<h2><SPAN name="CHAPTER_XII" id="CHAPTER_XII"></SPAN><small>CHAPTER XII</small><br/><br/> EVIDENCES OF THE ANIMAL'S HABITS FROM ITS REMAINS</h2>
<p>Such are the more remarkable characters of the
bones in a type of animal life which was more
anomalous than any other which peopled the earth
in the Secondary Epoch of geological time. Its
skeleton in different parts resembles Reptiles, Birds,
and Mammals; with modifications and combinations
so singular that they might have been deemed impossible
if Nature's power of varying the skeleton
could be limited. Since Ornithosaurs were provided
with wings, we may believe the animals to some extent
to have resembled birds in habit. Their modes of
progression were more varied, for the structures indicate
an equal capacity for movement on land as a
biped, or as a quadruped, with movement in the air.
There is little evidence to support the idea that they
were usually aquatic animals. The majority of birds
which frequent the water have their bodies stored
with fat and the bones of their extremities filled with
marrow. And a bird's marrow bones are stouter and
stronger than those which are filled with air. There
are few, if any, bones of Pterodactyles so thick as to
suggest the conclusion that they contained marrow,<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</SPAN></span>
and the bones of the extremities appear to have been
constructed on the lightest type found among terrestrial
birds. Their thinness, except in a few specimens
from the Wealden rocks, is marvellous; and all the
later Pterodactyles show the arrangement, as in birds,
by which air from the lungs is conveyed to the
principal bones. No Pterodactyle has shown any
trace of the web-footed condition seen in birds which
swim on the water, unless the diverging bones of the
hind foot in Rhamphorhynchus supports that inference.
The bones of the hind foot are relatively
small, and if it were not that a bird stands easily
upon one foot, might be considered scarcely adequate
to support the animal in the position which terrestrial
birds usually occupy. Yet, as compared with the
length and breadth of the foot in an Ostrich, the toes
of an Ornithosaur are seen to be ample for support.
These facts appear to discourage the idea that the
animals were equally at home on land and water, and
in air.</p>
<p>Some light may be thrown upon the animal's habits
by the geological circumstances under which the
remains are found. The Pterodactyle named Dimorphodon,
from the Lias of the south of England, is
associated with evidences of terrestrial land animals,
the best known of which is Scelidosaurus, an armoured
Dinosaur adapted by its limbs for progression
on land. And the Pterodactyle Campylognathus,
from the Lias of Whitby, is associated with trunks
of coniferous trees and remains of Insects. So that
the occurrence of Pterodactyles in a marine stratum
is not inconsistent with their having been transported
by streams from off the old land surface of the Lias,
on which coniferous trees grew and Dinosaurs lived.<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</SPAN></span></p>
<p>Similar considerations apply to the occurrence of
the Rhamphocephalus in the Stonesfield Slate of
England. The deposit is not only formed in shallow
water, but contains terrestrial Insects, a variety of
land plants, and many Reptiles and other animals
which lived upon land. The specimens from the
Purbeck beds, again, are in strata which yield a
multitude of the spoils of a nearly adjacent land
surface; while the numerous remains found in the
marine Solenhofen Slate in Germany are similarly
associated with abundant evidences of varied types
of terrestrial life. The evidence grows in force from
its cumulative character. The Wealden beds, which
yield many terrestrial reptiles and so much evidence
of terrestrial vegetation, and shallow-water conditions
of disposition, have afforded important Pterodactyle
remains from the Isle of Wight and Sussex.</p>
<p>The chief English deposit in which these fossils
are found, the Upper Greensand, has afforded
thousands of bones, battered and broken on a
shore, where they have lain in little associated
groups of remains, often becoming overgrown with
small marine shells. Side by side with them are
found bones of true terrestrial Lizards and Crocodiles
of the type of the Gavial of the Indian rivers, many
terrestrial Dinosaurs, and other evidences of land
life, including fossil resins, such as are met with in
the form of amber or copal at the present day.</p>
<p>The great bones of Pterodactyles found in the
Chalk of Kent, near Rochester, became entombed,
beyond question, far from a land surface. There is
nothing to show whether the animals died on land
and were drifted out to sea like the timber which is
found water-logged and sunken after being drilled by<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</SPAN></span>
the ship-worm (Teredo) of that epoch. Seeing the
power of flight which the animal possessed, storms
may have struck down travellers from time to time,
when far from land.</p>
<p>Evidence of habit of another kind may be found
in their teeth. They are brightly enamelled, sharp,
formidable; and are frequently long, overlapping the
sides of the jaws. They are organs which are often
better adapted for grasping than for tearing, as may
be seen in the inclined teeth of Rhamphocephalus of
the Stonesfield Slate; and better adapted for killing
than tearing, from their piercing forms and cutting
edges, in genera like Ornithocheirus of the Greensand.
