“Early pterosaurs were bad on land you say?” nah

A recent study concluded that early pterosaurs were arboreal and incapable of moving efficiently on the ground, with derived pterodactyloids being more efficient walkers. This is a traditional view on pterosaur evolution… which ignores a study that has concluded that early pterosaurs were efficient on the ground as well, as well as flat out ignoring a study showing non-pterodactyloid Rhamphichnus trackways (though granted, one study finds them to be non-pterosaurian).

I will say, this study does offer interesting prospects, including that most non-pteranodontian ornithocheiroids* were arboreal, which is a goldmine for paleoart. But I can’t stand seeing so many studies disregarded to arrive at this paper’s conclusion.

*as in, actual ornithocheiroids, and not the Kellner definition as Pteranodontia + Dsungaripteroidea + Azhdarchoidea. Feels so good to use it in the proper context again!

In the end? Maybe early pterosaurs were more arboreal than pterodactyloids on average. But they were no slops on the ground.