--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "Falco"
<falcolombardo83@...> wrote:

> By now, I think the conclusion was that Rahonavis, which might or might not
had been a chimaera, should have its descendents excluded from the project
altogether.

Well, it could be real.  My understanding is Unenlagia's shoulder girdle shows
adaptations for flapping.  However, when you combine the possible chimeric
status of Rahonavis with the unlikliness of an unchanged lineage surviving for
65 million years - I wouldn't shed a tear to see them gone.

> Nonetheless, I can't help but feel we could have gone away with having flying
non-avian maniraptors nowdays. Given how small the winged troodontid Anchiornis
was, and thanks to the knowledge microraptorine dromaeosaurs survived to the
Maastrichian, the possibility of a ghost linage of small, flying
microraptorines, unenlagiines or even troodontids cannot possibly be rejected;
after all, haven't we got away with heterodontosaurs and anurognathids, not the
mention the fossil dicynodont?

I think the answers here are maybe, no and no actually.  People haven't fallen
into my heterodontosaur idea, I don't think there has been consensus yet on your
anurognathids (honestly, I think they'd bounce against specbats too much in
terms of niches), and rodlox's attempts (I think it was him) to have a new
caledonian dicynodont were foiled.

> If the "rahonavids" remain as flighted members of this ghost linage, chances
are they are directly related to mattiraptors, if they haven't been turned into
unenlagiines yet. If this ghost linage hypothesis is rejected, then we shall
make them primitive Enantiornithes, probably related to avisaurs. The main
feature I thought off for these flying dromeosaurs/troodontids is that they
should have "leg wings" like Anchiornis, Microraptor, Cryptovolans (has it been
classified as a Microraptor species?) and other non-avian flying/gliding
maniraptors.

I'll sum up my basic attitude as such.

1.  The butcherbird only got one sketch from Tiina.  No one illustrated the
stefs or the flying mattiraptor (well, people did, but the drawings were never
accepted).  Thus, the clade can be chucked.  Words are cheap - we can all write
essays given the time.  But good paleo-art is gold for spec.  Since the clade
was never illustrated, it can be bobunked without pain.

2.  I honestly think the existence of advanced avian flyers will cause
half-flyers to be winnowed out of competition.  Sure, the "arbros" could be more
explicitly made gliders, we could see small ovies using WAIR, etc.  But wherever
flight is important to the niche, the more developed flyer will probably win out
in terms of selection, which will incentivize the loss of flight ability in
other lineages within paraves.

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "sweephands"
<karl.alfred.zimmerman@...> wrote:
>
>
> I think the answers here are maybe, no and no actually.  People haven't fallen
into my heterodontosaur idea, I don't think there has been consensus yet on your
anurognathids (honestly, I think they'd bounce against specbats too much in
terms of niches), and rodlox's attempts (I think it was him) to have a new
caledonian dicynodont were foiled.
>
>

The anurognathid idea isn't mine; if it was up to me I'd restrict Spec's
Pterosauria to Monofrenestrata, only with an additional lazarus taxa outside of
Azhdarchoidea and Ornithocheiroidea. And honestly they would mostly be aerial
insectivores with aerial vertebrate predators at most (credit Darwinopterus'
potentially fake atributed lifestyle) and mostly crepuscular, ence spebats would
still have many ways of occuring.

As for the dicynodont I heard there was a fossil species from the Eocene of
Australia.

> 2.  I honestly think the existence of advanced avian flyers will cause
half-flyers to be winnowed out of competition.  Sure, the "arbros" could be more
explicitly made gliders, we could see small ovies using WAIR, etc.  But wherever
flight is important to the niche, the more developed flyer will probably win out
in terms of selection, which will incentivize the loss of flight ability in
other lineages within paraves.
>

True indeed. At least I can produce several gliding forms from the arbros and
bantams

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "Falco"
<falcolombardo83@...> wrote:

>
> True indeed. At least I can produce several gliding forms from the arbros and
bantams

  what're the Bantams?

  I'll try sketching some today.


>

>  Not much of anything has been posted to the site in your absence
>  though.  Raymond and I did a lot of essays, but David has never
>  gotten around to uploading them (or even reading them in many cases).
>  Though honestly I can't blame him, as so much of the art is out of
>  date, and without a contributing artist, we're pretty much a talking
>  shop.

That's not the problem, I would upload naked text. It's just that, what
spare time my thesis leaves me, I use up by procrastinating on blogs. I
don't ever feel like I had enough time in one sitting to edit and upload
an essay.

But I'm supposed to finish the thesis in June, and the postdoc shouldn't
be that demanding time-wise. The only problem is that I'll almost
certainly lose my university webspace, so Spec will have to move once again.

