<h2><SPAN name="CHAPTER_XIV" id="CHAPTER_XIV"></SPAN><small>CHAPTER XIV</small><br/><br/> ORNITHOSAURS FROM THE MIDDLE SECONDARY ROCKS</h2>
<h4>RHAMPHOCEPHALUS</h4>
<p>The Stonesfield Slate in England, which corresponds
in age with the lower part of the Great
or Bath Oolite, yields many evidences of terrestrial
life—land plants, insects, and mammals—preserved in
a marine deposit. A number of isolated bones have
been found of Pterodactyles, some of them indicating
animals of considerable size and strength. The
nature of the limestone was unfavourable to the preservation
of soft wing membranes, or even to the bones
remaining in natural association. Very little is known
of the head of Rhamphocephalus. One imperfect specimen
shows a long temporal region which is wide, and
a very narrow interspace between the orbits; with a
long face, indicated by the extension of narrow
nasal bones. The lower jaw has an edentulous beak
or spear in front, which is compressed from side to
side in the manner of the Liassic forms, but turned
upward slightly, as in Dorygnathus or Campylognathus.
Behind this extremity are sharp, tall teeth,
few in number, which somewhat diminish in size as
they extend backward, and do not suddenly change
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</SPAN></span>
to smaller series, as in the Lias genera. A few small
vertebræ have been found, indicating the neck and
back. The sacrum consists of five vertebræ. One
small example has a length of only an inch. It is
a little narrower behind than in front, and would be
consistent with the animal having had a long tail,
which I believe to have been present, although I
have not seen any caudal vertebræ. The early ribs
are like the early ribs of a Crocodile or Bird in the
well-marked double articulation. The later ribs
appear to have but one head. <b>V</b>-shaped abdominal
ribs are preserved. Much of the animal is unknown.
The coracoid seems to have been directed forward,
and, as in a bird, it is 2½ inches long. The humerus
is 3½ inches long, and the fore-arm measured 6
inches, so that it was relatively longer than in Dimorphodon.
The metacarpus is 1¾ inches long. The
wing finger was exceptionally long and strong. Professor
Huxley gave its length at 29 inches. My own
studies lead to the conclusion that the first finger
bone of the wing was the shorter, and that although
they did not differ greatly in length, the second was
probably the longest, as in Campylognathus.</p>
<p>Professor Huxley makes the second and third
phalanges 7¾ inches long, and the first only about
<sup>3</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch shorter, while the fourth phalange is 6½ inches.
These measurements are based upon some specimens
in the Oxford University Museum. There is only
one first phalange which has a length of 7¾ inches.
The others are between 5 and 6 inches, or but little
exceed 4 inches; so that as all the fourth phalanges
which are known have a length of 6½ inches, it is
possible that the normal length of the first phalange
in the larger species was 5½ inches. The largest
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</SPAN></span>
of the phalanges which may be classed as second or
third is 8½ inches, and that, I suppose, may have been
associated with the 7¾ inches first phalange. But
the other bones which could have had this position
all measure 5½ and 7¾ inches. The three species
indicated by finger bones may have had the measurements:—</p>
<div class='center'>
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="">
<tr><th align='center' colspan='4'>Phalanges of the wing finger</th></tr>
<tr><td align='center'>I.</td><td align='center'>II.</td><td align='center'>III.</td><td align='center'>IV.</td></tr>
<tr><td align='center'>7¾</td><td align='center'>8½</td><td align='center'>[7?]</td><td align='center'>6½</td><td align='center' rowspan='3'><span class="ft30">}</span> length of each bone in inches.</td></tr>
<tr><td align='center'>5½</td><td align='center'>7¾</td><td align='center'>5½</td><td align='center'>[4½?]</td></tr>
