The name "pseudodontorns" refers to the
genus Pseudodontornis, which for some time served as the
family's namesake. However, the presently used name Pelagornithidae pre-dates Pseudodontornithidae, and thus modern authors generally prefer "pelagornithids" over "pseudodontorns". The latter name is generally found in mid-20th-century literature however. Historically, the disparate bones of the pseudotooth birds were spread across six groups: a number of genera described from leg bones was placed in a family
Cyphornithidae, and considered close allies of the
pelican family (
Pelecanidae). They were united with the latter in a
superfamily Pelecanides in suborder Pelecanae, or later on (after the endings of
taxonomic ranks were fixed to today's standard) Pelecanoidea in suborder Pelecani. Subsequently, some allied them with the entirely spurious "family" "
Cladornithidae" in a "pelecaniform" suborder "
Cladornithes". Those genera known from skull material were typically assigned to one or two families (
Odontopterygidae and sometimes also
Pseudodontornithidae) in a "pelecaniform" suborder
Odontopteryges or
Odontopterygia.
Pelagornis meanwhile, described from wing bones, was traditionally placed in a
monotypic "pelecaniform" family Pelagornithidae. This was often assigned either to the
gannet and
cormorant suborder
Sulae (which was formerly treated as superfamily Sulides in suborder Pelecanae), or to the Odontopterygia. The
sternum of
Gigantornis was placed in the
albatross family (Diomedeidae) in the
order of
tube-nosed seabirds (Procellariiformes). The most extensive
taxonomic and
systematic confusion affected
Dasornis. That genus was established based on a huge skull piece, which for long was placed in the
Gastornithidae merely due to its size.
Argillornis – nowadays recognized to belong in
Dasornis – was described from wing bones, and generally included in the Sulae as part of the "
Elopterygidae" – yet another invalid "family", and its
type genus is generally not considered a modern-type bird by current authors. Some additional
tarsometatarsus (ankle) bone fragments were placed in the genus
Neptuniavis and assigned to the
Procellariidae in the Procellariiformes. All these remains were only shown to belong in the pseudotooth bird genus
Dasornis in 2008. The most basal known pelagornithid is
Protodontopteryx.
Systematics and phylogeny The
systematics of bony-toothed birds are subject of considerable debate. Initially, they were allied with the (then-
polyphyletic) "
Pelecaniformes" (
pelicans and presumed allies, such as
gannets and
frigatebirds) and the
Procellariiformes (tube-nosed seabirds like
albatrosses and
petrels), because of their similar general
anatomy. Some of the first remains of the massive
Dasornis were mistaken for a
ratite and later a
gastornithid. They were even used to argue for a close relationship between these two groups – and indeed, the pelicans and tubenoses, as well as for example the other "Pelecaniformes" (
cormorants and allies) which are preferably separated as
Phalacrocoraciformes nowadays, the
Ciconiiformes (storks and/or either
herons and
ibises or the "core" Pelecaniformes) and
Gaviiformes (loons/divers) seem to make up a
radiation, possibly a
clade, of "higher waterbirds". However, the Pelagornithidae are not generally held to be a
missing link between pelicans and albatrosses anymore, but if anything much closer to the former and only
convergent to the latter in
ecomorphology. (
Anas crecca) skull. As typical for
Galloanserae, the
palatine bone ("Pa") is not expanded downwards. (
Morus bassanus, top) and various
Charadriiformes (below). Note the expansion of the palatine bone visible inside the
eye sockets in these
Neoaves.Note also the
supraorbital salt gland impressions of the Charadriiformes. In 2005, a
cladistic analysis proposed a close relationship between pseudotooth birds and
waterfowl (Anseriformes). These are not part of the "higher waterbirds" but of the
Galloanserae, a basal lineage of
neognath birds. Some features, mainly of the skull, support this hypothesis. For example, the pelagornithids lack a crest on the underside of the
palatine bone, while the
Neoaves – the
sister clade of the Galloanserae which includes the "higher waterbirds" and the "higher landbirds" – have such a crest. Also, like ducks, geese and swans pelagornithids only have two and not three
condyles on the
mandibular process of the
quadrate bone, with the middle condyle beakwards of the side condyle. Their
basipterygoid articulation is similar to that of the Galloanseres. At the side of the
parasphenoid lamina, there is a wide platform as in Anseriformes. The bony-toothed birds' attachment of the
coronoideal part of the external
mandible adductor muscles was located at the midline, the
rostropterygoid process had a support at its base and the
mesethmoid bone had a deep depression for the
caudal concha, just as in waterfowl. As regards other parts of the
skeleton, the proposed
synapomorphies of pelagornithids and waterfowl are found mainly in the arm- and handbones: the
ulna had a strongly
convex upper backside at its
elbow end – at the handward end of which the
scapulotricipital muscles attached –, a point-tipped
dorsal cotyle and only a shallow depression to house the
meniscus between ulna and
radius; towards the elbow, the
intercondylar sulcus of the ulna becomes wide and is bordered by a long winding ridge on the belly side. The radius, meanwhile, has a convex
ventral border to the
