This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Pteranodon has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
Pteranodon received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fossil preserving fish in the throat region of Pteranodon indicates that the animal was a fish eater.
Reference? John.Conway 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
What happened to the various species?
You have a small inconsequential list which is wrong btw... InGen's no longer exists...it's the female version of Longiceps if I'm not mistaken.
But where are
Sternbergi Longiceps Quetzocoatlyus (sp?) etc.
There are many many versions but they are not mentioned or not described nor have I been able to find seperate articles for these.
This leaves the article highly fragmentary and misleading to have mention of only one form. -- Voyager1 10:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I have added a reference to P.oregonensis ( Bennettazhia oregonensis).-- Gazzster 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
On the issue again, apparently Marsh identified Pteranodon as "distinguished from all previously known genera of the order {pterosauria} by the entire absence of teeth." This meant that any toothless pterosaur jaw fragment, wherever it was found in the world, was attributed to Pteranodon. Hence a plethora of species and a great deal of confusion. So the name became a wastebin taxon, rather like Megalosaurus, to identify any pterosaur which could not be distinguished other than by the absence of teeth. So I think the principal author of this article is sensibly avoiding getting into the morass by making a cursory comment bout the number of species. And yes, Pteranodon ingens =P.longiceps. I've added some remarks to express what I've just written.-- Gazzster 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was looking for it myself. I remember coming across it on the Net, (and was surprised that the two were the same -they have very different crests) but I've lost it now. I'm still lookig; the citation does have to be made.-- Gazzster 22:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done some scouting round the Net. The Pterosaur Database equates P. ingens and P.longiceps in a passing reference in the entry about longiceps, but oddly, does not list P.ingens as a synonym. It does however equate an Ornithostoma ingens with P.ingens. The Dinosauricon has an image titled P.ingens, and images of specimens mounted in museums are labelled P.ingens. Wellnhofer has ingens as a separate species (Mikko's Phylogeny). Marsh (www.oceansofkansas.com/Marsh76.htm) in his The Characteristics of American Pterodactyls equates P.ingens Marsh (1872) with Cope's Ornithochirus umbrosis. This entry mentions a P.umbrosus. Could that be ingens? Overall, not very helpful. Perhaps we should ommit any reference to P.ingens until we straighten this thing out?-- Gazzster 23:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
P. longiceps Marsh, 1876 = Pterodactylus ingens Marsh, 1872 nomen dubium = Ornithostoma ingens (Marsh, 1872) Williston, 1893 [nomen dubium] = Pteranodon ingens (Marsh, 1872) Marsh, 1876 [nomen dubium]
Some info from Mike Taylor: "Actually, it is a somewhat confusing story. P. longiceps based on a skull that was likely a juvenile, based on its size. P. ingens was based partial postcranial on material, several other species were also named based on a couple fragments, but the majority of Pteranodon specimens subsequently found were pretty much randomly assigned to P. longiceps or P. ingens. Marsh appears to have assigned larger specimen to P. ingens, but he never really adequately described the collection of Pteranodon specimens he amassed, and this led to an incredible amount of confusion that later workers tried to correct. Eaton produced an extensive description of the osteology of P., but did nothing to correct the nomenclatural issues, in fact, he caused more problems by assuming a P. longiceps skull to be the holotype of P. ingens. Miller created a complex system of three subgenera and assigned Eaton's skull to its own species P. (Longicepia) marshi, but any differences between this specimen and those he considered to belong to P. (L.) longicpes were likely only sexual, and he even invented some of the supposedly diagnostic features of P. (L.) marshi. He also described a new species based on fragmentary P. longiceps material; P. walkeri. By this point there were four species assigned to fairly similar material. Finally, Bennett, in his doctoral dissertation overhauled the entire genus and determined that all of these species belonged to a single species, P. longiceps. The holotypes of P. longiceps and P. ingens cannot be compared, but other specimens demonstrate they were exactly the same, likely only differing in age."
Wow. And I thought the history of Anatotitan was complicated.-- Gazzster 20:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Bennett (1994) concluded that : (1) only two species of Pteranodon are valid, P. longiceps Marsh, 1876 and P. sternbergi, and (2) P. occidentalis (Marsh, 1872), P. ingens (Marsh, 1872), P. velox (Marsh, 1872) P. comptus Marsh, 1876, P. harpyia (Cope, 1872), and P. umbrosus (Cope, 1872) are nomina dubia.
