Slashdot Mirror


Flying Reptile The Size of A Small Airplane

An anonymous reader wrote to mention a New Zealand Herald article about a pterosaur that has been discovered to have an almost 18 meter wingspan. From the article: "A Spitfire has a wingspan of 11m and has to be powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. Pterosaurs did it on a diet of fish and a superb ability to utilise air currents, thermals and ground effects. There is nothing close to pterosaurs alive today. Pterosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, they left no descendants and we don't know quite what their closest relative was."

39 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Good morning, Professor Falken ... by DoktorTomoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    people think they have never been, but once, the skies were full of them...

    Right, Petrosaurs had a better fuel efficiency. They also didn't carry bombs over large distances and were likely not attacked by fighter planes.

    1. Re:Good morning, Professor Falken ... by ultranova · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Right, Petrosaurs had a better fuel efficiency. They also didn't carry bombs over large distances and were likely not attacked by fighter planes.

      I seem to recall Spitfires being fighter planes themselves, and therefore not carrying any bombs over any distances.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Good morning, Professor Falken ... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh for god's sake, one of the natural wonders of the world is discovered, and the best we can come up with is a pissing contest about how we can make better machines. Guess what, the pterosaurs couldn't land on the moon or spit nuclear explosions either, aren't we great.

      When you think about it, the likelihood of any fossils even existing, never mind surviving for us to find, is so low that its a miracle we have any record of what came before at all. I absoloutely guarantee that not one species in a million that existed in those days has left any sort of fossil record at all. Giant pterosaurs are most likely just the tip of the iceberg.

      Besides, most of you are missing the the point, which is of course...

      Here be dragons...

  2. closest relative? by cperciva · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pterosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, they left no descendants and we don't know quite what their closest relative was

    I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that the closest relative to a Pterosaur would be another Pterosaur.

    Either that, or a Spitfire.

  3. Well duh by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A Spitfire has a wingspan of 11m and has to be powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine," Martill said. "Pterosaurs did it on a diet of fish and a superb ability to utilise air currents, thermals and ground effects.

    Muscles are the most efficient actuation devices for small sizes. Mechanical equivalents are either power-hungry, awkward (too large, too small, too limited in the ways they output their power...) or not flexible enough.

    Muscles produce powerful, fine-grained motion, with only ridiculous amounts of sugar and oxygen. I'm not sure comparing a big dinosaur with a big airplane means anything, as one is the result of millions of years of evolution, and the other only 50 years.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Well duh by GbrDead · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but the evolution of planes is... intelligent design :-)

    2. Re:Well duh by kelzer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but the evolution of planes is... intelligent design :-)

      Unlike the evolution of automobiles.

      --

      ---------------------------------------------
      SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  4. What about Quetzlcoatlus? by c0l0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    If I recall correctly, there was a spwan of the pterosauri constantly appearing in the books I read all the time in my early childhood with an estimated wingspan of about 15 to 18 meters, as well.

    I am NOT going to watch quietly Quetzlcoatlus getting buried in oblivion!!1 :-(

    --
    :%s/Open Source/Free Software/g

    YTARY!
  5. Stupid comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well yes, they might have had a greater wingspan, but they certainly didn't fly mach 1, neither did they weight thousands of kilograms. So the statement that they were able to outperform Rolls Royce engines by fish digestion is plain stupid.

    1. Re:Stupid comparison by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yah, the Gossamer Albatross has a wingspan of over 29 meters and it runs on the leg muscles of a human.

  6. BREAKING NEWS!!! by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dinosaurs were big.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    1. Re:BREAKING NEWS!!! by adtifyj · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... and we don't know very much about them. But look at this pretty picture I drew!!!

    2. Re:BREAKING NEWS!!! by FidelCatsro · · Score: 3, Funny

      I read an interesting article a number of years ago , the basic premise was a theory that all dinosaurs were roughly the size of chickens . The only reason the bones we discover now are so large is due to absorption .
      Perhaps it was total bunkum , but an interesting theory non the less

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    3. Re:BREAKING NEWS!!! by ultranova · · Score: 3, Funny

      I read an interesting article a number of years ago , the basic premise was a theory that all dinosaurs were roughly the size of chickens . The only reason the bones we discover now are so large is due to absorption .

      No no no, that's not it ! The reason the bones we discover now are so large is that those chicken-sized dinosaurs really liked horror films with giant monster on them. All those fossil findings are just really old film shooting sites, where the cheapskate directors saved a penny by burying the garbage of the set onto the ground instead of properly disposing of it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  7. This story is useless... by 9Nails · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...without photographs!

    How can you say, hey I found something really cool! And then don't show any one. I mean, really?! Come on!