<tr><td align='center'>4½</td><td align='center'>——</td><td align='center'>——</td><td align='center'>——</td></tr>
</table></div>
<p>The femur is represented by many examples—one
3¾ inches long, and others less than 3 inches long
(2<sup>9</sup>/<sub>10</sub>). In Campylognathus, which has so much in
common with the jaw and the wing bones in size,
the upper leg bone is 2<sup>8</sup>/<sub>10</sub> inches. Therefore if we
assign the larger femur to the larger wing, the femur
will be relatively longer in all species of Rhamphocephalus
than in Campylognathus. Only one example
of a tibia is preserved. It is 3½ inches long,
or only <sup>1</sup>/<sub>10</sub> inch shorter than the bone in Campylognathus,
which has the femur 2<sup>8</sup>/<sub>10</sub> inches, so that I
refer the tibia of Rhamphocephalus to the species
which has the intermediate length of wing. These
coincidences with Campylognathus establish a close
affinity, and may raise the question whether the
Upper Lias species may not be included in the
Stonesfield Slate genus Rhamphocephalus.</p>
<p>The late Professor Phillips, in his <i>Geology of Oxford</i>,
attempted a restoration of the Stonesfield Ornithosaur,
and produced a picturesque effect (<SPAN href="#Page_164"></SPAN>); but
no restoration is possible without such attention to
the proportions of the bones as we have indicated.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</SPAN></span></p>
<h4>OXFORD CLAY</h4>
<p>A few bones of flying reptiles have been found in
the Lower Oxford Clay near Peterborough, and others
in the Upper Oxford Clay at St. Ives, in Huntingdonshire.
A single tail vertebra from the Middle Oxford
Clay, near Oxford, long since came under my own
notice, and shows that these animals belong to a
long-tailed type like Campylognathus. The cervical
vertebræ are remarkable for being scarcely longer than
the dorsal vertebræ; and the dorsal are at least half
as long again as is usual, having rather the proportion
of bones in the back of a crocodile.</p>
<h4>LITHOGRAPHIC SLATE</h4>
<p>Long-tailed Pterodactyles are beautifully preserved
in the Lithographic Limestone of the south of Bavaria,
at Solenhofen, and the quarries in its neighbourhood,
often with the skeleton or a large part of it flattened
out in the plane of bedding of the rock. Fine skeletons
are preserved in the superb museum at Munich,
at Heidelberg, Bonn, Haarlem, and London, and are
all referred to the genus Rhamphorhynchus or to
Scaphognathus. It is a type with powerfully developed
wings and a long, stiff tail, very similar to
that of Dimorphodon, so that some naturalists refer
both to the same family. There is some resemblance.</p>
<p>The type which is most like Dimorphodon is the
celebrated fossil at Bonn, sometimes called <i>Pterodactylus
crassirostris</i>, which in a restored form, with a
short tail, has been reproduced in many text-books.
No tail is preserved in the slab, and I ventured to
give the animal a tail for the first time in a restoration
(<SPAN href="#Page_163"></SPAN>) published by the <i>Illustrated London News</i>
in 1875, which accompanied a report of a Royal
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</SPAN></span>
Institution lecture. Afterwards, in 1882, Professor
Zittel, of Munich, published the same conclusion.
The reason for restoring the tail was that the animal
had the head constructed in the same way as
Pterodactyles with a long tail, and showed differences
from types in which the tail is short; and there
is no known short-tailed Pterodactyle, with wrist
and hand bones, such as characterise this animal.
The side of the face has a general resemblance to
the Pterodactyles from the Lias, for although the
framework is firmer, the four apertures in the head
are similarly placed. The nostril is rather small and
elongated, and ascends over the larger antorbital
vacuity. The orbit for the eye is the largest opening
in the head, so that these three apertures successively
increase in size, and are followed by the vertically
elongated post-orbital vacuity. The teeth are widely
spaced apart, and those in the skull extend some
distance backward to the end of the maxillary bone.