The manner in which the teeth were implanted and
carried is better paralleled by the fish-eating crocodile
of Indian rivers than by the flesh-eating crocodiles, or
Muggers, which live indifferently in rivers and the
sea. As the Kingfisher finds its food (see <SPAN href="#Fig_20">Fig. 20</SPAN>)
from the surface of the water without being in the
common sense of the term a water bird, so some
Pterodactyles may have fed on fish, for which their
teeth are well adapted, both in the stream and by the
shore.</p>
<p>A Pterodactyle's teeth vary a good deal in appearance.
The few large teeth in the front of the jaw
in Dimorphodon, associated with the many small
vertical teeth placed further backward, suggest that
the taking of food may have been a process requiring
leisure, since the hinder teeth adapted to
mincing the animal's meat are extremely small. The
way in which the teeth are shaped and arranged
differs with the genera. In Pterodactylus they are
short and broad and few, placed for the most part
towards the front of the jaws. Their lancet-shaped<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</SPAN></span>
form indicates a shear-like action adapted to dividing
flesh. In the associated genus Rhamphorhynchus
the teeth are absent from the extremity of the jaw,
are slender, pointed, spaced far apart, and extend far
backward. When the jaws of the Rhamphorhynchus
are brought together there is always a gap between
them in front, which has led to belief that the teeth
were replaced by some kind of horny armature which
has perished. In the long-nosed English type of
Ornithocheirus the jaws are compressed together, so
that the teeth of the opposite sides are parallel to
each other, with the margins well filled with teeth,
which are never in close contact, though occasionally
closer and larger in front, in some of the forms with
thick truncated snouts.</p>
<p>It is not the least interesting circumstance of the
dentition of Pterodactyles that, associated in the
same deposits with these most recent genera with
teeth powerfully developed, there is a genus named
Ornithostoma from the resemblance of its mouth to
that of a bird in being entirely devoid of teeth. It
is scarcely possible to distinguish the remains of the
toothed and toothless skeletons except in the dentary
character of the jaws. There is no evidence that
the toothless types ever possessed a tooth of any
sort. They were first found in fragments in England
in the Cambridge Greensand, but were afterwards
met with in great abundance in the Chalk of Kansas,
where the same animals were named Pteranodon.
A jaw so entirely bird-like suggests that the digestive
organs of Pterodactyles may in such toothless forms
at least have been characterised by a gizzard, which
is so distinctive of Birds. The absence of teeth in
the Great Ant-eater and some other allied Mammals<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</SPAN></span>
has transferred the function which teeth usually perform
to the stomach, one part of which becomes
greatly thickened and muscular, adapting itself to
the work which it has to perform. It is probable
that the gizzard may be developed in relation to the
necessities which food creates, since even Trout, feeding
on the shell-fish in some Irish lochs, acquire such
a thickened muscular stomach, and a like modification
is recorded in other fishes as produced by
food.</p>
<p>Closely connected with an animal's habits is the
protection to the body which is afforded by the skin.