  8. Re:Personally... by bladernr · · Score: 3, Interesting
    the use of fragments of a fossilized skeleton, while I admit can be useful, seems tenuous at best.

    I thought the same thing. Anyone else ever been to a museum where they found like, a tooth and toenail, and then reconstructed what the entire animal looked like? They talk about mating patterns, herding, sounds they made... I mean, I love a good BS fest like anyone else, but, seriously, does anyone else think they are just sitting around a pub seeing who can make up the most ridiculous "dinosaur sound" and get it published? They probably just record the "dinosaur sounds" their kids make.

    I guess that is the benefit of being in a profession where, if you are careful, you can't really be proven wrong. They must be the ones keep time travel technology under wraps...

    --
    Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
  9. Speak for yourself by Lifewish · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
  10. Re:Personally... by demondawn · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Who keeps Atlantis off the maps? Who keeps the time travel under wraps? We do..."

  11. better compare it to a glider. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Todays gliders made of composites have a wingspan of 18 meters. Actually they vary from 15 to 24 meters, but 18 meter is a standard class. Optimal speed is usually around 90 km/h and minimum speed is around 70 km/h. Of course a glider is built to carry a payload of about 100 kg.

  12. I know one by rasty · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pterosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, they left no descendants and we don't know quite what their closest relative was

    My mother in law.

  13. Messy by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Being under modern birds at the wrong moment can be bad enough. Can you imagine what being shat upon by one of these would be like?

    1. Re:Messy by Andy_R · · Score: 3, Funny

      A Spitfire can drop a 500lb bomb. I think I just worked out why the article picked such a strange comparison...

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  14. Re:I for one by ettlz · · Score: 5, Funny
    I for one welcome our airplane sized reptile overlords

    Idiot, they're extinct.

  15. Re:I may be wrong here by masklinn · · Score: 3, Informative

    They are reptiles, related to dinosaurs but not considered dinosaurs themselves, and have no close relationship to birds.

    Birds-related dinosaurs were small theropods (bipedal carnivorous, Tyranosorus Rex and Velociraptor are theropods for example, but not from the line that led to birds)

    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  16. What about performance? by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...scientists are confused because animals are more efficient than machines...


    It depends on how you define "efficient". TFA doesn't clarify exactly with which version of "Spitfire" they were comparing the Pterosaur, but a Supermarine Spitfire Mk.XIX has a top speed of 740 km/h, maximum weight of 4082 kg on take-off, flying range of 2495 km, reaches up to 13100 meters altitude. All this with a wingspan of just 9.95 meters. I would like to see any living being top those specs.

    1. Re:What about performance? by Hast · · Score: 5, Funny

      No they are not fish powered, I hear then run on Petrosaurses. Very very dead ones.

    2. Re:What about performance? by MdotCpDeltaT · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I attended a lecture of Dr. Octave Levenspiel a few years back where he had solved the riddle of how something that big could fly.

      It's called air pressure.

      For anything to fly that is that big, he showed that the air pressure had to be four times what it is today. Here's a link to his paper. It also explains why dinosaurs could have such long necks and not pass out from loss of blood to their brains.

      Great and really interesting paper.

  17. Well then let me be the first... by ImaLamer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our airplane sized extinct reptile overlords

  18. Here's a better comparison by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    the statement that they were able to outperform Rolls Royce engines by fish digestion is plain stupid


    Instead of comparing pterosaurs with powered airplanes, they should compare them with powered gliders, which operate on similar specs. Look here and here for examples.

  19. So the closest relative by jurt1235 · · Score: 3, Funny

    That would be a person hanging from a 18m span glider on a fish eating diet?

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  20. Re:Personally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess that depends what kind of fragments you find. If you find a huge toenail, huge piece of spline and a huge tooth, there is some pretty good chances the whole thing was big.

    On the other hand, if you just find a huge toenail, it just might have been a big-footed dino.

    And paleontologists can be proven wrong - all you need is to find a bone fragment that does not fit to the original reconstruction.

  21. Must be time to promote another Dinosaur Product by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Its well known that press releases like this get sent out during the times at which a movie, tv show, or book are to be released.

    In previous famouns anounced dinosaur discoveries, the dino's had already been well known among the reasearch community however the public hasnt heard of them so for films like Jurrasic Park 3, they anounced the dinosaur that is bigger than a Trex. Also back a year ago, they also anounced another dinosaur that just so happened to be during the release of a dinosaur mass marketed product (cant remember which though unforuntately)

    There was a guy on NPR that explained this marketing strategy, as the expert dinosaur consultant on Jurrasic Park, he said Universal asked him to old back on announcing discoveries publically to coincide with all 3 of the Jurrasic Park films.

