Origin of the evil, demonic Quetzalcoatlus revealed

As I said... memories... I read that book (in German of course) twice, when I was maybe 7 and maybe 10 years old. Formative experience.

and a translation of Quetzalcoatlus as 'Dragon-head support'. WTF???

babelfish.altavista.com already existed in 2000.

Spooky - my first and second dinosaur books were the same (and in the same order) as yours. Maybe that's all that was kicking around in southern UK in the 70s?

I absolutely loved The Evolution and Ecology of the Dinosaurs and the illustrations still take me back to that childhood state of fascination and wonder. My favourite picture was the Allosaurus / Ceratosaurus (was that based on a proposed mount for the AMNH, or some such?), but the image of a herd of Iguanodons charging over a cliff left an indelible impression as well.

When my kids were young I found a pristine copy of the Ladybird book in a charity shop - what a pleasure it was bringing that home!

I also got a copy of the Evolution and Ecology of the Dinosaurs when it came out. I guess I was 10 or 11 years old.

I know this purple Quetzalcoatlus quite well, it was in one of my very first dinosaur books. I can´t remember the name of the book at the moment and don´t have it here to look for it. I really liked this book, and some time ago when I took again a look at it, I found that I still like it, despite the many errors.
I still remember that I found the reconstruction of Quetzalcoatlus in this book always quite strange, especially because it had such unusual wing membranes. There are also two quite bloodthirsty depictions of Carnosaurs mutilating carcasses in the book, what´s really somewhat surprising given the fact that it was a childen book.

That's no pterosaur - it's clearly a Specworld manta ray that evolved hand-like bits on its cephalic fins as sense organs or something, and a "false head" on the end of its tail to confuse predators - compare http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/science/mantacatalog.html ...

I agree with shiva! That's what the first illustration looks like to me. Also, it looks a bit 19th century.

You picked a very refreshing topic, Darren. More of it, please!

> Halstead's book and Giovanni's art inspired me a great deal: The
> Evolution and Ecology of the Dinosaurs was something like the
> second dinosaur book I ever owned

> As I said... memories... I read that book (in German of course)
> twice, when I was maybe 7 and maybe 10 years old. Formative
> experience.

> Spooky - my first and second dinosaur books were the same (and in
> the same order) as yours...I absolutely loved The Evolution and
> Ecology of the Dinosaurs

I back this. The German version, called "Die Welt der Dinosaurier" (The World of Dinosaurs), was my first Dinosaur book, too, a christmas gift in, maybe, 1977? I loved it to death, but what remains of this book still leads a quiet life on my parents attic.
With the benefit of hindsight, one might shake one's head over the flipper-armed *Compsognathus corallestris*,*Ornithosuchus*, the Karnian Karnosaur, or illustration that suggested rauisuchians to be the ancestors of prosauropods, but, by mid-seventies standards and for a book largely aimed at children, it was quite up to date and captured the spirit of the dinosaur renaissance really well.

Please forgive a brief off-topic observation: as of this moment, TetZoo has 3 of the 5 "Readers' Picks" articles on ScienceBlogs. They like you, they really like you, Darren!

Thanks to all for comments, much appreciated. In agreement with Johannes (comment 8): yes, what makes Halstead (1975) particularly interesting is that it was - pretty much - a 'cutting edge' book for its time. All of those things you mention were brand-new and exciting in 1975, and very much reflect the proposals of the time. Alan Charig had only just proposed that rauisuchians (sensu lato) may indeed be ancestral to prosauropods, for example, and Compsognathus corallestris, Longisquama, Sordes, 'Podopteryx' and the 'fighting dinosaurs' were all very new. Many of the illustrations were clearly based on images that had recently appeared in the technical literature, like the Galtonesque running hadrosaur, hypsilophodont and head-butting pachycephalosaurs, the Kuhn-Schnyder-inspired askeptosaur (though swimming instead of basking) and the Newman-style standing tyrannosaur.

