Here is the same info from Sciencemag.org..
Thank you, that's much better. It was far more informative and It included a link to the primary paper.
From the abstract of that paper in the journal Science:
Fossil eggs and embryos that provide unique information about the reproduction and early growth of vertebrates are exceedingly rare, particularly for pterosaurs. Here we report on hundreds of three-dimensional (3D) eggs of the species Hamipterus tianshanensis from a Lower Cretaceous site in China, 16 of which contain embryonic remains. Computed tomography scanning, osteohistology, and micropreparation reveal that some bones lack extensive ossification in potentially late-term embryos, suggesting that hatchlings might have been flightless and less precocious than previously assumed. The geological context, including at least four levels with embryos and eggs, indicates that this deposit was formed by a rare combination of events, with storms acting on a nesting ground. This discovery supports colonial nesting behavior and potential nesting site fidelity in the Pterosauria.
Unfortunately, the paper itself is behind a pay wall....
What we do get that wasn't in the Daily Star article is that these eggs were fossilized; 16 had fossilized embryonic remains;
I am not sure what your complaint is.. Are you saying you dont agree with the findings or there WERE NO eggs found that belonged to Pterosaurs OR?... What is your point?
The complaint is that finding fossilized eggs is not some kind of 800 pound gorilla as you allege.
So far as I can tell, this entire discovery simply lets us fill in some holes in our understanding of the embryonic development of these ancient creatures.
Fascinating, but a non-problem.