The characters of Pteranodon / by G.F. Eaton.

  • Eaton, George Francis, 1872-1949.
Date:
1903
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The characters of Pteranodon / by G.F. Eaton. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    5/12 (page 83)
    ing words (tliis Journal, vol. xxvii, !^[ay, 1884): “an enor- mous sagittal crest extends far backward, and somewhat upward.'- The accuracy of this statement is denied hy Prof. 8. W. Williston (^Kansas Univ. Quarterly, vol. i, Xo. 1, July, 181>‘2), whose views have been accepted largely because of the fact that he collected the head of ^[arsh's type of Pteranodon. Material in the Yale Museum now shows that, contrary to M’illiston's opinion, the elongation of the crest, as tigured by ^^arsh, was too conservative, lleference to Plate VI, figure 1, will show its true form, taken from an actual specimen, which is indicated by the continuous line. Marsh’s incomplete restoration is shown by the dotted line, while 'Williston’s figure of the skull, shorn of its crest, is reproduced carefully in figure 2. Prof. Marsh laid emphasis on this character, and it is of great importance that this error be corrected at once. Following; Williston’s lead. Dr. S. P. Lang;lev and Mr. F. A. Lucas, both of the Smithsonian Institution, have perpetuated the error in their respective paj)ers in the Annual Ileport of that Institution for 1901. In justice to AVilliston, it is perhaps only fair to quote him verbatim (loc. cit.): “ As stated by me in the American Xaturalist, the type specimen of Pteranodon^ also collected by myself, was incomplete, and the figures of it, as given hy Marsh, are faulty.” This statement can not be gainsaid. The type suffered through the rough methods of collecting employed in those days ; but the following clause has been shown above to be incorrect: “The sagittal crest is large, but not nearly so large as it is figured by Marsh, the outline of whose figure is undoubtedly wrong.” To assign the cause of mistake on the part of another wi-iter may be considered a work of supererogation, yet I am tempted to offer here a possible explanation of Williston’s misinteriu’etation of the sagittal crest of this reptile. At the present time of \vriting, an incomplete Pterodactyl skull is being worked out at the Yale Museum, which will in all probability prove to be that of Nyctodactyhis ]\Iarsh. The crest, which is apparently entire, is of small size comj)ared with that of Pteranodon^ the measurement from occipital condyle to tip of crest being only 49, while the length from occipital condyle to tip of beak was approximately 47®“. In general, the skull compares favorably with that shown in Williston’s restoration of Nyctodactylus given in the Ameri- can Journal of Anatomy, vol. i. No. 3, May 26, 1902, where he states that the outline is taken in part from a specimen of Pteranodon Marsh, or Ornithontoina Seeley, as the genus was then called. It is therefore fair to infer that the apparent similarity of the two genera led AVilliston to draw uninten-