My favourite Quetzalcoatlus is John Sibbick's excellent illustration in Wellhofer's equally excellent The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pterosaurs. The main illustration shows three Quetzalcoatlus soaring over a canyon through which a small herd of sauropods are walking along a dried-up stream bed. On the same page is a small photo of an excavation and a size comparison graphic (with a human) plus a map and time chart. The previous page has an image of the upper bone. It also has a photo comparing a large Quetzalcoatlus with that of what it says is a smaller Quetzalcoatlussp. as yet unnamed (p141), although the texts suggest the bone might be from a juvenile.

Forgot to mention that there are two images of feeding Quetzalcoatlus too, one as a scavenger on a large dinosaur carcass a la Michel but less demonic by half. Also photos of a cervical vertebra and the front of the jaws from the small Quetzalcoatlus.

Sordes- sounds like the Spotter's Guide to Dinosaurs illustrations to me- there were several impressively bloodthirsty illustrations, and some wonderfully lurid colour schemes- purple Kritosaurus, Palaeoscincus in red and blue, and a bright green Spinosaurus. What most disappointed me about the book was that there weren't any circles to tick when you'd seen the dinosaurs in a museum.

Stu of the Peak- sadly for everyone influenced by the John Sibbick illustration that set of small jaws isn't from Quetzalcoatlus after all.

Yup, John Sibbick's Quetzalcoatlus was drawn with the jaw tips of another, unnamed, azhdarchid from the Javelina Formation. You can read all about it here. It's definitely one of John's better pterosaur images from the Wellnhofer pterosaur encyclopaedia, but, like all the pterosaurs it still bears arms that are far too skinny. And I don't just mean that they're undermuscled, but the arm bones wouldn't fit inside them (more on this and the rest of the book featuring these illustrations here.

As for Caselli's image, it looks like something must've been known of Quetzalcoatlus anatomy when he drew it: the proportions of the forelimb bones look very azhdarchoid-like and, seeing as this configuration was unknown in other pterosaurs in the 1970s, this information was almost certainly derived from Quetz. itself. This means that the long neck may have been based on the Quetz. material too, though this could've been borrowed from ctenochasmatoids.

One I just remembered from those hazy early 80's, was William Stout's pic of a Quetzalcoatlus in The Dinosaurs. Evil-looking and emaciated! Tried to find a scan via google but no luck. :-(
I did see that the classic Madstoia versus Laplatasaurus (sic?) battle is up on SVOW though!

*Ornithosuchus*, the Karnian Karnosaur

LOL! So true, so true...

... and a translation of Quetzalcoatlus as 'Dragon-head support'. WTF???

I'd bet that this "translation" was the result of an editor's question about the illustration that somehow was misinterpreted as a correction and found its way into print.

It wouldn't be the first time a comment got into the final copy: http://www.snopes.com/business/names/wgasa.asp ...

The Evolution and Ecology of the Dinosaurs (in Swedish translation) was one of the first dino books I read too. I should, for old times sake, take a look at it next time I visit my parents. (It's my great fortune that my father's something of a bibliophile, with a personal library of thousands of volumes covering a great many subjects. I don't think, however, he's bought any dino books since the '80s, so that section is unchanged since my childhood.)

One of the earliest dino books I've read was the Portuguese translation of Prehistoric Animals, by Barry Cox (English original: Knowledge Through Color collection; in Brazil Prisma collection). The first I remember was a Brazilian translation of a kind of "Children's Book of Dinosaurs" or "Golden Book of Dinosaurs", or some title like it. Iguanodon was dark-green and has a dorsal crest of small plates from tail to neck.

I'm obviously ancient in this crowd, but I'm realizing that, although I remember having several dinosaur books as a kid (it's how I learned to read), the imagery I most remember was from Dell and Gold Key's Turok, Son of Stone!

>One I just remembered from those hazy early 80's, was William Stout's pic of a Quetzalcoatlus in The Dinosaurs.
>Evil-looking and emaciated! Tried to find a scan via google but no luck. :-(

Here's a photo of "The Shadow" from my copy of The Dinosaurs. http://www.flickr.com/photos/cryptonaut/4659675195/in/set-7215762414718…

It's not the sharpest photo ever, but you can still see Stout's Quetzalcoatlus in all its skeletal glory. Bone structure is heavily emphasized in most of the illustrations in this book, but here Stout turns it up to eleven!

