Could Moroccan dino claws in fact be pterosaur claws?

[-Andy-]

 

@hxmendoza is one of the foremost dinosaur claw experts I know. I spoke to him several days ago about the "typical" dinosaur claw we see from Kem Kem. He pointed out something interesting.

 

Quote

There is still no proof that it's actually a Dinosaur claw tip. It could very well be the finger claw of a Quetzalcoatlus sized Pterosaur. The tip shows a thin flange or ridge of bone on the very tip on the ventral edge. I've never seen that on any dinosaur hand claw (or foot claw). A dealer friend of mine, and I suspect these claws may well be Pterosaur and that that flange aids in hooking on to cliffs.

 

If you look at all these similarly shaped claws whether complete, or just the hook part (as most of these tend to be found) and from large to very small, they all tend to have that flange.

The crenulations on the dorsal aspect of the hook of these claws is a distinctive feature of these claws too.

 

  

 

Quote

Here are some claws of the same type. Different sizes. All showing the same characteristics. They all also have a very flat ventral surface/edge.

 

 

 

 

 

Let me know your thoughts!

 

[siteseer]

I'm not sure you'd find so many large pterosaur claws without finding some ends of wing and leg bones (the more durable parts of the skeleton of a bird or pterosaur) especially in a river deposit.  Claws are relatively delicate - even a big one.  Is there even a known pterosaur as large as Quetzalcoatlus that far back in the Cretaceous (even one as large as Pteranodon?)?  

 

Consider the Niobrara Chalk, one of the best layers in the world if you want a better-than-average chance to find something identifiable as pterosaur.  Even there, even a decent bone end is rare.  Claws are even rarer.

 

[-Andy-]

On 3/2/2017 at 10:39 AM, siteseer said:

I'm not sure you'd find so many large pterosaur claws without finding some ends of wing and leg bones (the more durable parts of the skeleton of a bird or pterosaur) especially in a river deposit.  Claws are relatively delicate - even a big one.  Is there even a known pterosaur as large as Quetzalcoatlus that far back in the Cretaceous (even one as large as Pteranodon?)?  

 

Consider the Niobrara Chalk, one of the best layers in the world if you want a better-than-average chance to find something identifiable as pterosaur.  Even there, even a decent bone end is rare.  Claws are even rarer.

 

 

Just an observation - the Kem Kem Beds displayed odd preservational biases as it is; there's a preponderance for preservation of theropod material: Spinosaurus, Abelisaurid, Carcharodontosaurus etc, yet very little ornithopod material. Why is that? Who knows. Can't compare the Smoky Hill to the Kem Kem Beds for exactly that reason. Negative evidence does not rule out the possibility of the presence of some other large pterosaurs, if these claws are even that.

 

But if they're going to say these type of claws are Deltadromeus without any supportive evidence (no known claws or teeth found with Deltadromeus or Bahariasaurus) then one could just as easily argue a hypothetical like Henry's. He has seen large probable Pterosaur fragments amongst all the Moroccan material that ends up at fossil shows. Not at all common, but it's there. Dromaeosaur material are rarer, but the occasional tooth shows up. Henry has a small humerus that is Dromaeosaur as well. So again, just because large pterosaur material from Kem Kem is not commonly seen, or not yet found, is not evidence that it doesn't exist.

All in all, the Kem Kem Bed fossils are poorly studied, so let's all keep an open mind.

[Troodon]

I like to keep an open mind with all Kem Kem material since like you said so little is understood.   I've been struggling with this type of claw for years since it does not fit your typical theropod morphology and even a standard pterosaur.    Like Jess indicated pterosaur material is very rare and claws even rarer.   Yet if you examine what is sold at shows this is the most common claw you see available, by far, with few being complete.  So something does not correlate if it's pterosaur but its the Kem Kem.   I know a couple of French dealers and a British one that claim that these belong to pterosaurs but when you ask them for evidence none is provided.   This item has been sold for years as a pterosaur claw and it's not.

 

 

My largest complete claw is over 4" on the curve so that has to come from a pretty large animal.  We have no scientific evidence of any pterosaur from the Kem Kem that would fit these claws but of course that does not mean it does not exists.  We should not listen to dealers but to hard evidence and none presently exists so its really unknown what it species this claw belongs to.   I'm not willing to make that call with the current information available.  

