Read the Beforeitsnews.com story here. Advertise at Before It's News here.

By David Peters
Contributor profile | More stories

Story Views
Now:
Last hour:
Last 24 hours:
Total:

Dearc 2025

Friday, January 24, 2025 14:25

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Jagielska et al 2025
described the osteology of Middle Jurassic dorygnathid pterosaur, Dearc (Fig 1, NMS G.2021.6), unfortunately without providing a reconstruction.

So, one is provided here (Fig 1) from 2022.

Back then
Dearc was described as the largest Jurassic pterosaur.

This was false. Sericipeterus (Fig 1) was larger. Others were also larger.

To their credit in 2025 the authors reported,
Dearc was “one of the largest Jurassic pterosaurs known from a well-preserved specimen.”

As you can see, for some paleontologists superlatives are important, so qualifiers are provided to support their superlative. Even so, it’s still not true.

Quoting from the abstract:
“The lack of many well-preserved pterosaur fossils limits our understanding”

This is false.

“The pterosaur fossil record is marred with enormous temporospatial gaps, barring our understanding of wider evolutionary and morphological trends.”

This is false.

See:
the large pterosaur tree (Fig 2) where there are no gaps in morphology and Dearc (Fig 1) nests at the base of a small third clade of Dorygnathus specimens. This third one is basal to pro-azhdarchids and ultimately azhdarchids. This tree topology goes back to Peters 2007. Current academics don’t include and test small pterosaur specimens nor do all the good dorygnathids make it to their cladograms (Fig 3).

This is how they ruin and hobble their own studies: taxon exclusion,
the number one problem in paleo.

Figure 2. Subset of the large pterosaur tree focusing on the Dorygnathus clade and Dearc. ” data-image-caption=”

Figure 2. Subset of the large pterosaur tree focusing on the Dorygnathus clade and Dearc.

” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lpt-dorygnathus588.jpg?w=172″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lpt-dorygnathus588.jpg?w=584″ class=”size-full wp-image-91290″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lpt-dorygnathus588.jpg” alt=”Figure 2. Subset of the large pterosaur tree focusing on the Dorygnathus clade and Dearc. ” width=”584″ height=”1018″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lpt-dorygnathus588.jpg?w=584&h=1018 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lpt-dorygnathus588.jpg?w=86&h=150 86w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lpt-dorygnathus588.jpg?w=172&h=300 172w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lpt-dorygnathus588.jpg 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />

Figure 2. Subset of the large pterosaur tree focusing on the Dorygnathus clade and Dearc.

From the introduction
“The functional anatomy of pterosaurs … remains poorly understood.”

This is false. Paleontogists like to depress prior studies in order to elevate/boost their own present studies. Very common. They also don’t take kindly to published work by outsiders.

“Exceptionally preserved specimens such as the holotype of Dearc sgiathanach (NMS G.2021.6.1—4) from the Middle Jurassic of the Isle of Skye, Scotland, provide a trove
of information in this regard.”

See what I mean? BTW, Dearc preserves no soft tissue. Many other pterosaurs do. Those better preserved pterosaurs are the ones that provide a trove of information.

“The osteology and myology of Dearc are indicative of a large predator that flew and hunted above lagoons and nearshore environments of the Middle Jurassic.”

This is false. Dorygnathids were near shore waders, the precursors of ctenochasmatids and azhdarchids (Fig 2), also near shore waders.

“excavated from a bioclastic limestone deposited in a nearshore margin-marine environment.”

See what I mean? Where Dearc died is where Dearc lived.

“A phylogenetic analysis (performed in Jagielska et al. 2022 nested [Dearc] NMS G.2021.6
within the array of non-monofenestratans commonly called Rhamphorhynchinae, where it falls into a smaller clade of Angustinaripterini.

