An analysis of pterosaurian biogeography: implications for the evolutionary history and fossil record quality of the first flying vertebrates

Abstract

The biogeographical history of pterosaurs has received very little treatment. Here, we present the first quantitative analysis of pterosaurian biogeography based on an event-based parsimony method (Treefitter). This approach was applied to a phylogenetic tree comprising the relationships of 108 in-group pterosaurian taxa, spanning the full range of this clade's stratigraphical and geographical extent. The results indicate that there is no support for the impact of vicariance or coherent dispersal on pterosaurian distributions. However, this group does display greatly elevated levels of sympatry. Although sampling biases and taxonomic problems might have artificially elevated the occurrence of sympatry, we argue that our results probably reflect a genuine biogeographical signal. We propose a novel model to explain pterosaurian distributions: pterosaurs underwent a series of ‘sweep-stakes’ dispersal events (across oceanic barriers in most cases), resulting in the founding of sympatric clusters of taxa. Examination of the spatiotemporal distributions of pterosaurian occurrences indicates that their fossil record is extremely patchy. Thus, while there is likely to be genuine information on pterosaurian diversity and biogeographical patterns in the current data-set, caution is required in its interpretation.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [80.195.203.87]
On: 29 July 2014, At: 00:18
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Historical Biology: An International Journal of
Paleobiology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ghbi20
An analysis of pterosaurian biogeography: implications
for the evolutionary history and fossil record quality of
the first flying vertebrates
Paul Upchurcha, Brian Andresb, Richard J. Butlerc & Paul M. Barrettd
a Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E
6BT, UK
b Department of Geology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, SCA528,
Tampa, FL 33630, USA
c School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
d Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7
5BD, UK
Published online: 28 Jul 2014.
To cite this article: Paul Upchurch, Brian Andres, Richard J. Butler & Paul M. Barrett (2014): An analysis of pterosaurian
biogeography: implications for the evolutionary history and fossil record quality of the first flying vertebrates, Historical
Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology, DOI: 10.1080/08912963.2014.939077
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2014.939077
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in
the publications on our platform. Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Versions
of published Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles and Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open Select
articles posted to institutional or subject repositories or any other third-party website are without warranty
from Taylor & Francis of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Any opinions and views expressed in this
article are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The
accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor & Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Terms & Conditions of access and
use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
It is essential that you check the license status of any given Open and Open Select article to confirm
conditions of access and use.

An analysis of pterosaurian biogeography: implications for the evolutionary history and fossil
record quality of the first flying vertebrates
Paul Upchurch
a
*, Brian Andres
b
, Richard J. Butler
c
and Paul M. Barrett
d
a
Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
b
Department of Geology, University
of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, SCA528, Tampa, FL 33630, USA;
c
School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences,
University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK;
d
Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
(Received 24 April 2014; accepted 24 June 2014)
The biogeographical history of pterosaurs has received very little treatment. Here, we present the first quantitative analysis
of pterosaurian biogeography based on an event-based parsimony method (Treefitter). This approach was applied to a
phylogenetic tree comprising the relationships of 108 in-group pterosaurian taxa, spanning the full range of this clade’s
stratigraphical and geographical extent. The results indicate that there is no support for the impact of vicariance or coherent
dispersal on pterosaurian distributions. However, this group does display greatly elevated levels of sympatry. Although
sampling biases and taxonomic problems might have artificially elevated the occurrence of sympatry, we argue that our
results probably reflect a genuine biogeographical signal. We propose a novel model to explain pterosaurian distributions:
pterosaurs underwent a series of ‘sweep-stakes’ dispersal events (across oceanic barriers in most cases), resulting in the
founding of sympatric clusters of taxa. Examination of the spatiotemporal distributions of pterosaurian occurrences
indicates that their fossil record is extremely patchy. Thus, while there is likely to be genuine information on pterosaurian
diversity and biogeographical patterns in the current data-set, caution is required in its interpretation.
Keywords: dispersal; diversity; pterosaur; sympatry; Treefitter; vicariance
1. Introduction
After their origin in the Middle or Late Triassic, pterosaurs
acquired a virtually global distribution and their remains
are now known from every continent, including Antarctica
(Barrett et al. 2008; see Fossilworks and The Paleobiology
Database). As with dinosaurs and many other clades,
pterosaurian evolution took place against a backdrop of
profound changes in palaeogeography driven by the
fragmentation of Pangaea, major fluctuations in sea level
and shifts in climatic zones. It is therefore surprising that
there has been very little detailed study of pterosaurian
biogeographical history (though see Unwin 1996; Wang
et al. 2005,2007,2012). This neglect may reflect the
intense focus on the flight mechanics of these organisms,
and/or the implicit assumption that the geographical
distributions of flying organisms are affected more by
specific ecological requirements rather than large-scale
vicariance and coherent dispersal patterns. In this paper,
we present the first detailed analytical study of
pterosaurian biogeographical history. First, we provide
an overview of the pterosaurian fossil record, summarising
where and when particular clades are represented and
adding further information based on ghost ranges. Second,
we briefly review the small number of previous studies that
have proposed hypotheses to account for aspects of the
spatiotemporal distributions of pterosaurs. Third, we test
these and other hypotheses by applying a cladistic
biogeographical analysis using Treefitter 1.2b (Ronquist
1998; Sanmartin and Ronquist 2004), to a recent
phylogeny for pterosaurs (Andres et al. 2014) termed
here the ‘reference phylogeny’ (Figures 1 and 2), in order
to determine whether there is any statistical support for
particular distribution patterns. Such analyses also enable
an assessment of the relative importance of processes such
as vicariance, dispersal, extinction and sympatric specia-
tion in pterosaurian evolution. Finally, we end with a brief
discussion of the quality of the pterosaurian fossil record
and future requirements and prospects for further work on
the biogeographical history of this clade.
2. Pterosaurian distributions through space and time
Below, we use the atlas of pterosaurian distributions by
Barrett et al. (2008) (with revisions based on The
Paleobiology Database (http://paleobiodb.org/#/), Fossil-
works (http://fossilworks.org/) and Brian Andres, pers.
obs.) to generate an overview of this group’s spatiotem-
poral distribution (Figures 3– 7,Table 1). This review
provides a framework for the analyses that follow and also
raises several issues that we believe should be addressed
by future studies. The reader should note that there are
some inconsistencies between the various classifications of
q2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis
This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered,
transformed, or built upon in any way, is permitted. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.
*Corresponding author. Email: p.upchurch@ucl.ac.uk
Historical Biology, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2014.939077
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

pterosaurs applied by Barrett et al. (2008)andin
Fossilworks and The Paleobiology Database and the
reference phylogeny (Figures 1 and 2) employed here in
the Treefitter analyses. Here, we have employed
pterosaurian group names and taxonomic contents that
are consistent with the phylogeny presented by Andres
et al. (2014).
2.1 Middle and Late Triassic
The sister taxon to Pterosauria within Ornithodira, the
Dinosauromorpha, has its earliest known body fossils in
deposits of Anisian age (Nesbitt et al. 2010,2013), and
trackways suggest that this clade dates back to the early
Olenekian (Brusatte et al. 2011)(Figure 3). This implies
that the pterosaurian lineage was also present in the Middle
Triassic, although the oldest body fossils of this clade are
Carnian in age (see below). Previous phylogenetic analyses
of basal pterosaurs imply the existence of at least three
lineages during the Late Triassic (Andres et al. 2010) and as
many as seven (Kellner 2003; Wang et al. 2008); however,
the reference phylogeny used here (Figure 1) supports the
existence of only one major ghost range during this interval.
Minimally, body fossils and ghost ranges indicate that
members of both the Macronychoptera and Eopterosauria
were present as early as the Carnian (Figure 1), although no
Triassic fossils belonging to the former clade have been
found to date. Thus, pterosaurs almost certainly had a pre-
Carnian origin. The first pterosaurian remains are known
from strata of probable late Carnian – early Norian age in
North America and include material assigned to Eudimor-
phodon (Murry 1986; Lucas and Luo 1993; Andres 2006;
Figure 3,Table 1). Other pterosaurian remains have been
reported from Carnian and Norian sediments in this region,
but these specimens are indeterminate (e.g. Hunt and Lucas
1993) and cannot be confirmed as pterosaurs (Andres
Figure 1. The pterosaur relationships and stratigraphical/geographical ranges used in the ‘all taxa’ Treefitter data-set. This tree is based
on the cladogram presented by Andres et al. (2014) and shows the more basal portion in detail (Eupterodactyloidea has been condensed to
a single branch – see Figure 2). The thick branches represent known stratigraphical ranges (based on data in The Paleobiology Database);
thin branches represent estimated ghost ranges and connectors used to demarcate phylogenetic relationships. Time-sliced data-sets were
derived from this tree by appropriate inclusion/exclusion of taxa. Most stratigraphical stage and taxon abbreviations are listed in the
legend of Table 1. Additional abbreviations: CA, Central Asia; CO, Coniacian; EA, East Asia; Eop, Eopterosauria; EU, Europe; Euc,
Euctenochasmatia; KI, Kimmeridgian; NA, North America; OX, Oxfordian; RH, Rhaetian; SA (after taxon name), South America; SA
(time scale), Santonian; TU, Turonian.
2P. Upchurch et al.
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

2006). Similarly, Bonaparte et al. (2006) reported
pterosaurian remains from the Carnian of Brazil, but the
affinities of this material remain poorly understood and it is
not certain that it represents a true pterosaur (Dalla Vecchia
2013) and it has recently been reinterpreted as a basal
ornithodiran (Soares et al. 2013). The only other
occurrences of pterosaurs in the Late Triassic are records
from the Norian and Rhaetian of Greenland and Europe.
The latter include Preondactylus,Austriadactylus,Cavir-
amus,Raeticodactylus,Peteinosaurus and species of
Eudimorphodon (Wild 1978,1994; Dalla Vecchia 2003a,
2003b,2003c; Fro
¨bisch and Fro
¨bisch 2006; Stecher 2008).
It could be argued that this early fossil record suggests that
pterosaurs originated in northwestern Pangaea (Eura-
merica) during the late Middle Triassic, and this is
supported by the observation that the three-most basal
lineages in Figure 1 (i.e. Eopterosauria, Dimorphodonþ
Parapsicephalus and Campylognathoides) comprise
almost exclusively European taxa and a few remains from
Greenland and North America (Figure 3). However, the
absence of pterosaurs from the rest of the world during the
Late Triassic might merely reflect sampling biases (Butler
et al. 2009). Moreover, given that the earliest dinosaur-
omorphs and basal members of major dinosaurian clades
are typically Gondwanan (e.g. Langer 2004; Nesbitt et al.
2010,2013), there must be considerable uncertainty about
the true geographical range of the pre-Carnian pterosaurian
lineage and the extent to which the ornithodiran clade as a
whole had achieved a global distribution prior to the
dinosauromorph – pterosaur split.
2.2 Early and Middle Jurassic
Early Jurassic pterosaurian specimens have been reported
from Africa (but not described; Blackbeard and Yates
2007), Antarctica (Hammer and Hickerson 1994), India
(Rao and Shah 1963), Europe (Buckland 1829) and North
America (Padian 1984), although they are currently
Figure 2. The pterosaurian relationships and stratigraphical/geographical ranges used in the ‘all taxa’ Treefitter data-set. This tree is
based on the cladogram presented by Andres et al. (2014) and shows the relationships among Eupterodactyloidea (see Figure 1 for the
more basal part of the cladogram). The thick branches represent known stratigraphical ranges (based on data in The Paleobiology
Database); thin branches represent estimated ghost ranges and connectors used to demarcate phylogenetic relationships. Time-sliced
data-sets were derived from this tree by appropriate inclusion/exclusion of taxa. All abbreviations are listed in the legend of Table 1 and/or
Figure 1.
Historical Biology 3
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

unknown from Central and East Asia (Table 1;Figure 4).
It therefore seems probable that pterosaurs had achieved,
or were on their way to achieving, a virtually global
distribution by the Early Jurassic (Figure 4). During this
epoch, pterosaurs were best represented in Europe where
Campylognathoides and Rhamphorhynchidae appear in
the Toarcian fossil record (Newton 1888; Padian 2008).
Members of the more basal ‘Dimorphodontidae’ (i.e.
Dimorphodon itself and material said to be very similar to
it, although this identification has yet to be confirmed by a
Figure 3. Palaeogeographical map for the Late Triassic (210 Ma) showing the locations of 29 collections of pterosaurian specimens. The
map was generated using software available at Fossilworks (Alroy 2013), with collections data downloaded from The Paleobiology
Database.
Figure 4. Palaeogeographical map for the Early and Middle Jurassic (170 Ma) showing the locations of 88 collections of pterosaurian
specimens. The map was generated using software available at Fossilworks (Alroy 2013), with collections data downloaded from The
Paleobiology Database.
4P. Upchurch et al.
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

