No. They would've had longer, selfsame beaks not hooked at the tip.

I’m sorry if I didn’t say it correctly I’m talking about if pterosaurs or Azhdarchids had plumage on they’re beaks

The bird you posted doesn't appear to have plumage on its beak either. I don't know of any birds that do. Plumage means feathers. Are you referring to the colors on the beak?

That would require them to have pennaceous feathers, with which to have a plumage. Only dinosaurs have evolved to have plumage, especially birds.

Well, there are some pterosaur fossils found with feathers so I guess it ain't just dinosaurs

Pterosaurs dont have feathers. They're pycnofibers, closer to hair than to feathers.

Actually, according to a study, pterosaurs like tupandactylus might've actually had feathers aswell as pycnofibers

source? i havent heard of this until now and i dont think that's even realistically possible tbh, it doesn't make much sense for an animal to evolve two types of soft-covering. i suppose it's possible since evolution doesn't have rules, just odd.

[Here you go](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/pterosaur-brightly-colored-feathers-heads-fossil-skull-soft-tissue)

Thanks! I read the entire thing and I apologize for my misunderstanding, by both types of covering i thought you meant on the animal's main body and not "whiskers", aha! Although the paper does suggest that both types of covering("whiskers" and body covering) are derived from feathers opposed to pycnofibers.

No problem

So if you go through to the image of the "branching fibres" mentioned, they're not pennaceous feathers. There's a rachis analogue, the feather shaft in layman's, but there's not barbs and barbules, there's at best proto-barbs, so it'd still be hard to get plumage versus something closer to fur. The paper also mentioned that pycnofibers were the predominant covering, not the more complex fibers. Tl;dr: not pennaceous feathers so there couldn't be a plumage akin to modern birds, at least not neoavian birds

I'm not 100% sure on this, but don't cassowaries have feathers similar to what pycnofibers are? Or am I remembering something else?

As far as I'm aware, no beaked animal has ever had feathers covering their beaks, birds included.

I don't think there are any that grow feathers from the beak itself. That's simply not possible from the sort of tissue a beak is made of. However, some have such ostentatious facial feathering that a large portion of the beak is covered by face feathers that are set further back-like the Andean cock-of-the-rock. An absurd animal. (link for images. everyone should see this muppet of a bird) [https://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/cock-rock](https://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/cock-rock)

You mean colouration?

I think you mean colored beaks and not plumage. Plumage refers to feathers. No bird has a feathered beak

Just to make sure, Azhdarchids *are* Pterosaurs

Interesting. Were there NO pterosaurs with hooked beaks?

Ramphoryhynchus

Ramphs isn't the right was round tho

They kinda are, its just that it's mostly their lower jaw

Rhamph's beak is hooked at the bottom, but it resembles nothing so much as aberrant salad tongs

prerodaustro but not the same thing actually but still funny beak

Flamingodactyl

I want to imagine some of them had lovely colours on their beaks

There was a great amount of diversity in pterosaurs. Look up pterodaustro for a crazy example, essentially a mesozoic pelican.

I'd say pterodaustro was closer to some unholy offspring of a pelican and a flamingo

I have absolutely nothinh of value to contribute...just came to say that this bird looks so suave, and the photography is so crisp! I love this.

Not \*quite\* like that, but I don't see why they couldn't have had bright pigmentation on their beaks. Most things with beaks at least have some form of pigmentation on said beak.

They could've had color variations in their beaks.

They might have had something like that on thier beaks, but we can never know since that doesn't fossilize

[удалено]

Didn't have a more polite way to ask? lol

No it was funnier this way lol sorry

Right because asking in a seemingly rude way is so funny - rolling on the ground laughing rn lol /s

I’m talking about if pterosaurs had the plumage on they’re beaks similar to mollymawks and albatrosses

They had pycnofibres. Whether they are primitive feathers, unique pterosaurian hair or a third unique to pterosaurs insulation structure hasn’t been decided yet. So it’s possibility.

those birds don’t have plumage on their beaks. see other comment for what plumage is

As in the colours? We don't know, but there's no reason it couldn't happen, so maybe.