Taxon exclusion marred that 2022 study. Angustinaripterus nests at the base of the Ctenochasma clade of dorygnathids (Figs 2, 3, Peters 2007) in the LPT, which was designed to minimize taxon exclusion. The authors are under the false impression that the pterodactyloid grade developed only once = monophyly. The LPT shows the pterodatyloid grade developed 4x by convergence. Peters 2007 reported 3x, but new specimens bumped that up to 4x.

Figure 2. The same sequence with the addition of Dorygnathus purdonti and four tiny pterosaurs variously misassigned to Pterodactylus and Ctneochasma. ” data-image-caption=”

Figure 2. The same sequence with the addition of Dorygnathus purdonti and four tiny pterosaurs variously misassigned to Pterodactylus and Ctneochasma.

” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/angustinaripterus-transition2-588.jpg?w=163″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/angustinaripterus-transition2-588.jpg?w=558″ class=”size-full wp-image-14498″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/angustinaripterus-transition2-588.jpg” alt=”Figure 2. The same sequence with the addition of Dorygnathus purdonti and four tiny pterosaurs variously misassigned to Pterodactylus and Ctneochasma.” width=”584″ height=”1073″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/angustinaripterus-transition2-588.jpg?w=584&h=1073 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/angustinaripterus-transition2-588.jpg?w=82&h=150 82w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/angustinaripterus-transition2-588.jpg?w=163&h=300 163w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/angustinaripterus-transition2-588.jpg 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />

Figure 3. From years ago, Dorygnathus purdonti and four tiny pterosaurs variously mis-assigned to Pterodactylus and Ctneochasma. Note the phylogenetic miniaturization here.

From the Introduction, continued

“new specimens have been discovered challenging the initial phylogenetic placement, emphasizing the importance of the Scottish genus. A study by Hone et al. has shown that Dearc fits into the pterodactyloid modular evolutionary continuum, aided by discovery of the first sizeable European darwinopteran Skiphosoura bavarica (LF 4157).

This is false. In the LPT Skiphosoura nests within the Wukongipteridae (derived from Scaphognathus and Sordes) far from the dorygnathids, only a few nodes apart from various Pterodactylus specimens.

“Hone et al. recovered Dearc in the clade “Pterodactylomorpha” on account of antorbital shape, total cervical length and the cranial elongation. In this study we will continue to refer to Dearc as member of clade Angustinaripterini, retaining its initial phylogenetic placement.”

That’s good decision making. So far nothing Hone has been associated with has been novel and valid. Let’s hope for better on his next paper.
Add taxa to test the LPT for yourself.

“The musculature placement for the crania and antebrachium in this study was inferred on the basis of the Extant Phylogenetic Bracket (EPB) [9], which encompasses extant ( [10–13] among others) and extinct (i.e., for cranium [14, 15] and antebrachium [16, 17]) Archosauriforms.”

This is the wrong way to go. Pterosaurs are lepidosaurs (Peters 2007), not archosauriforms. To make matters worse, since birds and crocs are the only surviving archosaurs, they are also the only surviving archosauriforms. The authors might as well have said archosaurs.

Systematic paleontology
The authors do not list Eudimorphodontidae, Dorygnathidade or Rhamphorhynchinae, but do list Angustinaripterini. Angustinaripterus (Fig 3) nests in another clade in the LPT (subset Fig 2). So the authors are phylogenetically clueless – again due to taxon exclusion, which is their own fault, a sin of omission.

Various pterosaur palates ” data-image-caption=”

Figure 4. Comparing pterosaur palates. Left to right: the new Dorygnathus, Rhamphorhynchus muensteri, Cacibupteryx and Dorygnathus purdoni. The pterygoid extends a process to the jugal in three of these taxa, but such a process is otherwise rare in pterosaurs.

” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palate-rhamph5881.jpg?w=300″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palate-rhamph5881.jpg?w=584″ class=”size-full wp-image-5149″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palate-rhamph5881.jpg” alt=”Various pterosaur palates” width=”584″ height=”361″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palate-rhamph5881.jpg?w=584&h=361 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palate-rhamph5881.jpg?w=150&h=93 150w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palate-rhamph5881.jpg?w=300&h=185 300w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palate-rhamph5881.jpg 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />

Palate of the WDC specimen of Dorygnathus ” data-image-caption=”

Figure 2. The Osi et al. (2012) WDC 3-D Dorygnathus palate. Click to enlarge. The non-fusion of the palatine and ectopterygoid might have signaled ontogenetic immaturity, but the specimen is half again larger than other Dorygnathus specimens. The original interpretation of the premaxilla was based on the break at mid maxilla, not the sutures, which are revised at right.

” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palatedory588.jpg?w=300″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palatedory588.jpg?w=584″ class=”size-full wp-image-5148″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palatedory588.jpg” alt=”Palate of the WDC specimen of Dorygnathus” width=”584″ height=”477″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palatedory588.jpg?w=584&h=477 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palatedory588.jpg?w=150&h=122 150w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palatedory588.jpg?w=300&h=245 300w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/palatedory588.jpg 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />

Figure 5. The Osi et al. (2012) WDC 3-D Dorygnathus palate. Click to enlarge. The non-fusion of the palatine and ectopterygoid might have signaled ontogenetic immaturity, but the specimen is half again larger than other Dorygnathus specimens. The original interpretation of the premaxilla was based on the break at mid maxilla, not the sutures, which are revised at right.

Palate mistakes
The authors assign the palatal shelf to the palatine.

Actually that shelf is the maxilla (Figs 4, 5). The palatines are much smaller.

Figure 1. Dorygnathus on a tree. ” data-image-caption=”

Figure 1. Dorygnathus on a tree.

” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dory-on-a-tree5881.jpg?w=277″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dory-on-a-tree5881.jpg?w=584″ class=”size-full wp-image-11950″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dory-on-a-tree5881.jpg” alt=”Figure 1. Dorygnathus on a tree.” width=”584″ height=”633″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dory-on-a-tree5881.jpg?w=584&h=633 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dory-on-a-tree5881.jpg?w=138&h=150 138w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dory-on-a-tree5881.jpg?w=277&h=300 277w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dory-on-a-tree5881.jpg 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />

Figure 6. Dorygnathus on a tree. This pterosaur gradually evolved to become a beach-comber with smaller claws and longer jaws.

Manual unguals

“Large, muscularly supported and excessively curved unguals likely did not aid with flight. Given the well-developed sesamoids and flexor tendons, it is likely that Dearc was able to keep the tips of the claws elevated above the level of the substrate and maintain their functionality.”

See figure 6 for another view. Sometimes workers ‘see’ pterosaurs resting on trees. Sometimes they don’t. The only pterosaur with ‘excessively curved unguals’ remains Jeholopterus, the vampire pterosaur. Dearc had standard manual unguals.

Figure 2. Click to enlarge. Reconstructions of several Dorygnathus and related taxa based on tracing bones. Here they appear to be several distinct species and certain other pterosaurs appear to be congeneric (depending if you’re a lumper or splitter). This is confirmed by phylogenetic analysis. One branch of dorygnathids is basal to ctenochasmatids. Another is basal to azhdarchids. A third, more basal clade, not far from Sordes, is basal to scaphognathids and darwinopterids, represented here by Jianchangopterus. So Dorygnathia survived to the Maastrichtian. ” data-image-caption=”

” data-medium-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/dorygnathus-variety5881.jpg?w=300″ data-large-file=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/dorygnathus-variety5881.jpg?w=584″ class=”size-full wp-image-11910″ src=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/dorygnathus-variety5881.jpg” alt=”Figure 2. Click to enlarge. Reconstructions of several Dorygnathus and related taxa based on tracing bones. Here they appear to be several distinct species and certain other pterosaurs appear to be congeneric (depending if you’re a lumper or splitter). This is confirmed by phylogenetic analysis. One branch of dorygnathids is basal to ctenochasmatids. Another is basal to azhdarchids. A third, more basal clade, not far from Sordes, is basal to scaphognathids and darwinopterids, represented here by Jianchangopterus. So Dorygnathia survived to the Maastrichtian.” width=”584″ height=”321″ srcset=”https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/dorygnathus-variety5881.jpg?w=584&h=321 584w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/dorygnathus-variety5881.jpg?w=150&h=82 150w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/dorygnathus-variety5881.jpg?w=300&h=165 300w, https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/dorygnathus-variety5881.jpg 588w” sizes=”(max-width: 584px) 100vw, 584px” />