detailed study) appear even earlier (Hettangian possibly,
but more probably Sinemurian) and are known from the
palaeogeographically widely separated regions of Europe
(Padian 1983) and Antarctica (Hammer and Hickerson
1994) during this epoch (Table 1). Thus, the Macro-
nychoptera were present by the Hettangian at the latest,
and had diversified into ‘Dimorphodontidae’, Campylog-
nathoides and Rhamphorhynchidae by the Toarcian
(Figure 1). The latter two clades might have originated
in Europe, but their absence from the rest of the world
Figure 5. Palaeogeographical map for the Late Jurassic (150 Ma) showing the locations of 77 collections of pterosaurian specimens. The
map was generated using software available at Fossilworks (Alroy 2013), with collections data downloaded from The Paleobiology
Database.
Figure 6. Palaeogeographical map for the Early Cretaceous (130 Ma) showing the locations of 176 collections of pterosaurian
specimens. The map was generated using software available at Fossilworks (Alroy 2013), with collections data downloaded from The
Paleobiology Database.
Historical Biology 5
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

during the Early Jurassic might reflect a sampling bias
given the general scarcity of pterosaurian remains during
this time interval.
In the Middle Jurassic, pterosaurs are known from
all regions except Antarctica and Australia (Table 1).
Rhamphorhynchids were still present in Europe, and also
appear for the first time in the fossil records of Central
Asia (Nessov 1990; Averianov et al. 2005; Martin et al.
2006), East Asia (He et al. 1983) and South America
(Rauhut et al. 2001; Codorniu
´and Gasparini 2007)
(Table 1). The stratigraphically earliest pterodactyloid had
been reported to be of Callovian age and was collected
from deposits in Central Asia (Andres and Clark 2005;
Clark et al. 2006), but recent recalibrations and the time
scale of Gradstein et al. (2012) have altered the dating of
this specimen to the earliest Late Jurassic within the error
margin of the Middle– Late Jurassic boundary. A
pterodactyloid has been reported from the Daohugou
locality, Inner Mongolia (Ji and Yuan 2002), along with
the earliest anurognathids (Wang et al. 2002) and a
rhamphorhynchid (Czerkas and Ji 2002) now considered a
basal monofenestratan. However, Ji and Yuan (2002)
report a short-tailed pterodactyloid and a long-tailed
rhamphorhynchoid, but only figure a short-tailed anur-
ognathid pterosaur later referred to Jeholopterus ning-
chengensis (Lu
¨2009). It is most likely that this
undescribed pterodactyloid is the figured anurognathid.
The dates of these East Asian deposits are very
controversial and have been identified as Middle Jurassic,
Late Jurassic and/or Early Cretaceous in age (Swisher
et al. 1999; Gao and Ren 2006; Xu and Hu 2009). Here, we
provisionally accept an Oxfordian age suggested by U – Pb
SHRIMP dates reported by Liu et al. (2012) (see also
Sullivan et al. 2014). A Middle Jurassic specimen from
Central Asia has been said to be similar to the
anurognathids (Bakhurina and Unwin 1995; Unwin and
Bakhurina 2000), but it does not preserve apomorphies of
this group (Brian Andres, pers. obs.). Thus, the fossil
record and ghost range reconstructions (Figure 1) suggest
that the Monofenestrata appeared during the Middle
Jurassic (probably prior to the Bathonian) and had
diversified into the Wukongopteridae, Anurognathidae
and Pterodactyloidea by the end of this epoch.
Pterodactyloids and anurognathids might have originated
in East and/or Central Asia, but their absence from the rest
of the world during the Middle Jurassic could also be the
result of poor sampling.
2.3 Late Jurassic
The European anurognathid Anurognathus ammoni is
currently known from the Late Jurassic (Figure 5). This
clade persisted beyond the Jurassic – Cretaceous boundary
and is found in the Early Cretaceous of East Asia (e.g. Gao
et al. 2009; Chang et al. 2014), but at present is not known
from any Gondwanan continent or North America
(Tab l e 1 ) (note that the holotype of Mesadactylus
ornithosphyos from the Late Jurassic of North America
has been suggested to be an anurognathid [Bennett 2007],
but it is not referred to this group here because the sole
Figure 7. Palaeogeographical map for the Late Cretaceous (80 Ma) showing the locations of 182 collections of pterosaurian specimens.
The map was generated using software available at Fossilworks (Alroy 2013), with collections data downloaded from The Paleobiology
Database.
6P. Upchurch et al.
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

Table 1. A summary of the geographical and stratigraphic distributions of pterosaur families and other major clades (based on Barrett et al. 2008 modified by Andres, personal data).
Stage Africa Antarctica Australia Central Asia East Asia Europe India North America South America
Car Eud
Nor Aus, Eud, Pre, Pte, Pti
Rha Pti
Het Dmp, Pti
Sin Dmp Dmp Pti
Pli Pti Pti Pti
Toa Cmp, Dmp, Rhm,
Aal Pti Pti
Baj Rhm Rhm
Bat Pti Pti Anu, Pto, Rhm Pti, Rhm Pti Pti
Cal Rhm Anu Pti, Rhm Pti Rhm
Oxf Anu, Pdi,
Rhm, Sor
Rhm, Wuk Pti Rhm
Kim Ctn, Pdi,
Pti, Ten
Ard, Gal, Ger, Pti,
Ptl, Rhm
Ctn, Pdi, Pti, Rhm
Tth Pti Anu, Ctn, Gal, Ger,
Pdi, Pti, Ptr, Rhm
Pdi
Ber Ctn, Pti Ctn, Dsg, Pti AZH?, Ctn, Lnc,
Orc, Pdi, Pti
Ctn, Dsg
Val Ctn, Orc, Pdi, Pti Orc
Hau Orc Pti Orc, Pti, PTN Pdi
Bar Orc Anu, Ctn, Hao
Orc, Tpj
Isd, Orc, Pdi, Pti, Tpj Anh
Apt AZH, PTN Orc Anh, Chy, Ctn,
Dsg, Isd, Orc,
PTN, Tpj,
Pti, PTN Azh, PTN, Pdi, Pti Anh, AZH, Ctn,
Orc, Pti, Tpj
Alb Orc Orc, Pti, Pdi PTN Anh, Azh, Lnc, Orc, Pti AZH, Azh Anh, Ctn, Orc,
PTN, Pti, Tpj
Cen Anh, Azh,
Orc, Pdi, Tpj
Azh, Orc,
Pdi, PTN
Azh, Pdi Anh, Lnc, Orc, Pti Pti, Ptn AZH
Tur Azh Pdi PTN Pdi
Con AZH, Nyc, Ptn
San Azh, Pti Azh, Pti Azh, Tpj Nyc, Pti, Ptn
Cam Azh, Pti Pdi Azh, PTN Azh, Pdi Azh, Pdi, Pti Azh, Nyc, Pdi, Pti, Ptn Azh
Maa Azh Pdi Azh Azh, Pti Pti Azh, Pti Nyc
Notes: Clade names used here are based on those in the reference cladogram in Figures 1 and 2, and therefore often differ in precise definition or content from those used by Barrett et al. (2008). When there is
uncertainty in the age of the earliest known member of a taxon, it is shown in the oldest possible stage.Stratigraphic stage abbreviations: Aal, Aalenian; Alb, Albian; Apt, Aptian; Baj, Bajocian; Bar,
Barremian; Bat, Bathonian; Ber, Berriasian; Cam, Campanian; Car, Carnian; Can, Cenomanian; Con, Coniacian; Hau, Hauterivian; Het, Hettangian; Kim, Kimmeridgian; Maa, Maastrichtian; Nor, Norian;
Ox, Oxfordian; Pli, Pliensbachian; Rha, Rhaetian; San, Santonian; Sin, Sinemurian; Toa, Toarcian; Tth, Tithonian; Tur, Turonian; Val, Valanginian. Taxonomic abbreviations: Anh, Anhangueridae; Anu,
Anurognathidae; Ard, Ardeadactylus longicollum; Aus, Austriadactylus; Azh, Azhdarchidae; AZH, Azhdarchoidea; Chy, Chaoyangopteridae; Cmp, Campylognathoides; Ctn, Ctenochasmatidae; Dmp,
Dimorphodon and potentially closely related material; Dsg, Dsungaripteridae; Eud, Eudimorphodon; Gal, Gallodactylidae; Ger, Germanodactylidae; Hao, Haopterus; Isd, Istiodactylidae; Lnc,
Lonchodectidae; Nyc, Nyctosauridae; Orc, ‘Ornithocheiridae’ sensu lato; Par, Parapsicephalus; Pdi, indeterminate pterodactyloid remains; Pre, Preondactylus; Pte, Peteinosaurus; Pti, indeterminate
pterosaur remains (includes trackways); Ptn, Pteranodontidae; PTN, Pteranodontoidea; Pto, Pterorhynchus; Ptr, Pterodactylidae; Rhm, Rhamphorhynchidae; Sor, Sordes; Ten; Tendaguripteridae; Tpj,
Tapejaridae sensu lato. Wuk, Wukongopteridae.
Historical Biology 7
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

character used to ally it with this clade [relatively thinner
first sacral ribs] is present in many other pterosaurs [Brian
Andres, pers. obs]). The pterodactyloid clades Ctenochas-
matidae, Gallodactylidae, Germanodactylidae, Pterodac-
tylidae and Tendaguripteridae appear for the first time in
the Kimmeridgian or Tithonian (Table 1), suggesting that
the divergence of the archaeopterodactyloid and eupter-
odactyloid radiations occurred during or before the
Oxfordian (Figure 1). In the Late Jurassic, the pterodacty-
lids, gallodactylids and germanodactylids are only known
from Europe and are considered to be basal archaeopter-
odactyloid clades in the current phylogenetic analysis. The
Tendaguripteridae is known from a single specimen in
Africa and has not been included in any phylogenetic
analysis. The earliest ctenochasmatid pterosaurs have
been found in North America, Europe and Africa in
Kimmeridgian and Tithonian deposits (Wellnhofer 1978;
Bennett 1995,1996a,1996b;Figure 1). A reported Late
Jurassic ctenochasmatid from East Asia, Huanhepterus
quingyangensis (Dong 1982), has since been re-dated as
Early Cretaceous (Wang and Lu
¨2001). By the Early
Cretaceous, this clade was also present in South America
(Martill et al. 2006; see below). Dsungaripterid and
azhdarchid specimens have been reported from the Late
Jurassic of Europe. However, these referrals are based on
character states that are widespread in pterosaurs and there
is more character data that support placement in other
clades (Andres and Ji 2008; Brian Andres, pers. obs.). For
example, the putative Late Jurassic European azhdarchid
material has been shown to belong to the contemporaneous
Ctenochasmatidae by the phylogenetic analysis of Andres
and Ji (2008), and material from Solnhofen recently
identified as azhdarchid by Frey et al. (2011) has since
been referred to the Ctenochasmatidae (Bennett, 2013).
Isolated cervical vertebrae from the Tendaguru Beds of
Tanzania in Africa have also been referred to the
Azhdarchidae (Kellner et al. 2007; Costa et al. 2014).
However, when subjected to phylogenetic analysis, these
vertebrae were placed in the contemporaneous Ctenochas-
matidae, which have similar cervical vertebrae (Andres
and Ji 2008). Fragments from the Upper Jurassic of
Shandong, China, referred to the Dsungaripteridae by
Young (1964), also cannot be confirmed as belonging to
this group (Brian Andres, pers. obs.).
2.4 Early Cretaceous
Isolated teeth from the Berriasian of Morocco have been
proposed as putative early ‘ornithocheirids’, but these
teeth are more similar to those found in the rhamphor-
hynchids Sericipterus and Angustinaripterus (Andres et al.
2010)(Figure 6). Thus, the earliest confirmed ornitho-
cheiroids (derived pterodactyloids including members of
the Pteranodontoidea and Azhdarchoidea [sensu Kellner
2003]) are instead the ‘ornithocheirid’ Coloborhynchus
clavirostris and the dsungaripterid Noripterus parvus
dated to the Berriasian – Valanginian (Figure 2) [note that
Martill et al. (2013) reported a ‘possible azhdarchid’
metacarpal from the Berriasian of the UK, but this
specimen is provisionally regarded as Azhdarchoidea?
indet. here – see Table 1]. These records indicate that the
ornithocheiroids had originated by the earliest Cretaceous
(but probably diverged somewhat earlier in the Late
Jurassic) and that this group had already diversified into
several lineages (e.g. Anhangueridae, Istiodactylidae,
Tapejaridae, Dsungaripteridae and Neoazhdarchia) by
the Valanginian at the latest. Given that body fossils
pertaining to these various ornithocheiroid clades do not
appear until the Barremian (e.g. istiodactylids) or even
later, it seems that the early Early Cretaceous fossil record
of pterosaurs is particularly poor, in contrast to the rich
Lagersta
¨tten from China and Brazil of late Barremian –
Aptian and Albian age, respectively (see below). The
ornithocheiroid clade seems to have achieved a virtually
global distribution (Africa, Europe, South America, East
Asia and Central Asia) by the Barremian or Aptian, and it
even provides a rare pterosaurian record from the Albian
of Australia (Molnar and Thulborn 1980;Table 1). If this
widespread distribution of ornithocheiroid clades evolved
during the Early Cretaceous, this would have required
dispersal across several marine barriers [e.g. the proto-
North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean corridor, Pacific
Ocean and/or Turgai sea; see Smith et al. (1994) and
Scotese (2004) for palaeogeographical reconstructions].
Lonchodectid pterosaurs represent a minor radiation
that was apparently restricted to the Early Cretaceous
(Berriasian– Cenomanian) of Europe. This clade has also
been tentatively identified in the Albian of Australia
(Molnar and Thulborn 2007), but more recently this
material has been provisionally regarded as closely related
to, but not a member of, the Anhangueridae (Kellner et al.
2011)(Table 1).
2.5 Late Cretaceous
From the Cenomanian to the Maastrichtian, pterosaurs
maintained a global distribution, but their diversity was
apparently somewhat lower (Butler et al. 2009,2012,
2013)(Figure 7). This reduced Late Cretaceous diversity
partially reflects the putative extinction of several clades
(e.g. anhanguerids, ctenochasmatids, istiodactylids and
lonchodectids) by the end of the Cenomanian (Table 1).
Thus, pterosaurs might have been affected by the spatially
and temporally staggered series of turnover events in
the mid-Cretaceous noted by Benson et al. (2013) that
transformed Late Cretaceous dinosaurian, crocodyliform,
mammalian and lepidosaurian faunas. As a result, Late
Cretaceous pterosaurian faunas are almost exclusively
8P. Upchurch et al.
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

