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

What Pterodactylus Species are Valid?

>> The taxonomic history of Pterodactylus is so tangled that I'm rather 
>> confused as to what ones are currently recognized as valid. Wikipedia lists: 
>> P. antiquus P. grandis P. kochi P. micronyx P. longicollum
....but doesn't explicitly call them valid (and besides it's Wikipedia). What's 
the current consensus on the subject?<<

The question is: will you ever find consensus in pterosaur studies? I think 
not. Particularly because no one spends the time to do the reconstructions. 

Nevertheless, good subject for a PhD dissertation. And when this is solved, 
you'll be able to figure out the entire phylogeny with spectral gradients 
between taxa, instead of what we now have.

>From my notes: P. grandis is an istiodactylid. P. kochi (the holotype only)is 
>a basal germanodactylid. P. micronyx can be a lot of things, depending on the 
>specimen, but none of them are Pterodactylus the genus. P. antiquus is valid, 
>of course. Big P. longicollum IMHO is also valid. And there are lots of others 
>unlisted that are also valid Pterodactylus species. Pay particular attention 
>to the pedal morphology and they'll separate clearly for you.

David Peters