Bennett, S. C., 1994. Taxonomy and systematics of the Late Cretaceous pterosaur Pteranodon (Pterosauria, Pterodactyloidea). Occasional Papers of the Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, 169:1-70. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 ( talk) 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
... about Petrie being inaccurately portrayed as being able to speak English. I think it's an excellent little joke (and it's true!) and should be left in. -- John.Conway 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, because pteranodons only spoke German.
I found these free pictures on Flickr [2] [3], and they apparently show a Pteranodon skeleton cast at the Field Museum. But the crest is unfamiliar to me, and isn't featured on the species diagram in this article, so what is it? FunkMonk ( talk) 21:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a P. longiceps at the AMNH that might work for the article: [5] It gives a good view of the whole animal. Then there's this one in flight that I don't remember seeing, but it's apparently there. Would any of those specimens do, when I embark on my quest for pictures? Crimsonraptor ( talk) 00:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi -- I don't know where to put this, but the 2nd reference is incorrect. It lists the author as Benton instead of Bennett. The correct reference is:
Bennett, S. C. The pterosaurs of the Niobrara Chalk. The Earth Scientist, 11(1):22-25.
I would fix it but I don't know how. Can someone else do it?
71.191.255.82 ( talk) 02:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Martin Bullock, martinbullock@gmail.com
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: StringTheory11 ( talk · contribs) 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm back to review another article! Comments should start appearing by the end of this month.
String
Theory
11 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that a lot of the invalid species treated as valid,they aren't labeled valid but there notes and status boxes don't indicate that there invalid either,I can imagine someone skimming(no pun intended) would think that there valid.Secondly the notes of Pteranodon sternbergi should say that it's potentially Geosternbergia and the Geoternbergia section( sternbergi and maysei.)are synonyms of Pteranodon sternbergi ,no question, shouldn't this be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 ( talk) 23:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't classification go over the actual classification and not just the species? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 ( talk) 00:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The largest fossils of Pteranodon Longiceps/Ingens are up to 8 metres or more precisely 7.5 metres, not 7.2 metres. It was Pteranodon Sternbergi/Geosternbergia Sternbergi which was up to 7.2 metres. My question is Geosternbergia part of the Pteranodon genus since it is a synonym of P.Sternbergi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.14.176 ( talk) 12:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Pteranodon has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
Pteranodon received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fossil preserving fish in the throat region of Pteranodon indicates that the animal was a fish eater.
Reference? John.Conway 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
What happened to the various species?
You have a small inconsequential list which is wrong btw... InGen's no longer exists...it's the female version of Longiceps if I'm not mistaken.
But where are
Sternbergi Longiceps Quetzocoatlyus (sp?) etc.
There are many many versions but they are not mentioned or not described nor have I been able to find seperate articles for these.
This leaves the article highly fragmentary and misleading to have mention of only one form. -- Voyager1 10:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I have added a reference to P.oregonensis ( Bennettazhia oregonensis).-- Gazzster 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
On the issue again, apparently Marsh identified Pteranodon as "distinguished from all previously known genera of the order {pterosauria} by the entire absence of teeth." This meant that any toothless pterosaur jaw fragment, wherever it was found in the world, was attributed to Pteranodon. Hence a plethora of species and a great deal of confusion. So the name became a wastebin taxon, rather like Megalosaurus, to identify any pterosaur which could not be distinguished other than by the absence of teeth. So I think the principal author of this article is sensibly avoiding getting into the morass by making a cursory comment bout the number of species. And yes, Pteranodon ingens =P.longiceps. I've added some remarks to express what I've just written.-- Gazzster 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was looking for it myself. I remember coming across it on the Net, (and was surprised that the two were the same -they have very different crests) but I've lost it now. I'm still lookig; the citation does have to be made.-- Gazzster 22:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done some scouting round the Net. The Pterosaur Database equates P. ingens and P.longiceps in a passing reference in the entry about longiceps, but oddly, does not list P.ingens as a synonym. It does however equate an Ornithostoma ingens with P.ingens. The Dinosauricon has an image titled P.ingens, and images of specimens mounted in museums are labelled P.ingens. Wellnhofer has ingens as a separate species (Mikko's Phylogeny). Marsh (www.oceansofkansas.com/Marsh76.htm) in his The Characteristics of American Pterodactyls equates P.ingens Marsh (1872) with Cope's Ornithochirus umbrosis. This entry mentions a P.umbrosus. Could that be ingens? Overall, not very helpful. Perhaps we should ommit any reference to P.ingens until we straighten this thing out?-- Gazzster 23:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