composed of members of the Pteranodontidae, Nyctosaur-
idae and Azhdarchidae. This apparent pattern of mid-
Cretaceous faunal turnover among pterosaurian groups
might reflect clade – clade interactions between pterosaurs
and birds, especially as members of the latter clade
diversified to occupy many small and medium body-size
niches (Benson et al. 2014). However, the comparative
scarcity of Late Cretaceous Lagersta
¨tten for these groups
(Butler et al. 2009; Brocklehurst et al. 2012) means that
apparent decreases in pterosaurian diversity, occurring just
after the rich Aptian and Albian faunas of China and
Brazil, should be treated with caution. While it seems
highly probable that a decrease in pterosaurian diversity
during the Late Cretaceous is a real phenomenon (Butler
et al. 2009,2012,2013), the precise timing and rate of
extinction events have probably been distorted by uneven
sampling.
At present, confirmed pteranodontids are only known
from the Late Cretaceous of North America. Nyctosaurids
are similarly restricted, although one species also occurs in
South America (Price 1953;Table 1). In contrast, although
their diversity is low, azhdarchids were globally
distributed in the latest Cretaceous, occurring in Africa,
Central and East Asia, Europe and North America, and
have just been reported for the first time from South
America (Novas et al. 2012).
3. Previous studies of pterosaurian biogeography
Very little attention has been paid to the biogeographical
history of pterosaurs, and consequently, there are few
explanatory hypotheses in the literature pertaining to their
observed distribution in the fossil record. Below, we
briefly summarise the biogeographical hypotheses pro-
posed by such studies of pterosaurs, and some relevant
ideas derived from work on other Mesozoic groups such as
dinosaurs. These hypotheses are examined in the light of
our current knowledge of pterosaurian phylogenetic
relationships and the quality of this group’s fossil record.
Unwin (1996, p. 300) stated that ‘ ...it is not until the
Middle Jurassic ...that pterosaurs are known from
virtually all major land masses’. Discoveries during the
past 15 years have substantially broadened the Early
Jurassic distribution of pterosaurs (see above, Table 1).
It seems probable that pterosaurs were more widespread
in the Early Jurassic than previously realised, but they
might not have been truly globally distributed and
abundant until the Middle Jurassic (Barrett et al. 2008).
Several authors have suggested that Central and East
Asia were geographically isolated from the rest of Pangaea
by the epicontinental Turgai sea during the Middle and
Late Jurassic (Russell 1993; Upchurch et al. 2002; Wilson
and Upchurch 2009), and it is also possible that the
Mongol– Okhotsk Sea between Siberia– Kazakhstan and
Mongolia– China produced an additional barrier between
Central and East Asia (Upchurch 1995). The first
pterodactyloids were present in Central Asia but were
apparently absent from Europe – a pattern that is
consistent with the East Asian isolation model. However,
if the Turgai and/or Mongol – Okhotsk seas prevented the
dispersal of early pterodactyloids to regions outside of
Central Asia, then we would have to explain why these
barriers did not prevent the apparent dispersal of
rhamphorhynchids from Europe to Central Asia at this
time. One possibility is that the Pterodactyloidea
originated as an exclusively terrestrial group, unlike
rhamphorhynchids that are found in both marine and
terrestrial settings (Lu
¨et al. 2010). To date, only one
quantitative analysis of environmental preferences among
pterosaurian clades has been attempted (Andres et al.
2014): this found evidence for a preference for terrestrial
environments among pterodactyloids. As with many other
palaeobiogeographical scenarios, it is difficult to deter-
mine to what extent the absence of European Middle
Jurassic pterodactyloids reflects poor sampling versus
genuine absence. European Middle Jurassic sediments
have produced other pterosaurs such as rhamphorhynch-
ids, but these specimens are very fragmentary: it is
therefore possible that pterodactyloid material has either
not been recovered or has not been recognised because of
its highly incomplete preservation. Thus, although it is
conceivable that geographical isolation of parts of Asia
played a role in the origin of an initially endemic
pterodactyloid clade, it would be premature to rule out the
possibility that pterodactyloids were actually widespread
at this time but have their true distribution obscured by
very poor sampling.
Confirmed istiodactylid ornithocheiroids are only
known from Europe (Barremian) and eastern Asia
(Aptian). Such a distribution is consistent with the Aptian
geodispersal event proposed by Russell (1993), Norman
(1998) and Upchurch et al. (2002) in which several
dinosaur lineages and other terrestrial taxa apparently
dispersed from Europe to Asia (or vice versa) as a result of
a land bridge across the Turgai sea produced by marine
regression (see also Barrett et al. 2002; Wilson and
Upchurch 2009). It should be noted that Istiodactylus
latidens from Europe is not only the earliest of the known
istiodactylids but also one of the most derived (Figure 2).
Thus, while the phylogenetic relationships are consistent
with dispersal from East Asia to Europe, this is not well
supported stratigraphically. Istiodactylus is not the only
pterosaur to have been implicated in a possible
geodispersal event between Europe and East Asia during
the Early Cretaceous. Wang et al. (2005, p. 877) noted that
Feilongus and Nurhachius, from the Jehol Group, were
most closely related to European taxa, and suggested that
this supported hypotheses of faunal exchange between
Asia and Europe during the Early Cretaceous. Although
Historical Biology 9
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

the relationships of these taxa are different in Figure 1, and
their closest relatives are also from East Asia, Feilongus
and Nurhachius still cluster with European taxa. This
biogeographical scenario was reinforced by Wang and
Zhou (2006) and Wang et al. (2007) who argued that
representatives of the clades Anurognathidae, Rhamphor-
hynchidae, Gallodactylidae, Ornithocheiridae, Pterodacty-
lidae and Ctenochasmatidae were present in the Late
Jurassic of Europe but absent from Asia until the Early
Cretaceous. These authors inferred one or more dispersal
events from Europe to East Asia, during the Early
Cretaceous, as a result of the disappearance of geographical
barriers. However, Wang et al. (2005, p. 877), citing Zhou
et al. (2003), also cautioned that other Jehol pterosaurs
appear to be most closely related to Brazilian taxa, and that
the ‘ . ..palaeobiogeographic history of the Jehol biota is
very complex’.
Wang and Zhou (2006) proposed that western Liaoning
was the centre of origin for the clades Anhangueridae and
Tapejaridae, based on the observation that the oldest known
members of these clades are from this area. Subsequently,
Wang et al. (2008) suggested that Asia might represent a
centre of origin for derived ornithocheiroid pterosaurs, based
on the description of the Jehol taxon Nemicolopterus
(considered by them to be the sister taxon to Ornithocheir-
oidea, but here recovered as a tapejarid; Figure 2). Wang et al.
(2012)proposedthatGuidraco from China and Ludodacty-
lus from Brazil are sister taxa and therefore argued for close
biogeographical links between these two areas in the
Aptian– Albian (although they also cautioned against too
literal an interpretation of the pterosaurian fossil record
because of its incompleteness). Collectively, the recent
spectacular discoveries of pterosaurs from the Jehol Group
have helpedto generate the following palaeobiogeographical
scenario: (1) an influx of older lineages (e.g. anurognathids
and ctenochasmatids) from Europe to East Asia during the
Barremian– Aptian (as seen in the Yixian Formation), (2) the
origin of new groups such as tapejarids and advanced
pteranodontoids in East Asia in the Aptian–Albian (e.g.
in the Jiufotang Formation) and (3) dispersal of these new
groups to South America in the Albian (e.g. Wang and Zhou
2003;Wangetal.2005,2007,2012; Witton 2008). Aspects
of this scenario, however, are contradicted by our current
knowledge of the stratigraphical and geographical distri-
butions of pterosaurs. In particular, anurognathids are
currently known from the Middle to Late Jurassic of Asia
(Barrett et al. 2008;Table 1), so their occurrence in the Early
Cretaceous of Asia does not need to be explained in terms of
dispersal from Europe. The phylogenetic analysis used here
does not support the view that Guidraco and Ludodactylus
are sister taxa: instead, the former forms a clade with
Zhenyuanopterus and Boreopterus from East Asia, whereas
the latter ismore closely related to the anhanguerid cladethat
includes East Asian, European and South American taxa
(Figure 2). Finally, although tapejarids might have originated
in East Asia, this event would predate the Yixian Formation
(see ghost range reconstructions in Figure 2), and it is
possible that this clade first appeared elsewhere and only
subsequently dispersed to this region. Indeed, the European
tapejarid Europejara is late Barremian – early Aptian in age
and is therefore contemporaneous with, or evenpredates, the
earliest East Asian tapejarids (Figure 2). It could be argued
that the most basal members of Tapejaridae are from East
Asia and that this supports the hypothesis that this family
originated in this region. However, this hypothesis cannot be
tested rigorously until we obtain more tapejarid fossils from
the period when this clade is likely to have originated and
radiated (i.e. the early Early Cretaceous). Moreover, as with
the istiodactylids (see above), we have a situation where the
phylogenetic topology is consistent with the proposed
dispersal event, but the stratigraphic order of taxa is not.Such
incongruence suggests the occurrence of significant gaps in
our current knowledge of pterosaurian distributions and
argues against too literal an interpretation ofthe fossil record.
The Caribbean ( ¼‘Hispanic’) corridor was a seaway
that formed between North and South America in the
Oxfordian, creating a marine connection between the
western arm of Tethys and the eastern Pacific (Gasparini
et al. 2004; Gasparini and Itorralde-Vinent 2006; Martill
et al. 2006). Pterosaurian remains, such as Cacibupteryx
and Nesodactylus, are known from the Oxfordian of Cuba,
which lies in the Caribbean corridor (Gasparini et al. 2004;
Gasparini and Itorralde-Vinent 2006). Martill et al. (2006)
reported indeterminate ctenochasmatid material from the
Early Cretaceous of Chile, and suggested that these
pterosaurs might have dispersed from Europe to South
America via the Caribbean corridor. Thus, the apparent
increase in faunal similarity between eastern Asia, Europe
and South America noted by Wang and Zhou (2003),
Wang et al. (2005,2007), Martill et al. (2006) and Witton
(2008) has been linked to palaeogeographical events that
occurred in the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous.
However, there is a potential inconsistency here because
some workers (e.g. Wang et al. 2005,2007) have regarded
seaways as possible geographical barriers that prevented
the dispersal of pterosaurs until they were temporarily
breached, whereas others (e.g. Martill et al. 2006) have
viewed seaways as possible dispersal corridors. For
example, the ctenochasmatids are interpreted as dispersing
along the Caribbean corridor by Martill et al. (2006),
whereas Wang et al. (2005,2007) have proposed that this
clade dispersed as a result of the disappearance of such
‘barriers’. One way to maintain at least partial support for
both of these ideas is to postulate that particular groups of
pterosaurs were affected by seaways in different ways
because of their particular ecological requirements or
flight abilities: to our knowledge, however, no one has
proposed a detailed set of arguments to explain why
rhamphorhynchids or ctenochasmatids could disperse
10 P. Upchurch et al.
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

