- Pterosaur (Ctenochasmatidae ) Pterodaustro --->
- Presbyornithid subgroup-->
- Primitive bird, Palaelodidae (Phoenicopteriformes) -->
- Flamingo (Phoenicopteriformes)
Pterosaurs lasted till late Cretaceous
Presbyornithids spanned from late Cretaceous? to Early Oligocene
Palaelodidae spanned from early Oligocene to Middle Pleistocene
Modern flamingos span from 30 mya to the present day
http://www.flamingos-world.com/flamingo-evolution.html
* There is evidence to indicate the Flamingo evolved at least 30 million years ago, perhaps longer.
http://www.flamingos-world.com/flamingo-evolution.html
* There is evidence to indicate the Flamingo evolved at least 30 million years ago, perhaps longer.
Note: I have added in the flamingos here:
http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/2011/10/waterfowl_07.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20990/pdf
"Our investigation of skeletal and ontogenetic variation in Pterodaustro gives insights into the
developmental growth dynamics of this unusual ctenochasmatid pterodactyloid from early
ontogeny through to adulthood and also pro vides information pertaining to histological variability within and between bones of individuals. This study also documents the presence of what appears to be medullary bone tissue within the medullary cavity of a large femur of Pterodaustro. This suggests that, like birds, reproductively active female pterosaurs may have deposited a special bone tissue (medullary bone) to cope with the demand of calcium during eggshelling."
http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/2011/10/waterfowl_07.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20990/pdf
"Our investigation of skeletal and ontogenetic variation in Pterodaustro gives insights into the
developmental growth dynamics of this unusual ctenochasmatid pterodactyloid from early
ontogeny through to adulthood and also pro vides information pertaining to histological variability within and between bones of individuals. This study also documents the presence of what appears to be medullary bone tissue within the medullary cavity of a large femur of Pterodaustro. This suggests that, like birds, reproductively active female pterosaurs may have deposited a special bone tissue (medullary bone) to cope with the demand of calcium during eggshelling."
I don't understand why Pterodaustro is needed in this lineage - if you are going from a Presbyornithid (which as far as is known did not have a specialised filter like a flamingo) and then to Palaelodidae (which did have a filter at least in some species but much more limited than a flamingo's) then you don't really need Pterodaustro - there is no logical connection (leaving aside also the lack of evidence for such a strange pathway)
ReplyDeletePterodaustro is the connection to the pterosaurs.
ReplyDeleteDid you read my earlier post about the flamingo lineage?
If you think this is strange, what is your alternative?
I would think a far more parsimonious alternative would be:
ReplyDeletePteropodidae subgroup --->
Presbyornithid subgroup-->
Primitive bird, Palaelodidae (Phoenicopteriformes) -->
Flamingo (Phoenicopteriformes)
Anonymous, if you would like to propose that alternative, then create a blog and detail it out. In my opinion you will see that it is not parsimonious at all.
ReplyDeleteBut let me know if you set up your site and I will be delighted to go to it and comment.
"Pterodaustro is the connection to the pterosaurs."
ReplyDeleteWell so I see but it doesn't seem tenable considering the intermediate groups have much more reduced (or even non existent) filters. Where is the connection between Pterodaustro and the flamingo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterodaustro
ReplyDeletePterodaustro probably waded in shallow water like flamingos, straining food with its tooth comb, a method called "filter feeding".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyornithidae
Presbyornithidae were a family of waterbirds with an apparently global distribution that lived until the Earliest Oligocene, but are now extinct. Initially, they were believed to present a mix of characters shown by waterbirds, shorebirds and flamingos and were used to argue for an evolutionary relationship between these groups (Feduccia 1976), but they are now generally accepted to be "wading ducks", the sister taxon of the Anatidae, and thus essentially modern waterbirds. They were generally long-legged, long-necked birds, standing around one meter high, with the body of a duck, feet similar to a wader but webbed, and a flat duck-like bill adapted for filter feeding.
