pteronauticus.bsky.social
@pteronauticus.bsky.social
Two suggestions: (1) Lets hear what Pegas et al. have to say in defence of their interpretation. (2) Let a couple of palaeoichthyologists examine the fossil - I'm sure we would all be happy to accept their conclusions...
December 15, 2025 at 12:45 AM
Why bother? No amount of histology is going to turn Bakiribu back into a pterosaur. The comparative morphology clearly demonstrates Bakiribu is a fish. The key question is: how did Pegas et al make this mistake in the first place? Did no one alert them to their error before publication?
December 14, 2025 at 2:43 PM
Aidachar, Sultanuvaisia, Gwawinapterus... another three fishy pterosaurs, to add to Belonochasma and Bakiribu. You would think that authors might learn lessons from these mistakes, but evidently not... the excellent book 'Being Wrong' by Kathryn Schultz might explain why.
December 13, 2025 at 4:18 PM
'Suggesting' suggests there may be doubt - there isn't any. Its a fish.
December 13, 2025 at 1:16 AM
Will it be in the Natural History section or Fantasy and Science Fiction?
October 6, 2025 at 2:10 PM
Same place, same time, same morphology (once the erroneous interpretations are corrected) - its Rhamphodactylus. Is anyone surprised? No, me neither.
September 28, 2025 at 2:33 PM
Diopecephalus kochi holotype SMF R404
September 28, 2025 at 9:36 AM
Would be nice if it were real, but almost certainly a composite. Fakes like these are common and have a long history with Archaeoraptor and Luchibang perhaps the most notorious examples.
September 25, 2025 at 6:54 AM
Why not ask Dave Martill - david.martill@port.ac.uk ?
September 11, 2025 at 6:57 AM
Rab and I are huge fans of Rudi's work and have commissioned several paintings from him. Uniquely, on this occasion, we asked for early drafts to be 'even more dramatic'. The result - a fantastic piece of art that will surely become iconic. Stay tuned pterofans there is more exciting stuff to come.
September 8, 2025 at 9:26 AM