Figure 7. Click to enlarge. Reconstructions of several Dorygnathus and related taxa based on tracing bones. Dearc is not shown here, but appears when clicked and enlarged.

I’m going to stop reviewing the Dearc 2025 paper here.
There’s no use continuing to beat up on the authors. In the present ‘publish or perish’ climate of academia, they’re trying to get many authors on every specimen and to re-describe that one specimen in several publications.

I understand. You do what you have to do, even if it omits good science.

PS I am so glad I am not part of the academic system.
See what they have to go through?
Tip-toeing around = refusing to test falsifiable hypotheses.

References
Jagielska N et al. (ten co-authors) 2022. A skeleton from the Middle Jurassic of Scotland illuminates an earlier origin of lage pterosaurs. Current Biology 32:1–8.
Jagielska N et al (7 co-authors) 2025. Osteology and functional morphology of a transitional pterosaur, Dearc sgiathanach from the Middle Jurassic (Bathonian) of Scotland. BMC Ecology and Evolution (2025) 25:9
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-024-02337-9
Peters D 2007. The origin and radiation of the Pterosauria. In D. Hone ed. Flugsaurier. The Wellnhofer pterosaur meeting, 2007, Munich, Germany. p. 27.

wiki/Dorygnathus
wiki/Dearc

Scottish Dearc is another Dorygnathus, and it’s not the largest Jurassic pterosaur

The quest for paleo headlines in the last few years

Skiphosoura bavarica enters – then exits the LPT

Skiphosoura skull details

Source: https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2025/01/25/dearc-2025/

Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world.

Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.

"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.

Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world. Anyone can join. Anyone can contribute. Anyone can become informed about their world. "United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.

LION'S MANE PRODUCT

Try Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend 60 Capsules

Mushrooms are having a moment. One fabulous fungus in particular, lion’s mane, may help improve memory, depression and anxiety symptoms. They are also an excellent source of nutrients that show promise as a therapy for dementia, and other neurodegenerative diseases. If you’re living with anxiety or depression, you may be curious about all the therapy options out there — including the natural ones.Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend has been formulated to utilize the potency of Lion’s mane but also include the benefits of four other Highly Beneficial Mushrooms. Synergistically, they work together to Build your health through improving cognitive function and immunity regardless of your age. Our Nootropic not only improves your Cognitive Function and Activates your Immune System, but it benefits growth of Essential Gut Flora, further enhancing your Vitality.

Our Formula includes: Lion’s Mane Mushrooms which Increase Brain Power through nerve growth, lessen anxiety, reduce depression, and improve concentration. Its an excellent adaptogen, promotes sleep and improves immunity. Shiitake Mushrooms which Fight cancer cells and infectious disease, boost the immune system, promotes brain function, and serves as a source of B vitamins. Maitake Mushrooms which regulate blood sugar levels of diabetics, reduce hypertension and boosts the immune system. Reishi Mushrooms which Fight inflammation, liver disease, fatigue, tumor growth and cancer. They Improve skin disorders and soothes digestive problems, stomach ulcers and leaky gut syndrome. Chaga Mushrooms which have anti-aging effects, boost immune function, improve stamina and athletic performance, even act as a natural aphrodisiac, fighting diabetes and improving liver function. Try Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend 60 Capsules Today. Be 100% Satisfied or Receive a Full Money Back Guarantee. Order Yours Today by Following This Link.

Comments

Online:
Visits:	1,670,324,183
Stories:	8,333,580