The paleoenvironment in the Kem Kem was aquatic/semi-aquatic so drawing conclusions based on other environments is very problematic, this was a very different place.  The environment was well not suited for terrestrial vegetation but for an aquatic food chain which resulted in many different predators and an imbalance between predator and prey.  The Kem Kem has been full of surprises and it will continue to deliver.

 

 

 

 

 

[siteseer]

On March 3, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Troodon said:

I like to keep an open mind with all Kem Kem material since like you said so little is understood.   I've been struggling with this type of claw for years since it does not fit your typical theropod morphology and even a standard pterosaur.    Like Jess indicated pterosaur material is very rare and claws even rarer.   Yet if you examine what is sold at shows this is the most common claw you see available, by far, with few being complete.  So something does not correlate if it's pterosaur but it the Kem Kem.   I know a couple of French dealers and a British one that claim that these belong to pterosaurs but when you ask them for evidence none is provided.   This item has been sold for years as a pterosaur claw and it's not.

 

 

My largest complete claw is over 4" on the curve so that has to come from a pretty large animal.  We have no scientific evidence of any pterosaur from the Kem Kem that would fit these claws but of course that does not mean it does not exists.  We should not listen to dealers but to hard evidence and none presently exists so its really unknown what it species this claw belongs to.   I'm not willing to make that call with the current information available.  

The paleoenvironment in the Kem Kem was aquatic/semi-aquatic so drawing conclusions based on other environments is very problematic, this was a very different place.  The environment was well not suited for terrestrial vegetation but for an aquatic food chain which resulted in many different predators and an imbalance between predator and prey.  The Kem Kem has been full of surprises and it will continue to deliver.

 

Here is a cool link to learn more about pterosaur fingers 

 

https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/tag/pterosaur-fingers/

 

 

 

Troodon,

 

What is that specimen?  I have one like it somewhere.  It was once called a "vestigial pterosaur claw" which didn't sound right to me, but then, I didn't know what it was and it was cheap so I bought it.

 

Did you find any shark stuff at Tucson?

 

Jess 

 

 

[Troodon]

1 hour ago, siteseer said:

 

Troodon,

 

What is that specimen?  I have one like it somewhere.  It was once called a "vestigial pterosaur claw" which didn't sound right to me, but then, I didn't know what it was and it was cheap so I bought it.

 

Did you find any shark stuff at Tucson?

 

Jess 

 

 

 

Your buddy John H. posted this on his Facebook page.  It's the only info I've ever seen on it.

 

I only picked up only one shark tooth at the show a transitional giant alopias.  Showed it to Mark P and of course he was happy to see it.  From May River.

 

[John]

A couple things about this idea. It's extremely unlikely that the claws shown at the top of the thread are from pterosaurs and almost impossible that they belong to azhdarchid pterosaurs (the family that Quetzalcoatlus belongs to). Among azhdarchids with known claw material, the length to height ratio of claws on both the manus and pes are generally pretty close to 1:1. This makes them short and stubby, not long and smoothly recurved like theropod hand claws. On a couple azhdarchids, the claw on digit 3 is a bit longer, but it has an unusual, almost "pinched" shape that is very unlike a theropod claw. Also, the first phalanges of azhdarchids have a weirdly "bulbous" shape and I've never seen anything remotely like them from the Kem Kem. It's also worth noting that you can't generally assume pterosaur parts scale in a linear fashion. In other words, a pterosaur twice as big as another member of the same genus or even species will not have bones that are simply twice the size. This is especially true for azhdarchids since the claws are almost comically small compared to the proportions of other bones in the wings and legs.

 

One other thing. There is no evidence at all that pterosaurs "hooked on" to cliffs. The image was widely spread in the late 19th century when it was assumed that pterosaurs were morphologically similar to bats, but there is not only no evidence to support this, modern studies show that pterosaurs had a very different lifestyle. Footprints show that at least some species were effectively bipedal. In general, the idea that pterosaurs hung off of cliffs was just a bad assumption from a time when it was thought they were gliders and incapable of powered flight.

[Susan from PA]

3 hours ago, John said:

A couple things about this idea. It's extremely unlikely that the claws shown at the top of the thread are from pterosaurs and almost impossible that they belong to azhdarchid pterosaurs (the family that Quetzalcoatlus belongs to). Among azhdarchids with known claw material, the length to height ratio of claws on both the manus and pes are generally pretty close to 1:1. This makes them short and stubby, not long and smoothly recurved like theropod hand claws. On a couple azhdarchids, the claw on digit 3 is a bit longer, but it has an unusual, almost "pinched" shape that is very unlike a theropod claw. Also, the first phalanges of azhdarchids have a weirdly "bulbous" shape and I've never seen anything remotely like them from the Kem Kem. It's also worth noting that you can't generally assume pterosaur parts scale in a linear fashion. In other words, a pterosaur twice as big as another member of the same genus or even species will not have bones that are simply twice the size. This is especially true for azhdarchids since the claws are almost comically small compared to the proportions of other bones in the wings and legs.

 

One other thing. There is no evidence at all that pterosaurs "hooked on" to cliffs. The image was widely spread in the late 19th century when it was assumed that pterosaurs were morphologically similar to bats, but there is not only no evidence to support this, modern studies show that pterosaurs had a very different lifestyle. Footprints show that at least some species were effectively bipedal. In general, the idea that pterosaurs hung off of cliffs was just a bad assumption from a time when it was thought they were gliders and incapable of powered flight.

Great explanation!  Thanks so much John for sharing your knowledge with us!  I'll tag @hxmendoza and @Andy, as I'm sure they would like to see it.  It's been a while since this was posted and they are no longer following the thread.  

[-Andy-]

5 hours ago, John said:

A couple things about this idea. It's extremely unlikely that the claws shown at the top of the thread are from pterosaurs and almost impossible that they belong to azhdarchid pterosaurs (the family that Quetzalcoatlus belongs to). Among azhdarchids with known claw material, the length to height ratio of claws on both the manus and pes are generally pretty close to 1:1. This makes them short and stubby, not long and smoothly recurved like theropod hand claws. On a couple azhdarchids, the claw on digit 3 is a bit longer, but it has an unusual, almost "pinched" shape that is very unlike a theropod claw. Also, the first phalanges of azhdarchids have a weirdly "bulbous" shape and I've never seen anything remotely like them from the Kem Kem. It's also worth noting that you can't generally assume pterosaur parts scale in a linear fashion. In other words, a pterosaur twice as big as another member of the same genus or even species will not have bones that are simply twice the size. This is especially true for azhdarchids since the claws are almost comically small compared to the proportions of other bones in the wings and legs.

 

One other thing. There is no evidence at all that pterosaurs "hooked on" to cliffs. The image was widely spread in the late 19th century when it was assumed that pterosaurs were morphologically similar to bats, but there is not only no evidence to support this, modern studies show that pterosaurs had a very different lifestyle. Footprints show that at least some species were effectively bipedal. In general, the idea that pterosaurs hung off of cliffs was just a bad assumption from a time when it was thought they were gliders and incapable of powered flight.

 

Thanks for sharing this John.

 

What you said makes sense. The image of cliff-hooking pterosaurs is so ingrained in my mind I didn't consider it might be a bad assumption from an older time.

 

1 hour ago, Susan from PA said:

Great explanation!  Thanks so much John for sharing your knowledge with us!  I'll tag @hxmendoza and @Andy, as I'm sure they would like to see it.  It's been a while since this was posted and they are no longer following the thread.  

 

Thanks Susan. You tagged the wrong Andy 

[ynot]

@-Andy-

Tricky sir!!

[Susan from PA]

6 minutes ago, ynot said:

@-Andy-

Tricky sir!!

Thank you Tony!

[Troodon]

In the end we can speculate all we want and its good, lots of great discussion but will eventually have to rely on what we see in research for real facts.  Ibrahim has contributed an article to this publication, currently in press, and possibly we can have some additional clarification on pterosaurs in the Kem Kem.  

 

  Pterosaurs from a fluviatile-deltaic environment: the Kem Kem beds and equivalent sequences of the Continental Intercalaire in Martill D.M, Unwin D.M.and Loveridge R. ,  The Pterosauria, Cambridge University Press.

 

Not yet published, no date, not cheap $130

 

 

 

[hxmendoza]

Thanks John. Good information. 