humeral cotyle, which prominently continues the hind edge of the knob where the
biceps brachii muscle attaches; towards the upper side of the radius bone the surface becomes flat and triangular handwards of the
articular surface for the ulna. The
carpometacarpus of both Anseriformes and pseudotooth birds has a prominent
pisiform process, which extends from the
carpal trochlea far fingerwards along the bone's forward side. On the carpometacarpus' underside, there is a long but narrow
symphysis of the
distal metacarpals, with the large metacarpal bone having a mid-ridge that at its outer end curves tailwards, and the
thumb joint has a well-developed knob on the hind side of its articular surface. The leg and foot bones, as is to be expected from birds not as specialized for swimming as waterfowl are, show less similarities between Anseriformes and pseudotooth birds: on the
tibiotarsus there is a wide incision between the condyles and the middle condyle is narrower than the side condyle and protrudes forwards; the
tarsometatarsus has a low distal
vascular foramen with recessed opening on its
plantar surface and a middle toe trochlea that is elongated, slightly
oblique, projects to the underside of the foot and is pointed at the tip. It is unclear what to make of these
apomorphies supposedly uniting Anseriformes and bony-toothed birds, for on the other hand, the
sternum,
distal humerus, leg and foot bones of pelagornithids seem to show apomorphies typical of "higher waterbirds". While details of the
braincase bones are held to be very informative
phylogenetically, the skull features in which the two groups are similar are generally related to the point where the bill attaches to the skull, and thus might have been subject to the
selective forces brought about by skimming food from the upper water layer. The apparent non-neoavian traits distinguishing pelagornithids could just as well be retained or
atavistic plesiomorphies; as the "higher waterbirds" are very ancient Neoaves and none of the suspected basal members of their radiation (see also "
Graculavidae") were included in the analysis, it is not known for sure when the derived conditions typical of modern Neoaves were acquired. Footbone traits are notoriously prone to selection forces in birds, with
convergent evolution known to inhibit or even invalidate cladistic analyses; however, the apparent autapomorphies of the lower arm and hand bones are hard to explain by anything else than an actual relationship. The location of the
salt glands inside the
eye sockets of
Osteodontornis,
Pelagornis (and probably others) shows that whatever their relationships were, the pelagornithids
adapted to an oceanic habitat independently from penguins and tubenoses, which instead have
supraorbital salt glands. Their missing or vestigial
hallux – like in ducks but unlike in pelicans which have all four toes fully developed and webbed – was held against a close relationship with pelicans. But as is known today, pelicans are closer to storks (which have a hallux but no webbing) than to pseudotooth birds and evolved their fully webbed toes independently. With both a webbed and a
hypotrophied hallux being
apomorphic and
paraphyletic, its absence in pseudotooth birds does not provide much information on their relationship. While giant Galloanserae were common and diverse in the
Paleogene in particular, these (
Gastornis and
mihirungs) were flightless terrestrial birds; it is perhaps significant though that the only other "bone-toothed" birds known so far are the two species of the
moa-nalo genus
Thambetochen, extinct giant flightless
dabbling ducks from the
Hawaiian Islands. In any case, the 2005 cladistic analysis uses a representative sample of Procellariiformes and recovers them as strongly supported clade in agreement with the current consensus. The presumed close relationship between bony-toothed birds and tubenoses can thus be disregarded after all. As regards "Pelecaniformes", the analysis does not recover the correct phylogeny and does not include the
shoebill (
Balaeniceps rex, a "missing link" between pelicans and storks) either; clearly, the adaptive radiation of the pelican-stork lineage is misleading the analysis here. In addition, the Galloanserae are not recovered as
monophyletic. In 2007, a far more comprehensive cladistic analysis of bird anatomy including some fossil forms (though not the crucial Late Cretaceous taxa, which are usually known only from fragmentary remains) resolved the "higher waterbird" radiation somewhat better; still, the problem of leg and foot traits confounding the analysis was noticeable. As their relationships are still unresolved between Galloanserae and "higher waterbirds", the pseudotooth birds are here placed in the distinct order
Odontopterygiformes as a compromise, rather than in a pelecaniform/ciconiiform or anseriform
suborder Odontopterygia or even a family of the Anseriformes, Ciconiiformes or Pelecaniformes. Such a treatment is unlikely to be completely wrong in either case, as the pseudotooth birds are well distinct from the
Presbyornithidae and
Scopidae, today generally regarded as the very basal divergences of, respectively, the Anseriformes and the pelican-stork group. It also provides leeway should the proposed separation of the Pelagornithidae into several
families turn out to be appropriate. It is perhaps notable that when
Boris Spulski established the Odontopterygia in 1910, he did this partly because he noted some of the similarities between pseudotooth birds and waterfowl listed above.
