With it's long, slender jaw and many slender teeth, this pterosaur appears to be a sifter-feeder, much as some ducks are today, gulping large volumes in algal waters and occassionly small invertebrates and then draining the water away. The jaws are very narrow, but the teeth project about evenly sideways as down and would have interlocked to form a "basket", much as is seen in the Venus fly trap's smile. The long legs and arms were likely useful in wading, so the wings when extended in this position are only so long because of the need to allow the animal a useful quadrupedal gait when on the ground (not shown).
Your skeletals are excellent, questions I must ask you are.The wings of the Pterosaurs are they shown as they would be in flight i.e at full stretch with a sweep back, and you don't show a uropatagium is there any reason.
We have no idea what the real shape of the uropatagium is in the larger pterodactyloids. It's so rarely preserved, it's not clear it is present in these animals. There was almost no tail, which has led many to attach the uropatagium from the outer thigh or even ankle to the hip again. It would have almost no effect on the profile of the skeletal, or the silhouette, or even an aerodynamic profile.
Qilong, your skeletal reconstructions are amazing! They would make good reference images, for anatomical accuracy purposes.
If I could get them in in a higher detail, such as making them solely digitally, it would be easily to use them as ref illustrations. The way that I create them does not permit this so far.
I also just noticed this is not a real species. There is no such thing as C. gracile. Only C. roemeri, C. elegans and C. taqueti. Which species does this diagram most resemble? I'd like to use it as a reference, but I also want to label it as a documented species.
There are a lot of species, including gracile and porocristata. Not all of them are recognized, but the largest skull is referred to gracile. The problem here, though, is that the Wikipedia page for Ctenochasma only lists three species (the ones you mention) but does not note which have been synonymized (if any).
Would it be a far shot if I were to to add a little more "OOMF" to that crest? (Length, hight, etc)
Actually, your idea would be on par with some thinking paleontologists are having with regards to fossils with thin bony crests like this. Some pterosaur fossils are shown with a soft-tissue, keratinized crest that has NO internal bony support that stretches up into an arch to the back of the skull. I decided to be VERY conservative with this.
The specimen as labeled "BST 1934 I 24" as seen is a complete one, with skull and everything. However, a larger, undescribed skull is also known which probably pertains to this species. The details of the skull, including margin of the premaxilla, nasals, lachrymal, etc., are all based on that skull. Thus, while I don't have the number handy, I am mentioning it for utility.
waht does the undescribed skull mean? Cool image
Looks professional. Great job.