> > By now, I think the conclusion was that Rahonavis, which might or
> > might not had been a chimaera, should have its descendents excluded
> > from the project altogether.
>
>  Well, it could be real.  My understanding is Unenlagia's shoulder
>  girdle shows adaptations for flapping.

AFAIK nobody has called *Rahonavis* a possible chimera for years. It now
sits rather stably among the unenlagiines. Its quill knobs are shared by
none less than *Velociraptor*...

>  However, when you combine the possible chimeric status of Rahonavis
>  with the unlikliness of an unchanged lineage surviving for 65 million
>  years - I wouldn't shed a tear to see them gone.

Do keep in mind that *R.* had _already_ survived unchanged for 65 Ma or
more. 65 x 2 = 130 -- stick *R.* into the Yixian Fm fauna (125 Ma ago)
or even the Tiaojishan Fm fauna (*Anchiornis*, *Pedopenna* -- apparently
about 160 Ma ago), and nobody would notice.

And then consider *Shanag* and *Mahakala*, the tiny dromaeosaurids from
the LK of Mongolia...

Finally, what little text I wrote has the "rahonavids" doing a bit of a
radiation on the island continent of Madagascar. Only one species is
unchanged from *R.*.

> > Nonetheless, I can't help but feel we could have gone away with
> > having flying non-avian maniraptors nowdays. Given how small the
> > winged troodontid Anchiornis was, and thanks to the knowledge
> > microraptorine dromaeosaurs survived to the Maastrichian, the
> > possibility of a ghost linage of small, flying microraptorines,
> > unenlagiines or even troodontids cannot possibly be rejected; after
> > all, haven't we got away with heterodontosaurs and anurognathids,
> > not the mention the fossil dicynodont?
>
>  I think the answers here are maybe, no and no actually.  People
>  haven't fallen into my heterodontosaur idea, I don't think there has
>  been consensus yet on your anurognathids (honestly, I think they'd
>  bounce against specbats too much in terms of niches), and rodlox's
>  attempts (I think it was him) to have a new caledonian dicynodont
>  were foiled.

The anurognathids were my idea, and I still think they're feasible as
(vague) "caprimulgiform" analogues as opposed to bat analogues.

> > If the "rahonavids" remain as flighted members of this ghost
> > linage, chances are they are directly related to mattiraptors, if
> > they haven't been turned into unenlagiines yet. If this ghost
> > linage hypothesis is rejected, then we shall make them primitive
> > Enantiornithes, probably related to avisaurs.

In that case they'd have to lose the long tail etc. etc..

> > The main feature I thought off for these flying
> > dromeosaurs/troodontids is that they should have "leg wings" like
> > Anchiornis, Microraptor, Cryptovolans (has it been classified as a
> > Microraptor species?) and other non-avian flying/gliding
> > maniraptors.

I don't think anyone has ever looked at the *Cryptovolans* specimen
again. But yes, it's probably *Microraptor*.

>  2.  I honestly think the existence of advanced avian flyers will
>  cause half-flyers to be winnowed out of competition.  Sure, the
>  "arbros" could be more explicitly made gliders, we could see small
>  ovies using WAIR, etc.  But wherever flight is important to the
>  niche, the more developed flyer will probably win out in terms of
>  selection, which will incentivize the loss of flight ability in other
>  lineages within paraves.

Then why did *Rahonavis* exist 65 million years after *Noguerornis*, the
oldest known member of Enantiornithes? I suppose "flight" being
important doesn't always mean advanced flight being important.

>  As for the dicynodont I heard there was a fossil species from the
>  Eocene of Australia.

...planned for Spec, that is.

>  At least I can produce several gliding forms from the arbros and
>  bantams

As long as they don't compete with carpos, that's fine.

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@...> wrote:
>
> ...planned for Spec, that is.
>

I know. What kind of idiot would assume Cenozoic dicynodonts really existed on
RL?

>
> As long as they don't compete with carpos, that's fine.
>

They should be more of a problem for arboreal galliformes

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@...> wrote:
>
>
> AFAIK nobody has called *Rahonavis* a possible chimera for years. It now
> sits rather stably among the unenlagiines. Its quill knobs are shared by
> none less than *Velociraptor*...
>

Thats what I thought, because the arm material can't possibly belong to Vorona
if said bird is in the line that led to Neornithes.

>
> And then consider *Shanag* and *Mahakala*, the tiny dromaeosaurids from
> the LK of Mongolia...
>

I'm open to any interpretations of Hesperonychus as a glider.