along seaways, whereas anurognathids were purportedly
prevented from crossing them.
The Nyctosauridae is a small clade of pterosaurs that
were apparently endemic to North America initially during
the Coniacian and Santonian, and also appear in the
Maastrichtian of South America. This distribution pattern
for nyctosaurids might reflect no more than the patchiness
of the fossil record, but it is interesting to note that their
apparent dispersal from North America to South America
during the Maastrichtian is consistent with the faunal
exchange hypothesis proposed by Bonaparte and Kielan-
Jaworowska (1987), Lucas and Hunt (1989), Gayet et al.
(1992) and Sullivan and Lucas (2000), based on the
formation of a land bridge between these continents.
Buffetaut et al. (1997) noted that pterosaurs,
principally azhdarchids, were still geographically wide-
spread even during the latest Maastrichtian, and
commented that this is anomalous for a group that was
supposedly in decline and on the point of final extinction
(see also Company et al. 1999). There is considerable
evidence that larger geographical range is related to a
decrease in extinction risk (Jablonski and Raup 1995;
Purvis et al. 2000; Kiessling and Baron-Szabo 2004;
Jablonski 2008; Purvis 2008), and it is therefore interesting
to note that the last of the pterosaurs were widespread in
the Maastrichtian. However, large body size is associated
with increased vulnerability to extinction, especially mass
extinction events (Archibald 1996; Fara 2000). Given that
the last pterosaurs were mainly large animals, with wing
spans typically around 4 – 5 m (possibly reaching up to
10 m or more), they may have been exposed to extinction
risks that could not be compensated for by their wide
geographical ranges and ability to move away from areas
undergoing severe environmental degradation.
4. Analyses of pterosaurian biogeography
4.1 Materials and methods
4.1.1 Data-set
The cladistic biogeographical analyses described below
require information on pterosaurian phylogeny and the
geographical and stratigraphical ranges of taxa. The
reference phylogeny used in this analysis is that of Andres
et al. (2014) which includes 108 terminal pterosaurian taxa
ranging from the Late Triassic to the Late Cretaceous in
age (Figures 1 and 2). This phylogeny is fully resolved
apart from a single trichotomy linking the three terminals
comprising Nyctosauridae. Cladistic biogeographical
methods, such as Treefitter (see below), cannot deal with
polytomies, so this trichotomy must be removed prior to
analysis. All three of the nyctosaurid taxa occur in the Late
Cretaceous, two in North America and one in South
America (Figure 2). As this trichotomy involves just two
geographical areas, we can simply resolve it into a set of
bifurcating relationships without significant alteration of
the biogeographical ‘signal’ in the data (i.e. all possible
resolutions support a close relationship between North and
South America in the Late Cretaceous). Here, therefore,
we have arbitrarily resolved this trichotomy as [Muzqui-
zopteryx coahuilensis (Nyctosaurus gracilis,Nyctosaurus
lamegoi)] in the three versions of the data-set (i.e. ‘all
taxa’, ‘Cretaceous taxa’ and ‘Late Cretaceous taxa’ – see
below for discussion of data-set partitioning).
The geographical and stratigraphical ranges of
pterosaurian taxa were obtained from Barrett et al.
(2008) with some modifications based on The Paleobiol-
ogy Database and Fossilworks. We have assigned each
pterosaur to one or more of five areas: EA, East Asia (e.g.
China and Mongolia); CA, Central Asia (e.g. Kazakhstan);
EU, Europe; NA, North America; SA, South America
(note that the Late Triassic Eudimorphodon cromptonellus
from Greenland is here assigned to ‘Europe’ because these
two areas were in close contact at this time; see Brusatte
et al. 2013,Figure 7). These areas could be divided more
finely: for example, we could assign South American taxa
to Patagonia, Brazil and Chile. However, the current
pterosaurian data-set is relatively small compared with
those for other groups, such as dinosaurs, and further
subdivision of areas would decrease the ability of cladistic
biogeographical analyses to recover a distribution pattern
common to several clades. As with the time-slicing of data
(see below), the selection of areas used in a biogeogra-
phical analysis is based on the judgement of the
investigators: too few areas or too many areas can render
the results both biogeographically meaningless and
statistically non-significant. We would need a somewhat
larger data-set before further subdivision of areas could be
attempted.
The rhamphorhynchids Nesodactylus and Cacibup-
teryx from the Oxfordian Jagua Formation of Cuba
(Gasparini et al. 2004) are potentially problematic because
Cuba lies in the Caribbean corridor between North and
South America. Thus, these pterosaurian taxa could
potentially be assigned to area NA, SA or NA þSA.
Gasparini and Itorralde-Vinent (2006, p. 354) suggest that
an emergent ridge stretched from Florida to the Yucatan
during the Oxfordian and probably represents the source
for the terrestrial fauna present in the Jagua Formation.
This means that the Jagua Formation deposits were laid
down on the continental margin of Laurasia and probably
received North American terrestrial taxa. Therefore, in our
analyses, we have provisionally assigned Nesodactylus
and Cacibupteryx to area NA.
Certain terminal taxa have been pruned from some or
all time-sliced data-sets because their geographical area
occurs only once in that data-set. For example,
Arambourgiania philadelphiae occurs in the Late Cretac-
eous of Jordan. The latter lies on the Arabian plate that, in
the Late Cretaceous, was still connected to the rest of the
Historical Biology 11
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

African landmass (e.g. Smith et al. 1994; Scotese 2004).
Although Africa has produced some fragmentary pter-
osaurian remains from other time periods (see Table 1),
Arambourgiania is the only ‘African’ pterosaur in the
phylogeny. Cladistic biogeographical analyses cannot
produce meaningful reconstructions of the relationships
of areas that occur only once in a data-set. This is because
such analyses typically work by determining the level of
congruence between area relationships in two or more
clades (Nelson and Platnick 1981): such congruence
cannot be assessed when an area occurs only once.
Therefore, Arambourgiania has been pruned from all data-
sets. Other areas, such as Central Asia (CA), occur several
times in the ‘all taxa’ data-set, but occur only once in some
of the time-sliced data-sets (e.g. ‘Late Cretaceous’). When
time-slicing produces such ‘singleton’ areas, the relevant
taxa have been deleted.
The pterosaurian biogeographical data-set has been
analysed as a whole (‘all taxa’ data-set) and in a variety of
different time slices (e.g. ‘Late Jurassic’ and ‘Early
Cretaceous’; see Tables 2 and 3). This time-slicing
approach is based on the principle that biogeographical
patterns change through time in a network-like (reticulate)
rather than hierarchical way (Grande 1985; Lieberman
2000; Hunn and Upchurch 2001; Upchurch and Hunn
2002; Upchurch et al. 2002; Halas et al. 2005). This means
that a single biogeographical data-set might contain two or
more temporally distinct, but incongruent, distribution
patterns that obscure each other. Time-slicing is therefore
an exploratory technique designed to search data-sets at
various temporal scales to elucidate how many separate
patterns exist and how these are distributed.
Turner (2004) proposed a refinement to the application
of time-slicing in cladistic biogeographical analyses. He
noted that time-sliced cladograms may include divergence
events that actually occurred prior to the time slice in
question. For example, the cladogram (W (X (Y, Z)))
includes three nodes. Suppose taxa W, Y and Z occur in
time slice t
2
, but taxon X occurs in the earlier time slice t
1
.
Time-slicing this cladogram so that it contains only taxa
from t
2
gives (W (Y, Z)), but the node representing the
most recent common ancestor of W and (Y, Z) must also
lie in time slice t
1
because of the age of X. Under such
circumstances, Turner’s logic argues that W should be
pruned from the t
2
data-set so that the biogeographical
analysis only considers divergence events that occurred in
t
2
. Upchurch et al. (2002) and Turner (2004) applied
Component version 2.0 (Page 1993) and Treemap (Page
1995) in order to search for biogeographical signals in
their time-sliced data-sets. These methods require a single
cladogram topology. This requirement means that the only
way to remove divergence events that lie outside of the
Table 3. Biogeographical event frequencies.
Time slice Vicariance Sympatry Extinction Dispersal
Total data 7–10 72–75 (gtr p¼0) 6– 12 20–23 (ltr p,0.029 in
one of the four area
cladograms)
Late Triassic– Late Jurassic 2 31 (gtr p,0.0026) 18
Middle and Late Jurassic 4– 5 18 (gtr p,0.026– 0.028) 2–4 3–4
Late Jurassic 2 13 1 1
Late Jurassic– Early Cretaceous 2– 8 (ltr p,0.0078) 53 – 55 (gtr p¼0) 0– 14 (ltr p,0.012) 9– 16 (ltr p,0.048)
Early Cretaceous 1–2 (ltr p,0.036) 37 (gtr p,0.0018 – 0.00019) 0 – 2 (ltr p,0.031) 8–9
Cretaceous 4–6 38– 41 (gtr p¼0 –0.0002) 4 – 14 6 –11 (ltr p,0.03 in
one of the three area
cladograms)
Notes: All calculations were carried out using SCs and 10,000 pterm randomisations. Only statistically significant p-values are listed. p-Values marked with
‘gtr’ indicate an event type that occurs more often than expected from random data, and those marked with ‘ltr’ indicate event types that occur less often
than expected from random data.
Table 2. Summary of results of Treefitter analyses based on SC and MC costs.
Time slice
No. of
taxa
No. of
areas SCs
No. of SC
optimal trees SC p-value MC cost
No. of MC
optimal trees MC p-value
Total data 106 5 52 2 0* 218 8 1.0
Late Triassic– Late Jurassic 42 4 17 1 0.0012* 27 4 1.0
Middle and Late Jurassic 19 4 10 2 0.00056, 0.00057* 26 4 0.98
Late Jurassic 20 3 3 2 0.24 23 3 1.0
Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous 76 4 32 5 0* 212 2 1.0
Early Cretaceous 50 3 18 2 0.0022, 0.0029* 27 1 1.0
Cretaceous 58 4 26 3 0 – 0.0002* 211 1 1.0
*Statistically significant p-values.
12 P. Upchurch et al.
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

time slice under investigation is to prune terminal taxa
from the cladogram. Fortunately, the analytical method
applied here (i.e. Treefitter, see below) can search for
biogeographical signals simultaneously across two or
more tree topologies, which means that at least some of the
phylogenetic events that lie outside of a time slice can be
removed without loss of terminal taxa. For example,
suppose we have a clade represented by seven taxa A – G,
with the relationships ((A, (B, C)), (D, (E, (F, G)))), with D
occurring in time slice t
1
and ABCEFG occurring in t
2
.
The t
2
time-sliced cladogram contains the relationships
((A (B, C)), (E, (F, G))). The t
1
age of taxon D means that
the node representing the most recent common ancestor of
(A (B, C)) and (E, (F, G)) is dated at t
1
and should be
removed from the t
2
time slice. This can be done in
Treefitter without any further deletions of terminal taxa
simply by treating (A (B, C)) and (E, (F, G)) as two
separate clades (rather than two sister clades in a single
cladogram) in the data-set. This protocol of terminal taxon
pruning and clade separation has been applied here in
order to derive the time-sliced data-sets for pterosaurs.
We have not analysed the ‘Late Triassic’, ‘Early
Jurassic’ or ‘Late Triassic þEarly Jurassic’ time-sliced
data because these contain pterosaurs from just one area
(i.e. all but one of the taxa come from Europe and the
singleton is from Greenland, which is treated here as part
of Europe; see above). Similarly, we have not analysed
the ‘Late Cretaceous’ data-set because this has multiple
representations of only two areas (North America and
Europe), whereas all other areas (Central Asia, East Asia
and South America) occur only once each. Application of
a cladistic biogeographical analysis to a data-set contain-
ing taxa from just one or two areas is not meaningful: a
minimum of three areas is required in a manner analogous
to the way phylogenetic analysis is only meaningful when
applied to three or more taxa. Here, therefore, information
on the Late Triassic, Early Jurassic and Late Cretaceous
biogeographical histories of pterosaurs is derived from the
analyses of the ‘all taxa’, ‘Late Triassic– Late Jurassic’
and ‘Cretaceous’ data-sets (see Tables 2 and 3).
The formatted Treefitter data files are presented in the
online electronic supplement.
4.1.2 Analytical protocol
Treefitter 1.2b (Apple Macintosh version) is a computerised
package for biogeographical analysis (Ronquist 1998;
Sanmartin and Ronquist 2004). This is an ‘event-based’
method in which each of the four following types of
biogeographical events is assigned a cost: vicariance,
dispersal, sympatric speciation and extinction. Given a
taxon phylogeny and information on the geographical
ranges of the terminal taxa, Treefitter calculates the optimal
biogeographical reconstruction(s) (i.e. the biogeographical
history with the minimum cost). Event costs are set by the
investigator. In this study, we have employed two cost
regimes. The first cost regime, known as ‘Standard costs’
(SCs), sets vicariance and sympatry at 0, extinction at 1
and dispersal at 2. The second cost regime, known as
‘Maximum Codivergence’ (MC), sets vicariance at 21,
and extinction, sympatry and dispersal at 0 (see
Sanmartin and Ronquist 2004 for further discussion of
Treefitter cost regimes). The MC regime mimics analyses
produced by Component and TreeMap (Page 1993,
1995), which have been employed previously to search
for, and test the statistical strength of, vicariance patterns
in dinosaurs (Upchurch et al. 2002) and Cretaceous
crocodiles (Turner 2004).
The costs assigned to each biogeographical event
might seem both arbitrary and unfair in the sense that they
apparently favour the discovery of vicariance patterns (see
Posadas et al. 2006 for a critical discussion of ‘event
costs’). However, this problem is overcome by the use of
randomisation tests, which determine whether the number
of each event type is greater or less than expected by
chance. This approach is analogous to that used in many
phylogenetic methods. A cladistic analysis will produce
one or more ‘most parsimonious trees’ even if the input
data are random. Before we accept a given topology as a
genuine reflection of phylogenetic relationships, it is
essential that we evaluate what kinds of results would be
produced by random data-sets of the same dimensions and
demonstrate that our real data possess a significantly
greater amount of hierarchical structure (signal) than
would be expected by chance. In phylogenetics, this is
achieved by applying randomisation tests such as a
permutation-tail probability (PTP) test (Alroy 1994;
Swofford 2002). The same logic applies in the case of
biogeographical analysis. Some form of optimal biogeo-
graphical reconstruction will be produced even when
random data are fed to Treefitter: therefore, we can only
accept that the results are meaningful biogeographical
signals if it can be shown that they cannot be easily
explained by chance. This means that the precise cost
regime we employ is less of a concern because if we make
it easier to find vicariance events in our analyses of the real
data, we will also make it easier for vicariance events to
occur in the randomised data. Put another way, data
randomisation enables us to test the null biogeographical
hypothesis, where the latter states that the spatial
distributions of terminal taxa are effectively random with
respect to phylogenetic relationships.
In Treefitter, the taxon cladogram topology can be
randomly permuted thousands of times (‘ptree’ permu-
tation), or the tree topology can be left unaltered and the
positions of the terminal taxa can be permuted (‘pterm’
permutation), or both topology and terminal positions can
be permuted. Here, we carry out both ptree and pterm
permutations using 10,000 replicates each time. If the
Historical Biology 13
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

