Pterosaurs couldn’t fly? Japanese scientist comes out swinging.

4
comments

What on earth am I supposed to do with this thing?: A pterosaur considers his situation.
What on earth am I supposed to do with this thing?: A pterosaur considers his situation.
Courtesy John Conway
Paleontology, y’all, paleontology. We’ve got these bones, these fossilized bones. And they’re nice bones, don’t get me wrong, but sometimes they leave a little to be desired when it comes to reconstructing the nitty gritty and sticky details of what living dinosaurs (and pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs, therapsids, etc) were actually like. A skeleton can give us a good idea of a creature’s general shape; it can show where the muscles went (more or less), what sort of food it ate, how it probably moved—that kind of thing. But how did they behave? What color were they? Exactly how strong were they? There are a whole slew of questions that get to be a little tricky.

So, how do paleontologists go about answering these questions? They get creative, they study all the tiniest details of the fossils, and, sometimes, they look to living animals for analogy—that is to say, if an animal alive today that lives in a similar environment to that of an extinct animal, and has a similar body type to the extinct animal, you might be able to base knowledge of the extinct animal on what you know of the living animal.

It’s a valuable avenue of study, but dinosaurs and their ilk were pretty different, after all, so how far do you think can we take analogies to living creatures?

And now on to the news item.

A Japanese researcher has opened up his sass-box and gotten all up in the faces of paleontologists around the world. Pterosaur specialist paleontologists are particularly fired up, and they’re a dangerous bunch. “Peer review” among pterosaur specialists, as I understand it, involves switchblades, and the majority of the community sports eye-patches.

This scientist, Katsufumi Sato of the University of Tokyo, is saying that pterosaurs (all of the huge extinct flying reptiles) probably maybe couldn’t actually, you know… fly.

Oh no you di’en’t!

Says Sato: Yes, yes I did. Specifically, what the scientist did was place accelerometers on the wings of a couple dozen sea birds on the Crozet Islands. The accelerometers measured, more or less, the flapping force and speed of the birds’ wings.

Among the birds studied were wandering albatrosses, which have the largest wingspans of any living birds. Large seabirds like this have often been used as analogies for pterosaurs for their somewhat similar body shapes. Many pterosaurs probably lived in a similar habitat to modern seabirds as well.

Albatrosses fly by riding shifting wind currents, and by flapping their wings when the wind isn’t suitable, or is absent entirely. Sato found that the seabirds he studied have two flapping speeds, a faster speed for taking off, and a slower speed for staying aloft in the absence of wind. He also noticed that, as this flapping speed is limited by the birds’ strength, it decreases in heavier birds with longer wings.

According to the calculations Sato based off of this data, birds (or pterosaurs) weighing more than about 90 pounds would be unable to fly without using wind currents—they simply wouldn’t be able to flap their wings fast enough to stay in the air. There were certainly pterosaurs that size and much smaller, but a lot of flying reptiles were probably a great deal larger than that (a very conservative estimate for the quetzalcoatlus, for example, would have it weighing around 220 pounds).

The article I read on this research doesn’t get into Sato’s hypothesis much more than that, but I’d assume that this means that larger pterosaurs would then also be unable to take off from anywhere other than, say, a cliff face. I wonder if the implication is also that they wouldn’t be doing any flying at all; that medium to large pterosaurs wouldn’t even be gliding on wind currents because, at some point, they’d need to gain some altitude on their own steam.

But, whatever the specifics, them’s fightin’ words, and pterosaur specialists the world over are no doubt sharpening their boot-spikes, and wrapping their fists in chains.

Is it a valid analogy? Maaaaybeeee… But I’m betting against it. There have been some interesting theories lately about how the largest of the pterosaurs may not have flown as much as we used to think, but they don’t imply that they couldn’t fly at all. In fact, the study I’m thinking of would further distance pterosaurs from large seabirds in terms of behavior and their ecological niches (making any analogies a little less apt).

Other scientists argue that in addition to anatomical and physiological differences that should be considered, the atmosphere of the Mesozoic was, on the whole, somewhat denser, and had higher concentrations of oxygen—factors that would have allowed flight for larger, heavier animals. Actually, I recommend checking out the discussion following the article. There are a bunch of explanations of how pterosaurs could have flown, despite what this study suggests. But, if you do go, bring your knives—they’re an angry bunch.

4
Average: 4 (2 votes)

Your Comments, Thoughts, Questions, Ideas

<em>Liza</em>'s picture
Liza says:

And if you're here at the Science Museum of Minnesota, go stand in the lobby and take a gander at the Quetzalcoatlus hanging from the ceiling and try to imagine that sucker actually taking off.

posted on Fri, 10/03/2008 - 2:41pm
<em>bryan kennedy</em>'s picture

On some level it seems hard to imagine the process of evolution favoring these animals growing bigger and more flight focused without the ability of flight. I mean many of the flightless birds today don't exactly look like giant soaring wings, whereas it's hard to image the Quetzalcoatlus doing anything BUT flying. It's no ostrich.

posted on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 3:05pm
<em>JGordon</em>'s picture
JGordon says:

That's kind of what I thought. Big pterosaurs were around for millions and millions of years, so they obviously had time to continue to evolve, but why would they keep those huge wings?

Even if you buy this theory, that pterosaurs walked around like giraffes (and the authors aren't proposing that that's all they did), it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't have lost that big, folded-back flight finger.

I feel like something is missing from the press on this research.

posted on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 4:14pm
<em>JGordon</em>'s picture
JGordon says:

Mark Witton, the paleontologist behind the walking-pterosaur theory (linked to above), had this to say about Sato's research in the comments of his flickr photostream:

I was involved with a very similar discussion over at Tetrapod Zoology: the general concensus appears to be that it's a bit bogus. Here's what I said:

"Funny how Sato et al's work should be discussed in the same thread as another work of fiction (boom tish!) [erm, you may need to see the original post to get that]. New Scientist spoke to me about Soto's work a few weeks back and I was amazed to hear the results of his study: it really seems to lack any common sense at all. I mean, seriously, has he seen the size of the biggest azhdarchids? There's simply no way in Hell that they weighed 40 kg. I estimated a burly Pteranodon at something like 30 - 35 kg, and that's lighter than you would expect for a 6 - 7 m pterosaur. 40 kg is nothing, man: eight year-old kids weight 40 kg. Eight year olds. The length of the Quetzalcoatlus humerus is almost half-as-long as an eight year old. Why, dear God, why, don't people think about what they're saying before they run to the likes of New Scientist? Maybe Soto has the maximum weight of an animal that flies in a specifically albatross manner, but he's barking up the wrong tree with other flying animals.

Grr."

You can see the original comments on the Tet Zoo blog post here. Bottom line: you can't take a 12 m span pterosaur and package it into 40 kg (actually, the original article says 52 kg - also note that the work all this is based on was not peer-reviewed by other scientists before publication). Sato et al may have discovered something about the maximum size of an albatross-like flier, but I suspect they're barking up the wrong tree about other flying animals.

I recommend checking out Mark's flickr account if you're into paleontology—he's got some interesting stuff to say there, and some pretty cool paleo-illustrations.

posted on Mon, 11/10/2008 - 11:43am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <h3> <h4> <em> <i> <strong> <b> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <object> <embed> <param>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options