HOME | DD
Qilong — The Crown
by-nc-nd
Published: 2012-08-26 12:13:31 +0000 UTC; Views: 2282; Favourites: 67; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
I'm rather interested in this small group of toothless pterosaurs, the tapejaroids, and of them Tapejara wellnhoferi itself is very peculiar, as it has the shortest beak and the most interesting jaw among them.After I sketched the main figure, I doodled the "laying down" posture. Certainly, I think this pterosaur could "sit" in a normal position, and the wings were likely folded in another way, but I wondered how it would look if I laid the arms out as so, and it looks pretty weird! The corner image is, of course, one of these fellers in flight.
There is a print available for this, but it only uses the frontliner image.
Related content
Comments: 13
Epic Tapejara!
This brings the question, what's WWD's Tapejara? Is it what we know today as Tupandactylus, or simply another species of Tapejara?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tupandactylus imperator. Right now, Tapejara wellnhoferi is restricted to the type species; in another age, we'd likely have had Europejara olcadesorum as a second species of Tapejara.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Understood, thanks
But wasn't Europejara chronologically and anatomically distinct enough for it's own genus? (Of course, I wouldn't discount what you're saying, most pterosaurs are cosmopolitan, after all...)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It has anatomical distinctions, yes, but this means little. It is a distinct species, regardless of whether it was Tapejara olcadesorum or Europejara olcadesorum. In the older days, it would simply be a species from a little later on. A decade ago, people on either side of the Atlantic thought that a "genus" name for a pterosaur from the Santana (Tropeognathus mesembrinus) was the same as a pterosaur from the Cambridge Greensands (Criorhynchus simus), with the latter based on ONLY a small fragment of the rostrum, and scraps. These people would have named Tapejara olcadesorum -- unless they were trying to be pricks and instead create their own name so that they didn't have to use someone else's they didn't like.
I am find with all new taxa getting a full binomen for their own: If they are distinct, treat them with names that allow you to explain this. How distinct is irrelevant to the nomenclature, in my mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed
I'd just lean with your opinion that genus are relative, artificial markers then
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
err... what behavior would that prostrate position represent? Looks like... "sunbather pose". Or "somewhat bummed". LoL!
That main walking image is wicked!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm okay with sunbathing. Looks funky, eh? That's what I thought when I was thinking of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