reconstruction cost for our original unpermuted data-set is
less than the costs of 95% of the random data-sets, then
this is accepted as a statistically significant result (i.e.
p,0.05). We have also used Treefitter to estimate the
frequencies of the four types of biogeographical event in
each of the optimal reconstructions. These frequencies can
then be compared with those generated from random data-
sets in order to determine whether, for example, dispersal
has occurred more or less frequently than would be
expected by chance. In this way, we investigate whether
the spatial distributions of pterosaurs have been shaped by
particular biogeographical processes.
4.2 Analyses and results
4.2.1 Area cladograms
The total data-set and the six time slices were analysed
using SC and MC cost regimes, and the resulting area
cladograms were tested using 10,000 randomised repli-
cates. As can be seen in Table 2, all of the SC analyses
(except for the ‘Late Jurassic’ data-set) yielded significant
results, whereas all of the MC analyses produced non-
significant results.
4.2.2 Event frequencies
The total data-set and each of the six time slices were
analysed using SC and 10,000 pterm randomisations in
order to determine the frequencies of biogeographical
events for each reconstruction (Table 3). In general, the
most frequent event is sympatry, followed by intermediate
or low levels of dispersal, regional extinction and
vicariance. All analyses (except for the Late Jurassic
time slice) produced statistically significant support for
elevated levels of sympatry. Most of these analyses
produce no support for elevated or reduced levels of
vicariance, regional extinction or dispersal: however,
significantly low levels of these processes do occur in the
Late Jurassic – Early Cretaceous time slice, and there are
also lower than expected levels of vicariance and regional
extinction in the Early Cretaceous, and dispersal in the
total data-set and Cretaceous time slices.
5 Discussion
5.1 Interpretation of results
The statistically significant SC results for the ‘all taxa’ and
most time slices (Table 2) are interesting because they
suggest that there is some non-random signal in the
pterosaurian data. However, this signal pertains to
elevated levels of sympatry (see below) rather than area
relationships formed in response to palaeogeographical
events (i.e. vicariance produced by continental fragmenta-
tion or coherent geodispersal events prompted by removal
of geographical barriers). Indeed, when statistically
significant levels of vicariance, regional extinction and/
or dispersal are observed, these pertain to lower than
expected event frequencies (Table 3). Moreover, none of
the MC analyses produced any statistically significant
results, indicating a complete lack of support for the
occurrence of vicariance events. Thus, with the exception
of sympatry discussed below, we do not have grounds for
rejecting the null biogeographical hypothesis. This means
that most of the biogeographical scenarios for pterosaurs
outlined earlier (e.g. origin of anurognathids and
pterodactyloids in Central and/or East Asia as a result of
Middle and Late Jurassic isolation, dispersal of rham-
phorhynchids and ctenochasmatids from Europe to South
America via the Caribbean corridor, and the origin of
clades such as tapejarids in East Asia during the Early
Cretaceous) must be regarded as speculative. Such
speculations represent valuable contributions to our
understanding of pterosaur biogeography insofar as they
provide explanatory hypotheses that can be tested by the
type of analyses applied here and also by future
discoveries of new material. Nevertheless, as long as the
null hypothesis remains unrejected, it must be accepted
that such explanatory hypotheses might be no more than
narratives created by weaving together random data points
into appealing scenarios.
It is clear that pterosaurs do not display the strongly
statistically significant area relationships found among
dinosaurs (Upchurch et al. 2002; Upchurch 2006,2008),
Gondwanan crocodyliforms (Turner 2004) and Cretaceous
terrestrial vertebrates generally (Ezcurra and Agnolin
2012). The many reasons why pterosaurs might not display
statistically significant area relationships and conform
to our knowledge of Mesozoic palaeogeography fall into
two broad categories. First, it is possible that pterosaurs
actually displayed strong biogeographical patterns such as
vicariance, but these signals cannot be retrieved at present
because of problems with the available data. Such
problems could include taxonomic and phylogenetic
errors, incorrect selection of area units, missing data or
even biased sampling of the fossil record (see below).
The second possibility is that our results represent a
genuine reflection of pterosaur biogeographical history:
that is, there is no area relationships signal in the data
because there was never one to detect in the first place.
The most obvious potential cause of ‘no vicariance signal’
is that the flight abilities of pterosaurs meant that they
could disperse across the geographical barriers that
controlled the distributions of terrestrial organisms during
the Mesozoic. As Unwin (1996, p. 300) stated: ‘It is
doubtful whether pterosaurs were hindered by most natural
obstacles, such as mountains or seas.’ Given the
information and results to hand, both of these types of
explanation are equally valid, although we note that none
14 P. Upchurch et al.
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

of the event frequency analyses produced any statistical
support for more dispersal than would be expected from
random data, and in fact some analyses indicate lower than
expected levels of dispersal.
What then is the meaning of the higher than expected
levels of sympatry throughout much of the pterosaur data-
set? First, it should be noted that ‘sympatry’ in a Treefitter
analysis simply refers to a duplication event (i.e. a
phylogenetic lineage living in area X diverges into two
daughter lineages that also occur in area X). Duplication
events might represent true sympatry (i.e. speciation
caused by populations specialising for life in different
habitats within the same geographical region) or ‘within-
area allopatry’ (WAA) (i.e. speciation caused by the
formation of a barrier to dispersal within the designated
geographical region) (see Xu et al. 2013). Although it is
extremely difficult to tease apart genuine sympatry from
allopatry in the fossil record, there is some circumstantial
evidence that pterosaur duplication events often relate to
the former process. Pterosaur Lagersta
¨tten in the Early
Cretaceous of China and Brazil demonstrate that many
coeval species apparently inhabited the same environ-
ments and had overlapping geographical ranges. For
example, the Romualdo Formation (early Albian) of the
Santana Group, Ceara
´, Brazil, has produced four species of
Anhanguera and a further five pterosaur genera such as
Tropeognathus and Cearadactylus (based on data from
The Paleobiology Database). This provides prima face
evidence that several of the duplicated pterosaur lineages
were not partitioned geographically as predicted by the
WAA explanation (see comments on chronospecies and
time-averaging below).
Before attempting an evolutionary explanation of the
elevated levels of sympatry, it is important to consider the
extent to which these results might be artefactual. One
possibility is that the high levels of sympatry have been
produced by uneven sampling of the fossil record.
Suppose, for example, that clade A has members that
mainly inhabit inland freshwater environments, whereas
members of clade B occur largely in coastal habitats.
Suppose also that, during a given time interval, both clades
are distributed across the same set of areas. If geological or
anthropogenic factors mean that we mainly sample coastal
sediments from continent X and inland ones from
continent Y, we will find that clade A has many closely
related species ‘endemic’ to Y and clade B has many
closely related species ‘endemic’ to X. Such a pattern
would mimic the effects of sympatry or WAA and might
be sufficient to produce statistically significant levels of
support in a Treefitter analysis. This phenomenon might be
a significant issue for the results based on data from the
Early Cretaceous. The pterosaurs from the Barremian of
Europe and Aptian of China are known largely from
continental deposits, whereas those from the Albian
Santana Group of Brazil are generally large-bodied forms
found in lagoonal sediments. Quantitative analyses of the
type applied to the distributions of non-avian dinosaurs
(Butler and Barrett 2008; Mannion and Upchurch 2010a)
and Mesozoic birds (Brocklehurst et al. 2012) could be
used to assess the extent to which pterosaur distributions
have been distorted by differential sampling of different
types of environment, but lie outside the scope of the
current study. One counter-argument to the sampling-bias
scenario outlined above is that many deposits (especially
Lagersta
¨tten) have yielded species from several different
portions of the pterosaur evolutionary tree rather than
unique endemic clades. For example, the Aptian of China
and the Albian of Brazil both include anhanguerids,
ornithocheirids and tapejarids, despite their apparently
dissimilar depositional settings (Table 1,Figures 1 and 2).
Moreover, some of the small clades of pterosaurs have
representatives in two or more geographical regions (e.g.
istiodactylids in Europe and East Asia, and tapejarids in
these two areas and South America and Africa). These
distributions are inconsistent with the artefactual gener-
ation of endemic clades as a result of the uneven sampling
of habitats with respect to geographical region. Never-
theless, it would be premature to argue that uneven
sampling of the fossil record has played no role in
artefactually boosting the apparent biogeographical signal.
A second possible cause of an artefactual biogeo-
graphical signal supporting sympatry or WAA concerns
problems with alpha-level taxonomy. In particular, it is
conceivable that taxonomic over-splitting could create
clusters of apparently closely related species that occur in
the same restricted geographical areas. Such clusters might
be identified in cladograms as sets of species that form
poorly resolved clades (since there would often be no
hierarchical character data available to separate them into
fully resolved clades). However, identification of different
ontogenetic stages of a single species as multiple species,
or the occurrence of time averaging within deposits so that
separate chronospecies appear to be contemporaneous,
could potentially generate hierarchically distributed
character data that would result in fully resolved species
clusters in cladograms. For example, the tapejarids
Nemicolopterus, and Sinopterus gui are based on juvenile
specimens (see Andres and Myers 2013), are sister taxa in
the reference phylogeny (Figure 2) and have identical
geographical and stratigraphical ranges: it is therefore
conceivable that these two genera and perhaps others from
the Aptian of China have been diagnosed on the basis of
ontogenetic variation rather than apomorphies that
correctly indicate cladogenetic events. We acknowledge
this issue as a potential problem for the currently available
data for pterosaurs, but note that this clade is not unique in
this respect. Such taxonomic problems are a perennial
issue for all palaeobiological studies that depend on
phylogenetic topologies for their quantitative and/or
statistical rigour. Taxonomic revision of pterosaurs lies
Historical Biology 15
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

