Talk:Anurognathus

Untitled

This article is fairly accurat and I put a reference in too verifyEnlil Ninlil 03:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Eye position

Where was the eyes placed? On most reconstructions I've seen, the eyes are small and behind the biggest hole in the skull, don't know what it's called, like here:. But DiBgd has drawn it with the eye in the biggest hole, while using this as reference: So eh, which one is correct? FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DiBgd looks correct, using the Bennett skull. The skull of Anurognathus was only known as squashed, incomplete specimens until recently, and it's a weird-looking skull. The antorbital fenestra is actually small and shifted to the front in a very wide, short skull. J. Spencer (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ah ok. That would probably be nice to have mentioned in the article somehow... FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the specimen is published, but it's in one of the German journals that don't get out my way very often. J. Spencer (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The article states that the name means "without tail jaw", "in reference to its unusually small tail relative to other "rhamphorhynchoid" (i.e. basal) pterosaurs", and cites a popular encyclopedia. Will have to track down the original paper, but surely, this was named in reference to Anura due to the similarity of the skull with a frog...? Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree; compare the closely related genus Batrachognathus. And the ref cited for that claim doesn't say anything about why it's called Anurognathus; all the ref says is that the Latin means "tailless jaw," end of story. So I'll fix the article. --Quuxplusone (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy

I have a book, Michael Benton’s Dinosaurs: New Visions of a Lost World, which depicts Anuroghathus quite differently, much more bat-like. I feel that this inaccuracy should be mentioned on this page and any page it is used on, thought i doubt said book is enough of a citation. I’ve removed the image for nowMRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of leeway in how to depict most prehistoric animals, so one restoration looking different doesn't mean the one we have is inaccurate, and I'll put it back. This restoration shows hair-like covering as well, which is bat-like already. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The last segment of the "Paleobiology" section should be rewrote

What the title says, the source it lists isn't even a valid source, I assume it's referencing Witton 2013, but it also cites Micheal Habib as a co-author, even tough he was not, and the pages it cites have nothing to do with Insectivory, which is why it was referenced in the first place. So if anyone can find the actual source of the claim please add that. Nanuq22 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)