[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: ptero-"vampires" (doubtful?)

> P.S.  Have their been speculations on what kind of "tongues" pterosaurs
> might have had.  Is a pterosaur "tongue" lapping up blood probable or
> improbable?

In all pterosaur restorations I've seen, they're usually portrayed with long,
thin tongues that run the length of the lower jaw. Whether this is based on
physical evidence, or is simply artistic licence, it seems unlikely that this
kind of a tongue would be of much use for lapping up blood. Surely a short,
wide tongue (and jaw) would be more suited to this?

Coming back to pterosaur diets: Would anyone care to speculate on what
*Tapejara* could have preyed on? It has the most peculiar "beak"; completely
toothless, relatively short (10-15cm), narrow side-to-side with a high bony
crest running the length of the top of the skull. It would appear to be
unsuited to either a piscivorous lifestyle (it lacks not only the sharp
procumbent teeth, but also the long snout that seem to characterise all other
supposedly piscivorous pterosaurs), or an insectivorous one (again, lacking
the short, wide snout & peglike teeth of *Batrachognathus* & *Anurognathus*).

Any thoughts?