Have you ever read the bit in herodotus where he talks about flying snakes or serpents?

Yes, virtually every culture believed in a similar creature and spoke of them as real animals. Just last month there was a UM article on the flying serpent called the Gwiber of Wales that terrorized the country until driven into a marsh by bowmen in the 15th century.

im sorry, but what makes you believe a 10 ton animal can even fly!

most cultures regard them as symbols of power, rather than real fauna

Whenever I read of things like this from the 19th century (or before, heck, even from today), I'm reminded of the Great Moon Hoax of 1835.

The specifics of it are off-topic, and I apologize for that, but the underlying point is relevant: just because it's been reported, and printed, in detail, doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/moonhoax.html

Whenever I read of things like this from the 19th century (or before, heck, even from today), I'm reminded of the Great Moon Hoax of 1835.

The specifics of it are off-topic, and I apologize for that, but the underlying point is relevant: just because it's been reported, and printed, in detail, doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/moonhoax.html

im sorry, but what makes you believe a 10 ton animal can even fly!

most cultures regard them as symbols of power, rather than real fauna

Maybe it is the oh, so spooky Quetzalcoatl of Myan beliefs?

Anyway. I don't think giant pterosaurs have anything to do with dragons or the existence (or non-existance) of dragons.

Off topic: Arn't dragons not supposed to be discussed anymore? Not that i'm trying to get this topic closed.

As mentioned in an earlier post... Every culture has something about dragons or a flying reptile. I personally believe something that widespread either exists/did exist/is a primal human fear.

Everyone has the ability to beilive in these things its just they arent willing too. As a child some of my beiliefs were fantastic it carried me away from the troubles of life for a little while, as i beilived i was a medival knight riding to slay the evil dragon. It was as real to me as this is to you but then i grew out of it and some of my most cheerished childhood memories are from these imginational (is that a word) visions. But there come a time when you have to let go of these dreams and fairytales. Its just when to do it.

I find dragons beilivable even now but i feel they were a creations of all humans fears and terrors.

That's nice, but unfortunately it does not explain all of the eyewitness accounts of such creatures all over the world and for thousands of years. In virtually every culture the stories talk of people interacting with these creatures, not simply that they were something that lived before their time.

It may actually be more "childish" to simply ignore all of the evidence. Paleontology has now proven that gigantic reptiles can fly, so people cannot use that excuse any more.

I do agree that your fantasy of being able to kill such a creature in a medieval setting is the stuff of fairytales however..

When has paleontolgy proven that?

Prehaps a hitherto undiscovered species of gliding snake? Quite an out-there possibility but considering the amount of exaggeration involved I think it's possible. Around the same time reports came from all over of flying Eels too. Prehaps theres a grain of truth in this story.

When I was too young to understand what a dragon was (I was barely in preschool) I used to draw--what I considered--giant winged dinosaurs for really no reason. I think the dragon is a combination of human fears, and can be used as something to blame when something is unexplained.

Or it is possible that you saw a dragon on a poster, or on tv, or in a book, with out the conception that it was a dragon, and you just kept in your memory unconcieved. Don't believe me, here is a compelling video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg

There is no article of "the largerst" pterosaur found in Romania. There was a pterosaur called Heptzegopteryx found that comes close too largest, but i'm afraid not.

Also, it is only believed that a pterosaur as big as Quezalcoatus would have weighed around ~250 pounds. Wikipedia also states that the Quezalcoatus is still the holder of "Largest flying animal ever" See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus

Heptzegopteryx on the other hand is said to have a similar build to Quezalcoatus in general, except the skull, which was alot bigger (9.8 feet long) and "among the largest skulls of any known non-marine animals", It still would have weighed probably around 200 pounds, as the skull was mentioned to resemble the structure of expanded polystyrene.
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatzegopteryx

Though it still had roughly the same wingspan as a Quetzalcoatus. Maybe you just confused "largest skull" with "largest pterosaur".

In comparison the largest bird alive today (thunderbirds discluded) is the Great Albatross, which has been recorded to have a wingspan reaching 11.5 ft, while these Pterosaurs had a wingspan of 40 feet. The largest bird ever capable of flight, according to wikipedia was Argentavis magnificens which had a wingspan of 28 feet.

