I tend to be very generous when it comes to labeling diets. Animals are not perfect boxes to never spill out of their strict defintions, nor are their diets, produced as they are from a variety of different sources. You’ll notice that I’ve been talking about what exactly defines some particular diets, and what they involve. These extend from my interests in determine if, in fact, it is possible to determine if an animal is an ovophage/ovivore/egg-eater. What mechanisms exactly of the jaw, animal, environment go into defining a given diet? Are they all the same for different animals? Can we use one set of parameters to then determine the result for any given animal, or are some diets just that much more special than others?
So you think you know a piscivore if you saw one? Not so fast. Take a look:
An array of extinct and extant specialist on fish-eating.
Piscivores come in a large array of sizes and morphologies. Not all have teeth. Some are slender-snouted, others broad. What mostly defines a piscivore is that it consumes fish, but not all do it the same way, and for some, it’s purely behavioral, sometimes seasonal, and sometimes based on relation to plentiful food.
Posted in Biological Comparison, Biology, Paleoecology, Paleontology, Terminology
Tagged Amphibians, Bats, Better Know a Diet, Billfish, Birds, Cetaceans, Crocodilians, Diet, Elasmosaurs, Fish, Mammals, Piscivory, Plesiosaurs, Pterosaurs, Sharks, Snakes, Turtles
So I’ve gone on and on about all this boring stuff about writing papers and my personal experience and analysis and what not. But you probably want to know about Banguela oberlii, the pterosaur.
Let’s talk about what the paper says: Continue reading
The life of a pterosaur cannot be easy. Most occur in places where there is always a larger predator; even the giants Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopterus may have co-occurred with other predators that would have seen them as food. From hatching to growth and eventually the necessary act of breeding – to pass one one’s genetic legacy, a primal, incomprehensible need – the pterosaur marches inexorably to death, changing the world as it goes.
Dr. Toni Bürgin of the Naturmuseum St. Gallen and Hr. Urs Oberli, of Switzerland, together holding the holotype of Banguela oberlii. Very delicately, as the specimen is in two pieces. It is easy to see how actually large this pterosaur’s jaw is, and it would have rivaled the sizes of many other Santana pterosaurs.
In my last post, I introduced Banguela oberlii, a new, toothless dsungaripterid pterosaur.
Banguela oberlii, ©2013 Sergey Krasovskiy, used with permission.
A foggy morning. Water laps gently on a rocky shore, a rhythmic sound accompanying the gentle hum of insects. Mist hugs the forest margin, creeping along the ground; it shrinks back as the heat of the rising sun burns away the last remnants of night. From the fog steps a bizarre sight: a long legged, quadrupedal animal, the forelimbs are huge, a long spar folded against the arm and projecting upwards. At the end of a short, thick neck is a large head, surmounted by round crest. The head ends in a narrow point, and the tip of the jaws curve upwards. The edges of the jaw gleam in the light, the beak extends along the length of the mouth – there are no teeth.
Shrink-wrapping is a process by which a thin film is stretched taut over an object. The closer the film to the object, the tighter the two conform. The term applies the same way when it comes to paleontological reconstruction of formerly living animals. It generally only applies to how thin the skin is, which reveals the underlying tissues in some detail.
The question of paleontology is that: Should you shrink-wrap your fossil animal reconstructions? The answer to this is trickier than it might seem at first. Really, the answer is yes and no. Below I will explain why.