The person who said the Quet being flightless back in its day didn't take into account the amount of oxygen content in the air back then and now. Back when it lived to maybe when the argentavis flew, the oxygen count was higher, so such giants could fly. But after the dawn of man to the present, it's lower in oxygen, so giant flyers won't be able to. Obviously this Witten person is an idiot.
11:25. Impossible for me to believe Quetzalcoatlus was flightless because they all would have been quickly killed by the predators of that time like Tyrannosaurs. Look at Quetzalcoatlus. No defensive horns. No defensive tail. No defensive claws. No ability to gallop away fast. Although large, nowhere near as huge as sauropods, so even their size isn't deterrent for attack. A long slender neck, and no body-armor making it too easy for predatory teeth to chomp on. Plus, hollow bones (for no reason!?) Obviously, this animal required flight just to be able to survive. Recall too, that flightless BIRDS like Kiwis, Penguins, Emus, Dodos, Ostriches, etc all evolved small wings in relation to their bodies, because they don't need them for flight. But this animal had GIGANTIC wings. If it were flightless, these useless wings would only get in their way.
Whoever this Witten person is, obviously did think carefully about the quet being capable of flight or not. Did this person really think it would survive being flightless without any defenses with dangers all around it? Also, the oxygen content was much higher back when it lived, allowing such giants to fly. If it existed since the dawn of man to the present, it would be flightless.
@masterbaiter8961 What about the Argentavis then? It couldn't have gotten big and be able to at that size without more oxygen content in the air. And it came long after quetzal.
@masterbaiter8961 Where did you get the argy being smaller than a pteranodon (longiceps possibly) from? Lots of sites states both had wingspan of about 21 or so ft, In fact the average wingspan of pteranodon is stated to be 18ft, female had 12ft wingspan. The smaller (possibly female) argy had 16ft wingspan and the largest was 21ft 4in. Being smaller than a quetzal is a given, but being smaller than a pteranodon?! Sure you haven't confused an argy with an albatross or a condor?
@Master Baiter Based on it's body plan, I find that very difficult to even visualize in my imagination. Perhaps if someone created an animation of how it would hypothetically be capable of doing that, I might better understand how it might be possible for it to gallop or trot. Right now I see those gigantic wings and huge head with its very lengthy great blue heron-like beak getting in the way of an ability to gallop. When we look at large flightless birds today, they all have tiny heads, short beaks, small wings, and the only thing really large on them, are their impressively muscular thighs. It seems to me no flightless creature has a need for long beaks and gigantic wings. These are merely cumbersome, except when in flight. Long skinny legs do not always indicate an ability to run faster than a T-Rex. Flamingoes have very long legs too. They don't use them to gallop away from predators. They use them to wade in water. And, I still think most pterosaurs stick close by the water, including this one.
@Master Baiter Thanks for the tip! As you probably know, for many years, paleontologists had difficulty visualizing how the largest pterosaurs were able to get themselves up in the air at all, imagining they must have had to climb cliffs and sort of just "fall" off these cliffs into the air. That is, until animators demonstrated how the "all-four-limb-launch" method of quickly and explosively propelling themselves up into the air, was really the most feasible method. I will seek out this "path of titans" animation to better understand this hypothesis of trotting pterosaurs! I appreciate your sharing of the info!
While I'm not sure off all the functions of those big crests I'm 100% certain that they had a huge impact on the animals ability to fly. A fast question is did both genders have the large crests. Good video.
+Dwight E Howell The pterosaurs with large chests on their heads would be unable to turn their head when flying, as it would cause considerable drag during flight. Unfortunately we don't have large numbers meters of specimens of these, but some uncrested forms have been found in the same deposits. So there might be sexual dimorphism. In Pteranodon there are small and big ones that people suggest were girls and boys, rather then different species.
Personally i believe in creationism. However i would like to thank you for making this video because i do like "prehistoric creatures, dinosaurs pterosaurs and prehistoric marine reptiles as well. Thank you sir for making this video as i find these creatures absolutely fascinating.