UndeadSkeptic said


Interesting theory, I never even considered that, though I think it's doubtful if it was in pre-1900 Western United States.

Ebonykrow said,


Or it is possible that you saw a dragon on a poster, or on tv, or in a book, with out the conception that it was a dragon, and you just kept in your memory unconcieved. Don't believe me, here is a compelling video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg

So DC,
Q: How much does a huge fire breathing reptile capable of destroying entire civilizations and cities, with skin able to repel swords, axes and arrows, weigh?

/end
P.S. See how I added Citations

The largest skull of ANY land land animal now belongs to a recently discovered flying pterosaur from Romania. The skull is over 10 feet long and with a maw three feet wide.

Instead of relying merely on Wikipedia, I suggest you read something from real paleontolgogists with expertise in pterosaurs.

But the Wiki article did cofirm what I said that this creature has the largest/longest known skull of ANY land dwelling vertebrate.

But only a very ignorant person could believe such a massive creature could only weigh 250 lbs. This is what I mean about foolish scientists trying to "save face" after stating nothing bigger than the first large pterodactyls could fly. Just that 10 foot long, three foot wide skull alone, when fleshed out on the real creature would weigh more than than, probably three imaginary "250 lb Quetzalcoatlus's.

At any rate, go to this site created by a pterosaur expert to learn the truth, and also see how large his reconstruction of this animal really is. It is quite awe inspiring. http://www.flickr.com/photos/markwitton/2465048793/

But only a very ignorant person could believe such a massive creature could only weigh 250 lbs.

That's nice, but unfortunately it does not explain all of the eyewitness accounts of such creatures all over the world and for thousands of years. In virtually every culture the stories talk of people interacting with these creatures, not simply that they were something that lived before their time.

It may actually be more "childish" to simply ignore all of the evidence. Paleontology has now proven that gigantic reptiles can fly, so people cannot use that excuse any more.

I do agree that your fantasy of being able to kill such a creature in a medieval setting is the stuff of fairytales however..

In 2002, E. Buffetaut and friends revealed yet-another poorly-known but clearly gigantic azhdarchid to the world: Hatzegopteryx. This animal, from Late Cretaceous deposits of Transylvania, is only represented by scrappy skull and limb material, but is thought to have spanned at least 12 m and, by my estimation, stands about 3 m tall at the shoulder. Thing is, while the remains of Quetzalcoatlus and Arambourgiania hint at relatively slender, lithe creatures, Hatzegopteryx is built like the proverbial fired-clay outbuilding. What little is known of its jaw is massively constructed and indicates a skull width of at least 50 cm. That’s half a metre. I’m barely 50 cm across my shoulders: Hatzegopteryx could probably swallow me, a fully grown, 23-year old man, whole. If we scaled this up to the skull proportions of the small Quetzalcoatlus, we’d have a skull 5 m long. Now, because skulls of this size are typically reserved for monstrous marine reptiles or filter-feeding whales, it’s thought that these estimates may be a bit wrong. However, even more conservative estimates of 2.5 m give Hatzegopteryx one of the longest skulls of any land-based animal, and certainly the largest of any flier. It also bears thought that the record holders for the longest skulls of land animals, the elaborately frilled horned-dinosaurs, are cheating to get their place in the record books by having much of their skull length occupied by accessory frill. The length of the Hatzegopteryx skull is almost entirely jaw, however, making it more comparable with the long-jawed skulls of big predatory dinosaurs like Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus. Seeing as the latter has a skull of around 1.8 m length, it appears that a twiglet-boned, lanky pterosaur had longer jaws than any dinosaur. Who’d have thought it?

Alas, the rest of Hatzegopteryx is virtually unknown. We have the occipital region (the part of the skull that connects with the neck), which is deeply-sculpted for anchoring powerful neck-elevating ligaments and muscles. The humerus is poorly preserved but comparatively more robust than that of the giant Quetzalcoatlus. That’s about it, but the bottom line is clear: Hatzegopteryx was absolutely enormous and it remains the largest pterosaur we know of. In fact, I have it on good authority that, based on our current understanding of pterosaur biomechanics, the pterosaur skeleton would have to be dramatically altered to facilitate much larger forms. Despite this, there were rumblings in 2005, however, of an even larger pterosaur being found. Y’know: something in the 20-25 m range. Unfortunately, this beastie was mentioned to the public well before it should’ve been: the alleged remains of this creature have since proven to be non-pterosaurian and several pterosaurologists (some of whom I know quite well – but no names mentioned) retire sheepishly at its mere mention. For the less squeamish, Cameron McCormick has crafted a diagram and blog post discussing this most monstrously unreal pterosaur.

from dc's link






Very interesting article, i dont see how anyone could associate this critter with a lizard much less a dragon though.
Looks more like bigbird having a 'falling down' day.