In Pterodactyles the evidence of the condition of
the skin is scanty, and mostly negative. Sometimes
the dense, smooth texture of the jaw bones indicates
a covering like the skin of a Lizard or the hinder part
of the jaw of a Bird. Some jaws from the Cambridge
Greensand have the bone channeled over its
surface by minute blood vessels which have impressed
themselves into the bone more easily than
into its covering. Thus in the species of Ornithocheirus
distinguished as <i>microdon</i> the palate is
absolutely smooth, while in the species named
<i>machærorhynchus</i> it is marked by parallel impressed
vascular grooves which diverge from the median
line. This condition clearly indicates a difference in
the covering of the bone, and that in the latter
species the covering had fewer blood vessels and
more horny protection than in the other. The tissue
may not have been of firmer consistence than in the
palate of Mammals. The extremity of the beak is
often as full of blood vessels as the jaw of a Turtle
or Crocodile.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</SPAN></span></p>
<h4>COVERING OF THE BODY</h4>
<p>There is no trace even in specimens from the
Solenhofen or Stonesfield Slate of any covering to
the body. There are no specimens preserved like
mummies, and although the substance of the wings
is found there is no trace of fur or feathers, bones,
or scales on the skin. The only example in which
there is even an appearance suggesting feathers is in
the beautiful Scaphognathus at Bonn, and upon portions
of the wing membrane of that specimen are
preserved a very few small short and apparently
tubular bodies, which have a suggestive resemblance
to the quills of small undeveloped feathers. Such
evidences have been diligently sought for. Professor
Marsh, after examining the wing membranes of his
specimen of Rhamphorhynchus from Solenhofen,
stated that the wings were partially folded and
naturally contracted into folds, and that the surface
of the tissue is marked by delicate striæ, which
might easily be taken at first sight for a thin coating
of hair. Closer investigation proved the markings
to be minute wrinkles on the under surface of the
wing membrane. This negative evidence has considerable
value, because the Solenhofen Slate has
preserved in the two known examples of the bird
Archæopteryx beautiful details of the structure of
the larger feathers concerned in flight. It has preserved
many structures far more delicate. There is,
therefore, reason for believing that if the skin had
possessed any covering like one of those found in
existing vertebrate animals, it could scarcely have
escaped detection in the numerous undisturbed skeletons
of Pterodactyles which have been examined.<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</SPAN></span></p>
<p>The absence of a recognisable covering to the skin
in a fossil state cannot be accepted as conclusive
evidence of the temperature, habits, or affinities of
the animal. Although Mammalia are almost entirely
clothed with dense hair, which has never been
found in a recognisable condition in a fossil state in
any specimen of Tertiary age, one entire order, the
Cetacea, show in the smooth hairless skins of Whales
and Porpoises that the class may part with the
typical characteristic covering without loss of temperature
and without intelligible cause. That the absence
of hair is not due to the aquatic conditions of rivers
or sea is proved by other marine Mammals, like Seals,
having the skin clothed with a dense growth of hair,
which is not surpassed in any other order. The fineness
of the growth of hair in Man gives a superficial
appearance of the skin being imperfectly clothed,
and a similar skin in a fossil state might give the
impression that it was devoid of hair. There are
many Mammals in which the skin is scantily clothed
with hair as the animal grows old. Neither the
Elephant nor the Armadillo in a fossil state would be
likely to have the hair preserved, for the growth is
thin on the bony shields of the living Armadilloes.
Yet the difficulty need be no more inherent in the
nature of hair than in that of feathers, since the hair
of the Mammoth and Rhinoceros has been completely
preserved upon their skins in the tundras of
Siberia, densely clothing the body. This may go
to show that the Pterodactyle possessed a thin
covering of hair, or, more probably, that hair
was absent. Since Reptiles are equally variable in
the clothing of the skin with bony or horny plates,
and in sometimes having no such protection, it may<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</SPAN></span>
not appear singular that the skin in Ornithosaurs has
hitherto given no evidence of a covering. From
analogy a covering might have been expected;
feathers of Birds and hair of Mammals are non-conducting
coverings suited to arrest the loss of heat.</p>
<p>With the evidence, such as it is, of resemblance of
Ornithosaurs to Birds in some features of respiration
and flight, a covering to the skin might have been
expected. Yet the covering may not be necessary
to a high temperature of the blood. Since Dr. John
Davy made his observations it has been known that
the temperature of the Tunny, above 90° Fahrenheit,
is as warm as the African scaly ant-eater named the
Pangolin, which has the body more amply protected
by its covering. This illustration also shows that
hot blood may be produced without a four-celled
heart, with which it is usually associated, and that
even if the skin in Pterodactyles was absolutely
naked an active life and an abundant supply of blood
could have given the animal a high temperature.</p>
<p>The circumstance that in several individuals the
substance of the wing membrane is preserved would
appear to indicate either that it was exceptionally
stout when there would have been small chance of
resisting decomposition, or that its preservation is
due to a covering which once existed of fur or down
or other clothing substance, which has proved more
durable than the skin itself.</p>
<div class="figcenter"> <SPAN name="Fig_48" id="Fig_48"></SPAN> <span class="caption">FIG. 48. REMAINS OF DIMORPHODON FROM THE LIAS OF LYME REGIS<br/><br/> SHOWING THE SKULL, NECK, BACK AND SOME OF THE LONGER BONES OF THE SKELETON</span> <ANTIMG src="images/i_161.jpg" width-obs="556" height-obs="1024" alt="FIG. 48." title="" />
<p class="center"><i>From a slab in the British Museum (Natural History)</i></p>
</div>
<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</SPAN></span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />