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

More Quetz Questions



Hi all;

It's been really neat reading up on all this "Q" stuff;  I realize
that you're working around an embargo (are we talking months or years
before it's lifted, he asks knowing that the answer will be WFTP!, yet
still unable to stop himself from asking) so I appreciate and
understand any retisence. I shall try to keep my questions to things
that have already been published. I'm in the process of sculpting a
1/10 model of Qn for my local library branch and I want it to be as
accurate (and as convincingly
lifelike) as possible. I know that its remains are fragmentary and
that at some point I'll just have to take a chance and start building
something that may turn out to be wrong. I hope to put in progress
shots up on my flickr page http://www.flickr.com/photos/12388840@N06/
as I work on the not so wee beastie. So here goes;

In Wellnhoffer's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pterosaurs, there is a photo
purporting to be a Quetz pectoral girdle. Is this identification
indeed correct? I still see lots of Q restorations in which the
anterior of the dentary and premax are fashioned after those parts
labeled as being from Q in the same book. (They're now thought to be
from a Tapajeroid are they not?) I'm wondering because the supposed Q
pectoral girdle seems to have been photographed on the same blue scale
grid as the jaw tips.

In the photo of Dr. Langston studying the range of motion of Qsp. in
the same book, which way is the wing articulated, right way up or
inverted? It's hard for me to tell.

Am I correct in my understanding that Qn's wingspan is now thought to
be less than originally estimated and that this reduction is from a
re-estimation of the length of distal wing elements? For some reason
the figure of 36 feet comes to mind rather than the earlier estimates
of 39 feet.

The recently posted shoulder to acetabula length estimate of 64cm for
Qn seems to be a lot shorter than DR. Langston's restoration (I think
in an article in Science from 1981 if I've got it right. I'm thinking
of the drawing comparing Qn with a little naked spread-eagle dude
standing beside, with Q's body a  very schematic inverted tear-drop
shape and the neck and head incomplete.)  Is this restoration still of
any use ? I've seen so many variations on proportions I'm not sure
which to use. There are slight differences in everything I've looked
at. The main ones I've been looking at are by Langston, Sibbick (a
pencil study I saw online, apparently for his National Geographic
illustrations) Paul's size comparisons from Dinosaurs of the Air, and
Mark Witton's drawings, among others. Which (if any) published
restoration do you find most accurate, (or at least likely)
particularly regarding basic proportions?

That's all (again, for the moment). This discussion has been very
interesting, informative and entertaining, not to mention helpful.

Thanks again,
Bruce