image_pdfimage_print

Manta Rays or Modern Pterosaurs?

Sordes Pilosus Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur silhouette

Introduction

A recent post by Dale Drinnon brought up an old suggestion that sightings of giant long-tailed pterosaurs may be misidentifications of large Manta rays (a type of fish) that leap out of the sea. Let’s examine this idea in more detail than is seen in Drinnon’s brief commentary.

First we consider the limitations of his suggestion: “. . . many of these sightings are actually of Manta rays leaping above the surface.” He does not imply that all sightings of modern pterosaurs are from this kind of misidentification, only “many” of them.

But what sightings does he refer to? He mentions only one: a 2008 sighting of two “pterodactyls” in the Philippines. It seems Drinnon was attracted to the part of the report that referred to the fishermen who told the “pterodactyl” eyewitness that they had seen this kind of flying creature. But even in that case, I doubt that the fisherman was referring to the fish that we call “Manta ray.” The critical point is that the man who witnessed the sighting of two apparent pterosaurs was in a CITY, not in a boat. And he saw two of the creatures flying together. That eliminates that sighting regarding Manta rays that leap out of the sea: It was not a misidentification of a fish. Drinnon, it seems, was unaware of the larger report when he quoted a portion of the original (the fishermen had limited relevance to the sighting in question).

Wing Shape

He mentions “broad diamond-shaped wings,” as if eyewitnesses have reported that feature. I don’t recall even one eyewitness using the word “diamond” when referring to wings. Many sighting reports (in which a tail is mentioned) include the word “diamond” or “triangle” (or a similar word) when referring to the END OF THE TAIL. That in itself eliminates the Manta ray fish from consideration.

Consider the detailed survey form given to eyewitnesses on Umboi Island (by Garth Guessman and David Woetzel) during the second ropen expedition of 2004: the page with thirty-four silhouette images of birds, bats, and pterosaurs. Only two eyewitnesses, if I’m not mistaken, had a clear-enough view of the ropen to accurately respond to this questionnaire page: Jonathan Ragu and Jonah Jim. They both chose, from among the thirty-four choices, the same image: Sordes pilosus:

Sordes Pilosus Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur silhouette

If we consider only the depth of the wings (front-to-back) nearer the body of the creature, this may be the best correlation with the fins of the Manta ray fish. But when we examine details, the flying-fish idea is shot down.

  1. Jonah Jim’s sighting was miles from the sea. The ropen was flying above the land.
  2. Both Jonah Jim and Jonathan Ragu reported a glow coming from the flying creatures.
  3. Ragu’s creature was flying too high to have been a fish: “Glowing brightly red and white from the head and trailing edges of the wings, it flew fast, at tree-top level.” (Searching for Ropens, second edition; emphasis added)
  4. Jonah Jim’s creature “was flying between 500 and 550 feet high, coming from the sea” (SFR): too high.

Perhaps the image chosen by Ragu and Jonah Jim are the best evidence for the possibility of a Manta ray misidentification, regarding the shape of the wings or fins, but this is only superficial. I have trudged through the rain forest of Umboi Island, the same island where these two sightings took place, and can testify that “tree-top level” is much higher than the ten feet or so that a Manta ray can jump out of the water. And who suggests that Manta rays are bioluminescent? Anyway, nobody is suggesting that those fish can fly miles from the sea, over jungle canopy.

Tails of Pterosaurs and Manta Rays

Drinnon mentions a “long stringy rat-tail.” Where did he get that description? He give no example. Offhand, I don’t know of even one eyewitness who has mentioned anything like that when referring to the tail of the flying creature observed. That’s not trivial. In the past nine years, I have written three nonfiction books on living pterosaurs and one scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal of science. I have questioned countless eyewitnesses from around the world (mostly from the continents of North America, Australia, Europe, and Africa), and I have received many answers. I don’t recall even one of those answers including the word “stringy” or “rat.”

Misidentification Pursuits

I don’t criticize persons for simply searching for an alternative explanation, including misidentification. Modern living pterosaurs—that concept shocks many people who live in Western society, who have been raised since early childhood with the paradigm of universal dinosaur and pterosaur extinction. But we need to dig deeper before proclaiming a particular misidentification conjecture has any merit. The jumping Manta ray fish quickly falls back into the depths, never attaining the distinction of flying over tropical forest tree canopies.

Pterosaur Bioluminescence and “Red Herrings”

. . . that critic seems to have neglected the necessary research, for the case for glowing pterosaurs, living in this modern age, actually appears significant.

Misidentification or Live Pterosaurs?

What’s wrong with the idea that sightings of apparent living pterosaurs are misidentifications of birds or bats? On the surface, it sounds reasonable; after all, our Western culture is drenched in the idea that all pterosaurs and dinosaurs became extinct many millions of years ago. But look just beneath the surface and we find problems.

Specific American cryptozoologists have interviewed specific eyewitnesses, during the past seventeen years: scores of eyewitnesses have been interviewed. So what do critics mention about eyewitnesses? They mostly mention theoretical sightings or two or three that are more than a hundred years old. What a problem! Critics often ignore critical witnesses, those whose credibility has attracted cryptozoologists who interview them. So why do critics mostly ignore those important eyewitnesses? What other explanation but the obvious? They do not have any reasonable reply to the testimonies of Duane Hodgkinson and Brian Hennessy, eyewitnesses who saw, in clear daylight, large or giant long-tailed featherless flying creatures with head crests. Hodgkinson does not have visual problems; he is a flight instructor with many thousands of hours of flying time. Hennessy is not crazy; he is a professional psychologist.

Let’s look closer at these two sightings, watching for any possibility of a misidentification. Hodgkinson’s “pterodactyl” was clearly visible in a clearing just west of Finschhafen, New Guinea. Although he and his army buddy were in the same clearing as the creature that soon flew away, they were at opposite sides; but the clearing was small, so the creature was close. Hodgkinson estimated the tail of the creature was “at least” ten to fifteen feet long. So how could that creature be a misidentified bird or bat? Any suggestion of a misidentification, in this case, would likely sound like a joke; no it was a giant Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur, strange as that may sound.

What about Hennessy? He described the “prehistoric” flying creature that he saw on Bougainville Island, New Guinea: long tail, no sign of feathers,  head “disproportionately large compared to the body.” His choice of identification sketches (survey examination) resulted in a head sketch very similar to the one chosen by Hodgkinson. They probably observed the same species of pterosaur.

What if these two eyewitness sightings were just weird flukes? Well, I interviewed several natives on Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, in 2004, with similar results. Gideon Koro answered my question about the length on the tail of the ropen that terrified him and his friends years earlier: seven meters (about twenty-two feet). That was no fruit bat. No way!

large image of the back cover of the 3rd edition of Live Pterosaurs in Ameridca