outside of the scope of the current study and we suggest
that, while caution is advisable, such issues do not
preclude the interpretation of our results as genuinely
supporting sympatry. This is a working hypothesis that can
easily be overturned by future discoveries of new taxa,
revisions of pterosaur taxonomy and further analysis of
phylogenetic relationships.
The high levels of sympatry and low levels of dispersal
and vicariance within the pterosaur data-sets support a new
hypothesis for the biogeographical history of this clade.
The powered flight of pterosaurs might have enabled
certain lineages to occasionally cross-geographical bar-
riers such as wide oceans and mountain ranges. However,
such events were apparently comparatively rare in
pterosaur evolution (though frequent enough to overprint
any vicariance signals generated by Pangaean fragmenta-
tion and fluctuations in sea level). The rarity of successful
dispersal across geographical barriers might relate to
ecological rather than locomotor requirements: that is,
pterosaurs could have found it relatively easy to fly over a
barrier, but might have had difficulties in founding viable
populations once they reached anew area because of
differences in food sources or other ecological parameters.
On those rare occasions when pterosaur lineages
successfully dispersed into new regions, they apparently
tended to diversify within those areas, perhaps specialising
to a variety of different niches defined by body size,
feeding preferences/strategies and perhaps habitat types.
Such clusters of sympatric pterosaur taxa can be detected
in the data-set because dispersal across barriers was
apparently not frequent enough to overprint these patterns.
This view is supported by the observation that, despite
their volant abilities, very few pterosaur sister taxa or
species have widespread geographical distributions (see
Barrett et al. 2008;The Paleobiology Database;Fossil-
works). Thus, pterosaur biogeographical history may be
characterised as a series of occasionally successful
‘sweepstakes’ dispersal events, several of which led to
regionally restricted sympatric radiations. If correct (and
putting aside sampling biases and taxonomic over-splitting
for the present), apparently endemic pterosaur radiations
(such as the Lonchodectidae in Europe and Pteranodonti-
dae in North America) were geographically restricted
because of their specialised ecological requirements rather
than an inability to cross-geographical barriers.
5.2 Fossil record quality and biogeography
The description of pterosaurian biogeographical history
outlined above illustrates some common problems in
palaeobiogeography. For example, palaeobiologists fre-
quently assume that the area that has produced the earliest
member of a given clade represents the ‘centre of origin’
of that clade (e.g. the previously proposed origin of
tapejarids in the Aptian of East Asia). Furthermore, when
that clade is found in other areas later in the stratigraphical
record, this is interpreted as evidence for dispersal from
the centre of origin. Such scenarios are legitimate
explanations of the data, but they are not the only viable
ones. The same observed distributions could also be
created by a combination of vicariance and missing data.
For example, consider Wang and Zhou’s (2006) sugges-
tion that tapejarid pterosaurs originated in the Barremian–
Aptian of China, based on the observation that the earliest
members of this clade were known at that time from the
Yixian Formation. The subsequent appearance of tapejar-
ids in the Albian Santana Group in Brazil is therefore
interpreted as evidence for dispersal from China to South
America. However, it is also conceivable that tapejarids
originated long before the Barremian and achieved a
widespread or even global distribution. Under this second
hypothesis, the presence of tapejarids in China and South
America would be the product of imposing a Lagersta
¨tten
effect on a global distribution. Such a scenario implies a
somewhat earlier origin for tapejarids, potentially as early
as the Middle Jurassic separation of Laurasia from
Gondwana. Palaeobiologists frequently reject such ideas
because they imply an unacceptably large amount of
missing fossil record. Thus, competing interpretations of
pterosaur biogeography are bound up with workers’
implicit beliefs about the quality of the group’s fossil
record. Any tendency to minimise the assumed amount of
missing data will increase the probability of devising a
dispersal-based explanation for the observed geographical
distributions in the fossil record. Clearly, quantifications of
missing data and sampling biases have a key role to play in
analytical biogeographical analyses as they do in diversity
reconstruction.
The issue of the quality of the pterosaur fossil record has
received some attention recently, especially with regard
to diversity. Dyke et al. (2009) carried out a number of
analyses, including evaluation of the congruence between
phylogeny and stratigraphy, in order to examine whether
the pterosaur fossil record is adequate for macroevolu-
tionary studies. These authors concluded that the pterosaur
fossil record is indeed adequate for such studies and that
there is no ‘Lagersta
¨tten effect’ (i.e. distortions created by
rare examples of exceptionally rich fossil deposits, such as
the Jehol Group biotas). In contrast, Butler et al. (2009,
2013) examined the extent to which pterosaur diversity
correlates with a proxy for sampling intensity (the number
of pterosaur-bearing formations through time) and argued
that many of the observed fluctuations in diversity are
sampling artefacts closely linked to Lagersta
¨tten occur-
rences. The results presented here cannot decisively settle
this issue because statistical failures can be explained in
terms of errors, missing data, sampling biases and so on, or
as real reflections of a biogeographical history dominated
by one-off dispersal events. Moreover, we suggest that it is
16 P. Upchurch et al.
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

often meaningless to categorise the fossil record of a given
group as either entirely ‘adequate or ‘inadequate’ – in many
cases a group’s record is good enough for some types of
macroevolutionary study and too incomplete or unevenly
sampled for others. The question palaeobiologists need to
address, therefore, is: ‘Is the fossil record of this group
adequate for the study of a particular aspect of evolutionary
history?’ Below we elaborate on this point by briefly
considering some aspects of pterosaurian macroevolution
in the light of their phylogenetic relationships, fit to
stratigraphical order and palaeogeographical distributions.
Figures 1 and 2support Dyke et al.’s suggestion that
there is a high degree of congruence between the order of
appearance of pterosaurs in the fossil record and the
branching structure of their phylogenetic relationships.
This indicates that the relative order of appearance of
pterosaur clades probably reflects genuine evolutionary
history rather than uneven sampling. Although there are
uncertainties regarding the exact timing of such events, it
seems reasonable to suggest that a clade of Eudimorpho-
don-like taxa radiated during the Late Triassic but became
extinct at or near the Triassic– Jurassic boundary. Similarly,
a disproportionate number of lineages apparently terminate
at the Jurassic – Cretaceous boundary, followed by the
radiation of new lineages in the early Cretaceous. Such a
pattern mirrors that observed in several dinosaurian groups
(Barrett et al. 2009; Mannion et al. 2011; Upchurch et al.
2011) and marine reptiles (Benson et al. 2010), and supports
the hypothesis of a major extinction at the Jurassic–
Cretaceous boundary (Upchurch and Mannion 2012).
Finally, Figure 2 indicates a possible mid-Cretaceous
faunal turnover event among pterosaurs (see also Butler
et al. 2012,2013) that potentially parallels that seen among
dinosaurs, crocodiles, mammals and squamates (Benson
et al. 2013; see the caveat concerning the relative scarcity of
Lagersta
¨tten in the Late Cretaceous noted earlier in Section
2.5). However, although the pterosaur fossil record is
apparently good enough to enable reconstructions of the
broad outlines of radiations and extinction events, this does
not mean that the magnitude and direction of diversity
change are reliable. As noted by Butler et al. (2009,2013),
observed pterosaurian diversity is strongly correlated with
estimates of sampling, and the highest peaks in diversity
coincide precisely with the occurrences of Lagersta
¨tten.
The impact of Lagersta
¨tten on the proposed biogeo-
graphical histories of pterosaurs can also be observed
clearly in our data-sets. For example, as noted above,
several authors have commented on the apparent close
biotic similarity of the Aptian Jehol and Albian Santana
faunas, resulting in the suggestion that the former acted as
a centre of origin and that dispersal from East Asia to
South America (perhaps via Europe) occurred at this time.
At present, the Early Cretaceous time slice only contains
pterosaurs from three areas, Europe, East Asia and South
America, the two latter regions being strongly represented
largely because their Lagersta
¨tten deposits have yielded
enough pterosaurs of sufficient quality for them to be
incorporated into phylogenetic analyses. Yet, Table 1
indicates that pterosaurs were actually globally distributed
during the Early Cretaceous, but forms from Africa,
Australia and so on have not been added to phylogenies,
perhaps reflecting poor preservation of the available
material. We cannot produce a meaningful test of the
proposed Early Cretaceous hypotheses for pterosaur
biogeography until we have adequate samples from other
key areas such as Africa, North America and parts of east
Gondwana. We conclude, therefore, that the frequently
noted similarity between the Aptian East Asian and Albian
South American pterosaur faunas is likely to be an artefact
created by the presence of Lagersta
¨tten – in effect, the
fossil record from other regions is too poor to provide
adequate comparisons.
Finally, Table 1 provides a crude estimate of the
spatiotemporal sampling of the pterosaurian fossil record.
This table is divided into 26 stratigraphical stages and 9
geographical areas, giving a total of 234 cells. Of these,
59% are empty, and this rises to 66% when cells that
contain only records of indeterminate pterosaur material
are also considered empty. Some of the empty cells
potentially reflect true absences: for example, if pterosaurs
genuinely radiated in Euramerica during the Late Triassic,
then absence in Gondwana and Central and East Asia from
the Carnian through to one or more of the Early Jurassic
stages would reflect real absence rather than poor
sampling. Nevertheless, this simple measure suggests
that the pterosaurian fossil record is very patchy both
spatially and temporally. As well as supporting the
conclusions of Butler et al. (2009,2013) regarding
pterosaur diversity, these data also argue for considerable
caution when attempting to reconstruct the biogeographi-
cal history of this group.
6. Conclusions and future prospects
Pterosaurs have proved to be an excellent model system
for studies of vertebrate biomechanics (notably powered
flight), but their current potential for other types of
macroevolutionary analysis is questionable. A direct
reading of the pterosaur fossil record suggests that this
group rapidly achieved a global distribution in the Early
Jurassic, and that subsequent radiations may have been
restricted to particular areas (e.g. anurognathids in
Laurasia), or dispersed widely (e.g. azhdarchids). How-
ever, literal interpretations of the fossil record are
dangerous because they do not take sampling biases into
account, and do not attempt to reject the null
biogeographical hypothesis. Our analyses suggest that
there is no convincing statistical support for area
relationships among pterosaurs or for the dominance of
particular types of biogeographical processes such as
Historical Biology 17
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

vicariance or dispersal. There is, however, evidence for
elevated levels of sympatry over much of pterosaurian
evolutionary history, potentially indicating a combination
of rarely successful sweepstakes dispersal events across
barriers and subsequent regional radiations among the
founding populations of these dispersers.
The almost complete lack of vicariance and dispersal
signals in the pterosaur data is disappointing, but it should
be remembered that this situation could change radically in
the near future. At least four important lines of further
enquiry can be identified. First, as always, new discoveries
have the potential to improve the quality of sampling in our
data-sets, although it should also be noted that there are
many currently known pterosaur remains that could be
productively integrated into phylogenetic analyses.
Second, the study of palaeoecology (including analyses of
associations between clade occurrences and different facies
types), flight biomechanics and physiology need to be
integrated to provide models of the different ecological
requirements and dispersal abilities of pterosaurs. Whether
or not a particular geographical feature (such as a seaway or
climatic zone) represents a barrier to dispersal or a dispersal
corridor might depend on which type of pterosaur is
involved. There is every possibility, for example, that a
wide seaway that represented a considerable barrier to
small pterosaurs might be crossed easily by forms with
larger wingspans. Similarly, such a seaway might have
provided a convenient dispersal corridor for taxa that
depended on marine organisms for their diet, but might also
have severely limited the range of those pterosaurs that
obtained food principally from terrestrial sources. Thus,
some parts of the pterosaur data-set might contain strong
support for non-random area relationships, whereas others
might be indistinguishable from random. Third, the
geological and anthropogenic factors that potentially
control the sampling of the pterosaur fossil record need
further investigation. For example, application of the
completeness-metric approach proposed by Mannion and
Upchurch (2010b) and Brocklehurst et al. (2012), and
analyses of which pterosaur clades occur in which facies,
should provide insights into the extent to which absence in
the fossil record indicates genuine absence or missing data.
Finally, it would be interesting to examine how pterosaur
biogeography compares with any spatial patterns in the
other Mesozoic vertebrate clade that possessed powered
flight – birds. In the meantime, this study provides the first
quantitative analysis of pterosaurian biogeography, and it is
hoped that it will therefore serve as a foundation for more
detailed studies in the future.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank other contributors of pterosaur data to The
Paleobiology Database and Fossilworks, most notably Matt
Carrano. Two anonymous reviews improved an earlier version of
this manuscript.
Financial disclosure statement
The authors have no financial interests relating to this paper.
Funding
RJB was supported during the completion of this research by the
German Research Foundation Emmy Noether Programme [grant
number BU 2587/3-1].
References
Alroy J. 1994. Four permutation tests for the presence of phylogenetic
structure. Syst Biol. 43:430–437.
Alroy J. 2013. Online paleogeographic map generator. Available from:
http://fossilworks.org/?a¼mapForm
Andres B. 2006. The earliest pterosaurs. J Vert Paleontol. 26(3,
Suppl.):37A.
Andres B, Clark JM. 2005. Jurassic pterosaurs from Xinjiang China; the
earliest pterodactyloid and the origins of the group. J Vert Paleontol.
25(3, Suppl.):32A.
Andres B, Clark JM, Xu X. 2010. A new rhamphorhynchid pterosaur
from the Upper Jurassic of Xinjiang, China, and the phylogenetic
relationships of basal pterosaurs. J Vert Paleontol. 30(1):163– 187.
Andres B, Clark JM, Xu X. 2014. The earliest pterodactyloid and the
origin of the group. Curr Biol. 24(9):1011 – 1016.
Andres B, Ji Q. 2008. A new pterosaur from the Liaoning Province of
China, the phylogeny of the Pterodactyloidea, and convergence in
their cervical vertebrae. Palaeontology. 51(2):453–470.
Andres B, Myers TS. 2013. Lone star pterosaurs. Earth Environ Sci Trans
R Soc Edinb. 103:383–398.
Archibald JD. 1996. Dinosaur extinction and the end of an era. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press; 237 p.
Averianov AO, MartinT, Bakirov AA. 2005.Pterosaur anddinosaur remains
from the Middle Jurassic Balabansai Svita in the northern Fergana
depression, Kyrgyzstan (central Asia). Palaeontology. 48:135 –155.
Bakhurina NN, Unwin DM. 1995. A survey of pterosaurs from the
Jurassic and Cretaceous of the former Soviet Union and Mongolia.
Hist Biol. 10:197–245.
Barrett PM, Butler RJ, Edwards NP, Milner AR. 2008. Pterosaur
distribution in time and space: an atlas. Zitteliana B. 28:61– 107.
Barrett PM, Hasegawa Y, Manabe M, Isaji S, Matsuoka H. 2002. Sauropod
dinosaurs from the Lower Cretaceous of Eastern Asia: taxonomic
and biogeographical implications. Palaeontology. 45:1197– 1217.
Barrett PM, McGowan AJ, Page V. 2009. Dinosaur diversity and the rock
record. Proc R Soc Ser B. 276:2667 – 2674.
Bennett SC. 1995. A statistical study of Rhamphorhynchus from the
Solnhofen Limestone of Germany: year-classes of a single large
species. J Paleontol. 69:569– 580.
Bennett SC. 1996a. On the taxonomic status of Cycnorhamphus and
Gallodactylus (Pterosauria: Pterodactyloidea). J Paleontol.
70:335– 338.
Bennett SC. 1996b. Year-classes of pterosaurs from the Solnhofen
Limestone of Germany: taxonomic and systematic implications.
J Vert Paleontol. 16:432–444.
Bennett SC. 2007. A review of the pterosaur Ctenochasma: taxonomy and
ontogeny. N Jb Geol Pala
¨ontol Abh. 245:23–31.
Bennett SC. 2013. New information on body size and cranial display
structures of Pterodactylus antiquus, with a revision of the genus.
Pala
¨ontol Zeitsch. 7(2):269–289.
Benson RBJ, Butler RJ, Lindgren J, Smith AS. 2010. Mesozoic marine
tetrapod diversity: mass extinctions and temporal heterogeneity in
geological megabiases affecting vertebrates. Proc R Soc Ser B Biol
Sci. 277:829– 834.
Benson RBJ, Frigot RA, Goswami A, Andres B, Butler RJ. 2014.
Competition and constraint drove Cope’s rule in the evolution of
giant flying reptiles. Nat Comm. 5: Art. no. 4567.
Benson RBJ, Mannion PD, Butler RJ, Upchurch P, Goswami A, Evans
SE. 2013. Cretaceous tetrapod fossil record sampling and faunal
turnover: implications for biogeography and the rise of modern
clades. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimtol Palaeoecol. 372:88–107.
18 P. Upchurch et al.
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