Anonymous, if you wish to continue could you include a made-up name in your posts. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteYour Wiki quotes don't explain why you think Pterodaustro could be ancestral to flamingos, nor do they provide evidence in support of this "idea" (frankly I hesitate to even call it a hypothesis). Even if Presbyornids were ancestral, which is in some doubt, you have not explained how you could derive a Presbyornid from Pterodaustro, which had a very different filter mechanism (as well all its pterosaur characteristics). You seem to be trying to imply that it was ancestral just because it happens to be a filter feeder but all sorts of organisms share similar characteristics without being directly related. Nature is full of examples of filter feeding in multiple living and fossil bird and other vertebrate groups (eg some sharks and rays, baleen whales), I can think of at least 5 examples of unrelated bird groups that filter feed. Are you suggesting they must all be related just because they share a common method of feeding? That hardly seems credible.
ReplyDeleteOlingo before I talk more about the flamingo lineage I am proposing, what is your alternative? That will help us to put the changes that are in my lineage, into context.
ReplyDeleteNo I'm not suggesting any particular hypothesis regarding flamingo ancestry - I'm just trying to understand yours. It would help if you could clarify why you see Pterodaustro as a potential flamingo ancestor and what evidence you have for this and how you would get from it to a Presbyornid (which has a much reduced and very different filter mechanism) and then from there to the Palaelodidae (which are not, incidentally, thought to be that related to Presbyornids, which are closer to ducks, but are anatomically closer to grebes) and then the flamingo which also has a different mechanism to Pterodaustro.
ReplyDeleteOlingo - here is the problem. You are questioning the changes that are required in developing from one creature type to another in the lineage I have proposed.
ReplyDeleteBut since you have nothing to suggest yourself, we cannot know if the changes required in the lineage I am suggesting are large and significant or relatively tiny compared to those assumed in the dino to bird theory.
For example if you think that birds evolved from tyrannosaurs I would suggest that you have changes the size of the Grand Canyon. And in comparison to those changes, the changes involved in the lineage I have proposed are tiny and totally insignificant.
If you propose a lineage we can then evaluate the lineages.
Otherwise we are stuck with me proposing something concrete while you are completely silent on any alternative.
"Otherwise we are stuck with me proposing something concrete"
ReplyDeleteWell no you're not - that's what I'm asking for. So far you have not really proposed anything concrete but just some vague suggestions about similarity (filter feeding) that don't make much sense so far - I'm asking for you to support what you are suggesting with some evidence and giving you a chance to explain the logic behind it. Let me try and pin it down, I can see how you could go from a Prsybyornid to a flamingo - Feduccia proposed just this (although it was an alternative to Palaelodidae - they were never considered to be on the same line). I can also see how you can go from Palaelodidae to flamingos - they are very close (and also close to grebes). It seems to me with each of these options you have a credible ancestral lineage so why invoke Pterodaustro which has more sophisticated filter apparatus than either of the two ancestral bird groups, and of a different kind?
Also I'm not clear if you are saying Pterodaustro is also ancestral to ducks and geese because if it is ancestral to Presbyornid s that should follow as they are definately descended from Presbyornidae.
When I say "concrete" I mean I am specifying the taxa.
ReplyDeleteWhat taxa do you propose are on the dino to bird lineage?
Concerning your specific question I have already answered it in an earlier post:
ReplyDeleteWaterfowl (Presbyornithes line)
Anseriformes (eg. Duck, Geese, Swan) and Flamingo (Phoenicopteriformes)
"What taxa do you propose are on the dino to bird lineage?"
ReplyDeleteNone - I'm asking you to substantiate your idea - I presume you have more than just the fact that Pterodaustro was a filter feeder?
Concerning you second point - so you are saying ducks and geese evolved from Pterodaustro too? Again I'd like to see your evidence and support for your reasoning there.
ReplyDeleteWhen you are willing to propose the taxa on dinosaur to bird lineage, just let me know and we can have an interesting discussion.
ReplyDeleteAnd concerning the ducks and geese, I am of course not saying they developed directly from Pterodaustro.
I am proposing that Presbyornithids developed from Pterodaustro and then one subgroup of Presbyornithids developed into ducks and geese and another subgroup of Presbyornithids developed into flamingos.