You're one to talk DC Atleast I actually sourced my citations, and all you really gave in a few of your other topics was a handful of wikipedia links too. Your first post, was actually one of the first times i've ever seen you source a book.

And i'm sorry if you think Wikipedia is only edited by teens and young adults with nothing better to do, but credible experts go on that site and update pages with the true facts, albeit sometimes the pages arn't up to 'truthful' standards.



How can you call them ignorant? These people make it their life to study pterosaurs, and they are making an educated guess at the weight these creatures would have to attaint to in order to fly.

If you would like, we could also call you ignorant for thinking dragons exist and that you're just trying to "save face"

Has anyone ever taken a photo of one of these creatures? I personally doubt the existence of dragons or dragon-like creatures. But I would be willing to listen if there was evidence. ie..photos, video, etc. Any evidencs at all besides legends from hundreds and thousands of years ago?

*snip* now we have a REAL flying reptile large enough to swallow adult human beings whole, much like many dragon legends.

Some pteroaurs looked remarkably like the popular conception of 'wyrven' type dragons, with long tails with spades on the end, *snip*

Of course it is ignorant. Just try to reconstruct any bird with a 40 foot wingspan, 15 foot neck and seven foot long head (Quetzalcoatlus), and claim it would only be 250 pounds? The paleontologist who wrote the linked article agreed on this point.... it was simply ridiculous to claim they had to have such a small body. The reason the scientists 'got it wrong' is becasue the based their data on the limits of birds, and incomplete remains of the first 'giant' pterosaurs, that are now getting bigger and bigger as new discoveries are made.

1) It's large enough to swallow a man but who said it would have even tried, it probably would have eaten the giant fish around that time. Though I doubt that it would be able to fly with such a huge head and a full stomach.

2) The only pterosaurs with "long spaid-like tails" were the Ramphorhynchoids from the Triassic period, and they were tiny, you saying that, just reinforces the idea that someone found a pterosaur skeleton in a bed of sandstone and "upgraded" it to a terrifying monster.



Haha, that snippit of the website you posted that Grem just posted even said that the Quetzalcoatus skeleton was more complete than the femur and piece of skull of the Hatzegopteryx, to make a comment on Scientists making a reconstruction about the Quetzalcoatus, just makes you a hypocrite, the idea of what Hatzegopteryx's skull looked like could be completely wrong.

Besides that how can you say that you can tell how much a pterosaur weighed? Or have you seen one just like you've seen a dragon? Have you looked at some of the drawings of them? They have huge heads but their bodies are tiny, and then the majority of their size comes from hollow wing bones and thin flaps of skin, it would be ludicrous to assume they weigh more than suggested, and before you say, "well look what the one pterosaurologist write on his website". Big deal thats one scientist versus the dozens more that agree on their weight. For all you know, he could be one of the crackpot scientists that all the others laugh at, at confrences.

And their data is not really based on the limits of birds, it more based on the idea of aerodynamics, ever heard of it?

The promlem is that most of the small bones of the giant pteros are not preserved, but as this scientists has stated, it is absolutely ludicrous to believe that the land vertebrate with the largest head of any in history, and with a forty foot wingspan weights as much as a human (ca. 250 lbs).

You're first problem is that you're comparing an animal built for living on the ground, to an animal built for the air, of course their weights arn't going to match correctly, that would be stupid.

Let's look at the Great Albatross, like I said they have an average wingspan of about 9 feet with the maximum of 11 feet. That's already longer than an average human male is at 6 feet. Now lets compare the weights, the Great Albatross is about 24 pounds, while that same human would tip that scales at around 170 pounds.

Okay now a simple calculation. Let's compare the G. Albatross' wingspan of 9 feet and times it by 4, which will make it come out a little under the same wingspan of Quetzalcoatus at 36 feet. Now let's take its weight, and also multiply that by 4 and it comes out to... DUN DUN DUN OH WOW!