There are few teeth in the lower jaw, and they correspond
to the large anterior teeth of Dimorphodon,
there being no teeth behind the nasal opening. The
lower jaw is straight, and the extremities of the
jaws met when the mouth was closed. The breast
bone does not show the keel which is so remarkable
in Rhamphorhynchus, which may be attributed to
its under side being exposed, so as to exhibit the
pneumatic foramina.</p>
<p>The ribs have double heads, more like those of a
Crocodile in the region of the back than is the case
with the bird-like ribs from Stonesfield. The second
joint in the wing finger may be longer than the first—a
character which would tend to the association of
this Pterodactyle with species from the Lias; a relation
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</SPAN></span>
to which attention was first drawn by Mr. E. T. Newton,
who described the Whitby skull.</p>
<p>The Pterodactyles from the Solenhofen Slate which
possess long tails have a series of characters which show
affinity with the other long-tailed types. The jaws are
much more slender. The orbit of the eye in Rhamphorhynchus
is enormously large, and placed vertically
above the articulation for the lower jaw. Immediately
in front of the eye are two small and elongated openings,
the hinder of which, known as the antorbital
vacuity, is often slightly smaller than the nostril, which
is placed in the middle length of the head, or a little
further back, giving a long dagger-shaped jaw, which
terminates in a toothless spear. The lower jaw has
a corresponding sharp extremity. The teeth are
directed forward in a way that is quite exceptional.
Notwithstanding the massiveness and elongation of
the neck vertebræ, which are nearly twice as long as
those of the back, the neck is sometimes only about
half the length of the skull.</p>
<p>All these long-tailed species from the Lithographic
Stone agree in having the sternum broad, with a long
strong keel, extending far forward. The coracoid
bones extend outward like those of a Crocodile, so
as to widen the chest cavity instead of being carried
forward as the bones are in Birds. These bones in this
animal were attached to the anterior extremity of the
sternum, so that the keel extended in advance of the
articulation as in other Pterodactyles. The breadth
of the sternum shows that, as in Mammals, the fore
part of the body must have been fully twice the
width of the region of the hip-girdle, where the
slenderer hind limbs were attached. The length
of the fore limb was enormous, for although the head
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</SPAN></span>
suggests an immense length relatively to the body,
nearly equal to neck and back together, the head is
not more than a third of the length of the wing
bones. The wing bones are remarkable for the short
powerful humerus with an expanded radial crest,
which is fully equal in width to half the length of the
bone. Another character is the extreme shortness
of the metacarpus, usually associated with immense
strength of the wing metacarpal bone.</p>
<p>The hind limbs are relatively small and relatively
short. The femur is usually shorter than the humerus,
and the tibia is much shorter than the ulna. The
bones of the instep, instead of being held together
firmly as in the Lias genera, diverge from each other,
widening out, though it often happens that four of
the five metatarsals differ but little in length. The
fifth digit is always shorter.</p>
<p>The hip-girdle of bones differs chiefly from other
types in the way in which those bones, which have
sometimes been likened to the marsupial bones, are
conditioned. They may be a pair of triangular bones
which meet in the middle line, so that there is an
outer angle like the arm of a capital Y. Sometimes
these triangular bones are blended into a curved,
bow-shaped arch, which in several specimens appears
to extend forward from near the place of articulation
of the femur. This is seen in fossil skeletons at
Heidelberg and Munich. It is possible that this
position is an accident of preservation, and that the
prepubic bones are really attached to the lower
border of the pubic bones.</p>
<p>Immense as the length of the tail appears to be,
exceeding the skull and remainder of the vertebral
column, it falls far short of the combined length of the
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</SPAN></span>
phalanges of the wing finger. The power of flight
was manifestly greater in Rhamphorhynchus than in
other members of the group, and all the modifications
of the skeleton tend towards adaptation of the