I didn't say you were saying they developed directly from Pterodaustro, only that it is ancestral to both ducks and flamingos - via Presbyornithidae, which you seem to have confirmed. Now all you need to do is provide the rationale and evidence to support your assertions. I'm still waiting for you to do that.
ReplyDeleteWhy on Earth would I be interested in proposing any lineages of my own? - I am asking for you to explain and justify yours. That is the purpose of this site is it not?
Olingo here is the post where I elaborate on the Presbyornithid line:
ReplyDeletehttp://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/2011/10/waterfowl_07.html
Have you read the posts on the site?
Yes I read that but the probability that ducks etc evolved from Presbyornithidae is well established anyway, and the possibility they were also ancestral to flamingos is also a reasonable one, although currently the grebe theory seems dominant (not least because Palaelodidae are closer to grebes than they are to ducks). It's really why you think Pterodaustro is part of this lineage that needs clarification and greater support; I can't see why it is needed if there are already reasonably good candidates for ancestors in the bird line and it is hardly very close to flamingoes or those other groups anatomically or functionally. All you see to have to go on is it is a filter feeder but as I said there have been several fossil and modern bird groups with filter feeders in, it is not an uncommon feeding strategy in vertebrates and invertebrates, it doesn't mean all filter feeders have to be descended from each other any more than all meat or insect eaters have to.
ReplyDeleteOlingo from looking at your comments it seems that the only objection you have is that:
ReplyDeletePterodaustro had a more sophisticated filter apparatus than either of the two ancestral bird groups, and of a different kind.
Is that it?
"Olingo from looking at your comments it seems that the only objection you have is that:
DeletePterodaustro had a more sophisticated filter apparatus than either of the two ancestral bird groups, and of a different kind."
No those are not my objections - just the facts of the matter. My "objection", if you can call it that seeing as I'm just asking you to provide support for your idea - something I would have thought you would be able (and pleased) to do given the opportunity - is that you haven't so far provided any evidence or a aclear rationale for Pterodaustro being an ancestor of any of these groups - just that there is some similarity in terms of their feeding strategy, which is hardly evidence of anything really.
Can you give some support for your contention that the Pterodaustro had a more sophisticated filter apparatus than either of the two ancestral bird groups, and of a different kind?
DeleteThat would be great. And if that is true are you thinking that such a change is a real problem?
Olingo you posted that you :
ReplyDelete"can't see why it is needed if there are already reasonably good candidates for ancestors in the bird line"
What are those reasonably good candidates?
The ones you mention - Presbyornithidae and/or Palaelodidae
ReplyDeleteThe line I am proposing begins with the pterosaur Pterodaustro. The taxa you listed are the descendants I am proposing.
ReplyDeleteYes but right now all I have is your statement that Pterodaustro is at the beginning of that line - what I'm asking for is your analysis and the supporting evidence. Are you saying all you have is the fact that it was a filter feeder in (possibly) a similar niche to modern flamingos.
DeleteHere is some info on the "pterosaur flamingo".
ReplyDeleteIt is on the basis of info like this that I propose that the flamingo line and the anseriform line (eg ducks, geese, swans) stem from Ctenochasmatidae and some from Pterodaustro within that taxon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterodaustro
"Pterodaustro probably waded in shallow water like flamingos, straining food with its tooth comb, a method called "filter feeding".[4] Once it caught its food, Pterodaustro probably mashed it with the small, globular teeth present in its upper jaw.