>
> The anurognathids were my idea, and I still think they're feasible as
> (vague) "caprimulgiform" analogues as opposed to bat analogues.
>

Exactly! If modern nocturnal birds can avoid competition from bats, why the hell
couldn't anurognathids co-exist with "bats"?

>
> In that case they'd have to lose the long tail etc. etc..
>

As long as there is anyone willing to do something while I improve my art...

>
> I don't think anyone has ever looked at the *Cryptovolans* specimen
> again. But yes, it's probably *Microraptor*.
>

Well, its a shame really, because we could learn lots of things from fossils
that we've barely studied. Then again, we lack genetic material, so we can't
even tell how many Microraptor species existed and if Cryptovolans was or not
within Microraptor.

> Then why did *Rahonavis* exist 65 million years after *Noguerornis*, the
> oldest known member of Enantiornithes? I suppose "flight" being
> important doesn't always mean advanced flight being important.
>

I guess it depends on the ecological niche. I guess earlier maniraptors were
better than birds at niches where a good ability to fly wasn't required?

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "Falco"
<falcolombardo83@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@> wrote:
> >
> > ...planned for Spec, that is.
> >
>
> I know. What kind of idiot would assume Cenozoic dicynodonts really existed on
RL?

The sort who thinks the RL Cretaceous dicynodont was found in a mass grave of
dicynodonts.

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "Falco"
<falcolombardo83@...> wrote:

> The anurognathid idea isn't mine; if it was up to me I'd restrict Spec's
Pterosauria to Monofrenestrata, only with an additional lazarus taxa outside of
Azhdarchoidea and Ornithocheiroidea. And honestly they would mostly be aerial
insectivores with aerial vertebrate predators at most (credit Darwinopterus'
potentially fake atributed lifestyle) and mostly crepuscular, ence spebats would
still have many ways of occuring.

Hrrm...I seem to remember one of your first proposed essays had a number of
anurognathids, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "rodlox" <keenir@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "Falco"
<falcolombardo83@> wrote:
>
> >
> > True indeed. At least I can produce several gliding forms from the arbros
and bantams
>
>  what're the Bantams?

Mini-strek (created by Raymond) which take the niches of small galliformes in
North America and Eurasia.

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@...> wrote:

> As long as they don't compete with carpos, that's fine.

Bantam are only as arboreal as say Turkeys are.  Arbros have never occupied the
same niches as Carpos - except fruit Arbros of course, which live in a totally
different part of the world.

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "Falco"
<falcolombardo83@...> wrote:

> They should be more of a problem for arboreal galliformes

We've never even decided if there are any arboreal galliformes.  Needs work.

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@...> wrote:

> AFAIK nobody has called *Rahonavis* a possible chimera for years.
> It now sits rather stably among the unenlagiines. Its quill knobs
> are shared by none less than *Velociraptor*...

Andrea Cau seems to still believe it's a Chimera.  My understanding is, besides
the arm not being articulated, most of the speculation comes from the arm being
larger than it needs to be even for a volant taxa.

> Do keep in mind that *R.* had _already_ survived unchanged for 65
> Ma or more. 65 x 2 = 130 -- stick *R.* into the Yixian Fm fauna
> (125 Ma ago) or even the Tiaojishan Fm fauna (*Anchiornis*,
> *Pedopenna* -- apparently about 160 Ma ago), and nobody would
> notice.
>
> And then consider *Shanag* and *Mahakala*, the tiny dromaeosaurids
> from the LK of Mongolia...

Saying small, dromaeosaurs survive to the present is not unlikely.  Saying that
a small, volant one survives in the one location of a purportedly volant fossil
taxa is somewhat unlikely.  Plus, it's shades of the "lost world" Madagascar in
Dougal Dixon's awful creation.

> Finally, what little text I wrote has the "rahonavids" doing a bit
> of a radiation on the island continent of Madagascar. Only one
> species is unchanged from *R.*.

True enough.  I'd honestly feel much better about the butcherbird if it were in
India or something =/

> Then why did *Rahonavis* exist 65 million years after
> *Noguerornis*, the oldest known member of Enantiornithes? I suppose
> "flight" being important doesn't always mean advanced flight being
> important.

Again, that's supposing that Rahonavis was volant, which may or may not be true.

Still, it is evidence of my general point.  While a number of flighted lineages
probably existed in Paraves, by the LK they seemingly whittled down to Rahonavis
and Ornithothoraces.  Basal Aves, Basal Ornithurae, and basal Pygostylia were
all gone (unless you count Yandangornis, which wasn't volant whatever it was.