Blackbeard M, Yates AM. 2007. The taphonomy of an Early Jurassic
dinosaur bonebed in the northern Free State (South Africa). J Vert
Paleontol. 27(3, Suppl.):49A.
Bonaparte JF, Kielan-Jaworowska K. 1987. Late Cretaceous dinosaur and
mammal faunas of Laurasia and Gondwana. In: Currie PJ, Koster
EH, editors. Fourth symposium on mesozoic terrestrial ecosystems,
short Papers Occ Pap Tyrell Mus Palaeontol. 3:24 – 29.
Bonaparte JF, Schultz CL, Bento Suares M. 2006. Noticia sobre un
Pterosauria del Triassico Superior de Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. In:
XXII Jornadas Argentinas de Paleontologia de Vertebrados; 2006;
San Juan, Argentina. Libro de Res
´umenes; p. 30.
Brocklehurst N, Upchurch P, Mannion PD, O’Connor J. 2012. The
completeness of the fossil record of Mesozoic birds: implications for
early avian evolution. PLoS ONE. 7(6):e39056.
Brusatte SL, Butler RJ, Niedzwiedzki G, Sulej T, Bronowicz R, Satku
¨nas
J. 2013. First record of Mesozoic terrestrial vertebrates from
Lithuania: phytosaurs (Diapsida: Archosauriformes) of probable
Late Triassic age, with a review of phytosaur biogeography. Geol
Mag. 150:110– 122.
Brusatte SL, Niedzwiedzki G, Butler RJ. 2011. Footprints pull origin and
diversification of dinosaur stem lineage deep into Early Triassic.
Proc R Soc Ser B. 278(1708):1107–1113.
Buckland W. 1829. On the discovery of a new species of pterodactyle in
the Lias at Lyme Regis. Trans Geol Soc Lond (Ser 2). 3:217 – 222,
pl. 27.
Buffetaut E, Laurent Y, Le Loeuff J, Bilotte M. 1997. A terminal
Cretaceous giant pterosaur from the French Pyrenees. Geol Mag.
134:553– 556.
Butler RJ, Barrett PM. 2008. Paleoenvironmental controls on the
distribution of Cretaceous herbivorous dinosaurs. Naturwissenschaf-
ten. 95:1027– 1032.
Butler RJ, Barrett PM, Nowbath S, Upchurch P. 2009. Estimating the
effects of sampling biases on pterosaur diversity patterns:
implications for hypotheses of bird/pterosaur competitive replace-
ment. Paleobiology. 35(3):432–446.
Butler RJ, Benson RBJ, Barrett PM. 2013. Pterosaur diversity: untangling
the influences of sampling biases, Lagersta
¨tten, and genuine
biodiversity signals. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol.
372:78– 87.
Butler RJ, Brusatte SL, Andres B, Benson RBJ. 2012. How do geological
sampling biases affect studies of morphological evolution in deep
time? A case study of the Pterosauria (Reptilia: Archosauria).
Evolution. 66:147– 162.
Chang S-C, Hemming SR, Gao K-Q, Zhou CF. 2014.
40
Ar/
39
Ar age
constraints on Cretaceous fossil-bearing formations near the China–
North Korea border. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 396
(2014):93– 98.
Clark JM, Xu X, Eberth DA, Forster CA, Malkus M, Hemming S,
Hernandez R. 2006. The Middle- to Late Jurassic terrestrial
transition: new discoveries from the Shishugou Formation, Xinjiang,
China. In: Barrett PM, Evans SE, editors. Ninth international
symposium on mesozoic terrestrial ecosystems and biota; 2006;
Manchester, UK. London: Natural History Museum; p. 26 – 28.
Codorniu
´L, Gasparini Z. 2007. Pterosauria. In: Gasparini Z, Salgado L,
Coria RA, editors. Patagonian mesozoic reptiles. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press; p. 143 –166.
Company J, Ruiz-Omen
˜aca JI, Pereda Suberbiola X. 1999. A long-necked
pterosaur (Pterodactyloidea, Azhdarchidae) from the Upper Cretac-
eous of Valencia, Spain. Geol Mijnbouw. 78:319 – 333.
Costa FR, Saya
´o JM, Kellner AWA. 2014. New pterosaur material from
the Upper Jurassic of Tendaguru (Tanzania), Africa. Hist Biol.
DOI:10.1080/08912963.2014.901314
Czerkas SA, Ji Q. 2002. A new rhamphorhynchoid with a headcrest and
complex integumentary structures. Blanding, UT: The Dinosaur
Museum. Published online.
Dalla Vecchia FM. 2003a. A review of the Triassic pterosaur record. Riv
Mus Civico Sci Nat ‘E. Caffi’ Bergamo. 22:13– 29.
Dalla Vecchia FM. 2003b. An Eudimorphodon (Diapsida, Pterosauria)
specimen from the Norian (Late Triassic) of north-eastern Italy.
Gortania Atti Mus FriulianoStoria Nat. 25:47– 72.
Dalla Vecchia FM. 2003c. New morphological observations on Triassic
pterosaurs. In: Buffetaut E, Mazin J-M. editors, Evolution and
palaeobiology of pterosaurs Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ. 217:23–44.
Dalla Vecchia FM. 2013. Triassic pterosaurs anatomy, phylogeny and
palaeobiology of basal archosaurs. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ.
379:119– 155.
Dong Z-M. 1982. On a new Pterosauria (Huanhepterus quingyangensis
gen. et sp. nov.) from Ordos, China. Vertebrata PalAsiat. 20:115 –121
[in Chinese with English summary].
Dyke GJ, McGowan AJ, Nudds RL, Smith D. 2009. The shape of
pterosaur evolution: evidence from the fossil record. J Evol Biol.
22:890– 898.
Ezcurra MD, Agnolin FL. 2012. A new global palaeobiogeographical
model for the late Mesozoic and early Tertiary. Syst Biol. 61
(4):553– 566.
Fara E. 2000. Diversity of Callovian-Ypresian (Middle Jurassic-Eocene)
tetrapod families and selectivity of extinctions at the K/T boundary.
Geobios. 33:387– 396.
Frey E, Meyer CA, Tischlinger H. 2011. The oldest azhdarchoid
pterosaur from the Late Jurassic Solnhofen Limestone (Early
Tithonian) of Southern Germany. Swiss J Geosci. 104(1,
Suppl):35– 55.
Fro
¨bisch ND, Fro
¨bisch J. 2006. A new basal pterosaur genus from the
Upper Triassic of the Northern Calcareous Alps of Switzerland.
Palaeontology. 49:1081– 1090.
Gao K-Q, Li Q, Wei M, Pak H, Pak I. 2009. Early Cretaceous birds and
pterosaurs from the Sinuiju Series, and geographic extension of the
Jehol biota into the Korean peninsula. J Paleontol Soc Korea.
25:57–61.
Gao K-Q, Ren D. 2006. Radiometric dating of ignimbrite from Inner
Mongolia provides no indication of a post-Middle Jurassic age for
the Daohuou beds. Acta Geol Sin. 80(1):42–45.
Gasparini Z, Fernandez M, De la Fuente M. 2004. A new pterosaur from
the Jurassic of Cuba. Palaeontol. 47:919–927.
Gasparini Z, Itorralde-Vinent MA. 2006. The Cuban Oxfordian
herpetofauna in the Caribbean seaway. N Jahrb Geol Pala
¨ontol
Abh. 240:343– 371.
Gayet M, Rage J-C, Sempere T, Gagnier PY. 1992. Modalite
´s des
e
´changes de verte
´bre
´s continentaux entre l’Ame
´rique du Nord et
l’Ame
´rique du Sud au Cre
´tace
´supe
´rieur et au Pale
´oce
`ne. Bull Soc
Ge
´ol France. 163:761– 791.
Gradstein FM, Ogg JG, Hilgen FJ. 2012. On the geologic time scale.
Newslett Strat. 45(2):171– 188.
Grande L. 1985. The use of paleontology in systematics and
biostratigraphy, and a time control refinement for historical
biogeography. Paleobiology. 11:234– 243.
Halas D, Zamparo D, Brooks DR. 2005. A historical biogeographical
protocol for studying biotic diversification by taxon pulses. J
Biogeogr. 32:249– 260.
Hammer WR, Hickerson WJ. 1994. A crested theropod dinosaur from
Antarctica. Science. 264:828–830.
He X, Yan D, Su C. 1983. A new pterosaur from the Middle Jurassic of
Dashanpu, Zigong, Sichuan. J Chengdu Coll Geol Suppl. 1:27 – 33.
Hunn CA, Upchurch P. 2001. The importance of time/space in diagnosing
the causality of phylogenetic events: towards a ‘chronobiogeogra-
phical’ paradigm? Syst Biol. 50(3):1– 17.
Hunt AP, Lucas SG. 1993. A new phytosaur (Reptilia: archosauria) genus
from the uppermost Triassic of the western United States and its
biochronological significance. Bull New Mexico Mus Nat Hist Sci.
3:193–196.
Jablonski D. 2008. Extinction and the spatial dynamics of biodiversity.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105:11528–11535.
Jablonski D, Raup DM. 1995. Selectivity of end-Cretaceous marine
bivalve extinctions. Science. 268:389–391.
Ji Q, Yuan C. 2002. Discovery of two kinds of protofeathered pterosaurs
in the Mesozoic Daohuguo biota in the Nincheng region and its
stratigraphic and biologic significances. Geol Rev. 48:221–224.
Kellner AWA. 2003. Pterosaur phylogeny and comments on the
evolutionary history of the group. In: Buffetaut E, Mazin J-M.
editors, Evolution and palaeobiology of pterosaurs Geol Soc Lond
Spec Publ. 217:105–137.
Kellner AWA, Martins A, Ford T. 2007. A survey of pterosaurs from
Africa with the description of a new specimen from Morocco. In:
Carvalho IS, Cassab RCT, Schwanke C, Carvalho MA, Fernandes
ACS, Rodrigues MAC, Carvalho MSS, Arai M, Oliveira MEQ,
Historical Biology 19
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

