The Wikipedia post for “kongamato” includes “the area concerned is advertised as a prime birdwatching site,” bringing up the question of why birdwatchers do not report living pterosaurs in Africa. Wikipedia gives no answer, implying that the possibility of a live pterosaur in Africa is therefore doubtful. From Wikipedia’s “birdwatching” page, we learn that many birds “are more readily detected and identified by ear.” That makes sense if many birds are often hidden by vegetation, and they are. The photos on that page make even more sense, for birdwatchers are watching in daylight, when they can see. The point? Many reports of living long-tailed pterosaurs suggest that the creatures fly at night.

But the Wikipedia implication includes no hint of just what “area” is involved. It covers at least hundreds of square miles of remote wilderness, mostly far removed from any organized birdwatching activity. The commenter who inserted the sentence about birdwatching fails to see what is needed here. Hundreds of millions of dollars would need to be raised, to bring every birdwatcher in North America and Great Britain together in Africa; night-vision equipment would need to be used for countless weeks. After all that, if there were no living-pterosaurs reported by any birdwatchers, then the commenter could proclaim that no pterosaurs appeared while they were all beating the bushes.

The implication has another problem. Birdwatchers need to be credible (according to traditional interpretations of “credible”), otherwise nobody will pay attention to their reports. And what credibility rating does Wikipedia give to reports of living pterosaurs? The birdwatchers who receive most attention come from Western countries, and reporting (to Westerners) a living pterosaur in Africa (instead of a Red-billed hornbill) gets you medical attention. Birdwatchers could very well be watching living pterosaurs in Africa, but they are more likely to report what they see to knowledgeable natives, not to fellow birdwatchers.

No “pterosaur” category can be found on any birdwatcher’s report form, and no lack of pterosaur sightings by organized birdwatchers counts against the many reported sightings of living pterosaurs. This Wikipedia implication could just as well be used as if evidence against the existence of bats (or against UFO’s or against Fourth-of-July fireworks displays).

Since Paul Nation’s 2006 video recording of two lights on a ridge deep in the mainland of Papua New Guinea, cryptozoologists have a new name for the ropen: “indava.” It’s not that everything about the glowing indava is identical to ropen lights; indeed, the indava seems to glow for many more seconds than the apparently giant ropen that flies between mountains on Umboi Island. But both creatures have been described, by local natives, as giant flying creatures.

Evelyn Cheesman appeared to have no thought about pterosaurs when she observed the strange glowing objects that flew near the top of a mountain ridge. The British entomologist would surely have been interested in the explanation of “large flying animal” if the local villagers had said anything; but they were reluctant to talk about the lights. Nevertheless, Cheeman wrote about the mystery in her book, The Two Roads of Papua (published in 1935). Her observations were a few mountains to the north of Paul Nation’s later observations.

Three days ago, I received an email from R.K. (anonymous), of the Manus Island area of Papua New Guinea. (We starting communicating earlier this month.) The nocturnal flying creatures that he described to me–I believe they are ropens–were common and were dangerous to local fishermen previous to the early 1940’s, when their numbers declined. In these northern islands, the creature is called “kor.”

Here is part of R.K.’s account of the Japanese retaliation against the creatures that had attacked them:

” . . . it was the japs [Japanese miliary] on the island who were attacked by the kor.  They [Japanese soldiers] apparently shot several wounding them then followed them to cves [caves] and blew [blew up] the entrances. They called ships fire on the hills and pounded them for several hours.”

R.K. asks an interesting question: “I wonder if there is a record of that somewhere?” Perhaps there is an old Japanese veteran who knows about this or has written about the battle with those creatures. If so, perhaps the word used for those creatures would be “dragons.”

The dominance of long tails and head crests has caused skeptics to insinuate that hoaxers are creating a hodge-podge of pterosaur characteristics, taking attributes from different types of pterosaurs and constructing a hoax thereby. Those skeptics, however, fail to carefully examine the hoax hypothesis, for there are numerous problems with the idea that hoaxes played a significant role in the overall eyewitness testimonies.

At least one species of Rhamphorhynchoid (long-tailed pterosaur) known from fossils, the Scaphognathus crassirostris, did have a head crest. The presence of a head crest on a ropen (or modern long-tailed pterosaur) is hardly a sign of a hoax; how many potential hoaxers would know about that fossil? (And how many natives on remote tropical islands would know about any fossils?) Westerners who might consider a pterosaur hoax would most likely use what is well-known in Western culture: stubby-tailed pterosaurs, like those depicted often in movie and television sci-fi. Potential native hoaxers would talk about flying humans that transform themselves into snakes; honest native eyewitnesses talk about a long-tailed feather-less creature, and only some native eyewitnesses have had a good-enough viewing angle to allow them to see the head crest (Gideon Koro, of Umboi Island, was honest enough to admit that he did not have a good view of the head of the giant ropen that flew over Lake Pung around 1994).

The consistancy, in eyewitness descriptions from around the world, of the combination of a long tail and a head crest (in a feather-less flying creature) is evidence for a living creature, not a hoax. And why should a modern pterosaur be very much like most pterosaur fossils? Ridicule from skeptics comes from the obvious interpretation of those eyewitess descriptions: a modern living pterosaur. “Unlike pterosaur fossils” is not only inaccurate: It is irrelevant.