animals for flying. The most remarkable modification
of structure at the extremity of the tail was made
known by Professor Marsh in a vertical, leaf-like
expansion in this genus, which had not previously
been observed (<SPAN href="#Page_161"></SPAN>). The vertebræ go on steadily
diminishing in length in the usual way, and then
the ossified structures which bordered the tail bones
and run parallel with the vertebræ in all the Rhamphorhynchus
family, suddenly diverge downward and
upward at right angles to the vertebræ, forming a
vertical crest above and a corresponding keel below;
and between these structures, which are identified
with the neural spines and chevron bones of ordinary
vertebræ, the membrane extends, giving the extremity
of the tail a rudder-like feature, which, from knowledge
of the construction of the tail of a child's kite,
may well be thought to have had influence in directing
and steadying the animal's movements. There
are many minor features in the shoulder-girdle, which
show that the coracoid, for example, was becoming
unlike that bone in the Lias, though it still continues
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</SPAN></span>
to have a bony union with the elongated shoulder-blade
of the back.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</SPAN></span></p>
<div class="figcenter"> <SPAN name="Fig_56" id="Fig_56"></SPAN> <span class="caption">FIG. 56. RESTORATION OF THE SKELETON OF <i>RHAMPHORHYNCHUS PHYLLURUS</i></span> <p class="center">From the Solenhofen Slate, partly based upon the skeleton with the wing membranes preserved</p> <ANTIMG src="images/i_188.jpg" width-obs="1024" height-obs="630" alt="FIG. 56." title="FIG. 56." /></div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</SPAN></span></p>
<div class="figcenter"> <SPAN name="Fig_57" id="Fig_57"></SPAN> <span class="caption">FIG. 57. RESTORATION OF THE SKELETON OF <i>SCAPHOGNATHUS CRASSIROSTRIS</i></span> <p class="center">Published in the <i>Illustrated London News</i> in 1875. In which a tail is
shown on the evidence of the structure of the head and hand</p>
<ANTIMG src="images/i_190.jpg" width-obs="640" height-obs="408" alt="FIG. 57." title="FIG. 57." /></div>
<p>The great German delineator of these animals, Von
Meyer, admitted six different species. Mr. Newton
and Mr. Lydekker diminish the number to four. It is
not easy to determine these differences, or to say how
far the differences observed in the bones characterise
species or genera. It is certain that there is one
remarkable difference from other and older Pterodactyles,
in that the last or fourth bone in the wing
finger is usually slightly longer than the third bone,
which precedes it. There is a certain variability in
the specimens which makes discussion of their
characters difficult, and has led to some forms being
regarded as varieties, while others, of which less
material is available, are classed as species. I am
disposed to say that some of the confusion may
have resulted from specimens being wrongly named.
Thus, there is a Rhamphorhynchus called curtimanus,
or the form with the short hand. It is
represented by two types. One of these appears to
have the humerus short, the ulna and radius long,
and the finger bones long; the other has the humerus
longer, the ulna much shorter, and the finger bones
shorter. They are clearly different species, but the
second variety agrees in almost every detail with
a species named hirundinaceus, the swallow-like
Rhamphorhynchus. This identification shows, not
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</SPAN></span>
that the latter is a bad species, but that curtimanus
is a distinct species which had sometimes been confounded
with the other. While most of these
specimens show a small but steady decrease in the
length of the several wing finger bones, the species
called Gemmingi has the first three bones absolutely
equal and shorter than in the species curtimanus,
longimanus, or hirundinaceus. In the same way,
on the evidence of facts, I find myself unable to join
in discarding Professor Marsh's species phyllurus,
on account of the different proportions of its limb
bones. The humerus, metacarpus, and third phalange
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</SPAN></span>
of the wing finger in <i>Rhamphorhynchus phyllurus</i>
are exceptionally short as compared with other
species. Everyone agrees that the species called
longicaudus is a distinct one, so that it is chiefly in
slight differences in the proportions of constituent
parts of the skeleton that the types of the Rhamphorhynchus
are distinguished from each other.
