Very nice! You should add some cambridge greensand specimens there as well. I know theyr fragmentary, but it would be interesting to see how they compare in size. On the side not it might be good if those parts that are reconstructed would be in some gray tone. It would make it immediately obvious which parts are the real specimen and which parts are reconstructed.
I might do something for Cambridge Greensand pterosaurs, now that you mention it. I didn't make the reconstructed parts grey because this was originally a reference study for another work, but I might as well since that is still a way off.
It's been moved around between Ornithocheiroidea and Ctenochasmatoidea since 2002 when Unwin first suggested it was an aberrant ctenochasmatoid. A recent study shows that a good part of the tip of the snout was faked after it was attached to the rest of the specimen upside-down. When all this is taken into account Cearadactylus makes perfect sense as an ornithocheiroid.
This is a truly amazing image set.... I never knew that John Sibbick had a pterosaur named after him, or that some Ornithocheiroids were even bigger than Ornithocheirus itself... where does Criorhynchus fit into this group?
Great stuff! Really helps to illustrate what subtle differences there are between these specimens.
@Paleo-King, the taxonomy of ornithocheirds/anhanguerids is very complicated, and different groups classify them in different ways. This looks like it's based on Unwin's taxonomy, yeah? Kellner would probably place many of these species into Anhanguera rather than Coloborhynchus. This article scratches the surface: [link]
But basically, every combination of genus/species you can imagine among ornithochirids has probably been proposed by somebody within the last decade. Somebody needs to do a solid study on how much of this is species variation, which is related to which, and how much of it represents growth series. Ornithocheirids are in the same state now that pterodactylids were in 30 years ago. A complete mess.
A much as I don't like lumperism under the auspices of ontogenic stages, I really do think that a lot of these specimens represent them. A lot of Coloborhynchus look no different than some species of Anhanguera.... and some are more different from each other than from Anhanguera.
Again, when it comes to these guys the best thing to do is ignore the genus completely, and just compare specimen to specimen, to draw any conclusions. Which ones are Coloborhyuncus/Anhanguera/Criorhynchus/Tropeognathus/Ornithocheirus vary so much from person to person that those names are completely meaningless (aside from labels for their type specimens).
I think what would be essential to solve this whole mess would be extensive morphometric analysis. Inspired by this panoply I yesterday got the dental measurements from Veldmeijers thesis, put them into PAST and ran a principal components and cluster analysis on them. There does seem to be quite interesting clustering between specimens, and indeed several santana specimens referred to Coloborhynchus cluster closer to Colobor holotype than to Anhanguera. More measurements and more specimens and we might someday solve this mess.