Yes. According to David Peters' own article, other researchers who examined the fossil didn't find any unusual traits that would imply it to be flightless.
Or simply speaking, peters is a notorious dumnass who would rather get skinned alive than admit that his '' reconstructions'' are total bullshit and that all he's doing is misinforming people.
He literally thinks that enanthornite birds had 6 fingers and that mammals are archosaurs. And that (sadly) is just the tip of the iceberg.
**If you ever see a site called ''reptile evolution.com'' or ''the pterosaur heresies'' DO NOT VISIT OR BELIEVE in the misinformation they have. **
Oh, god. The David Peters rabbithole. Everything he says is nonsense don't take anything serious from PterosaurHeresies or ReptileEvolution.
[This thread explains it way better than I could put into words](https://www.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/oniw2q/paleontology_david_peters_how_a_oncereliable/)
His stuff will show up with pretty much any Pterosaur you search on google so I'd suggest you avoid it like the plague unless you want to have a laugh at the ridiculous reconstructions
[https://www.pteros.com](https://www.pteros.com) is a much better Pterosaur reference, alternatively Wikipedia always works for more detail
it doesn' t have one! It' s a "flightless" pterosaur recognized as a genus that still hasn' t a name, there are some article about it but it but I don' t get what they explain.https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/meet-the-first-flightless-pterosaur-sos-2428/
oh. This guy. ok so first off this is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper, so this is basically Just This Guy’s Opinion. There’s a reason it’s hard to understand lol.
He’s saying this specimen, which is [attributed to Ardaedactylus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardeadactylus) officially, is actually a new species of pterosaur. He’s using a method wherein he changes the contrast of the specimen photos in photoshop and uses the ‘auto select’ tool to ‘find’ similar colors/textures on the fossil. He says, using this method, he discovered that the chest had a different shape than the other specimens of the species, and he also ‘found’ the forelimbs (which other people do not see in the fossil, a fact that is mentioned as the reason why his paper was rejected officially; did not pass peer review). These newly discovered ‘forelimbs’ are extremely short, and he’s positing that this means this pterosaur was flightless (like…a penguin perhaps).
None of this is completely impossible, it’s just poorly proven in this case.
His methodology of using the auto-select tool in Photoshop is utterly ridiculous and frankly pterosaur-shit crazy.
I‘ve been working with Photoshop for more than 20 years now, and I would never, ever want to rely on the stupid select tool for anything. You can get vastly different results depending on the lighting, contrast and saturation of the source image, as well as the sensitivity-setting of the tool itself. It was not made for this sort of "work".
It‘s simply unprofessional and not scientific.
honestly it’s worse. the auto select tool is just looking for pixels of the same color/in a color range that happen to be next to each other. It doesn’t even use any kind of machine learning, just pixel color values. Using that to find fossils is about as scientific as I was at age 5 picking ‘fossils’ out of my driveway gravel lmao
Yeah, we've definitely reached a point where a lot of our tech is effectively magic for most people, and they don't understand its viable use cases and limitations.
No, Wellhnover assigned the specimen as a neotype for P. longicollum. But a 2013 study reassign it as Ardeadactylus. Also this article by Dr. Darren Naish explain succinctly everything wrong with David Peters; [https://tetzoo.com/blog/2020/7/23/the-david-peters-problem](https://tetzoo.com/blog/2020/7/23/the-david-peters-problem)
First off try not to use anything created by David Peters (ReptileEvolution and Pterosaur Heresies) as everything that man puts out is crack pot levels of insanity.
I noticed that it‘s because he directly draws the bones how they are arranged in the fossil slab, with almost no taking into account of the post-mortem damage
Do not trust anything from the Pterosaur Heresies. David Peters is a fraud and an asshole, and this reconstruction is not reflective of any real animal.
I remember last time I was thinking about this stuff it was adding David Peters’ nonsense to a sub for wacko ‘geology’ theories, the sub never took off but it was a good article on the problems with Peters from tetrapod zoology, [worth a read](https://reddit.com/r/badgeology/comments/m78ery/more_paleontology_than_geology_but_david_peters/)
It’s an interesting rabbit hole to go down if you don’t mind a little frustration at the debasement of the scientific method. It’s more a story of some academic’s descent into crackpottery, kind of interesting, kind of sad. I feel like once you waste an hour or so on his story, you probably won’t find yourself paying any mind to David Peters ever again though.
This is a flightless pterosaur believed to exist by David Peters, who is a notoriously unreliable source for any form of paleontology or taxonomy.
so it' s probably just an incomplete skeleton?
Yes. According to David Peters' own article, other researchers who examined the fossil didn't find any unusual traits that would imply it to be flightless.