I cannot quite concur with either Professor Zittel
(<SPAN href="#Fig_58">Fig. 58, 3</SPAN>) or Professor Marsh (<SPAN href="#Fig_58">Fig. 58, 2</SPAN>) in the
expansion which they give to the wing membrane
in their restorations; for although Professor Zittel
represents the tail as free from the hind legs, while
Professor Marsh connects them together, they both
concur in carrying the wing membrane from the
tip of the wing finger down to the extremity of the
ankle joint. I should have preferred to carry it no
further down the body than the lower part of the
back, there being no fossil evidence in favour of this
extension so far as specimens have been described.
Neither the membranous wings figured by Zittel nor
by Marsh would warrant so much body membrane as
the Rhamphorhynchus has been credited with. I
have based my restoration (<SPAN href="#Page_161"></SPAN>) of the skeleton
chiefly on <i>Rhamphorhynchus phyllurus.</i></p>
<div class="figcenter"> <SPAN name="Fig_58" id="Fig_58"></SPAN> <span class="caption">FIG. 58. SIX RESTORATIONS</span> <ANTIMG src="images/i_191.jpg" width-obs="600" height-obs="620" alt="FIG. 58." title="FIG. 58." /> <p class="noidt">
1. Ramphocephalus. Stonesfield Slate. John Phillips, 1871<br/>
2. Rhamphorhynchus. O. C. Marsh, 1882<br/>
3. Rhamphorhynchus. V. Zittel, 1882<br/>
4. Ornithostoma. Williston, 1897<br/>
5. Dimorphodon. Buckland, 1836. Tail then unknown<br/>
6. Ornithocheirus. H. G. Seeley, 1865<br/></p>
</div>
<h4>THE SHORT-TAILED TYPES</h4>
<p>The Pterodactylia are less variable; and the variation
among the species is chiefly confined to relative
length of the head, length of the neck, and the
height of the body above the ground. The tail is
always so short as to be inappreciable. Many of the
specimens are fragmentary, and the characters of the
group are not easily determined without careful
comparisons and measurements. The bones of the
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</SPAN></span>
fore limb and wing finger are less stout than in
the Rhamphorhynchus type, while the femur is
generally a little longer than the humerus, and the
wing finger is short in comparison with its condition
in Rhamphorhynchus. These short-tailed Pterodactyles
give the impression of being active little
animals, having very much the aspect of birds, upon
four legs or two. The neck is about as long as the
lower jaw, the antorbital vacuity in the head is imperfectly
separated from the much larger nasal opening,
the orbit of the eye is large and far back, the
teeth are entirely in front of the nasal aperture, and
the post-orbital vacuity is minute and inconspicuous.
The sternum is much wider than long, and no specimens
give evidence of a manubrium. The finger
bones progressively decrease in length. The prepubic
bones have a partially expanded fan-like form,
and never show the triradiate shape, and are never
anchylosed. About fifteen different kinds of Pterodactyles
have been described from the Solenhofen
Slate, mostly referred to the genus Pterodactylus,
which comprises forms with a large head and long
snout. Some have been placed in a genus (Ornithocephalus,
or Ptenodracon) in which the head
is relatively short. The majority of the species
are relatively small. The skull in <i>Ornithocephalus
brevirostris</i> is only 1 inch long, and the animal
could not have stood more than 1½ inches to its back
standing on all fours, and but little over 2½ inches
standing as a biped, on the hind limbs.</p>
<p>A restoration of the species called <i>Pterodactylus
scolopaciceps</i>, published in 1875 in the <i>Illustrated
London News</i> in the position of a quadruped, shows
an animal a little larger, with a body 2½ inches high
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</SPAN></span>
and 6 to 7 inches long, with the wing finger 4½ inches
