Reconstructing the palate of Pteranodon in 1910, 1993 and 2024
Eaton 1910
published the first osteological study of Pteranodon, a large Niobrara pterosaur typically found crushed flat. The tall, narrow skull is often (Fig 1), but not always (Fig 2) crushed on its side, making the palate virtually impossible to see and reconstruct.
One possible exception:
the YPM 2594 skull specimen (Fig 1), which Eaton 1910 accurately reconstructed in palatal view without much of a Bauplan to work from back then. Note the absence of the cheek bone (jugal + maxilla) exposing the crushed palate in lateral view.
Or maybe Eaton – did – have a Bauplan to work from…
Figure 1. The YPM 2594 specimen of Pteranodon along with Eaton’s 1910 restoration of the palate. This needs to be confirmed, refuted or modified, not trusted.
” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/pteranodon_ypm2594palate.studies588.jpg?w=102″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/pteranodon_ypm2594palate.studies588.jpg?w=348″ class=”size-full wp-image-85367″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/pteranodon_ypm2594palate.studies588.jpg?w=584&h=1720″ alt=”Figure 1. The YPM 2594 specimen of Pteranodon along with Eaton’s 1910 restoration of the palate. This needs to be confirmed, refuted or modified, not trusted.” width=”584″ height=”1720″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/pteranodon_ypm2594palate.studies588.jpg?w=584&h=1720 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/pteranodon_ypm2594palate.studies588.jpg?w=51&h=150 51w, https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/pteranodon_ypm2594palate.studies588.jpg?w=102&h=300 102w, https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/pteranodon_ypm2594palate.studies588.jpg 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />
Figure 1. The YPM 2594 specimen of Pteranodon along with Eaton’s 1910 restoration of the palate. Chen et al used Eaton’s engraving, softened the engraving lines and added a DGS imaginary palatine (red), which is inaccurate to wrong. See figure 2 for corrections.
Only a guess…
perhaps Eaton 1910 was aware of the MHNH 1908-24 specimen (Fig 2), labeled two years earlier (judging by its 1908 museum number). It’s a Pteranodon posterior skull in palatal view illustrated I found in Bennett 1993. Perhaps the Paris museum (MHNH) got this specimen because it was not a real crowd-pleaser, but it is a Pteranodon, a new and exciting taxon from the American prairies and badlands back then. Today the MHNH specimen possibly answers the riddle of how Eaton 1910 and Bennett 1993, 2001 were able to reconstruct the palate of Pteranodon so accurately, when all other specimens crush the palate.
Chen et al 2024 (Fig 1) photoshopped Eaton 1910, apparently overlooking Bennett 1993 and the original MHNH (= Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Palenotolgie in Paris) specimen.
Figure 2. The MHNH Pteranodon specimen of the palate compared to Bennett’s 1993 composite palate based on Kansas and Yale specimens that are crushed laterally. I think the Paris specimen is also represented here. Also shown in Germanodactylus cristatus restored in palatal view showing the narrowing of the palatine angle reduced to 0º in Pteranodon.
” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/bennett1993-pteranodon-germanodactylus-palate.jpg?w=300″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/bennett1993-pteranodon-germanodactylus-palate.jpg?w=584″ class=”wp-image-85371 size-full” src=”https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/bennett1993-pteranodon-germanodactylus-palate.jpg?w=584&h=509″ alt=”Figure 2. The MHNH Pteranodon specimen of the palate compared to Bennett’s 1993 composite palate based on Kansas and Yale specimens that are crushed laterally. I think the Paris specimen is also represented here. Also shown in Germanodactylus cristatus restored in palatal view showing the narrowing of the palatine angle reduced to 0º in Pteranodon.” width=”584″ height=”509″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/bennett1993-pteranodon-germanodactylus-palate.jpg?w=584&h=509 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/bennett1993-pteranodon-germanodactylus-palate.jpg?w=150&h=131 150w, https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/bennett1993-pteranodon-germanodactylus-palate.jpg?w=300&h=261 300w, https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/bennett1993-pteranodon-germanodactylus-palate.jpg 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />
Figure 2. The MHNH Pteranodon specimen of the palate compared to Bennett’s 1993 composite palate based on Kansas and Yale specimens that are crushed laterally. I think the Paris specimen is also represented here without credit. Also shown in Germanodactylus cristatus restored in palatal view showing the narrowing of the palatine angle further reduced to 0º in Pteranodon. Here Bennett mislabels the palatal plate of the maxilla as a palatine. DGS colors added here.
Chen et al 2024 reported on the
“new relation established here between the palatine, ectopterygoid, maxilla, and pterygoid suggest some reinterpretation of the main palatal openings.”
More on that paper in the next post.
I’m happy Chen et al 2024 came out.
It offered µCT scans of Dsungaripterus (Fig 3) and other taxa. Even so (and following tradition), Chen et al made several errors (Fig 1), others largely due to taxon exclusion producing an invalid phylogeny. Reviewing Chen et al provided another opportunity to wonder about the pterosaur palate, correct old errors and resolve some interesting evolutionary issues.
Figure 3. Germanodactylus, Phobetor and Dsungaripterus palates compared.
” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/germanodactylus-dsungaripterids.skull-recon2-1.jpg?w=123″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/germanodactylus-dsungaripterids.skull-recon2-1.jpg?w=419″ class=”size-full wp-image-85382″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/germanodactylus-dsungaripterids.skull-recon2-1.jpg?w=584&h=1428″ alt=”Figure 3. Germanodactylus, Phobetor and Dsungaripterus palates compared.” width=”584″ height=”1428″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/germanodactylus-dsungaripterids.skull-recon2-1.jpg?w=584&h=1428 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/germanodactylus-dsungaripterids.skull-recon2-1.jpg?w=61&h=150 61w, https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/germanodactylus-dsungaripterids.skull-recon2-1.jpg?w=123&h=300 123w, https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/germanodactylus-dsungaripterids.skull-recon2-1.jpg 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />
Figure 3. Germanodactylus, Phobetor and Dsungaripterus palates compared.
For instance,
the palate of Germanodactylus cristatus (Fig 2) demonstrates how the narrowing of the palatine angle continues until it is reduced to 0º in Pteranodon. The lateral process of the L-shaped palatine is gone = fused. The lateral palatine processes in Germanodactylus revolves anteriorly to become a single strip in Pteranodon. I did not understand that happened until today.
That’s why a valid phylogeny sets the stage for making subtle discoveries in evolutionary morphology, like this one. If you have a question, check out the ancestral condition for clues.
References
Bennett SC 1993 (thesis) 2001 (publication). The osteology and functional morphology of the Late Cretaceous pterosaur Pteranodon. Palaeontogr. Abt. A 260, 1–153.
Chen H, Jiang S, Kellner AWA and Wang X 2024. New insights into pterosaur cranial
anatomy: X-ray imaging reveals palatal structure and evolutionary trends. Nature communications biology 7:456.
Eaton GF 1910. Osteology of Pteranodon. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Science 2, 1–38.
Source: https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2024/04/15/reconstructing-the-palate-of-pteranodon-in-1910-1993-and-2024/
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,601,751,356 |
| Stories: | 8,145,320 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