P. longiceps Marsh, 1876 = Pterodactylus ingens Marsh, 1872 nomen dubium = Ornithostoma ingens (Marsh, 1872) Williston, 1893 [nomen dubium] = Pteranodon ingens (Marsh, 1872) Marsh, 1876 [nomen dubium]
Some info from Mike Taylor: "Actually, it is a somewhat confusing story. P. longiceps based on a skull that was likely a juvenile, based on its size. P. ingens was based partial postcranial on material, several other species were also named based on a couple fragments, but the majority of Pteranodon specimens subsequently found were pretty much randomly assigned to P. longiceps or P. ingens. Marsh appears to have assigned larger specimen to P. ingens, but he never really adequately described the collection of Pteranodon specimens he amassed, and this led to an incredible amount of confusion that later workers tried to correct. Eaton produced an extensive description of the osteology of P., but did nothing to correct the nomenclatural issues, in fact, he caused more problems by assuming a P. longiceps skull to be the holotype of P. ingens. Miller created a complex system of three subgenera and assigned Eaton's skull to its own species P. (Longicepia) marshi, but any differences between this specimen and those he considered to belong to P. (L.) longicpes were likely only sexual, and he even invented some of the supposedly diagnostic features of P. (L.) marshi. He also described a new species based on fragmentary P. longiceps material; P. walkeri. By this point there were four species assigned to fairly similar material. Finally, Bennett, in his doctoral dissertation overhauled the entire genus and determined that all of these species belonged to a single species, P. longiceps. The holotypes of P. longiceps and P. ingens cannot be compared, but other specimens demonstrate they were exactly the same, likely only differing in age."
Wow. And I thought the history of Anatotitan was complicated.-- Gazzster 20:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Bennett (1994) concluded that : (1) only two species of Pteranodon are valid, P. longiceps Marsh, 1876 and P. sternbergi, and (2) P. occidentalis (Marsh, 1872), P. ingens (Marsh, 1872), P. velox (Marsh, 1872) P. comptus Marsh, 1876, P. harpyia (Cope, 1872), and P. umbrosus (Cope, 1872) are nomina dubia.
Bennett, S. C., 1994. Taxonomy and systematics of the Late Cretaceous pterosaur Pteranodon (Pterosauria, Pterodactyloidea). Occasional Papers of the Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, 169:1-70. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 ( talk) 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
... about Petrie being inaccurately portrayed as being able to speak English. I think it's an excellent little joke (and it's true!) and should be left in. -- John.Conway 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, because pteranodons only spoke German.
I found these free pictures on Flickr [2] [3], and they apparently show a Pteranodon skeleton cast at the Field Museum. But the crest is unfamiliar to me, and isn't featured on the species diagram in this article, so what is it? FunkMonk ( talk) 21:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a P. longiceps at the AMNH that might work for the article: [5] It gives a good view of the whole animal. Then there's this one in flight that I don't remember seeing, but it's apparently there. Would any of those specimens do, when I embark on my quest for pictures? Crimsonraptor ( talk) 00:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi -- I don't know where to put this, but the 2nd reference is incorrect. It lists the author as Benton instead of Bennett. The correct reference is:
Bennett, S. C. The pterosaurs of the Niobrara Chalk. The Earth Scientist, 11(1):22-25.
I would fix it but I don't know how. Can someone else do it?
71.191.255.82 ( talk) 02:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Martin Bullock, martinbullock@gmail.com
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: StringTheory11 ( talk · contribs) 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm back to review another article! Comments should start appearing by the end of this month.
String
Theory
11 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that a lot of the invalid species treated as valid,they aren't labeled valid but there notes and status boxes don't indicate that there invalid either,I can imagine someone skimming(no pun intended) would think that there valid.Secondly the notes of Pteranodon sternbergi should say that it's potentially Geosternbergia and the Geoternbergia section( sternbergi and maysei.)are synonyms of Pteranodon sternbergi ,no question, shouldn't this be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 ( talk) 23:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't classification go over the actual classification and not just the species? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 ( talk) 00:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The largest fossils of Pteranodon Longiceps/Ingens are up to 8 metres or more precisely 7.5 metres, not 7.2 metres. It was Pteranodon Sternbergi/Geosternbergia Sternbergi which was up to 7.2 metres. My question is Geosternbergia part of the Pteranodon genus since it is a synonym of P.Sternbergi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.14.176 ( talk) 12:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)