long. Larger animals occur in the same deposit, and
in one named <i>Pterodactylus grandis</i> the leg bones
are a foot long; and such an animal may have been
nearly a foot in height to its back, standing as a
quadruped, though most of these animals had the
neck flexible and capable of being raised like the
neck of a Goose or a Deer (<SPAN href="#Page_30"></SPAN>), and bent down
like a Duck's when feeding.</p>
<div class="figcenter"> <SPAN name="Fig_59" id="Fig_59"></SPAN> <span class="caption">FIG. 59. RESTORATION OF THE SKELETON OF <i>PTENODRACON BREVIROSTRIS</i></span> <p class="center">From the Solenhofen Slate. The fourth joint of the wing finger appears to
be lost and has not been restored in the figure. (Natural size)</p>
<ANTIMG src="images/i_194.jpg" width-obs="877" height-obs="768" alt="FIG. 59." title="FIG. 59." /></div>
<p>The type of the genus Pterodactylus is the form
originally described by Cuvier as<i> Pterodactylus longirostris</i>
(<SPAN href="#Page_28"></SPAN>). It is also known as <i>P. antiquus</i>, that
name having been given by a German naturalist after
Cuvier had invented the genus, and before he had
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</SPAN></span>
named the species. There are some remarkable
features in which Cuvier's animal is distinct from
others which have been referred to the same
genus. Thus the head is 4½ inches long, while
the entire length of the backbone to the extremity
of the tail is only 6½ inches, and one
vertebra in the neck is at least as long as six in
the back, so that the animal has the greater part
of its length in the head and neck, although the
neck includes so few vertebræ. Nearly all the teeth—which
are few in number, short and broad, not
exceeding a dozen in either jaw—are limited to the
front part of the beak, and do not extend anywhere
near the nasal vacuity. This is not the case with all.</p>
<p>In the species named <i>P. Kochi</i>, which I have regarded
as the type of a distinct genus, there are
large teeth in the front of the jaw corresponding to
those of Pterodactylus, and behind these a smaller
series of teeth extending back under the nostril,
which approaches close to the orbit of the eye,
without any indication of a separate antorbital
vacuity. On those characters the genus Diopecephalus
was defined. It is closely allied to Pterodactylus;
both agree in having the ilium prolonged
forward more than twice as far as it is carried backward,
the anterior process covering about half a
dozen vertebræ, as in <i>Pterodactylus longirostris</i>. A
great many different types have been referred to
<i>Pterodactylus Kochi</i>, and it is probable that they
may eventually be distinguished from each other.
The species in which the upper borders of the orbits
approximate could be separated from those in which
the frontal interspace is wider.</p>
<div class="figcenter"> <SPAN name="Fig_60" id="Fig_60"></SPAN> <span class="caption">FIG. 60. CYCNORHAMPHUS SUEVICUS FROM THE SOLENHOFEN SLATE SHOWING THE SCATTERED POSITION OF THE BONES</span> <p class="center"><i>Original in the Museum at Tübingen</i></p>
<ANTIMG src="images/i_196.jpg" width-obs="854" height-obs="768" alt="FIG. 60." title="FIG. 60." /></div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</SPAN></span></p>
<div class="figcenter"> <SPAN name="Fig_61" id="Fig_61"></SPAN> <span class="caption">FIG. 61. CYCNORHAMPHUS SUEVICUS<br/><br/> RESTORATION SHOWING THE FORM OF THE BODY AND THE WING MEMBRANES</span> <ANTIMG src="images/i_198.jpg" width-obs="957" height-obs="768" alt="FIG. 61." title="FIG. 61." /></div>
<p>It is a remarkable feature in these animals that
the middle bones of the foot, termed instep bones
or metatarsals, are usually close together, so that
the toes diverge from a narrow breadth, as in <i>P.