Kwetsal? uh uh. Ketsal - as in the bird: Quetzal. In Spanish, IIRC, it's a "K" sound, now a "KW" as in English.

Just one more thing wrong with that last pic.

Speaking of Quetzalcoatlus Darren, do you have any comment on the new paper out by Henderson that says that Quetzalcoatlus must have been flightless due to its size? I find the arguement of the paper to be somewhat flawed, because a) if Quetzalcoatlus was a flightless species of pterosaur, why did it keep the insanely long wing finger, b) Henderson seems to be of the persuasion that most pterosaurs were coastal species, and therefore Quetzalcoatlus' inland habits were evidence of its flightlessness, and c) he also uses bird flight sizes as limits to pterosaur flight sizes, combined with the claim that the only reason Pteranodon was able to get so big was because it flew on sea currents.

Kwetsal? uh uh. Ketsal - as in the bird: Quetzal.

Not just that -- they give the pronunciation as "Kwet-sal-co-at-lus". I've been pronouncing it (those few times I've said it aloud) as "Ket-sal-co-at-'l-us" or "Ket-sal-co-a-tl-us" with a Nahuatl "tɬ" sound before the "us".

Dr. Naish, how do you pronounce it?

Regarding Don Henderson's new paper (see comment 23), here is what Mark Witton said in the previous Tet Zoo pterosaur article...

Don's recent work on Quetzalcoatlus, as suggested by Jamie, is based on a very outdated (and, even for that time, poorly reconstructed) Quetz. that has a torso twice as long as it should do. If you scale it appropriately, the adjusted mass hits the same rough area as those of Greg Paul, Mike Habib, Jim Cunnigham and me.

His comment first appeared here. So there we have it. As will be clear from the next Tet Zoo article, I have a vested interest in Don's 3D models, but I'm in agreement with Mark that Don's azhdarchid isn't quite right.

As for the pronunciation of Quetzalcoatlus, people who know how to pronounce quetzal correctly generally get it right (and those who don't, don't): it's something like 'ket-zal-khwhat-lus'. Definitely not 'kwet-zel'.

Jason: Thanks a bunch for the pic! Aah, the evil green eyes of the Q monster!

What looks like the complete lack of muscles or connective tissue on the body or wings is just freaky. Surely the whole point of the attachments on the scapula and lumpy humerus is to be covered in muscle tissue?

Cool pic though! The shadow's size used to freak me out as a kid. "It's bigger than a sauropod!" Cue discussions with parents on forced perspective.

cheers

Ah, interesting; I'd always said ket-zal-coh-wattle-us. It's meant to be four syllables then?

Re: "dragon-head support" - that is REALLY odd.

Huh, it never occurred to me that there's no W in Quetzal. Makes sense. But in any case, I hardly ever pronounce it.

Re the Stout pic, it can't be all forced perspective unless that thing's flying very close to the sun (the shadow's much bigger than the sauropods). That would explain why it looks all crispy, but not why its wings haven't melted yet. Stout must have been a fan of Japanese prints, I can't help thinking.

These books are all after/before my time; my first dino books (Dinosaurs of the Earth and The How and Why Wonder Book...) are from the 60s, and I didn't get back to palaeo until the late 80s (the first dinosaur book I ever bought was Bakker's).

Somewhat unrelated: at the university library a few months ago, I spotted a well-worn copy of "Dragons of the Air." I may have to steal it. I can't IMAGINE that too many people in Anchorage check that book out.

I remember first seeing Quetzalcoatlus in the Dinotopia books. I wonder how much weight they could really carry.

Hey Zach, no need to steal it you can download it here for free
http://www.scribd.com/doc/447977/Dragons-of-the-air-an-account-of-extin…

It's a pretty good copy of a library edition. Enjoy.

For once, I'm glad I re-checked the comments! Thanks, Tamara! That is too cool!

I had that book when little! I had forgotten the title - I wish I had retained it. I used to enjoy reading it and looking at the illustrations.