Istiodactylus

Skull elements of NHMUK R3877 and R176, with Hooley's 1913 long-jawed skull reconstruction

In 1993, the British palaeontologists Stafford C. Howse and Andrew C. Milner concluded that the holotype sacrum and only specimen of O. cluniculus did not belong to a pterosaur, but to a maniraptoran dinosaur (this conclusion had also been reached independently by the British palaeontologist Christopher Bennett). They pointed out that no detailed attempts had been made to compare the sacrum of O. cluniculus with those of pterosaurs, and that O. latidens had in effect been treated as the type species of the genus Ornithodesmus, with one writer even treating the original species as a synonym of the newer. As a definite species of pterosaurs, "O." latidens therefore required a new genus name.[5] In 2001, Howse, Milner, and David Martill moved "O." latidens to the new genus Istiodactylus; the name is derived from Greek istion, "sail" and daktylos, "finger", referring to the wings of large pterosaurs. They also named the new family Istiodactylidae, with Istiodactylus as the sole member.[2]

Additional Istiodactylus specimens were later found on the Isle of Wight, including IWCMS 2003.40, a dentary fragment that may belong to a juvenile, and isolated teeth found through screen washing from 2002 and onwards. During the early 21st century, new types of istiodactylids were reported from China.[10][11] In 2006, Brian Andres and Ji Qiang named a second species of Istiodactylus, I. sinensis, from the Jiufotang Formation of China (from Greek sino, pertaining to China), based on a partial skeleton. They found it very similar to I. latidens, though much smaller, with a wingspan of 2.7 metres (8.9 ft), and more teeth.[12] In 2006, Lü Junchang and colleagues concluded that I. sinensis was a junior synonym of the istiodactylid Nurhachius ignaciobritoi from the same formation.[13] In 2008, Lü and colleagues instead found Longchengpterus zhaoi to be the sister species of I. sinensis, and suggested that these two may belong to the same species.[14]

Snout of NHMUK R3877 highlighting crushing and displacement of bone (above), and the missing jaw fragment rediscovered by Witton (below)

In 2012, the British palaeontologist Mark P. Witton reported the "rediscovery" of a jaw-piece that belonged to specimen NHMUK R3877, found while he was visiting the museum to photograph the skull. The piece had been neglected in a drawer for a century, perhaps removed shortly after Hooley's 1913 article, and had apparently not been fully prepared until decades later. Though Hooley included an illustration of the piece, it was not incorporated into his reconstruction of the skull, and the skull length he proposed had consequently been repeated by other researchers. Witton attempted to fit the skull together to see if the rediscovered piece would be a bridging element, and sought confirmation from other pterosaur researchers at the museum. He concluded that the jaw-piece represented almost the entire missing portion of the skull (which might only be missing millimetres), and suggested that the skull would have been much shorter than previously assumed, making I. latidens very distinct from other istiodactylids.[7][9][15]

Witton's updated skull reconstruction was different enough from the skull of I. sinensis for him to conclude they did not belong in the same genus, but he advised against placing I. sinensis in its own genus. Witton pointed out that the two Istiodactylus species had been grouped with Liaoxipterus brachyognathus in previous studies, and that I. sinensis may instead have been a species in the genus Liaoxipterus, or even the same species, since they were found in the same formation and had few differences. He provisionally retained the existing taxonomy, awaiting further investigation of the issue. Witton stated that Istiodactylus specimen NHMUK R3877 remains the most well-preserved istiodactylid skeleton, and that some details of the group's anatomy are known only from it.[7][9] In 2022, the Chinese palaeontologist Yizhi Xu and colleagues stated that the difference between Liaoxipterus and both species of Istiodactylus was limited, and that their interrelationship warranted further study.[16]