Very interesting thanks I noticed in the chart there there was a large drop in pterosaur diversity in the middle of the Cretaceous. Any idea what caused that? They seemed so well adapted it's odd they started to die out. Maybe competition from birds? Or some kind of climate change or minor extinction event?
kris wilkinson Maybe there is less pterosaur diversity, because they started to get larger and larger and in the Cretaceous, there weren't any small forms. Or maybe its because there was an inconsistency in the fossilization process, which makes it appear to us that pterosaur diversity diminished during the Middle Cretaceous, when in reality it may have not. More data is needed!
There was actually some sort of extinction event; The Cenomanian-Turonian Boundary Event. The idea of birds outcompeting pterosaurs is no longer considered credible, BTW.
Would it be right to assume that all archosaurs had filaments on their skin? I ask this in light of the fact that Crocodilia apparently use the same control mechanism in their genes to produce the scaly scouts they carry. Additionally, would it be right to entertain the possibility that not all Suchian ancestors were exothermic? In consideration of their 4 chambered heart that acts as a 3 chambered one in extant species, I'm keen to assume that there had meso/endothermic relatives, running around on two legs, covered with filaments, that weren't dinosaurs. (Please correct me if this is an invalid assumption)
Not all archosaurs appear to have had some type of filament in their skin, although many of them may have lost this trait through their evolution. Pterosaurs and Dinosaurs a group referred to as Ornithodira appear to ancestrally have some primitive type of fuzzy proto-feathery filament, which is found in some pterosaurs and some dinosaur fossils. Earlier Archosaurs, and the lineages leading to crocodile have not been found with any feathers or feather-like structures, however, archosaurs do have osteoderms which are bone that grows within the skin, through ectodermal growth. Ectodermal bone is also found in mammals, even in fish, which forms some of the bones in the skull. This trait is retained in many lizards, dinosaurs, turtles and crocodiles today. Feathers may have developed in relationship to homeothermic body temperature (warm bloodedness), as a way to increase energy and metabolism in fast moving pterosaurs and dinosaurs. originating some time in the middle to late Triassic period. Evidence also points to the origin of fur during this time or even slightly earlier.
Thank you for your reply. I had read that the factors that give rise to homeothermy lead to the 'excretion' of excess material (keratin, for example) in the form of filaments, hair, feather etc. Is this compatible with the evidence? regarding feathers and crocodile scales (layman article) : www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-crocodile-bird-genome-20141212-story.html and a more detailed view www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271537/
Yes, you might look up some info on Beta-Keratin, which is the material found in bird feathers, beaks and even in dinosaur claws, and crocodile skin, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-keratin It differs from mammal Alpha-Keratin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-keratin which is found in mammals. These are two different protein structures found in the hard-filaments that make up things like hooves, feathers, beaks, and tough skin.
Appreciated. Are these different Alpha/Beta-Keratin excretions convergent traits that happen to be triggered by homeothermic conditions or are there differences in the conditions that give rise to α-keratin and β-Keratin output? is there a "critical mass" of homeothermy that favours the creation of fillaments (or hair, in the homologous case) over epidermal bones and thick skin - or the ratio between the two if both filament and thick/hardened skin exist on the same animal? (depending on the volume of the animal and the median temperatures it lives in, of course)
Those are excellent questions! I don't really know. Need to think of ways to test these ideas; there is a huge variety of keratins, and many that are not well studied in invertebrates. Since they are complex proteins, they also have a complex chemistry as well and likely more diverse then we know about. Both types of keratin pre-date fur and feathers (likely originating in claws and skin-pads), and may extend to close to the origin of vertebrates... lots of stuff to look at it, especially to see how genes code for them across the genome of various animals. I also wonder if predation played a role too, since both types of keratin are hard to digest.
To anyone who finds this subject interesting, do not take the advice of David Peters (somewhere in the comment section). He has some really weird ideas about tetrapods systematics that aren't supported in the literature. His works looks amazing to laymen but it is really wrong. blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/world-must-ignore-reptileevolution-com/
What about this Witten person who didn't take into account of oxygen count back when pterosaurs flew to now. Of course any pterosaurs that's bigger than largest flying birds wouldn't be able to fly today, but this idiot believed the giants back couldn't back then.
Amazing that bones like the ulna and radius look so similar to humans despite 200 million years of evolution.
This is so great im going to go watch all your videos thank you so much !!!
Awesome video
Heck Quetzalcoatlus wingspan is as large as an F-16 fighter jet with both being around 10m (1981 estimates for Quetzalcoatlus northropi.).
