Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: useless trivia. [View all]

cab67

(3,696 posts)
14. Yet more useless trivia:
Tue Mar 10, 2026, 10:26 AM
13 hrs ago

Unlike most other vertebrate groups, there are no giant bats in the fossil record. The largest fossil bats are about the size of the largest living bats (i.e. flying foxes).

The largest extinct flying birds, in contrast, had wingspans between 5 and 6 m (roughly 16.5 to 20 ft). These include a really big vulture-like bird from South America called Argentavis and a seabird called Pelagornis, whose wingspan was probably marginally wider. Argentavis is a teratorn, a group that might or might not be related to modern New World vultures and condors. We really don't know what Pelagornis was related to - it might have looked like a weird albatross, but wasn't related to them at all - and it had a serrated beak making it look like it had teeth (hence an older name for their group, the pseudodontorns).

I asked a couple of bat researchers I know this question several years ago. Apparently, bats' wings don't really work above a certain size, unlike those of birds and pterosaurs.

There is a "giant" vampire bat in the fossil record in the West Indies. It's name - I'm not kidding - is Desmotis draculae. But it was about 10 percent bigger than a modern vampire bat, and modern vampire bats are about the size of a mouse, so this wouldn't give one the impression of a vampire in bat form.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»useless trivia.»Reply #14