Howse and colleagues suggested in 2001 that the now missing holotype jaws of I. latidens may be specimen CAMMZ T706, which was recognised in 1982 by the English palaeontologist Jenny A. Clack, but had no documented history prior to the mid-1960s.[2] In 2021, the Russian palaeontologist Alexander O. Averianov and colleagues suggested that the front ends of an istiodactylid snout and mandible at the Vernadsky State Geological Museum in Moscow, specimen SGM 1810–01, could also be the missing holotype, since analysis of pollen from its matrix showed that it likely came from the Vectis Formation, where I. latidens has been found. It may have entered the Russian collection when a curator of this museum, the Russian geologist Alexey Pavlov and his wife the Ukrainian paleontologist Maria V. Pavlova, visited England in 1888 for the Geological Congress, and again in 1891, possibly acquiring the specimen then. Averianov and colleagues performed CT scans on the specimen, revealing its anatomical details.[17]

Restoration of a group feeding on a stegosaur carcass in a shallow riverbed, by Witton, 2012

Based on his 1913 long-jawed reconstruction, Hooley found the beak of Istiodactylus similar to those of birds such as herons, storks, and skimmers, and suggested that Istiodactylus fed on fish, occasionally dipping in water in pursuit of prey. In 1991, the German palaeontologist Peter Wellnhofer compared the front ends of the jaws of Istiodactylus with those of a duck, while noting it was not a "duck-billed pterosaur" (as it has been popularly called), due to its strong teeth. He suggested that the alternately meshing teeth and the broad snout indicated a fish-eating animal.[18] Howse and colleagues found that the distinctive teeth indicated a specialised diet or feeding technique, and instead suggested they could have been used to remove chunks of meat from prey or a carcass in the manner of a "cookie cutter" or by biting and twisting the skull. They also pointed out that the animal was known from continental beds, and may therefore have been a scavenger similar to vultures or marabou storks.[2] In 2010, Attila Ősi agreed that Istiodactylus was able to cut meat in this way, but added that it would not have been able to process food with precisely occluding teeth.[29]

In 2012, Witton pointed out that the teeth of Istiodactylus were unlike the enlarged and recurved teeth in pterosaurs such as rhamphorhynchines and ornithocheirids, which were ideal for obtaining slippery prey. Instead, the "razor-edged" teeth would be better suited for shearing food than for grabbing fish. Witton also discussed an unpublished Ph.D. thesis by the German palaeontologist Michael Fastnacht, wherein biomechanical calculations predicted that Istiodactylus filter-fed in a manner similar to ducks. Witton found that Fastnacht had reconstructed the skull incorrectly, for example by making the rostrum too broad and the jaws too long, resulting in a misleading similarity to the skull of a duck. Pointing out that the jaws were dissimilar to the broad, flattened, and spatulate bills of ducks, and that the teeth were not suited for filter-feeding, he dismissed the idea of a duck-like lifestyle for Istiodactylus.[7]

Witton elaborated in 2012 and 2013 on the idea that Istiodactylus was a scavenger. Scavenging birds have a mosaic of strong and weak elements in their skulls; they do not have to struggle with their prey, but need to be able to tear and pull morsels from cadavers. These birds also have relatively small eyes compared to predatory birds, as they do not need to search for hiding animals, or to make carefully judged attacks on their prey. Istiodactylus appears to have had large jaw muscles, and therefore a strong bite, and the skull was deep, which would have helped resist bending when pulling flesh. Individual bones of the skull were instead slender and shallow, and the toothrows were short, which indicates Istiodactylus did not have the necessary reinforcements for predation, and did not have to subdue struggling prey. Together, these features indicate Istiodactylus fed on large prey that necessitated strong jaws for processing, yet was also motionless enough so that strain on the jaws and skull could be controlled during feeding. The eyes of Istiodactylus also seem to have been proportionally small, compared to pterosaurs that are presumed to have been predatory (such as ornithocheirids). Witton concluded that among pterosaurs, Istiodactylus appears to have been the best-adapted for a scavenging lifestyle. He envisioned that istiodactylids would have to step back from a carcass if more powerful carnivores were attracted to it, but would return to finish the remains when those animals were satiated.[7][9]

Dietary guilds of modern reptiles based on dental microwear texture (above), and pterosaur dental microwear (d is Istiodactylus)

Texture-dietary space for modern reptiles and pterosaurs (△ is Istiodactylus)

In 2014, Martill suggested that the odontoid at the tip of the lower jaw of Istiodactylus served to fill the space where no tooth was present. This completed an arc-like bite that would have been necessary to sever morsels that would otherwise remain attached by a thread. Martill stated that few other animals are known with teeth similar to those of Istiodactylus, but pointed out the similarity to various types of sharks and reptiles, including the cookiecutter shark, which takes circular bites from fish as well as prey much larger than itself (including whales). Istiodactylus may also have taken circular bites from prey larger than itself (such as dinosaurs and crocodiles), but perhaps also from fish, for example by snapping at their backs near the water surface.[21]

Martill stated that there were many differences between the skull of Istiodactylus and extant scavengers, such as the lack of a sharp, pointed beak, which could have made it less capable of tearing flesh, but the long neck may have provided enough pulling power, and the claws on the fingers may have been used to manipulate carcasses. Martill agreed that Istiodactylus was most likely a scavenger that would have used its robust teeth to scrape meat from bones, as indicated by wear-facets on the tooth-tips (he proposed that scratch-marks should be looked for on dinosaur bones). He also suggested that if they were scraping away the last flesh from a carcass, like marabou storks, they would have been in the back of the queue for access to it.[21] In 2020, Jordan Bestwick and colleagues found that Istiodactylus was an obligate consumer of vertebrate animals, probably a carnivore, since it plotted closest to carnivorous reptiles in an analysis of dental microwear texture.[30]

Disarticulated wrist bones, as shown by Hankin and Watson, 1914

Wing elements of Istiodactylus were used to model pterosaur wing-mechanics by Ernest H. Hankin and David M. S. Watson in 1914, and by Cherrie D. Bramwell and George R. Whitfield in 1974, but the details of istiodactylid flight performance have not been studied.[31][32][9] Witton suggested that istiodactylids would have been powerful fliers, due to an enlarged area for downstroke musculature attachments and well-developed pectoral and upper arm bones, and they probably spent much time in the air. Istiodactylids had wing-membranes connected to shortened bodies with short legs and long forelimbs, which may have created large wings with a high aspect ratio and low wing loadings. The wings of the istiodactylid Nurhachius have been compared to those of modern soaring birds (that fly with little flapping), and may have been ideal for low-energy soaring, which is necessary when searching for carrion. Flight is very important to birds that scavenge, as it helps them locate, reach, and eat carcasses before they are found by terrestrial carnivores. The wings of istiodactylids seem to have been shorter than those of other ornithocheiroids, which may have been more adapted to oceanic soaring; their wings may have been more suited for taking off and landing. Modern birds that soar inland have shorter and deeper wings than those that soar over the ocean; the wing shape of istiodactylids indicate that they may have preferred terrestrial settings.[7][9]

Illustrations of wing-bones such as parts of a humerus, ulna, radius, and carpals (left), as well as the occiput, notarium, a neck vertebra, and a shoulder blade (right), by Woodward, 1913

Witton also found that due to their relatively slighter flight-musculature, istiodactylids were adapted to launching from the ground like vultures, rather than from water like other ornithocheiroids. He also considered the fact that istiodactylid fossils are mainly found in sedimentary deposits that represent freshwater or brackish water, which received much terrestrial input, evidence that supports the idea of them scavenging in terrestrial settings. Witton found it unlikely that istiodactylids and their relatives were especially proficient on the ground, due to their disproportionate limbs and small appendages, though they may have had relatively large thigh muscles. He also found the feet too small in relation to their body size to have been used for climbing or suspension, as had previously been suggested.[7][9]