  22. Re:Extrapolating to an absurdity. by ptomblin · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is you who are being absurd.

    Yes, they've only found fragments of wing bones of these very large ones. But those fragments are exactly like the wing bones of smaller pterosaurs which they already have complete skeletons for, only larger. The statement about legs and knuckles is based on more complete skeletons from smaller specimens.

    --
    The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
  23. Re:Personally... by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

    huge piece of spline

    I found one, but it turned out just to be a piece of NURBS

  24. Re:Personally... by Sr.+Zezinho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since more than 60 kinds of pterosaurs are known even a few fragments of a new species can provide enough information to support an hypothesis about their size. You don't have to be a paleontologist to understand that.

    --
    os trabalhos e os dias: http://zmoreira.net
  25. How do we know they flew? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We know they had wings...but how do we know they flew? They could have lost flight when they evolved to be so big.

    1. Re:How do we know they flew? by tmortn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Old debate regarding petrosaurs. The evidence is far more in favor of a capable flyer than of an awkward at best glider or land bound creature. If you look at flightless birds you find they did not maintain large wings but quickly became almost vestigil. Think Ostritch or Emu... and in their cases the legs grew to compensate for the awkwardness of having largely useless wing limbs.

      In the case of petrosaurs, and this one in particular, it was absolutely domninated by its wings and obviously would have had problems dealing with them on the ground. So they would have been extremely vulnerable on the ground if they lived there... and that dosn't argue well for survival.

      Another issue is the one of material strength. go look up the discussions of modern physiologists with regards to three very serious problems in their eyes with the physiology of Dinosaurs. Petrosaur Wings, T-Rex bipedal status as a Carnivore that had to be quick to catch prey, and the Sauropod Neck. To make a long story short modern, physiology says that current bone and muscle structures could not support these structures. Their knwoledge of what current tissue and bone structures can do and how they work is pretty good. And yet they are not so silly as to simply ignore the record of fossils. But there is a serious problem here in if there was some stronger biological capacity for the dinosaurs that would mean a more fit evolutionary deveolpment lost out to a less fit one. So that gets the evolution camp up in arms. To say the evidence of what these animals were capable of gets the palientologists up in arms. Besides there is really not much arguing that sauropods had gigantic long necks, T-Rex walked on its hind legs and that Petrosaurs Flew. There also is little dispute that moder physiologists understand muscles and bones of current biology to a great degree.

      Yet in the end the knowledge does not add up to a satisfactory conclusion. There the debate sits. One of the funner explinations of how they could all be right has to do with gravity. Namely most of the structural problems acording to modern physiology begins and ends with what is needed to create and support these structures in Earth's gravity. If Earths gravity was not the same then as it is now then that opens the possibility that all camps are correct. But that argument opens up a serious can of worms, to say the least.

      Anyway this find is going to stir up alot of those debates again. Cause the earlier debate about petrosaurs was never really closed. It sort of died down into an armed truce where physiologists simply say that they were primarily gliders... but something this big will have problems according to them even if all id did was try to support its weight... much less attempt to gain the air by flapping its wings. They can't both be right.... or can they? It is a very intresting discussion.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
  26. Close Enough For Comfort by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Funny

    "There is nothing close to pterosaurs alive today."

    Best news I've heard all day.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  27. Re:Personally... by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> the use of fragments of a fossilized skeleton, while I admit can be useful, seems tenuous at best.

    > I thought the same thing. Anyone else ever been to a museum where they found like, a tooth and toenail, and then reconstructed what the entire animal looked like?

    Well, I am a paleontologist, and I can *definitely* tell you that *nobody* in this profession makes hypotheses on sounds, mating patterns etc. based on a toenail of an extinct animal. That kind of BS allegations is reserved to strawman-building creationists.

    You know, museums often have only some isolated bones of an animal that *is*, however, known better from other bones, or then its close relative might be known. In cases like Parasaurolophus, a duck-billed herbivorous dinosaur, there's some very good evidence about the sounds it might have made, and it's known from complete skeletons, including skulls. Evidence for herding in dinosaurs can be found from fossilized nests and footprints.

    Same principle goes for cases like this new pterosaur. We only have some wing bones of this creature (pterosaur bones are very fragile), but we also have loads of complete skeletons of other pterosaur genera. If we take the wingbone proportions of these animals and compare them to the new-found bones, we can make a pretty good estimation of its size. Of course, we have to remember two things: sometimes even scientists like to exaggerate things, even if just a little - a bigger fish makes a bigger story. But usually it's the media, though, that makes a mountain out of a molehill. I know too many examples of this.