Even if Rahonavis was volant, even if there were volant microraptorines flitting
about - they weren't predominant, judging by the scrappy fossil records and lack
of any species which survived K/T.  This compares to comparably large numbers of
non-volant fossils for non-Ornithothoraces Paravians.  To me, this suggests a
"winnowing" of flighted Paraves during the Jurassic and Cretaceous - and I see
no reason why we wouldn't expect the winnowing to continue.  Honestly, I wish
spec didn't have any flighted confuciousornids for the same reasons, but that's
water under the bridge now.

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "sweephands"
<karl.alfred.zimmerman@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hrrm...I seem to remember one of your first proposed essays had a number of
anurognathids, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.
>

I actually made two essays dedicated to Anurognathidae. That doesn't mean I
wouldn't easily trade anurognathids for something more interesting (say, a
lazarus taxa based on Darwinopterus, but we don't need to go that extreme since
there's plenty of more likely pterosaurs to pick from), but I'd rather choose to
keep anurognathids honestly I don't really feel like having nightjars

>
> Andrea Cau seems to still believe it's a Chimera.  My understanding is,
besides the arm not being articulated, most of the speculation comes from the
arm being larger than it needs to be even for a volant taxa.
>

Then again Andrea considered Austroraptor a troodontid and Epidendrosaurus a
membrane winged glider...

The length of the arm could suggest that the wings were probably longer in
proportion to the body size than other winged non-avian maniraptors, which could
mean that, if Rahonavis was flying, it was doing something unusual. Frigate bird
analogue anyone?

>
> Saying small, dromaeosaurs survive to the present is not unlikely.  Saying
that a small, volant one survives in the one location of a purportedly volant
fossil taxa is somewhat unlikely.  Plus, it's shades of the "lost world"
Madagascar in Dougal Dixon's awful creation.
>

Well, Madagascar does contain many taxa that got extinct elsewhere, so even if
Dougal Dixon is to be hated we can't ignore the island's potential.

>
> True enough.  I'd honestly feel much better about the butcherbird if it were
in India or something =/
>
>

Good idea. Maybe we could make it a sister taxa to the ninja?

>
> Even if Rahonavis was volant, even if there were volant microraptorines
flitting about - they weren't predominant, judging by the scrappy fossil records
and lack of any species which survived K/T.  This compares to comparably large
numbers of non-volant fossils for non-Ornithothoraces Paravians.  To me, this
suggests a "winnowing" of flighted Paraves during the Jurassic and Cretaceous -
and I see no reason why we wouldn't expect the winnowing to continue.  Honestly,
I wish spec didn't have any flighted confuciousornids for the same reasons, but
that's water under the bridge now.
>

Logical indeed. But maybe we can still fit some modern flying forms at the base
of Mattiraptor or amongst arbros

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "Falco"
<falcolombardo83@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "sweephands"
<karl.alfred.zimmerman@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hrrm...I seem to remember one of your first proposed essays had a number of
anurognathids, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.
> >
>
> I actually made two essays dedicated to Anurognathidae. That doesn't mean I
wouldn't easily trade anurognathids for something more interesting (say, a
lazarus taxa based on Darwinopterus, but we don't need to go that extreme since
there's plenty of more likely pterosaurs to pick from), but I'd rather choose to
keep anurognathids honestly I don't really feel like having nightjars

  don't they fill the same niche?  (if so, what do Anurognathids do that
Nightjars don't?)

>

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "sweephands"
<karl.alfred.zimmerman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "Falco"
<falcolombardo83@> wrote:
>
> Well, it could be real.  My understanding is Unenlagia's shoulder girdle shows
adaptations for flapping.  However, when you combine the possible chimeric
status of Rahonavis with the unlikliness of an unchanged lineage surviving for
65 million years - I wouldn't shed a tear to see them gone.
>
> > Nonetheless, I can't help but feel we could have gone away with having
flying non-avian maniraptors nowdays. Given how small the winged troodontid
Anchiornis was, and thanks to the knowledge microraptorine dromaeosaurs survived
to the Maastrichian, the possibility of a ghost linage of small, flying
microraptorines, unenlagiines or even troodontids cannot possibly be rejected;
after all, haven't we got away with heterodontosaurs and anurognathids, not the
mention the fossil dicynodont?

Perhaps, to avoid more Lazarus Taxa, we might consider something along this
line?:

  at some point in the post-Eocene world, a lineage of birds went
flightless...and in the past 10 or 20 million years, they've been trying to
glide.

ie - http://www.geocities.com/rodlox/New_Amsterdam/bird.jpg

As the wings get smaller, one sub-lineage starts attracting mates/scaring
predators or rivals  with brightly-colored shoulder areas....over time, the
shoulders become more prominent, to the point that the shoulders/?/clavicle juts
out more and more (like an Irish Elk's antlers) until the possiblity arises that
it can be used for crude gliding.

