Pterodactylus
Pterodactylus | |
---|---|
Sub-adult type specimen of P. antiquus, Bavarian State Collection for Palaeontology and Geology
| |
Scientific classification | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Kingdom: | Animalia |
Phylum: | Chordata |
Order: | †Pterosauria |
Suborder: | †Pterodactyloidea |
Clade: | †Euctenochasmatia |
Genus: | †Pterodactylus Cuvier, 1809 |
Type species | |
†Ornithocephalus antiquus Sömmerring, 1812
| |
Species | |
Synonyms | |
Genus synonymy
Species synonymy
|
Pterodactylus (from
Pterodactylus was a generalist carnivore that probably fed on a variety of invertebrates and vertebrates. Like all pterosaurs, Pterodactylus had wings formed by a skin and muscle membrane stretching from its elongated fourth finger to its hind limbs. It was supported internally by collagen fibres and externally by keratinous ridges. Pterodactylus was a small pterosaur compared to other famous genera such as Pteranodon and Quetzalcoatlus, and it also lived earlier, during the Late Jurassic period, while both Pteranodon and Quetzalcoatlus lived during the Late Cretaceous. Pterodactylus lived alongside other small pterosaurs such as the well-known Rhamphorhynchus, as well as other genera such as Scaphognathus, Anurognathus and Ctenochasma. Pterodactylus is classified as an early-branching member of the ctenochasmatid lineage, within the pterosaur clade Pterodactyloidea.[4][5]
Discovery and history
The
In his first description of the Mannheim specimen, Collini did not conclude that it was a flying animal. In fact, Collini could not fathom what kind of animal it might have been, rejecting affinities with the birds or the bats. He speculated that it may have been a sea creature, not for any anatomical reason, but because he thought the ocean depths were more likely to have housed unknown types of animals.
The German/French scientist Johann Hermann was the one who first stated that Pterodactylus used its long fourth finger to support a wing membrane. Back in March 1800, Hermann alerted the prominent French scientist Georges Cuvier to the existence of Collini's fossil, believing that it had been captured by the invading forces of the French Consulate and sent to collections in Paris (and perhaps to Cuvier himself) as war booty; at the time special French political commissars systematically seized art treasures and objects of scientific interest. Hermann sent Cuvier a letter containing his own interpretation of the specimen (though he had not examined it personally), which he believed to be a mammal, including the first known life restoration of a pterosaur. Hermann restored the animal with wing membranes extending from the long fourth finger to the ankle and a covering of fur (neither wing membranes nor fur had been preserved in the specimen). Hermann also added a membrane between the neck and wrist, as is the condition in bats. Cuvier agreed with this interpretation, and at Hermann's suggestion, Cuvier became the first to publish these ideas in December 1800 in a very short description.[10] However, contrary to Hermann, Cuvier was convinced the animal was a reptile.[12] The specimen had not in fact been seized by the French. Rather, in 1802, following the death of Charles Theodore, it was brought to Munich, where Baron Johann Paul Carl von Moll had obtained a general exemption of confiscation for the Bavarian collections.[6] Cuvier asked von Moll to study the fossil but was informed it could not be found. In 1809 Cuvier published a somewhat longer description, in which he named the animal Petro-Dactyle,[13] this was a typographical error however, and was later corrected by him to Ptéro-Dactyle.[10] He also refuted a hypothesis by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach that it would have been a shore bird.[13] Cuvier remarked: "It is not possible to doubt that the long finger served to support a membrane that, by lengthening the anterior extremity of this animal, formed a good wing."[14]
Contrary to von Moll's report, the fossil was not missing; it was being studied by
In 1815, the generic name Ptéro-Dactyle was latinized to Pterodactylus by
Description
Pterodactylus is known from over 30 fossil specimens, and though most belong to juveniles, many preserve complete skeletons.[17][23] Pterodactylus antiquus was a relatively small pterosaur, with an estimated adult wingspan of about 1.04 meters (3 ft 5 in), based on the only known adult specimen, which is represented by an isolated skull.[17] Other "species" were once thought to have been smaller.[22] However, these smaller specimens have been shown to represent juveniles of Pterodactylus, as well as its contemporary relatives including Ctenochasma, Germanodactylus, Aurorazhdarcho, Gnathosaurus, and hypothetically Aerodactylus if this genus is truly valid.[24]
The skulls of adult Pterodactylus were long and thin, with about 90 narrow and conical teeth. The teeth extended back from the tips of both jaws, and became smaller farther away from the jaw tips. This was unlike the ones seen in most relatives, where teeth were absent in the upper jaw tip and were relatively uniform in size. The teeth of Pterodactylus also extended farther back into the jaw compared to close relatives, and some were present below the front of the nasoantorbital fenestra, which is the largest opening in the skull.