A whopping total of 96 pounds!

There is some simple math for you. It has to be that way, or else it probably wouldn't be able to fly at all. Other than that, it must have been a ground dwelling animal, but then why would it have the bone structure of a flying animal.

When you get down to it all that can be said is, Dragons don't exist.

Of course it is ignorant. Just try to reconstruct any bird with a 40 foot wingspan, 15 foot neck and seven foot long head (Quetzalcoatlus), and claim it would only be 250 pounds? The paleontologist who wrote the linked article agreed on this point.... it was simply ridiculous to claim they had to have such a small body. The reason the scientists 'got it wrong' is becasue the based their data on the limits of birds, and incomplete remains of the first 'giant' pterosaurs, that are now getting bigger and bigger as new discoveries are made.

24 year old PhD student trying to make his way into the murky, uncertain world of vertebrate palaeontology. Enjoys drawing pictures of long dead animals and then writing about them, although he should really be doing something more worthwhile like earning some money/doing some work/getting a life. Turns out that all three are considerably harder than advertised.

You're first problem is that you're comparing an animal built for living on the ground, to an animal built for the air, of course their weights arn't going to match correctly, that would be stupid.

Let's look at the Great Albatross, like I said they have an average wingspan of about 9 feet with the maximum of 11 feet. That's already longer than an average human male is at 6 feet. Now lets compare the weights, the Great Albatross is about 24 pounds, while that same human would tip that scales at around 170 pounds.

Okay now a simple calculation. Let's compare the G. Albatross' wingspan of 9 feet and times it by 4, which will make it come out a little under the same wingspan of Quetzalcoatus at 36 feet. Now let's take its weight, and also multiply that by 4 and it comes out to... DUN DUN DUN OH WOW!

A whopping total of 96 pounds!

There is some simple math for you. It has to be that way, or else it probably wouldn't be able to fly at all. Other than that, it must have been a ground dwelling animal, but then why would it have the bone structure of a flying animal.

When you get down to it all that can be said is, Dragons don't exist.

Why does everyone always assume that dragons have to be sky-scraper sized giants? Isn't it more likely that their size would have been exaggerated for effect so, in reality, they were smaller than they actually are/were? We know that pterosaurs with 40 foot wingspans can fly. Why not a dragon wtih similar dimensions?

HAH! That's laughable.

I just did some research, trying to find any comments about him, guess what I found on his own site



Here: http://www.flickr.com/people/markwitton/

This guy isn't even a real palieontologist, he's an artist! His word is just as credible as mine, and I gave you a damn well logical explanation for the weight.

I've also given you a counter-reaon to "scientists base their data on the limits of birds", because they use aerodynamics and muscle building techniques, and when you get down to it, what else is there to base them on?

The point is i've argued with you respectably and made several reasonable rebuttals, but as you always do you just ignore everyone else's information, and flap your gums about the same stuff over and over.

My question for you, of which you'll probably ignore is:
Where are some of the papers this supposedly "irrefutable" pterosaurologist has written? What are they called?
Or does his proffesor still have them in his desk waiting to be graded?

If you completely read the website you would have discovered that he did cowrite a scientific paper on the gigantic pterosaurs.

Hahahaha, this is prob. the funniest thread that I have been on thus far. Full of crazy stuff written by self-proclaimed amateurs and the arguing! Come on, ppl u are all getting your hackles up over a frank impossibility...lol. Wow, crazy.

[quote name='DarkSide' date='Sep 15 2008, 10:36 AM' post='2497299'
I'd like you to source your citation by providing a quote and a link to the page and where it says that, and I'd also likeyou to find out if there is any trace of his paper on teh internet, or whether it has been published, etc, and so forth.


Good luck getting him to do that my friend, DC is notorious for the utter lack of reasonable supporting evidence for his wild claims. Looks like he's returned to his old games.

Yeah well he used to be some kind of famous pterosaurologist by the way you said it, and now what is he? Some grad student! I bet you he co-wrote a paper for one of his classes, with a peer, and its sitting in some prof's desk right now.

I'd like you to source your citation by providing a quote and a link to the page and where it says that, and I'd also likeyou to find out if there is any trace of his paper on teh internet, or whether it has been published, etc, and so forth.