>
>  don't they fill the same niche?  (if so, what do Anurognathids do that
Nightjars don't?)
>
>

Thats not what I said. I stated that I would rather have anurognathids as
nightjar analogues than having "pseudo-nightjars"

Hey folks, sorry I've been out for so long, the Real World tends to infringe
somewhat.

-Rodlox, glad to see you again.

Okay, between the coming collapse of civilisation and my obligations to
SpecWorld, let's see what I can do here.

"Qurry" or "feathered" dinosaurs. It seems just about all ornithodirans were
capable of expressing them. However, titanosaurs didn't have them when embryonic
so perhaps we can get away with either their absence or pathetic near-lack in
megafaunal "old style" clades such as Hadrosaurs, Ankylesaurs, Old-World
Ceratopsians and Abelisauroids.

Rynchoraptors, I suggest just making them feathered
protoceratopsians/leptoceratopsians related to the strictly SA feathered
dinoceratopsians and be done with it.

Pterosaurs limited to pteranodontids and azhdarchids.

Singers either bobunked or made into crurotarsans. Viriosaurs same deal.

Pachamacs, euclasaurs and chlorosaurs could be derived scaly iguanodontians.

Now, the "Qurry" ornithoschians who take over the world are a bit of a
conundrum. Are they derived from an African radiation? What makes up them? Just
jackalopes and "Ungulapedes"? Or those clades as well as duckgongs and
vanguards?

Too many variables here thanks to that chtulu-damned *Tianyulong*!!!

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com,
"cynodontidnumba1tothe250mill" <itearuk@...> wrote:
>
> Pterosaurs limited to pteranodontids and azhdarchids.
>

Much to your dismay I intend to make some interesting clades out of these two...

> Singers either bobunked or made into crurotarsans. Viriosaurs same deal.
>

Err, no, viriosaurs look better as noasaurids.

>
> Now, the "Qurry" ornithoschians who take over the world are a bit of a
conundrum. Are they derived from an African radiation? What makes up them? Just
jackalopes and "Ungulapedes"? Or those clades as well as duckgongs and
vanguards?
>

I'd rather like to keep duckgongs and vanguards out of this main clade. In fact,
would it be too much to ask to make duckgongs derived from hadrosaurs, specially
from the Australian radiation (which might include bipedal forms according to
Tim)?

> Too many variables here thanks to that chtulu-damned *Tianyulong*!!!
>

It is evil, but cute

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "Falco"
<falcolombardo83@...> wrote:


> Much to your dismay I intend to make some interesting clades out of these
two...

  okayyy.
>
> > Singers either bobunked or made into crurotarsans. Viriosaurs same deal.
> >
>
> Err, no, viriosaurs look better as noasaurids.

  D'oh! I forgot about that!


> I'd rather like to keep duckgongs and vanguards out of this main clade. In
fact, would it be too much to ask to make duckgongs derived from hadrosaurs,
specially from the Australian radiation (which might include bipedal forms
according to Tim)?

   Possibly not. 30 million years would be enough time from them
   to spread eastward all the way into the Caribbean.
>
> > Too many variables here thanks to that chtulu-damned *Tianyulong*!!!
> >
>
> It is evil, but cute

  Agreed.

First, I'd like to say I recovered my old account, though I like to alternate
between this one and falcolombardo83. Second, I've got two essays:

*Pteranodontia*

Since the late Cretaceous that pterodactyloid pterosaur diversification has been
focused on two main linages. The first is Azhdarchoidea, a clade of terrestrial
pterosaurs that spawned stork, hornbill, terror bird and condor like forms,
which are probably Spec's most famous pterosaurs. The other one, Pteranodontia,
diversified instead on aquatic environments, giving a special touch to Spec's
shores that HE's lack.

Pteranodontia is, on HE, probably one of the most iconic pterosaur clades. One
genus, Pteranodon, is what the average person thinks as the model pterosaur,
featuring in media more so than any other pterodactyloid. Another genus,
Nyctosaurus, is gaining popularity as well, largely for the impressive crest.
Needless to say, popular depictions of pteranodontids are often inaccurate, but
so is the popular image of dinosaurs.