Pterodactylus, like related pterosaurs, had a crest on its skull composed mainly of soft tissues. In adult Pterodactylus, this crest extended between the back edge of the antorbital fenestra and the back of the skull. In at least one specimen, the crest had a short bony base, also seen in related pterosaurs like Germanodactylus. Solid crests have only been found on large, fully adult specimens of Pterodactylus, indicating that this was a display structure that became larger and more well developed as individuals reached maturity.[17][26] In 2013, pterosaur researcher S. Christopher Bennett noted that other authors claimed that the soft tissue crest of Pterodactylus extended backward behind the skull; Bennett himself, however, didn't find any evidence for the crest extending past the back of the skull.[17] Two specimens of P. antiquus (the holotype specimen BSP AS I 739 and the incomplete skull BMMS 7, the largest known skull of P. antiquus) have a low bony crest on their skulls; in BMMS 7 it is 47.5 mm long (1.87 inches, more or less 24% of the estimated total length of its skull) and has a maximum height of 0.9 mm (0.035 inches) above the orbit.[17] Several specimens previously referred to P. antiquus preserved evidence of the soft tissue extensions of these crests, including an "occipital lappet", a flexible, tab-like structure extending from the back of the skull. Most of these specimens have been reclassified in the related species Aerodactylus scolopaciceps, which may however be nothing more than a junior synonym. Even if Aerodactylus were valid, at least one specimen with these features is still considered to belong to Pterodactylus, BSP 1929 I 18, which has an occipital lappet similar to the proposed Aerodactylus definition, and also possesses a small triangular soft tissue crest with the peak of the crest positioned above the eyes.[17]
Paleobiology
Life history
Like other pterosaurs (most notably
The youngest immature specimens of Pterodactylus antiquus (alternately interpreted as young specimens of the distinct species P. kochi) have a small number of teeth, as few as 15 in some, and the teeth have a relatively broad base.[23] The teeth of other P. antiquus specimens are both narrower and more numerous (up to 90 teeth are present in several specimens).[25]
Pterodactylus specimens can be divided into two distinct year classes. In the first year class, the skulls are only 15 to 45 millimeters (0.59 to 1.77 in) in length. The second year class is characterized by skulls of around 55 to 95 millimeters (2.2 to 3.7 in) long, but are still immature however. These first two size groups were once classified as juveniles and adults of the species P. kochi, until further study showed that even the supposed "adults" were immature, and possibly belong to a distinct genus. A third year class is represented by specimens of the "traditional" P. antiquus, as well as a few isolated, large specimens once assigned to P. kochi that overlap P. antiquus in size. However, all specimens in this third year class also show sign of immaturity. Fully mature Pterodactylus specimens remain unknown, or may have been mistakenly classified as a different genus.[23]
Growth and breeding seasons
The distinct year classes of Pterodactylus antiquus specimens show that this species, like the contemporary Rhamphorhynchus muensteri, likely bred seasonally and grew consistently during its lifetime. A new generation of 1st year class P. antiquus would have been produced seasonally, and reached 2nd-year size by the time the next generation hatched, creating distinct 'clumps' of similarly-sized and aged individuals in the fossil record. The smallest size class probably consisted of individuals that had just begun to fly and were less than one year old.[23][27] The second year class represents individuals one to two years old, and the rare third year class is composed of specimens over two years old. This growth pattern is similar to modern crocodilians, rather than the rapid growth of modern birds.[23]
Daily activity patterns
Comparisons between the
Diet
Based on the shape, size, and arrangement of its teeth, Pterodactylus has long been recognized as a carnivore specializing in small animals. A 2020 study of pterosaur tooth wear supported the hypothesis that Pterodactylus preyed mainly on invertebrates and had a generalist feeding strategy, indicated by a relatively high bite force.[29]
Paleoecology
Specimens of Pterodactylus have been found mainly in the
Classification
Initial classifications for Pterodactylus started when paleontologist Hermann von Meyer used the name Pterodactyli to contain Pterodactylus and other pterosaurs known at the time. This was emended to the family Pterodactylidae by Prince Charles Lucien Bonaparte in 1838. However, this group has more recently been given several competing definitions.[4][47]
Beginning in 2014, researchers Steven Vidovic and David Martill constructed an analysis in which several pterosaurs traditionally thought of as
Pterodactyloidea |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As illustrated below, the results of a different topology are based on a phylogenetic analysis made by Longrich, Martill, and Andres in 2018. Unlike the previous results above, they placed Pterodactylus within the clade Euctenochasmatia, resulting in a more derived position.[5]
Archaeopterodactyloidea |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Formerly assigned species