According to Robert Bakker, like with flamingos, this pterosaur's diet may have resulted in a pink hue. Thus, it is often dubbed the "flamingo pterosaur".[5]
At least two specimens of Pterodaustro have been found, MIC V263 and MIC V243, with gizzard stones in the stomach cavity, the first ever reported for any pterosaur. These clusters of small stones with angled edges support the idea that Pterodaustro ate mainly small, hard-shelled aquatic crustaceans using filter-feeding. Such invertebrates are abundant in the sediment of the fossil site[6]
A study of the growth stages of Pterodaustro concluded that juveniles grew relatively fast in their first two years, attaining about half of the adult size. Then they reached sexual maturity, growing at a slower rate for four to five years until there was a determinate growth stop.[7]
In 2004 a Pterodaustro embryo in an egg was reported, specimen MHIN-UNSL-GEO-V246. The egg was elongated, six centimetres long and 22 millimetres across and its mainly flexible shell was covered with a thin layer, 0.3 mm thick, of calcite.[8]
Comparisons between the scleral rings of Pterodaustro and modern birds and reptiles suggest that it may have been nocturnal, and may have had similar activity patterns to modern anseriform birds that feed at night.[9]"
Yes I'm well aware of what the wiki page says about it and have read more informed sources too. That still doesn't answer my question. All it is saying is what I've already commented on - it was a filter feeder and there is some speculation that if it ate the same things it may have also had a pick hue (although this is obviously impossible to falsify). I see no reason to infer from those few facts that it must have been ancestral to flamingos, particularly as you yourself see flamingos as having been derived from at least 2 intermediate bird groups that bear even less resemblance to Pterodaustro than the flamingo does. If you are going to convince anyone you will need to provide much more solid evidence than this.
DeleteWhat more "informed sources" have you read. Perhaps we can work on this together.
ReplyDeleteIf not, thank you for your contribution to this point.
Well Dave Hones great Pterosaur site for a start but also some of the papers on it such as this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610039/?tool=pmcentrez
From that source:
Deletehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610039/?tool=pmcentrez
"The bone microstructure observed in Pterodaustro appears to be similar to that of Procellariiformes (albatrosses, petrels and relatives; de Margerie 2002), most of which are fairly large birds that tend to soar in strong winds on long narrow wings that are not specialized for consistent flapping flight (de Margerie 2002). The histological similarity between Procellariiformes and Pterodaustro may indicate that the latter had a similar flight mode, but it is also likely that other factors such as bone depositional rate and biomechanical properties of the bone influence its histological structure."
This gives some possible connections as well to albatrosses and petrels which I have not yet included in my analysis.
Not really - their explanation seems more reasonable and you can't just select a few similarities while ignoring the differences (which they also mention).
ReplyDeleteAnyway if you wanted to have Procellariiformes evolving from Pterodaustro as well as ducks and geese and flamingos you could end up making a case for anything evolving from anything - there doesn't seem to be much method in that approach
Thanks for your opinion on that. Of course I do not agree. If you choose to set up a site and present an alternative then I will be happy to see your method.
ReplyDeleteI should add that in the dino to bird theory they do not indicate anything evolving from anything.
ReplyDeleteSo back to the subject - are you going to provide some evidence and a rationale to support your identification of Pterodaustro as the progenitor of flamingos (and from your latest statement possibly a whole series of bird groups?. At the moment we still just have that fact of it being a filter feeder. That is not sufficient evidence by a long chalk. Some analysis of the fossil material and detailed comparison of characters using a rigorous and replicable methodology would be useful.
ReplyDelete"Some analysis of the fossil material and detailed comparison of characters using a rigorous and replicable methodology would be useful."
ReplyDeleteIndeed, that would be useful. It is not at the top of my priority list at the moment.
Would you like to work on that?
That would be great.
By the way Olingo - do you agree that in the dino to bird theory they do not indicate anything evolving from anything?
ReplyDeleteOlingo here is something you could help with. In the passage from the reference you gave it says:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610039/?tool=pmcentrez
"The bone microstructure observed in Pterodaustro appears to be similar to that of Procellariiformes (albatrosses, petrels and relatives; de Margerie 2002), most of which are fairly large birds that tend to soar in strong winds on long narrow wings that are not specialized for consistent flapping flight (de Margerie 2002)."
But when I go to de Margerie 2002, I do not see that being said.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-7580.2002.00118.x/full
Is it being said there?
Here is another study by the same authors. If I read it correctly, it seems to contradict their other study.