The earliest pteranodonts evolved in the late Cretaceous, with forms like
Pteranodon and Ornithostoma existing as far back as 85 million years ago, and
already with features associated with the clade. Their closest relatives seem to
be ornithocheiroid pterosaurs, and their ancestor was very likely something akin
to a Ludodactylus. Because both earlier ornithocheiroids (except for
istiodactylids, which were scavengers, and maybe some other poorly known forms
like Lonchodectes) and pteranodonts occupied roughly the same ecological niche,
that of aerially piscivores, and because ornithocheirids began to decline as
pteranodonts became dominant, its perhaps non illogical to suggest pteranodonts
outcompeted their more basal relatives. By the end of the Mesozoic, it seems,
larger pteranodontians were in turn replaced by the smaller, more adaptable
nyctosaurids; the last known non-nyctosaurid genus was *Antarctoptera*, a genus
which included the largest known pteranodontian ever, *A. hyperion*, a massive
flier with a wingspan of over 10 meters, competing directly with azhdarchids in
terms of size. Said giant disappeared with the Paleogene/Eocene Thermal Maximum,
which disrupted oceanic environments and caused the collapse of many food
chains. During the Eocene nyctosaurids did better in freshwater environments,
much like HE's early frigate birds such as Limnofregata, and with the changes
imposed by the Oligocene they diversified once more, albeit with new
competitors, the large radiation of icthyornithes.

Having specialised to a different ecological niche than azhdarchids,
pteranodonts can in some ways be described as the opposite of them. Their
shoulder blades, much like in other ornithocheiroids, are located higher than in
other pterosaurs, an adaptation for flight. Their fingers (aside from the wing
finger, that is) are pretty much reduced to the point that modern forms, the
nyctosaurids, lack them, again an indicator of their specialisation towards
flight. Their anteorbital frenestra as quite small in porportion to the skull
than those of many other pterosaurs, including their ornithocheiroid ancestors,
in some species being about as big as a large bird nostril. Their crests vary in
shape and size, from small stumps of the back of the head to quite long ones;
some species pretty much have their crest[s] on the beak instead, much like long
gone ornithocheiroids such as Ornithocheirus and Anhanguera. Pteranodonts, much
like azhdarchoids, gave up their teeth, having instead long rostrums;
interestingly their jaws are usually actually more stork like than those of
azhdarchids. Unlike seabirds, which often land inn the water surface to feed,
nyctosaurids are generally more specialised to hunt prey on the wing, due to the
fact they would have tremendous difficulties to take off from the water and
because they could loose a lot of body heat from the wings in cold waters,
though some species do land on the water. Small nyctosaurids are able to skim on
the water surface, but larger ones cannot engage in this behvaiour, so they
grasp prey from the water surface with the jaws; some species engage in a
hovering behaviour, which is either followed by diving or by spiralling flights
above the water surface, snatching the prey from the water surface.

There are about 10 living nyctosaurid species, distributed all over the globe.

Southern Ropen (Saurolarus ominosus)

*Saurolarus* is a cosmopolitian genus of nyctosaurids that can be best described
as analogous to oversized terns. A typical example of this clade is the Southern
Ropen, a species whose distribution extends along Australasia, from southern New
Guinea to Tasmania and New Zealand, occuring as east as New Caledonia and as
west as the western australian coast, and which is about of the same dimensions
as HE's caspian tern. Much like other ropens, these are generalistic piscivores,
occuring in both coastoal environments and on lakes and rivers well inland. It
is main grey coloured, with a white underside and bright red beak and crest,
which is small and disc shaped. It preys mostly on fish and crustaceans, which
captures via skimming and/or kinglerfisher like hovering and diving.
Occasionally it also preys on amphibians, small reptiles and bird chicks and
eggs. Spending most of their time on the air, they can occasionally be seen
resting on river banks or in large rocks and trunks; to compensate for the lack
of digits they have small keratinous hooks on the front limbs should they need
to climb. During the breeding season they gather in huge flocks in large
waterways; here, males compete with each other for the right to mate, displaying
impressive aerial acrobacy. Females then proceed to bury their eggs on the sand,
and after a few months the young dig their way upwards to leave. Like in all
pterosaurs, they are independent from the moment they are born, resulting in
them occupying several ecological niches. However, nyctosaurids in general grow
quickly for pterosaur standards, reaching full size and thus sexual maturity on
an year.

Royal Privateer (Archipirata magnificiens)

If ropens are Spec's terns/skimmers, then these are the frigate birds.
Pterosaurs have stereotypically been seen as seabird like for a long time in the
scientific community, with frigate birds as being considered their closest
analogue; its perhaps ironic that, in all their vast diversity, these winged
reptiles reproduced a Fregata analogue. Privateers are divided in more or less
four species, which occur in the oceans worldwide, the biggest being the Royal
Privateer, a flying sauropsid with a wingspan of five meters, more or less the
maximum size of the other main linage of large oceanic soarers, the icthyornithe
diomedeodontornids. Unlike them, which land on the water surface, these catch
prey from the air, and much like frigate birds they don't hesitate to harass
smaller fliers, either eating their catch or eating them. The largest of the
privateers is a black coloured animal, with a white underside and an yellow
bill, with dark green naked skin pacthes around the eyes and white spots along
the neck and back. Pelagic nomads as they are, during the summer their ranges
can extend as far north as Iceland and as far south as Patagonia. Nonetheless,
each year or so they gather in specific breeding spots, always islands spread
across the tropics in the open ocean. Males develop keratinous crests along the
upper jaw, similar to those of the long gone Nyctosaurus(?) bonneri.