Numerous species have been assigned to Pterodactylus in the years since its discovery. In the first half of the 19th century any new pterosaur species would be named Pterodactylus, which thus became a "wastebasket taxon".[32] Even after clearly different forms had later been given their own generic name, new species would be created from the very productive sites, throughout Europe and North America, often based on only slightly different material.[48]
The earliest reassignments of pterosaur species to Pterodactylus started in 1825, with the description of Rhamphorhynchus; fossil collector
Beginning in 1846, many pterosaur specimens were found near the village of
Assigning new pterosaur species to Pterodactylus was not only common in Europe, but also in North America; paleontologists such as
Later, in the 1980s, subsequent revisions by
Controversial species
The only well-known and well-supported species left by the first decades of the 21st century were P. antiquus and P. kochi. However, most studies between 1995 and 2010 found little reason to separate even these two species, and treated them as synonymous.[4] More recent studies of pterosaur relationships have found anurognathids and pterodactyloids to be sister groups, which would limit the more inclusive group Caelidracones to just two clades.[72][71] In 1996, Bennett suggested that the differences between specimens of P. kochi and P. antiquus could be explained by differences in age, with P. kochi (including specimens alternately classified in the species P. scolopaciceps) representing an immature growth stage of P. antiquus. In a 2004 paper, Jouve used a different method of analysis and recovered the same result, showing that the "distinctive" features of P. kochi were age-related, and using mathematical comparison to show that the two forms are different growth stages of the same species.[25] An additional review of the specimens published in 2013 demonstrated that some of the supposed differences between P. kochi and P. antiquus were due to measurement errors, further supporting their synonymy.[17]
By the 2010s, a large body of research had been developed based on the idea that P. kochi and P. scolopaciceps were early growth stages of P. antiquus. However, in 2014, two scientists began publishing research that challenged this paradigm. Steven Vidovic and David Martill concluded that differences between specimens of P. kochi, P. scolopaciceps, and P. antiquus, such as different lengths of neck vertebrae, thinner or thicker teeth, more rounded skulls, and how far the teeth extended back in the jaws, were significant enough to separate them into three distinct species. Vidovic and Martill also performed a phylogenetic analysis which treated all relevant specimens as distinct units, and found that the P. kochi type specimen did not form a natural group with that of P. antiquus. They concluded that the genus Diopecephalus could be returned to use to distinguish "P". kochi from P. antiquus. They named the new genus Aerodactylus for P. scolopaciceps as well. So, what Bennett considered early growth stages of one species, Vidovic and Martill considered representatives of new species.[48][32]
In 2017, Bennett challenged this hypothesis, he claimed that while Vidovic and Martill had identified real differences between these three groups of specimens, they had not provided any rationale that the differences were enough to distinguish them as species, rather than just individual variation, growth changes, or simply due to crushing and distortion during the fossilization process. Bennett pointed in particular to the data used to distinguish Aerodactylus, which was so different from the data for related species, it might be due to an unnatural assemblage of specimens. As a result, Bennett continued to consider Diopecephalus and Aerodactylus simply as year-classes of immature Pterodactylus antiquus.[73]
List of species
During its over-200-year history, the various species of Pterodactylus have gone through a number of changes in classification and thus have acquired a large number of synonyms. Additionally, a number of species assigned to Pterodactylus are based on poor remains that have proven difficult to assign to one species or another and are therefore considered nomina dubia (lit. 'doubtful names'). The following list includes names that were used to identify new pterosaur species that now have been reclassified, or until recently thought to be pertaining to Pterodactylus proper, and names based on other material that has as yet not been assigned to other genera. This list also includes species that are
List of species
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cultural significance
Pterodactylus is regarded as one of the most iconic prehistoric creatures, with multiple appearances in books, movies, as well as television series and several videogames. The informal name "pterodactyl" is sometimes used to refer to any kind of animal belonging to the order
Another appearance of Pterodactylus-like creatures is in J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium. In this novel, the Nazgûl, introduced as the Black Riders, are nine characters who rode flying monsters that looked similarly built to Pterodactylus. Christopher Tolkien, the son of the author, described the flying monsters as "Nazgûl-birds"; his father described the appearance of the steeds as somewhat "pterodactylic", and acknowledged that these were obviously "new mythology".[77][78]
See also
References
- ^ Fischer von Waldheim, Gotthelf (1813). Zoognosia tabulis synopticis illustrata : in usum praelectionum mperalis Medico-Chirurgicae Mosquenis edita. Vol. 1. Mosquae [Moscow]: Typis Nicolai S. Vsevolozsky. p. 466.