editors. Paleontologia: cena
´rios de Vida. Rio de Janeiro: Inter-
cie
´ncia; p. 265–275.
Kellner AWA, Rodrigues T, Costa FR. 2011. Short note on a
pteranodontoid pterosaur (Pterodactyloidea) from western Queens-
land, Australia. Anais Acad Bras Cienc. 83(1):301 – 308.
Kiessling W, Baron-Szabo R. 2004. Extinction and recovery patterns of
scleractinian corals at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Palaeo-
geogr Palaeoclimtol Palaeoecol. 214:195– 223.
Langer MC. 2004. Basal Saurischia. In: Weishampel DB, Osmolska H,
Dodson P, editors. The Dinosauria II. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University California Press; p. 25–46.
Lieberman BS. 2000. Paleobiogeography: using fossils to study global
change, plate tectonics and evolution. New York, NY: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers; 208 pp.
Liu Y-C, Kuang H-W, Jiang X-J, Peng N, Xu H, Sun H-Y. 2012. Timing
of the earliest known feathered dinosaurs and transitional pterosaurs
older than the Jehol biota. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimtol Palaeoecol.
323–325:1– 12.
Lu
¨J. 2009. A new non-pterodactyloid pterosaur from Qunglong County,
Heibei Province of China. Acta Geol Sin. 83:189 – 199.
Lu
¨J-C, Unwin DM, Jin X-S, Liu Y, Ji Q. 2010. Evidence for modular
evolution in a long-tailed pterosaur with a pterodactyloid skull. Proc
R Soc Ser B. 277(1680):383–389.
Lucas SG, Hunt AP. 1989. Alamosaurus and the sauropod hiatus in the
Cretaceous of the North American western interior. Geol Soc Am
Spec Pap. 238:75–85.
Lucas SG, Luo Z-X. 1993. Adelobasileus from the Upper Triassic of west
Texas: the oldest mammal. J Vert Paleontol. 13:309– 334.
Mannion PD, Upchurch P. 2010a. A quantitative analysis of
environmental associations in sauropod dinosaurs. Paleobiology.
36:253– 282.
Mannion PD, Upchurch P. 2010b. Completeness metrics and the quality
of the sauropodomorph fossil record through geological and
historical time. Paleobiology. 36:283– 302.
Mannion PD, Upchurch P, Carrano MT, Barrett PM. 2011. Testing the
effect of the rock record on diversity: a multidisciplinary approach
to elucidating the generic richness of sauropodomorph dinosaurs
through time. Biol Rev. 86:157–181.
Martill DM, Frey E, Bell CM, Diaz GC. 2006. Ctenochasmatid pterosaurs
from Early Cretaceous deposits in Chile. Cret Res. 27:603– 610.
Martill DM, O’Sullivan M, Newman C. 2013. A possible azhdarchid
pterosaur (Pterosauria, Azhdarchidae) in the Durlston Formation
(Early Cretaceous, Berriasian) of southern England. Cret Res.
43:26–39.
Martin T, Averianov AO, Pfretzschner H-U. 2006. Palaeoecology of
Middle to Late Jurassic vertebrate assemblages from the Fergana and
Junggar Basins (Central Asia). In: Barrett PM, Evans SE, editors.
Ninth international symposium on mesozoic terrestrial ecosystems
and biota: 2006; Manchester, UK. London: The Natural History
Museum; p. 76–79.
Molnar RE, Thulborn RA. 1980. First pterosaur from Australia. Nature.
288:361– 363.
Molnar RE, Thulborn RA. 2007. An incomplete pterosaur skull from the
Cretaceous of North-Central Queensland, Australia. Arquiv Mus
Nacl Rio de Janeiro. 65(4):461– 470.
Murry PA. 1986. Vertebrate paleontology of the Dockum Group, western
Texas and eastern New Mexico. In: Padian K, editor. The beginning
of the age of dinosaurs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
p. 109– 137.
Nelson G, Platnick NI. 1981. Systematics and biogeography: cladistics
and vicariance. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Nesbitt SJ, Barrett PM, Werning S, Sidor CA, Charig AJ. 2013. The
oldest dinosaur? A Middle Triassic dinosauriform from Tanzania.
Biol Lett. 9: 20120949.
Nesbitt SJ, Sidor CA, Irmis RB, Angielczyk KD, Smith RMH, Tsuji LA.
2010. Ecologically distinct dinosaurian sister group shows early
diversification of Ornithodira. Nature. 464:95–98.
Nessov LA. 1990. Flying reptiles of the Jurassic and Cretaceous of the
USSR and their significance for palaeogeographical environment
reconstruction. Vestnik Leningradskogo Univ Ser 7 (Geol Geogr).
4:3–10 [in Russian].
Newton ET. 1888. On the skull, brain and auditory organ of a new species
of pterosaurian (Scaphognathus purdoni) from the Upper Lias near
Whitby, Yorkshire. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B. 179:503– 537.
Norman DB. 1998. On Asian ornithopods (Dinosauria: Ornithischia).
3. A new species of iguanodontid dinosaur. Zool J Linn Soc Lond.
122:291– 348.
Novas FE, Kundrat M, Agnolin FL, Ezcurra MD, Ahlberg PE, Isasi MP,
Arriagata A, Chafrat P. 2012. A new large pterosaur from the Late
Cretaceous of Patagonia. J Vert Paleontol. 32(6):1447– 1452.
Padian K. 1983. Osteology and functional morphology of Dimorphodon
macronyx (Buckland) (Pterosauria: Rhamphorhynchoidea) based on
new material in the Yale Peabody Museum. Postilla. 189:1– 44.
Padian K. 1984. Pterosaur remains from the Kayenta Formation (?Early
Jurassic) of Arizona. Palaeontology. 27:407– 413.
Padian K. 2008. The Early Jurassic pterosaur Campylognathoides Strand,
1928. Spec Pap Palaeontol. 80:65–107.
Page RDM. 1993. Component vers. 2.0. London: The Natural History
Museum [software].
Page RDM. 1995. TreeMap for Windows vers. 1.0a. Available from:
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/treemap.html
Posadas P, Criscib JV, Katinas L. 2006. Historical biogeography: a
review of its basic concepts and critical issues. J Arid Environ.
66:389– 403.
Price LI. 1953. A presenca de Pterosauria no Cretaceo superior do Estada
da Paraiba. Notas Prelim Estudos Div Geol Min Brasil. 71:1–10.
Purvis A. 2008. Phylogenetic trees and the future of mammalian
biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105:11556 – 11563.
Purvis A, Jones KE, Mace GM. 2000. Extinction. BioEssays.
22:1123– 1133.
Rao CN, Shah SC. 1963. On the occurrence of pterosaur from the kota-
maleri beds of chanda district, maharashtra. Rec Geol Surv India.
92:315– 318.
Rauhut OWM, Lopez-Arbarello A, Puerta P. 2001. Jurassic vertebrates
from Patagonia. J Vert Paleontol. 21(3, Suppl.):91A.
Ronquist F. 1998. Three-dimensional cost-matrix optimization and
maximum cospeciation. Cladistics. 14(2):167–172.
Russell DA. 1993. The role of Central Asia in dinosaurian biogeography.
Can J Earth Sci. 30:2002–2012.
Sanmartin I, Ronquist F. 2004. Southern Hemisphere biogeography
inferred by event-based models: plant versus animal patterns. Syst
Biol. 53:216– 243.
Scotese CR. 2004. Cenozoic and Mesozoic paleogeography: changing
terrestrial pathways. In: Lomolino MV, Heaney LR, editors. Frontiers
of biogeography. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc.; p. 9–26.
Smith AG, Smith DG, Funnell BM. 1994. Atlas of Mesozoic and
Cenozoic coastlines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soares MB, Dalla Vecchia FM, Schultz CL, Kellner AWA. 2013. On the
supposed pterosaurian nature of Faxinalipterus minima Bonaparte
et al. (2010) from the Upper Triassic of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
In: Short communications. International symposium on pterosaurs,
Rio Ptero 2013; p. 95–98.
Stecher R. 2008. A new Triassic pterosaur from Switzerland (Central
Austroalpine, Grisons), Raeticodactylus filisurensis gen. et sp. nov.
Swiss J Geosci. 101:185–202.
Sullivan C, Yuan Wang, Hone DWE, Yuanqing Wang, Xu X, Zhan FC.
2014. The vertebrates of the Jurassic Daohugou biota of northeastern
China. J Vert Paleontol. 34(2):243–280.
Sullivan RM, Lucas SG. 2000. Alamosaurus (Dinosauria: Sauropoda)
from the late Campanian of New Mexico and its significance. J Vert
Paleontol. 20(2):400– 403.
SwisherCC, III, Wang Z, Wang X,Xu X, Wang Y. 1999. Cretaceous age for
the feathered dinosaurs of Liaoning, China. Nature. 400(6739):58– 61.
Swofford DL. 2002. PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony vers.
4.0b10. London: Macmillan [software].
Turner AH. 2004. Crocodyliform biogeography during the Cretaceous:
evidence of Gondwanan vicariance. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B. 271
(1552):2003– 2009.
Unwin DM. 1996. The fossil record of Middle Jurassic pterosaurs. Bull
Mus Northern Ariz. 60:291–304.
Unwin DM, Bakhurina NN. 2000. Pterosaurs from Russia, Middle Asia
and Mongolia. In: Benton MJ, Shishkin MA, Unwin DM, Kurochkin
EN, editors. The age of dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; p. 420 –433.
20 P. Upchurch et al.
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014

Upchurch P. 1995. The evolutionary history of sauropod dinosaurs. Philos
Trans R Soc Lond Ser B. 349:365 –390.
Upchurch P. 2006. Dinosaur biogeography and the break-up of
Gondwana: a re-appraisal using cladistic biogeographical methods.
J Vert Paleontol. 26(3, Suppl.):134A.
Upchurch P. 2008. Gondwanan break-up: legacies of a lost world? Trends
Ecol Evol. 23(4):229– 236.
Upchurch P, Hunn CA. 2002. ‘Time’ – the neglected dimension in
cladistic biogeography. Geobios. 35(Spec. Mem. 24):277–286.
Upchurch P, Hunn CA, Norman DB. 2002. An analysis of dinosaurian
biogeography: evidence for the existence of vicariance and dispersal
patterns caused by geological events. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B.
269:613– 622.
Upchurch P, Mannion PD. 2012. Dinosaur evolution and extinction
across the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary. In: Actas de las V Jornadas
Internacionales sobre Paleontologı
´a de Dinosaurios y su Entorno.
Salas de los Infantes, Burgos (Spain): Colectivo Arqueolo
´gico y
Paleontolo
´gico de Salas, C.A.S.; p. 135 – 155.
Upchurch P, Mannion PD, Butler RJ, Benson RBJ, Carrano MT. 2011.
Geological and anthropogenic controls on the sampling of the
terrestrial fossil record: a case study from the Dinosauria. Geol Soc
Lond Spec Publ. 358:209–240.
Wang X-L, Lu
¨J. 2001. Discovery of a pterodactylid pterosaur from the
Yixian Formation of western Liaoning, China. Chin Sci Bull.
46:1112– 1117.
Wang X-L, Kellner AWA, Jiang S, Cheng X. 2012. New toothed flying
reptile from Asia: close similarities between early Cretaceous
pterosaur faunas from China and Brazil. Naturwissenschaften.
99(4):249– 257.
Wang X-L, Kellner AWA, Zhou Z-H, Campos DA. 2005. Pterosaur
diversity and faunal turnover in Cretaceous terrestrial ecosystems in
China. Nature. 437:875– 879.
Wang X-L, Kellner AWA, Zhou Z-H, Campos DA. 2007. A new
pterosaur (Ctenochasmatidae, Archaeopterodactyloidea) from the
Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation of China. Cret Res.
28:2245– 2260.
Wang X-L, Kellner AWA, Zhou Z-H, Campos DA. 2008. Discovery of a
rare arboreal forest-dwelling flying reptile (Pterosauria, Pterodacty-
loidea) from China. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105:1983–1987.
Wang X-L, Zhou Z-H. 2003. Two new pterodactyloid pterosaurs from the
Early Cretaceous Jiufotang Formation of western Liaoning, China.
Vert PalAsiat. 41:34–41.
Wang X-L, Zhou Z-H. 2006. Pterosaur assemblages of the Jehol Biota
and their implication for the Early Cretaceous pterosaur radiation.
Geol J. 41:405–418.
Wang X-L, Zhou Z-H, Zhang F-C, Xu X. 2002. A nearly completely
articulated rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur with exceptionally well-
preserved wing membranes and “hairs” from Inner Mongolia,
northeast China. Chinese Sci. Bull. 47(3):226–230.
Wellnhofer P. 1978. Pterosauria. Handb Pala
¨oherpetol. 19:1–82.
Wild R. 1978. Die Flugsaurier (Reptilia, Pterosauria) aus der Oberen
Trias von Cene bei Bergamo, Italien. Boll Soc Paleontol Ital.
17:176– 257.
Wild R. 1994. A juvenile specimen of Eudimorphodon ranzii Zambelli
(Reptilia, Pterosauria) from the Upper Triassic (Norian) of Bergamo.
Riv Mus Civico Sci Nat ‘E. Caffi’ Bergamo. 16:95– 120.
Wilson JA, Upchurch P. 2009. Redescription and reassessment of the
phylogenetic affinities of Euhelopus zdanskyi (Dinosauria: Saur-
opoda) from the Early Cretaceous of China. J Syst Palaeontol.
7(2):199– 239.
Witton MP. 2008. A new azhdarchoid pterosaur from the Crato
Formation (Lower Cretaceous, Aptian?) of Brazil. Palaeontology.
51:1289– 1300.
Xu X, Hu D. 2009. An exceptionally well preserved Jurassic terrestrial
fauna in northeastern China. J Vert Paleontol. 29(3, Suppl):204A.
Xu X, Upchurch P, Pittman M, Choiniere J, Sullivan C, Hone DWE, Tan
Q, Xiao D, Tan L, Han F. 2013. Osteology of the Late Cretaceous
alvarezsauroid Linhenykus monodactylus from China and comments
on alvarezsauroid biogeography. Acta Palaeontol Pol. 58(1):25 – 46.
Young C-C. 1964. On a new pterosaurian from Sinkiang, China. Ver
PalAsiat. 8:221–256.
Zhou ZH, Barrett PM, Hilton J. 2003. An exceptionally preserved Lower
Cretaceous ecosystem. Nature. 421(6925):807– 814.
Historical Biology 21
Downloaded by [80.195.203.87] at 00:19 29 July 2014