White Cherere (Lacusoptera cardiocrista)

The biggest of modern nyctosaurids are the chereres, large pterosaurs that
occupy roughly the same ecological niche as HE's pelicans. Occuring in coastoal
or inland waters across tropical and temperate latitudes (including South
America), these pterosaurs land on the water to feed, capturing their prey with
their large pouches on the lower jaw, and using their powerfull wings to take
off from the water. This particular species, a relatively small one with a
wingspan of 3 meters, occurs in the coastoal and freshwater environments of
southern Europe, North Africa and Asi all the way to India. Mostly white
coloured with black uppersides of the patagia and a grey beak, the males develop
keratinous crests on the tip of the jaws, resembling the shape of a heart when
the animal has the beak closed. Other species have crests along the upper jaw or
even at the back of the head. They are usually calm animals, but many
specexplorers have been pecked to death by the males when protecting the eggs.
Males form harems during the breeding season, and every single female lays her
eggs on his nest; this strategy is used by several dinosaurs, and is perfected
by the chereres because they often form homosexual pairs with other males.
Needless to say that the young are independent.


*Vulturioraptoridae*

During the Paleogene, Dromeosauridae went through quite some radiation of forms.
The arboreal arbros, the enigmatic tacitosicarids (now restricted to the modern
ninja), mattiraptors and draks all have their origins dating to the Eocene. Back
then, dromeosaurs also produced a couple of clades that didn't survived to the
modern days. One of them is Vulturioraptoridae, a linage of dromeosaurs of about
5 known genera that range from the Eocene to the early Miocene.

The exact relationships with modern dromeosaurs aren't very clear. They are
usually thought as having evolved from animals like Saurornitholestes; the first
known vulturioraptorid, *Falciferoraptor*, is somewhat similar animal from the
early Eocene of North America. Others consider them south american unenlagiines
that wandered northwards during the time when both americas were connected. In
either case, vulturioraptorids seem to have achieved success early on their
evolution, with large forms such as *Hyeanornis* occuring by the end of the
period.

What exactly did these animals did for a living is uncertain. The most
promenient feature are the conical teeth (similar to those of istiodactylid
pterosaurs and cookie cutter sharks), the relatively strong jaws and the lack of
adaptations towards cursoriality. It has been largely suggested that these were
mostly scavengers, having evolved to fill the void caused by the extinction of
north american tyrannosaurs (the ones that survived lived in Asia), and the
usually large species size (the average size being about 2 meters tall). Lacking
adaptations that would make them efficient predators of large game, it is also
possible that they were targetting small prey; the single european genus
*Europiscator* seems to had been a spinosaurid analogue, having adapted to prey
on fish. The Oligocene was the golden age of these dromeosaurs, having spread
over much of Laurasia, before a very sharp decline by the end of the Oligocene,
the last known remains coming from Mongolia about 10 million years into the
Miocene. Their extinction is usually atributed to climate change; as forests
became replaced by grasslands their competitors, such as mattiraptors, draks and
tyrannosaurs, became more diverse, eventually outcompeting this old linage.

> > > Too many variables here thanks to that chtulu-damned *Tianyulong*!!!

I personally think Heterodontosaurs may have survived up until KT, because of
their ability to attain small sizes, as Fruitadens, seems to show nicely.

I think we should reach a decision about what to do with notosuchians and other
landcrocs.

We've speculated that Dryads and some of the north american ornithopods would be
better as either notosuchians or noasaurs. I assume this means toothless
noasaurs, as having yet another generalised theropod clade would be pretty
boring.

I think the answer to this lies in that Spec has hypsies in too many places. I
personally think that the hypsies in AUSTRALIA should be replaced by Noasaurs,
and the Dryads by Notosuchians, best of both worlds. Plus, we already have
hypsies in Madagascar. The only Aussie ornithopods we'd keep were possibly the
brushrunners, and definately the piggybeak and rath. Others will become some
sort of hadrosaur, IE tanamisaurs and euclasaurs.