- JSTOR 18398.
- ^ .
- ^ S2CID 86710955.
- ^ PMID 29534059.
- ^ S2CID 129805068.
- ^ ISBN 0-13-146308-X.
- ^ Brougham, Henry P. (1844). "Dialogues on instinct; with analytical view of the researches on fossil osteology". Knight's Weekly Volume for All Readers. 19.
- ^ Collini, C A. (1784). "Sur quelques Zoolithes du Cabinet d'Histoire naturelle de S. A. S. E. Palatine & de Bavière, à Mannheim". Acta Theodoro-Palatinae Mannheim (in French). 5 Physicum: 58–103 (1 plate).
- ^ .
- ^ Wagler, Johann Georg (1830). Natürliches System der Amphibien : mit vorangehender Classification der Säugethiere und Vögel : ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Zoologie (in German). München.
- ^ Cuvier, G. (1801). "Extrait d'un ouvrage sur les espèces de quadrupèdes dont on a trouvé les ossemens dans l'intérieur de la terre". Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d'Histoire Naturelle (in French). 52: 253–267.
Reptile volant
- ^ a b Cuvier, G. (1809). "Mémoire sur le squelette fossile d'un reptile volant des environs d'Aichstedt, que quelques naturalistes ont pris pour un oiseau, et dont nous formons un genre de Sauriens, sous le nom de Petro-Dactyle". Annales du Muséum national d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris. 13: 424–437.
- ^ Cuvier, G. (1809), p. 436 : "II n'est guère possible de douter que ce long doigt n'ait servi à supporter une membrane qui formoit [sic] à l'animal, d'après la longueur de l'extrémité antérieure, une aile bien plus puissante que celle du dragon, et au moins égale en force à celle de la chauve-souris."
- ^ von Sömmerring, S. T. (1812). "Über einen Ornithocephalus oder über das unbekannten Thier der Vorwelt, dessen Fossiles Gerippe Collini im 5. Bande der Actorum Academiae Theodoro-Palatinae nebst einer Abbildung in natürlicher Grösse im Jahre 1784 beschrieb, und welches Gerippe sich gegenwärtig in der Naturalien-Sammlung der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München befindet: vorgelesen in der mathematisch-physikalischen Classe am 27. Dec. 1810 und Nachtrag vorgelesen am 8. April 1811". Denkschriften der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 3. München: 89–158.
- .
- ^ S2CID 83722829.
- ^ von Sömmerring, S.T. (1817). "Ueber einen Ornithocephalus brevirostris der Vorwelt". Denkschriften der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (in German). 6: 89–104.
- ISBN 978-0-938644-23-1.
- ^ Rafinesque, C.S. (1815). Analyse de la nature, ou tableau de l'univers et des corps organisés (L'Imprimerie de Jean Barravecchia ed.). p. 224.
- ^ a b Cuvier, G. (1819). "Pterodactylus longirostris". In Oken, Lorenz (ed.). Isis (oder Encyclopädische Zeitung) von Oken (in German). Jena : Expedition der Isis. pp. 1126, 1788.
- ^ a b c d Lydekker, Richard (1888). Catalogue of Fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History). Part I. Containing the Orders Ornithosauria, Crocodilia, Dinosauria, Squamata, Rhynchocephalia and Pterosauria. Taylor and Francis. pp. 2–37.
- ^ .
- ^ S2CID 86308635.
- ^ S2CID 86019483.
- .
- ^ Wellnhofer, Peter (1970). Die Pterodactyloidea (Pterosauria) der Oberjura-Plattenkalke Süddeutschlands (PDF). Vol. 141. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Wissenschaftlichen Klasse, Abhandlungen. p. 133.
- S2CID 33253407. Archived from the original(PDF) on February 28, 2019.
- ^ Bestwick, J., Unwin, D.M., Butler, R.J. et al. Dietary diversity and evolution of the earliest flying vertebrates revealed by dental microwear texture analysis. Nat Commun 11, 5293 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19022-2
- S2CID 220415208.
- .
- ^ S2CID 219204038.
- ISBN 978-0-521-81172-9.
- .