FirstDagger
Yep. Giant azhdarchids were huge.
Also, fun seeing you outside a nautical video.
The person who said the Quet being flightless back in its day didn't take into account the amount of oxygen content in the air back then and now. Back when it lived to maybe when the argentavis flew, the oxygen count was higher, so such giants could fly. But after the dawn of man to the present, it's lower in oxygen, so giant flyers won't be able to. Obviously this Witten person is an idiot.
11:25. Impossible for me to believe Quetzalcoatlus was flightless because they all would have been quickly killed by the predators of that time like Tyrannosaurs. Look at Quetzalcoatlus. No defensive horns. No defensive tail. No defensive claws. No ability to gallop away fast. Although large, nowhere near as huge as sauropods, so even their size isn't deterrent for attack. A long slender neck, and no body-armor making it too easy for predatory teeth to chomp on. Plus, hollow bones (for no reason!?) Obviously, this animal required flight just to be able to survive. Recall too, that flightless BIRDS like Kiwis, Penguins, Emus, Dodos, Ostriches, etc all evolved small wings in relation to their bodies, because they don't need them for flight. But this animal had GIGANTIC wings. If it were flightless, these useless wings would only get in their way.
Whoever this Witten person is, obviously did think carefully about the quet being capable of flight or not. Did this person really think it would survive being flightless without any defenses with dangers all around it? Also, the oxygen content was much higher back when it lived, allowing such giants to fly. If it existed since the dawn of man to the present, it would be flightless.
@masterbaiter8961 What about the Argentavis then? It couldn't have gotten big and be able to at that size without more oxygen content in the air. And it came long after quetzal.
@masterbaiter8961 Where did you get the argy being smaller than a pteranodon (longiceps possibly) from? Lots of sites states both had wingspan of about 21 or so ft, In fact the average wingspan of pteranodon is stated to be 18ft, female had 12ft wingspan. The smaller (possibly female) argy had 16ft wingspan and the largest was 21ft 4in. Being smaller than a quetzal is a given, but being smaller than a pteranodon?! Sure you haven't confused an argy with an albatross or a condor?
@Master Baiter Based on it's body plan, I find that very difficult to even visualize in my imagination. Perhaps if someone created an animation of how it would hypothetically be capable of doing that, I might better understand how it might be possible for it to gallop or trot. Right now I see those gigantic wings and huge head with its very lengthy great blue heron-like beak getting in the way of an ability to gallop. When we look at large flightless birds today, they all have tiny heads, short beaks, small wings, and the only thing really large on them, are their impressively muscular thighs. It seems to me no flightless creature has a need for long beaks and gigantic wings. These are merely cumbersome, except when in flight. Long skinny legs do not always indicate an ability to run faster than a T-Rex. Flamingoes have very long legs too. They don't use them to gallop away from predators. They use them to wade in water. And, I still think most pterosaurs stick close by the water, including this one.
@Master Baiter Thanks for the tip! As you probably know, for many years, paleontologists had difficulty visualizing how the largest pterosaurs were able to get themselves up in the air at all, imagining they must have had to climb cliffs and sort of just "fall" off these cliffs into the air. That is, until animators demonstrated how the "all-four-limb-launch" method of quickly and explosively propelling themselves up into the air, was really the most feasible method. I will seek out this "path of titans" animation to better understand this hypothesis of trotting pterosaurs! I appreciate your sharing of the info!
While I'm not sure off all the functions of those big crests I'm 100% certain that they had a huge impact on the animals ability to fly. A fast question is did both genders have the large crests.
Good video.
+Dwight E Howell The pterosaurs with large chests on their heads would be unable to turn their head when flying, as it would cause considerable drag during flight. Unfortunately we don't have large numbers meters of specimens of these, but some uncrested forms have been found in the same deposits. So there might be sexual dimorphism. In Pteranodon there are small and big ones that people suggest were girls and boys, rather then different species.
Personally i believe in creationism. However i would like to thank you for making this video because i do like "prehistoric creatures, dinosaurs pterosaurs and prehistoric marine reptiles as well.
Thank you sir for making this video as i find these creatures absolutely fascinating.
Thank you very much!