[Troodon]

@-Andy-

 

Came across this Maniraptoran claw from the late Cretaceous of Brazil.  Not saying it's the Moroccan one but there are some similarities and may lean in the direction of saying it's dinosaurian

 

 

 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236163403_Maniraptoran_theropod_ungual_from_the_Marilia_Formation_Upper_Cretaceous_Brazil

[hxmendoza]

58 minutes ago, Troodon said:

@-Andy-

 

Came across this Maniraptoran claw from the late Cretaceous of Brazil.  Not saying it's the Moroccan one but there are some similarities and may lean in the direction of saying it's dinosaurian

 

 

 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236163403_Maniraptoran_theropod_ungual_from_the_Marilia_Formation_Upper_Cretaceous_Brazil

 

Thanks for posting this paper and photo Frank!

[John]

On 3/23/2017 at 5:16 AM, Troodon said:

In the end we can speculate all we want and its good, lots of great discussion but will eventually have to rely on what we see in research for real facts.  Ibrahim has contributed an article to this publication, currently in press, and possibly we can have some additional clarification on pterosaurs in the Kem Kem.  

 

  Pterosaurs from a fluviatile-deltaic environment: the Kem Kem beds and equivalent sequences of the Continental Intercalaire in Martill D.M, Unwin D.M.and Loveridge R. ,  The Pterosauria, Cambridge University Press.

 

Not yet published, no date, not cheap $130

 

 

 

 

This makes me nuts. It's now 2017 and this book is still unpublished. It has been years now. I don't think it is ever going to be published.

[John]

On 6/14/2017 at 7:40 AM, Troodon said:

@-Andy-

 

Came across this Maniraptoran claw from the late Cretaceous of Brazil.  Not saying it's the Moroccan one but there are some similarities and may lean in the direction of saying it's dinosaurian

 

 

 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236163403_Maniraptoran_theropod_ungual_from_the_Marilia_Formation_Upper_Cretaceous_Brazil

 

But even this has a clear and distinctive articular surface. The Moroccan things not only don't, they show an obvious broad surface for attachment of soft tissue. I think they are less likely to be dinosaurs than pterosaurs and even Hans Dieter Sues said they are not pterosaurs. Google some pycnodont pharyngeal teeth and you'll see how much the Moroccan things resemble them. Among other things, we do know there is a pycnodont fauna in the Kem Kem. At least one large species is described in one of the very hard to get Mesozoic Fishes volumes.

[hxmendoza]

I believe the photo Troodon posted much earlier above is a true Pycnodont Pharyngeal tooth as he stated. 

 

But it I think these claw tips in all the other photos are not. I don't think they look anything like that. The pycnodont pharyngeals also don't have that sharp keel on the distal tip as the claws in question do. 

 

I read the paper that Troodon posted, (Maniraptoran theropod ungual from the Marilia Formation, Brazil). It definitely swayed me. I'm now on board with them likely being maniraptoran dinosaur claw tips. 

[Sassy PaleoNerd]

Hey there! I just found this rather old but interesting Thread, and I wondered if I could add something:

 

First off.. What Pterosaurs can we go off in the Kem Kem Beds? I have done skeletal reconstructions of Kem Kem Pterosaurs for a Paper, I know all of them

 

Firstly: Azhdarchids, all currently named Azhdarchids from the Kem Kem are are rather small, Alanqa and Xericeps, there are larger animals which I cant talk about, but Azhdarchids usually have more flattened claws, and none of the Images really resemble it.

 

So, other Options, Ornithocheiraens, Chaoyangopterids have the same Problem as Azhdarchids do, flattened claws. So, there is one logical option to me: Tapejarids.

 

Large Tapejarids are indeed present in Kem Kem, and more material is currently awaiting Description, the animal is really large, and so are Tapejarid claws in comparison to body size, so I'd say that strongly recurved rather Claws are likely to be of a Tapejarid.

 

Notes: I agree that this other material posted in this thread are Pycnodont pharyngeals,  but not the first original images.

 

"Footprints show that at least some species were effectively bipedal" a small nitpick of this thread, these trackways actually show Pterosaurs floating in water moving forwards by pushing themselves off the sediments, all known Pterosaurs are quadrupedal