ReplyDeleteHere they say:
"However among the Procellariiformes studied (an albatross
and 2 petrels), they found a different arrangement,"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20990/pdf
The thin-walled bones of Pterodaustro were generally
crushed (collapsed), but histological detail was usually
discernible. Although the nature of the bone tissue varied
according to the ‘‘maturity’’ of the individual, location
of the section within the skeleton and skeletal element,
generally the walls of adult and juvenile long bones
were thin (about 1 mm in thickness). Midshaft sections
of long bones generally consisted of a ring of compacted
bone, while bony struts tended to be located more proximally
and distally along the shafts, with extensive weblike
development towards the metaphysis. These features
possibly reflect biomechanical adaptations.
The observation that Pterodaustro has a predominantly
longitudinal arrangement of ‘‘vascular’’ channels
is noteworthy. In a recent analysis of macro and microstructural
analysis of long bones in birds, de Margerie
et al. (2002) found a strong correlation between torsionresisting
features and histologic characteristics (thin
bone walls, circular shaft cross sections, oblique collagen
fibres and laminar arrangement of tissue). de Margerie
et al. (2002) found that the ulna had the highest concentration
of circumferentially oriented vascular channels
in response to the flight loads exerted on the ulna. However,
among the Procellariiformes studied (an albatross
and 2 petrels), they found a different arrangement, i.e.,
low amounts of laminar tissue and their bones were relatively
thick walled (as compared to the other flying
birds sampled). Since these birds are fairly large (e.g.,
Albatross has a wing span of about 2.5 m) and soar on
stiff wings often in strong winds, their long narrow
wings are not well suited for constant flapping flight,
and it is quite likely that they have different loading
forces on their bones. Interestingly, a Lesser Black-
Backed Gull and an unrelated charadriiform seabird
with similar flight modes also showed histological similarity
to the Procellariiiformes studied. Given these findings
in modern taxa and Pterodaustro’s similarity to
them, it is reasonable to assume that the wing bones of
Pterodaustro did not experience large torsional loads
while flying and that perhaps it had a flight mode similar
to the Procellariiformes. It seems that the longitudinal
organization of the bone tissues in Pterodaustro and
Procellariformes may have been an adaptation to longitudinal
stresses caused by compression, tension, or bending
loads.
"Indeed, that would be useful. It is not at the top of my priority list at the moment.
ReplyDeleteWould you like to work on that?"
So you haven't done this yourself? That is a surprise. How then can you propose that Pterodaustro is ancestral to flamingos without having carried out such an analysis. I presume you are not serious in suggesting I do this.
My suggestion that you could contribute was serious. But if it does not interest you, that is fine.
ReplyDeleteIn the post above I have suggested another way you could contribute if you wish.
Up to you.
If you are serious it makes me think you may be under estimating what would be involved. This is not the sort of analysis anyone could just do based on reading a few papers or internet encyclopaedias, I don't have the sort of expertise in this field or experience to carry out such a study, I assumed you had done so already, which was why I asked to see your "working out" essentially in support of your statement about Pterodaustro - that is what a scientist should be able to provide to support any statement or hypothesis and it's certainly something I require of my students - without that we would have no science, don't you agree?
ReplyDeleteI understand that you are not interested. That is fine.
ReplyDeleteBy the way Olingo - do you agree that in the dino to bird theory they do not indicate anything evolving from anything?
ReplyDeleteFor those who may be following this (if any) I am pointing to the fact that the dino to bird theory does not indicate anything evolving from anything.
ReplyDeleteSo Olingo's point concerning what "a scientist should be able to provide to support any statement or hypothesis" applies to the dino to bird theory and it comes up short.
It does not even indicate anything evolving from anything.
Olingo posted:
ReplyDelete"that is what a scientist should be able to provide to support any statement or hypothesis and it's certainly something I require of my students - without that we would have no science, don't you agree?"
Presumably Olingo does not hold this standard in regards to the dino to bird theory, since that theory does not indicate anything evolving from anything.
It is an oddity - that is for sure. I am not sure how Olingo justifies that contradiction to his students. Or if he even tries.
I have had posts from different people calling themselves "Olingo". In order to protect the real Olingo, I am not posting anything further from that name.
ReplyDelete