We already have monitor-like lancrocs in Oz, along with potentially a croc-dingo
and a croc-hyena (but I'd much rather the croc hyena not be, because we have
crunchercrocs). I think they should keep to generalised montore-analoues, with
possibly a 3-4 meter predator, the "crocdog". Or maybe we should call it
something more creative, Croccur? as in Croc-curr?

I think we'll obviously have a variety of notosuchians in south america and
africa, to some extent.

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, "Crazy-legs"
<tdmorris@...> wrote:

>
>The only Aussie ornithopods we'd keep were possibly the brushrunners, and
definately the piggybeak and rath.
>
>

Both the pigbeak and the rath could be basal marginocephalians though. In either
case, some quills are required.

>
> I think we'll obviously have a variety of notosuchians in south america and
africa, to some extent.
>

True indeed. I think that so far we've only described some groups
(crunchercrocs, hoplocrocs, singers and some kind of relic sebecosuchian in
South America I think), and personally some expansion on the notosuchian variety
could be used

>  We've speculated that Dryads and some of the north american
>  ornithopods would be better as either notosuchians or noasaurs. I
>  assume this means toothless noasaurs, as having yet another
>  generalised theropod clade would be pretty boring.

What is a dryad? Have the dendrosaurs been renamed? Essays keep coming
out, and I can't read them :.-(

>  I think the answer to this lies in that Spec has hypsies in too many
>  places.

I'm not sure about that.

They shouldn't all form one global ornithopod clade, but that's easy to
avoid.

>  I personally think that the hypsies in AUSTRALIA should be
>  replaced by Noasaurs,

So we get even more herbivorous theropods?

>  The only Aussie ornithopods we'd keep [as non-hadrosaurs] were
>  possibly the brushrunners, and defin[i]tely the piggybeak and rath.

The latter two are supposed to be fairly close relatives of the
rhynchoraptors, so if they stay ornithopods, so should the rhynchoraptors.

>  We already have monitor-like lancrocs in Oz, along with potentially a
>  croc-dingo and a croc-hyena (but I'd much rather the croc hyena not
>  be, because we have crunchercrocs).

I thought we wanted to have a bone-crunching sphenodont in Oz?

>  Or maybe we should call it something more creative,
>  Croccur? as in Croc-curr?

Which means what?

>  I think we'll obviously have a variety of notosuchians in south
>  america and africa, to some extent.

Certainly. So many, in fact, that we should start relating them to
specific Cretaceous notosuchians. Aardcrocs can be sphagesaurids...

--- In DinosaurMailingList-KilledThreads@yahoogroups.com, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@...> wrote:
>
>
> What is a dryad? Have the dendrosaurs been renamed? Essays keep coming
> out, and I can't read them :.-(
>

If that helps my essay on Pteranodontidae and an extinct dromeosaur clade is my
last one till the next year.


>
> So we get even more herbivorous theropods?
>

Regarding herbivory in Theropoda, is it safe to say that basal theropods were
omnivorous and later branched into hypercarnivores and herbivores or were they
hypercarnivores converted into omnivores and herbivores? I personaly think the
first makes more sense biologically, but...

> The latter two are supposed to be fairly close relatives of the
> rhynchoraptors, so if they stay ornithopods, so should the rhynchoraptors.
>

Then make them all marginocephalians!

>
> I thought we wanted to have a bone-crunching sphenodont in Oz?
>

I'd like if we had, though it might just be an animal restricted to New Zealand
as proposed a couple of times. Nonetheless, it would be more interesting if it
were a mainland australian clade.

Is there any consensus regarding how rocs are, what the niches they occupy?
Because from everything I've seen here no conclusion whatsoever was reached.
Because we now have carrion-geese, all I've understood is that storkish forms
like the adjutant roc and the rukh as well as the occasionally mentioned forest
forms are the current plans for Rociformes.

From what I therefore picked, Rociformes are like Spec's teratorns. Only that
they occur in the Old World. And have species occupying forest eagle niches.
This leaves me with a few ideas: first, rocs managed to reach Australia, in the
form of harpy eagle like species, and produced a huge soaring form in the open
landscapes of Oz that is kind of like a gigantic Aquila audax, thus creating the
closest thing to an eagle on Spec (sans the large avisaurs that occur
elsewhere).

The second idea is regarding the impact of rocs. While there would obviously be
a "traditional" azhdarchid on Africa and Eurasia, there would still be other
species there occupying less traditional niches, like the frugivorous forms I
mentioned, and some other unusual species, like pterodactylid like forms I came
up with. I came up with the entire evolutionary history of rocs to give way to
why their existence wouldn't conflit with carrion-geese and pterosaurs, but as I
said I won't write another essay here until the next here