longirostris</i>, <i>P. Kochi</i>, and other forms; but there
also appear to be splay-footed groups of Pterodactyles
like the species which have been named
<i>P. elegans</i> and <i>P. micronyx</i>, in which the metatarsus
widens out so that the bones of the toes do not
diverge, and that condition characterises the Ptenodracon
(<i>Pterodactylus brevirostris</i>), to which genus
these species may possibly be referred. Nearly all
who have studied these animals regard the singularly
short-nosed species <i>P. brevirostris</i> as forming a
separate genus. For that genus Sömmerring's descriptive
name Ornithocephalus, which he used for
Pterodactyles generally, might perhaps have been
retained. But the name Ptenodracon, suggested by
Mr. Lydekker, has been used for these types.</p>
<p>Some of the largest specimens preserved at Stuttgart
and Tübingen have been named <i>Pterodactylus
suevicus</i> and <i>P. Fraasii</i>. They do not approach the
species <i>P. grandis</i> in size, so far as can be judged
from the fragmentary remains figured by Von Meyer;
for what appears to be the third phalange of the
wing finger is 7½ inches long, while in these species
it is less than half that length, indicating an enormous
development of wing, relatively to the length
of the hind limb, which would probably refer the
species to another genus. <i>Pterodactylus suevicus</i>
differs from the typical Pterodactyles in having a
rounded, flattened under surface to the lower jaw,
instead of the common condition of a sharp keel
in the region of the symphysis. The beak also seems
flattened and swan-like, and the teeth are limited to
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</SPAN></span>
the front of the jaw. There appear to be some
indications of small nostrils, which look upward like
the nostrils of Rhamphorhynchus, but this may be
a deceptive appearance, and the nostrils are large
lateral vacuities, which are in the position of antorbital
vacuities, so that there would appear to be
only two vacuities in the side of the head in these
animals. The distinctive character of the skeleton in
this genus is found in the extraordinary length
of the metacarpus and in the complete ossification
of the smaller metacarpal bones throughout their
length. The metacarpal bones are much longer than
the bones of the fore-arm, and about twice the length
of the humerus. The first wing phalange is much
longer than the others, which successively and rapidly
diminish in length, so that the third is half the length
of the first. There are differences in the pelvis; for
the anterior process of the ilium is very short, in comparison
with its length in the genus Pterodactylus.
And the long stalk of the prepubic bone with its great
hammer-headed expansion transversely in front gives
those bones a character unlike other genera, so that
Cycnorhamphus ranks as a good genus, easily distinguished
from Cuvier's type, in which the four bones
of the wing are more equal in length, and the last is
more than half the length of the first; while the
metacarpus in that genus is only a little longer than
the humerus, and much shorter than the ulna. The
<i>Pterodactylus suevicus</i> has the neck vertebræ flat on
the under side, and relatively short as compared
with the more slender and narrower vertebræ of
<i>P. Fraasii</i>.</p>
<div class="figcenter"> <SPAN name="Fig_62" id="Fig_62"></SPAN> <span class="caption">FIG. 62. <i>CYCNORHAMPHUS SUEVICUS</i></span> <p class="center">Skeleton restored from the bones in Fig. 60</p> <ANTIMG src="images/i_201.jpg" width-obs="599" height-obs="480" alt="FIG. 62." title="FIG. 62." /></div>
<div class="figcenter"> <SPAN name="Fig_63" id="Fig_63"></SPAN> <span class="caption">FIG. 63. RESTORATION OF SKELETON CYCNORHAMPHUS FRAASI<br/><br/> SHOWING THE LIMBS ON THE RIGHT SIDE</span> <p class="center"><i>From a specimen in the Museum at Stuttgart</i></p>
<ANTIMG src="images/i_202.jpg" width-obs="768" height-obs="911" alt="FIG. 63." title="FIG. 63." /></div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</SPAN></span></p>
<div class="figcenter"> <SPAN name="Fig_64" id="Fig_64"></SPAN> <span class="caption">FIG. 64. CYCNORHAMPHUS FRAASI<br/><br/> RESTORATION OF THE FORM OF THE BODY</span> <ANTIMG src="images/i_204.jpg" width-obs="768" height-obs="894" alt="FIG. 64." title="FIG. 64." /></div>
<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</SPAN></span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />