to the experimental facts rather than quote the biased opinions of experts. It is wrong to dedicate only two or three sentences to Paul MacCready's experimental attempt to get a half size model to fly and then counterpoint these facts with a much longer passage of Mike Habib's questionable claims. In science, authoritative opinions have no value whatsoever and so the entire second paragraph should be deleted.

The experimental effort should be emphasized, explained more in detail, and stated correctly. The statement "The model successfully flew..." is misleading. The reason a half size model was built was because MacCready's team realized that a full size model with proper weight could not have flown. Even when they built the half size model with a very reduced weight their half sized model did not fly either. Scientifically speaking, gently descending back to the ground is not the same as flying. To fly an object has to achieve enough lift to counterbalance its own weight and so for airplanes or flying vertebrates this means the ability to maintain level flight. The half sized model never flew; it only occasionally gave the appearance of flying when there was no background reference revealing that it was actually falling.

Finally it is a significant fact that in front of the national media May 17, 1986 the model's flight was a PR disaster when it dove into the ground and broke its neck, since because of this embarrassment it is unlikely that the Smithsonian will try again. All things considered, it is dishonest to imply that the science establishment has an understanding of how the Quetzalcoatlus flew.

I fail to see any bias in this section of the article. It is simply stated that claims of flightlessness in large azhdarchids contradict the majority of mechanical studies on pterosaur flight, which to my understanding they do. I also hope you are aware of the fact that MacCready's model is outdated and does not reflect current knowledge of azhdarchid anatomy and mechanics. Therefore it cannot be considered reliable as testimony to the flight habits of Quetzalcoatlus. In any case, the notion that the genus was entirely incapable of flight is very unlikely to be true. --24.36.139.110 (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Quetzalcoatlus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Quetzalcoatlus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "witton2010": From Pterosaur size: Mark P. Witton, David M. Martill and Robert F. Loveridge, 2010, "Clipping the Wings of Giant Pterosaurs: Comments on Wingspan Estimations and Diversity", Acta Geoscientica Sinica, 31 Supp.1: 79-81 From Hatzegopteryx: Witton, M.P., Martill, D.M. and Loveridge, R.F. (2010). "Clipping the Wings of Giant Pterosaurs: Comments on Wingspan Estimations and Diversity." Acta Geoscientica Sinica, 31 Supp.1: 79-81 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

On Flight, and room for improvement
The article would be improved by referencing and incorporating the actual paper by Witton & Habib, rather than just blogs by the authors themselves (Pterosaur.net), or snippets from non-newsworthy content recyclers (neatorama.com). The article is already referenced in the section on body weight, but it is central to the flight controversy as well.

Other areas for improvement are the lead (too short), and the Description section, which confusingly starts off talking about "the unnamed smaller species" (what?) --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't address the possible flight capabilities of juveniles - which may have been greatly restricted in the huge mature adults. One way or the other the article should cover this. 104.169.44.141 (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It can not cover anything not explicitly covered in the relevant sources. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I.e., discussions of whether or not the juvenile Quetzalcoatlus was earthbound, while its elders were not are explicitly prohibited being discussed in the article on the grounds of it being original research, especially when one notes that no juvenile Quetzalcoatlus specimens are known, let alone enough being known to determine whether or not juveniles were flightless.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe 104 was referring to juveniles FLYING but adults, after reaching a certain weight, could not. Recent research seems to point to even infant ptero's being almost ready for flight without a long nesting period, and there is no reason to think that the young of Q could not fly. 2603:6080:21F0:6140:1DCA:1EDB:6575:99DB (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk page contains creationist nonsense from 2006?
I'm not calling for censorship so much as a disposal of trash. The top half of the talk page has the following nonsense. It's years old and I seriously doubt it is serving any use:

Ultradense atmosphere hypothesis.

Claims of the bible as a source of evidence in a scientific context unrelated to the history of Christianity.

Young earth creationism.

Flood mythology.

Claims of flyers 80 feet in wingspan.

Confusion that the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl was instead named and based off the animal.

Assertion that Quetz survived to the present.

Assertion that Quetzalcoatlus specifically, and not merely some unknown azhdarchid, is responsible for cryptozoological sightings.

And probably a host of other things I missed.

Again, if the authors of this material wish to keep it here or there is a rule about not periodically de-gunking talk pages, that's fine, but it would be nice if paleontologically relevant discussion would be here, as opposed to discussion by people who can't wrap their head around millions of years or the fossil record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.78.5 (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was also baffled, re-reading the page again, but it should simply be archived. Most of this is page extremely old anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Texas Big Bird cryptozoology
The "Big Bird" sightings were of large flying cryptids in Texas around the time Quetzacoatlus was discovered, and the two topics have since become associated. Should we include the sightings as part of the "Popular Culture" section? Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources make this connection? FunkMonk (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I found this one: https://texashillcountry.com/a-living-texas-thunderbird-or-giant-myth/ I know it does not classify as a reliable source, but it does prove that at least some connection has been made between the sightings and the Quetzacoatlus holotype discovery. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty tangential, can't see anywhere there it was ever suggested the thunderbird was this pterosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. I just wondered if such cultural phenomena were related enough to Quetzalcoatlus. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)