Dasornis was long mistaken for a
gastornithid, now strongly suspected to be very close indeed to the Anseriformes. Also, the pelagornithid
Palaeochenoides mioceanus was initially mistaken for an anseriform, and the same might hold true for the supposed
Oligocene swan Guguschia nailiae. In the former case, however, a "much the more convincing" analysis for a placement outside the
Galloanseres was published the year after its description already. Most unrecognised pelagornithid bones were initially assigned to "higher waterbird" families however, typically to the (then-paraphyletic) "Pelecaniformes", but in particular the
tarsometatarsus was typically mistaken for that of a procellariiform. The Odontopterygiformes were first proposed when
Osteodontornis was described from the first – and still the only known – reasonably complete skeleton of one of these birds.
Hildegarde Howard found that, no matter that some of its features resembled other birds, the combination was quite unlike any
neognath known. While the authors claim it is beyond the paper's scope, the study describing
Protodontopteryx suggests that the proposed pro-galloansere traits might actually be plesiomorphic in relation to Aves. It also notes "striking" similarities between pelagornithids and
Ichthyornis in terms of jaw anatomy, but still classifies them as neognaths due to the well-developed hypotarsal crests, a supratendineal bridge on the distal tibiotarsus and the caudally closed ilioischiadic foramen. The actual phylogenetic tree depicts them in a polytomy with both Galloanserae and Neoaves. A 2022 paper described
Janavis, an
ichthyornithine (advanced stem-bird) with a
pterygoid bone similar to that of galloanserans. This implies that a galloanseran-like pterygoid is ancestral for
crown-group birds as a whole, rather than a derived feature of neognaths. The authors noted that among the groups often regarded as galloanserans based on their pterygoid morphology (pelagornithids,
dromornithids and
gastornithids), some might instead constitute early-diverging crown-birds outside Galloanserae, or even be outside the avian crown group altogether.
Genera and unidentified specimens Due to the fragmented and crushed state of most pseudotooth bird remains, it is not clear whether the roughly one dozen
genera that have been named are all valid. Only the
beaks are robust and distinctive enough to allow for good
taxonomic delimitation, and even these are usually found as broken pieces. For example,
Argilliornis and
Neptuniavis were recently found to be arm and leg bones, respectively, of
Dasornis, which until then was only known from skull bones. Size is generally regarded as reliable marker for generic diversity, but care just be taken to ascertain whether smallish specimens are not from young birds. Tentatively, the following genera are recognized: •
Protodontopteryx (Early Paleocene of New Zealand) •
Pseudodontornis (Late Paleocene ?–? Late Oligocene of Charleston, South Carolina, US) –
polyphyletic (type species in
Palaeochenoides/Pelagornis)? • "
Odontoptila" (Late Paleocene/Early Eocene of
Ouled Abdoun Basin, Morocco) – a
nomen nudum;
preoccupied •
Odontopteryx (Late Paleocene/Early Eocene of Ouled Abdoun Basin, Morocco – Middle Eocene of Uzbekistan) – including
"Neptuniavis" minor, may include
"Pseudodontornis" longidentata,
"P." tschulensis and
Macrodontopteryx •
Dasornis (London Clay Early Eocene of Isle of Sheppey, England) – including
Argillornis,
"Lithornis" emuinus and
"Neptuniavis" miranda; may include "Odontopteryx gigas" (a
nomen nudum),
"Pseudodontornis" longidentata and
Gigantornis •
Macrodontopteryx (London Clay Early Eocene of England) – may include
"Pseudodontornis" longidentata and/or belong in
Odontopteryx • cf.
