Bakiribu: a fish not a pterosaur

[Tim Williams]

A new preprint up in BioRXiv:

David M. Unwin, Roy E. Smith, Samuel Cooper, David M. Martill
Reinterpretation of _Bakiribu waridza_ from the Romualdo Formation (Lower Cretaceous) of Brazil: a fish not a pterosaur.

doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.10.693067

Abstract
Fragmentary remains of fossil vertebrates from the Romualdo Formation (Lower Cretaceous) of Brazil, preserved in association with two fish were interpreted as two individuals of a new genus and species of ctenochasmatine pterosaur, _Bakiribu waridza_ Pêgas et al., 2025. Comparison with a range of fossils from the same geological unit show that the remains represent the gill arch apparatus of a large actinopterygian fish. This reinterpretation, which mirrors a comparable event in the mid twentieth century when the remains of a supposed ctenochasmatine pterosaur, _Belonochasma aenigmaticum_, were reidentified as part of the gill apparatus of a fish, does not affect our current understanding of the evolutionary history of pterosaurs.

Original description of _Bakiribu_:

R. V. Pêgas, Tito Aureliano, Borja Holgado, William B. S. Almeida, Claude L. A. Santos, Aline M. Ghilardi (2025)
A regurgitalite reveals a new filter-feeding pterosaur from the Santana Group
Scientific Reports 15: 37336
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-22983-3
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-22983-3

[Gregory Paul]

Interesting. I would have included Bakiribu in a 2nd ed of the pterosaur guide if not for this. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CA%2BnnY_GKV%3D1QQWAQtizwogVqDiPfJMxwC5mZa4okzPjRxinPvw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Russell Engelman]

Didn't this happen with Gwawinapterus as well?

[Tim Williams]

Russell Engelman <neovena...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Didn't this happen with Gwawinapterus as well?

Yes, indeed it did.  _Gwawinapterus_ was reinterpreted as a teleost fish (saurodontid) by Vullo et al. (2012 doi:10.1080/02724634.2012.681078).

This is not the first time that saurodontid jaws and teeth have been mistaken for reptilian.  In fact, _Saurodon_ itself was regarded as a marine reptile when it was first described, as was the earlier-named _Saurocephalus_ (back in 1830 and 1824, respectively).

[Mickey Mortimer]

Also Aidachar and Sultanuvaisia, both described by Nessov (1981), turned out to be ichthyodectiform fish.

Mickey Mortimer