Lest my readers think I’ve become dull, an upcoming post will have this in it, and an explanation.
You will have to further pardon me while I make my next few posts NOT about this. Feel free to offer commentary on this; I especially invite Dave Peters to offer his here.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. It, and all of its files and contents -- unless otherwise noted -- are protected by this license.
License established 9/9/2012, while previously I was using a CC-BY-ND license instead.
Support this blog:
I have two websites, my DeviantArt and RedBubble accounts, which allow downloads and purchase of the imagery presented on this site. As I am a starving artist, I would appreciate support this way.
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff 
Jaime, this is an excellent drawing showing consumate skill of the Bennett anurognathid as Bennett reconstructed it. The question is, can you find another anurognathid or dimorphodontid (the basal stock) that has similar morphologies? I haven’t been able to. And you know the rest of the drill. Best regards and ain’t paleontology grand? – Dave
Dave, I can’t find another skull preserved so excellently. Therein lies the problem: this specimen is unique. Other skulls, regardless of you “DGS”, are horribly incomplete, smears, or damaged to the point that they obscure any detail. It is no wonder that researchers have differed so readily on the morphology of anurognathid cranial anatomy, or been so hesitant to approach it. You and I agree that the splint-like bones correspond to palatal elements, but these features are missing in other skulls; such a degree of preservation in one specimen makes comparisons very, very difficult. One wonders if this skull must stand alone, or that other skulls should be fitted to it, not all twisted about and gone widdershins because you’re tracking cracks or scarps in a slab, or mistaking pixels and shadows and bone or impressions.
Sorry to get back to you so late. This would be helpful: On the in situ specimen can you trace or colorize the bones so we can see a 1-to-1 correspondence with your reconstruction? I also note your reconstruction does not include the purported giant sclerotic ring preserved edgewise on the crushed specimen, which I think is a maxilla because it is rimmed with teeth.