Very interesting thanks
I noticed in the chart there there was a large drop in pterosaur diversity in the middle of the Cretaceous. Any idea what caused that? They seemed so well adapted it's odd they started to die out. Maybe competition from birds? Or some kind of climate change or minor extinction event?
kris wilkinson Maybe there is less pterosaur diversity, because they started to get larger and larger and in the Cretaceous, there weren't any small forms. Or maybe its because there was an inconsistency in the fossilization process, which makes it appear to us that pterosaur diversity diminished during the Middle Cretaceous, when in reality it may have not. More data is needed!
kris wilkinson hope this helps
There was actually some sort of extinction event; The Cenomanian-Turonian Boundary Event.
The idea of birds outcompeting pterosaurs is no longer considered credible, BTW.
Would it be right to assume that all archosaurs had filaments on their skin? I ask this in light of the fact that Crocodilia apparently use the same control mechanism in their genes to produce the scaly scouts they carry. Additionally, would it be right to entertain the possibility that not all Suchian ancestors were exothermic? In consideration of their 4 chambered heart that acts as a 3 chambered one in extant species, I'm keen to assume that there had meso/endothermic relatives, running around on two legs, covered with filaments, that weren't dinosaurs. (Please correct me if this is an invalid assumption)
Not all archosaurs appear to have had some type of filament in their skin, although many of them may have lost this trait through their evolution. Pterosaurs and Dinosaurs a group referred to as Ornithodira appear to ancestrally have some primitive type of fuzzy proto-feathery filament, which is found in some pterosaurs and some dinosaur fossils. Earlier Archosaurs, and the lineages leading to crocodile have not been found with any feathers or feather-like structures, however, archosaurs do have osteoderms which are bone that grows within the skin, through ectodermal growth. Ectodermal bone is also found in mammals, even in fish, which forms some of the bones in the skull. This trait is retained in many lizards, dinosaurs, turtles and crocodiles today. Feathers may have developed in relationship to homeothermic body temperature (warm bloodedness), as a way to increase energy and metabolism in fast moving pterosaurs and dinosaurs. originating some time in the middle to late Triassic period. Evidence also points to the origin of fur during this time or even slightly earlier.
Thank you for your reply. I had read that the factors that give rise to homeothermy lead to the 'excretion' of excess material (keratin, for example) in the form of filaments, hair, feather etc. Is this compatible with the evidence?
regarding feathers and crocodile scales (layman article) : www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-crocodile-bird-genome-20141212-story.html
and a more detailed view www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271537/
Yes, you might look up some info on Beta-Keratin, which is the material found in bird feathers, beaks and even in dinosaur claws, and crocodile skin, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-keratin It differs from mammal Alpha-Keratin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-keratin which is found in mammals. These are two different protein structures found in the hard-filaments that make up things like hooves, feathers, beaks, and tough skin.
Appreciated. Are these different Alpha/Beta-Keratin excretions convergent traits that happen to be triggered by homeothermic conditions or are there differences in the conditions that give rise to α-keratin and β-Keratin output? is there a "critical mass" of homeothermy that favours the creation of fillaments (or hair, in the homologous case) over epidermal bones and thick skin - or the ratio between the two if both filament and thick/hardened skin exist on the same animal? (depending on the volume of the animal and the median temperatures it lives in, of course)
Those are excellent questions! I don't really know. Need to think of ways to test these ideas; there is a huge variety of keratins, and many that are not well studied in invertebrates. Since they are complex proteins, they also have a complex chemistry as well and likely more diverse then we know about. Both types of keratin pre-date fur and feathers (likely originating in claws and skin-pads), and may extend to close to the origin of vertebrates... lots of stuff to look at it, especially to see how genes code for them across the genome of various animals. I also wonder if predation played a role too, since both types of keratin are hard to digest.
To anyone who finds this subject interesting, do not take the advice of David Peters (somewhere in the comment section). He has some really weird ideas about tetrapods systematics that aren't supported in the literature. His works looks amazing to laymen but it is really wrong. blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/world-must-ignore-reptileevolution-com/
What about this Witten person who didn't take into account of oxygen count back when pterosaurs flew to now. Of course any pterosaurs that's bigger than largest flying birds wouldn't be able to fly today, but this idiot believed the giants back couldn't back then.