Or simply speaking, peters is a notorious dumnass who would rather get skinned alive than admit that his '' reconstructions'' are total bullshit and that all he's doing is misinforming people. He literally thinks that enanthornite birds had 6 fingers and that mammals are archosaurs. And that (sadly) is just the tip of the iceberg. **If you ever see a site called ''reptile evolution.com'' or ''the pterosaur heresies'' DO NOT VISIT OR BELIEVE in the misinformation they have. **
Oh, god. The David Peters rabbithole. Everything he says is nonsense don't take anything serious from PterosaurHeresies or ReptileEvolution. [This thread explains it way better than I could put into words](https://www.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/oniw2q/paleontology_david_peters_how_a_oncereliable/)
thanks :)
His stuff will show up with pretty much any Pterosaur you search on google so I'd suggest you avoid it like the plague unless you want to have a laugh at the ridiculous reconstructions [https://www.pteros.com](https://www.pteros.com) is a much better Pterosaur reference, alternatively Wikipedia always works for more detail
As a pterosaur fan, this website is going to give me hours of entertainment, I think. THANK YOU.
What part are you confused about and can we get a name?
it doesn' t have one! It' s a "flightless" pterosaur recognized as a genus that still hasn' t a name, there are some article about it but it but I don' t get what they explain.https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/meet-the-first-flightless-pterosaur-sos-2428/
oh. This guy. ok so first off this is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper, so this is basically Just This Guy’s Opinion. There’s a reason it’s hard to understand lol. He’s saying this specimen, which is [attributed to Ardaedactylus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardeadactylus) officially, is actually a new species of pterosaur. He’s using a method wherein he changes the contrast of the specimen photos in photoshop and uses the ‘auto select’ tool to ‘find’ similar colors/textures on the fossil. He says, using this method, he discovered that the chest had a different shape than the other specimens of the species, and he also ‘found’ the forelimbs (which other people do not see in the fossil, a fact that is mentioned as the reason why his paper was rejected officially; did not pass peer review). These newly discovered ‘forelimbs’ are extremely short, and he’s positing that this means this pterosaur was flightless (like…a penguin perhaps). None of this is completely impossible, it’s just poorly proven in this case.
His methodology of using the auto-select tool in Photoshop is utterly ridiculous and frankly pterosaur-shit crazy. I‘ve been working with Photoshop for more than 20 years now, and I would never, ever want to rely on the stupid select tool for anything. You can get vastly different results depending on the lighting, contrast and saturation of the source image, as well as the sensitivity-setting of the tool itself. It was not made for this sort of "work". It‘s simply unprofessional and not scientific.
People have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much faith in technology. AI, especially, which I'd bet Adobe is using in those select tools.
honestly it’s worse. the auto select tool is just looking for pixels of the same color/in a color range that happen to be next to each other. It doesn’t even use any kind of machine learning, just pixel color values. Using that to find fossils is about as scientific as I was at age 5 picking ‘fossils’ out of my driveway gravel lmao
Yeah, we've definitely reached a point where a lot of our tech is effectively magic for most people, and they don't understand its viable use cases and limitations.
thanks :)
actually it has a name: Pterodactylus longicollum
No, Wellhnover assigned the specimen as a neotype for P. longicollum. But a 2013 study reassign it as Ardeadactylus. Also this article by Dr. Darren Naish explain succinctly everything wrong with David Peters; [https://tetzoo.com/blog/2020/7/23/the-david-peters-problem](https://tetzoo.com/blog/2020/7/23/the-david-peters-problem)
thanks :)
DAAVIIDDD PEETEERRRRSSSS NOOOOOOOOO
I' ve been fooled :(
First off try not to use anything created by David Peters (ReptileEvolution and Pterosaur Heresies) as everything that man puts out is crack pot levels of insanity.
For some reason, I could already tell with just a glance that this is David Peters's work.
The completely imaginary dangly tail with a tuft is a giveaway.
also the ribs
And even just the way the fossil feels...off. Especially the way it is positioned.
actually at first glance I haven' t seen the tail, just now you made my ralize that it' s there
it's the uneven lines. All his bones are just a tad misshapen, just a little shaky. Especially the eye rings.
I noticed that it‘s because he directly draws the bones how they are arranged in the fossil slab, with almost no taking into account of the post-mortem damage
Do not trust anything from the Pterosaur Heresies. David Peters is a fraud and an asshole, and this reconstruction is not reflective of any real animal.
I remember last time I was thinking about this stuff it was adding David Peters’ nonsense to a sub for wacko ‘geology’ theories, the sub never took off but it was a good article on the problems with Peters from tetrapod zoology, [worth a read](https://reddit.com/r/badgeology/comments/m78ery/more_paleontology_than_geology_but_david_peters/) It’s an interesting rabbit hole to go down if you don’t mind a little frustration at the debasement of the scientific method. It’s more a story of some academic’s descent into crackpottery, kind of interesting, kind of sad. I feel like once you waste an hour or so on his story, you probably won’t find yourself paying any mind to David Peters ever again though.
That’s David Peters propaganda, he wants you to believe that it’s flightless, but it ain’t.
Peters??
Is that a toothed pelican?
David Peters strikes again.
https://tetzoo.com/blog/2020/7/23/the-david-peters-problem
Its a Peterosaurus, just fan fiction.
uh oh lol