Odontopteryx (Early Eocene of Virginia, US) •
Gigantornis (Ameki Middle Eocene of Ameki, Nigeria) – may belong in
Dasornis • cf.
Odontopteryx (Middle Eocene of Mexico) • Pelagornithidae gen. et sp. indet. (Middle Eocene of Mount Discovery, Antarctica) – same as large Seymour Island specimen/
Dasornis/Gigantornis? • Pelagornithidae gen. et sp. indet. (Middle Eocene of Etterbeek, Belgium) –
Dasornis/Macrodontopteryx? • "
Aequornis" (Middle Eocene of Kpogamé-Hahotoé, Togo) – a
nomen nudum • Pelagornithidae gen. et spp. indet. (La Meseta Middle/Late Eocene of Seymour Island, Antarctica) – two species? Same as Mount Discovery specimen/
Dasornis/Gigantornis,
Odontopteryx? • Pelagornithidae gen. et sp. indet. (Late Eocene of France) • Pelagornithidae gen. et sp. indet. (Late Eocene of Kazakhstan) – may belong in
Zheroia • Pelagornithidae gen. et sp. indet. (Eocene of South Shetland Islands, South Atlantic) • cf.
Dasornis (Late Eocene/Early Oligocene of Oregon, US) –
Cyphornis? • cf.
Macrodontopteryx (Early Oligocene of Hamstead, England) – may belong in
Proceriavis • Pelagornithidae gen. et sp. indet. (Early Oligocene of Japan) •
Caspiodontornis (Late Oligocene of Pirəkəşkül, Azerbaijan) – may belong in
Guguschia •
Palaeochenoides (Late Oligocene of South Carolina, US) – may include
Pseudodontornis longirostris or belong in
Pelagornis • Pelagornithidae gen. et sp. indet. (Late Oligocene of South Carolina, US) • Pelagornithidae gen. et sp. indet. (Yamaga Late Oligocene of Kitakyushu, Japan) –
Osteodontornis? •
Tympanonesiotes (Late Oligocene or Early Miocene of Cooper River, US) •
Cyphornis (Early Miocene of Carmanah Point, Vancouver Island, Canada) – may include
Osteodontornis •
Osteodontornis (Early Miocene – Early Pliocene) – may belong in
Cyphornis •
Pelagornis (Early Miocene of Armagnac, France – Early Pleistocene of Ahl al Oughlam, Morocco) – may include
Pseudodontornis longirostris,
Palaeochenoides • Pelagornithidae gen. et spp. indet. (Early? Miocene – Early Pliocene of eastern US) – 2–3 species?
Pelagornis? • cf.
Osteodontornis (Capadare Middle Miocene of Cueva del Zumbador, Venezuela) • cf.
Osteodontornis/Pelagornis (?Middle/Late Miocene of North Canterbury, New Zealand) • cf.
Pelagornis (Bahía Inglesa Middle Miocene of Chile – Early Pliocene of Chile and Peru) – 2 species? • cf.
Osteodontornis (Pisco Middle Miocene –? Early Pliocene of Peru) – 2 species? •
"Pseudodontornis" stirtoni (Miocene or Pliocene of Motunau Beach, New Zealand) – sometimes
Neodontornis • Pelagornithidae gen. et sp. indet. (Yushima Early Pliocene of Maesawa, Japan) –
Osteodontornis? • cf.
"Pseudodontornis" stirtoni (Tangahoe Mudstone Middle Pliocene of Hawera New Zealand) • Pelagornithidae gen. et sp. indet. (Dainichi Early Pleistocene of Kakegawa, Japan) –
Osteodontornis? • Pelagornis sp. (Late Pliocene of California, US: Boessenecker and Smith; 2011) Some other
Paleogene (and in one case possibly
Late Cretaceous) birds, typically
taxa known only from the most fragmentary remains, might also be pelagornithids. They are not usually placed here, but the fossils' large size and the known similarities of certain pseudotooth birds' bones to those of other lineages warrant further study. The
genera in question are
Laornis,
Proceriavis,
Manu and
Protopelicanus. ==Footnotes==