- ^ Evans, S.E. (1994). "The Solnhofen (Jurassic: Tithonian) lizard genus Bavarisaurus: new skull material and a reinterpretation". Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen. 192: 37–52.
- S2CID 83985855.
- ^ Brandalise de Andrade, Marco; Young, Mark T. (2008). "High diversity of thalattosuchian crocodylians and the niche partition in the Solnhofen Sea". The 56th Symposium of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Comparative Anatomy: 14–15. Archived from the original on June 3, 2011.
- PMID 23028723.
- ^ Joyce, Walter G. (2003). "A new Late Jurassic turtle specimen and the taxonomy of Palaeomedusa testa and Eurysternum wagleri" (PDF). PaleoBios. 23 (3): 1–8. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 1, 2015.
- ISSN 0022-3360.
- ^ S2CID 127676896.
Table 1: List of actinopterygians from the Solnhofen lithographic limestone – Halecomorphi; 'Amiidae' and 'Ophiopsidae'" (p. 216)
- ^ a b Sepkoski, Jack (2002). "A compendium of fossil marine animal genera". Bulletins of American Paleontology. 364: 560. Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved February 27, 2009.
- S2CID 86350086.
- ISBN 1-84028-152-9.
- PMID 22412850.
- OCLC 2672427.
- S2CID 128892642.
- ^ PMID 25337830.
- ISBN 978-0-691-15061-1.
- ^ Münster, Georg Graf zu (1830). Nachtrag zu der Abhandlung des professor Goldfuss ueber den Ornithocephalus Münsteri (Goldf.). Bayreuth: F. C. Birner.
- ^ Münster, Georg Graf zu (1839). "Über einige neue Versteinerungen in der lithographischen Schiefer von Baiern". Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart's Verlagshandlung. pp. 676–682.
- ^ von Meyer, Hermann (1845). "System der fossilen Saurier" [Taxonomy of fossil saurians]. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde (in German). Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart's Verlagshandlung: 278–285.
- ^ von Meyer, Hermann (1846). "Pterodactylus (Rhamphorhynchus) gemmingi aus dem Kalkschiefer von Solenhofen". Palaeontographica. 1. Cassel (published 1851): 1–20.
- ^ von Meyer, Hermann (1847). Homoeosaurus maximiliani und Rhamphorhynchus (Pterodactylus) longicaudus: Zwei fossile Reptilien aus dem Kalkschiefer von Solenhofen (in German). Frankfurt: S. Schmerber'schen buchhandlung.
- S2CID 129389179.
- .
- ^ Owen, R. (1851). Monograph on the fossil Reptilia of the Cretaceous Formations. The Palaeontographical Society 5(11):1–118.
- ^ ISSN 0374-5481.
- ^ PMID 23794925.
- ^ Owen, R. (1859). Monograph on the fossil Reptilia of the Cretaceous formations. Supplement no. I. Palaeontographical Society, London, p. 19
- doi:10.1144/SP343.18
- ^ ISSN 0374-5481.
- ^ Seeley, H.G. (1870). "The Ornithosauria: an Elementary Study of the Bones of Pterodactyles". Cambridge: 112–128.
- ^ Owen, R. 1874. "A Monograph on the Fossil Reptilia of the Mesozoic Formations. 1. Pterosauria." The Palaeontographical Society Monograph 27: 1–14
- S2CID 133080548.
- ^ Marsh, O.C. (1871). "Note on a new and gigantic species of Pterodactyle". American Journal of Science. 3. 1 (6): 472.
- ^ a b c Witton, M.P. (2010). "Pteranodon and beyond: The history of giant pterosaurs from 1870 onwards. Geological Society of London Special Publications". 343: 313–323.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - JSTOR 981730.
- ^ Cope, E. D. (1875). "The Vertebrata of the Cretaceous formations of the West". Report, U. S. Geological Survey of the Territories (Hayden). 2: 302 pp., 57 pls.
- S2CID 130203580.
- ^ S2CID 86460861.
- S2CID 84617119.
- S2CID 90893067.
- ISBN 978-1-63083-412-8.
- ^ Oken, Lorenz (1816). Okens Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. Vol. 3. Leipzig: August Schmid und Comp. pp. 312–314.
- ^ Naish, Darren. "Pterosaurs: Myths and Misconceptions". Pterosaur.net. Retrieved June 18, 2011.
- Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #211 to Rhona Beare, October 14, 1958
- Frodo would have had if he discovered some Hobbitslearning to ride Nazgûl-birds, 'for the liberation of the Shire'."
External links
- Media related to Pterodactylus at Wikimedia Commons
- Data related to Pterodactylus at Wikispecies