, ▁its ▁stern um ▁was ▁smaller ▁compared ▁to ▁that ▁of ▁other ▁star lings ; ▁it ▁may ▁not ▁have ▁required ▁powerful ▁flight , ▁due ▁to ▁the ▁small ▁area ▁and ▁top ography ▁of ▁Rod rig ues . ▁The ▁two ▁star lings ▁differ ed ▁mainly ▁in ▁details ▁of ▁the ▁sk ull , ▁j aws , ▁and ▁stern um . ▁The ▁max illa ▁of ▁the ▁Rod rig ues ▁star ling ▁was ▁shorter , ▁less ▁cur ved , ▁had ▁a ▁less ▁sl ender ▁tip , ▁and ▁had ▁a ▁st outer ▁mand ible . ▁Not ▁enough ▁remains ▁of ▁the ▁Rod rig ues ▁star ling ▁have ▁been ▁found ▁to ▁assess ▁whether ▁it ▁was ▁sex ually ▁dim orph ic . ▁Sub f oss ils ▁show ▁a ▁dispar ity ▁in ▁size ▁between ▁spec im ens , ▁but ▁this ▁may ▁be ▁due ▁to ▁individual ▁variation , ▁as ▁the ▁differences ▁are ▁grad ual , ▁with ▁no ▁distinct ▁size ▁classes . ▁There ▁is ▁a ▁difference ▁in ▁bill ▁length ▁and ▁shape ▁between ▁two ▁Rod rig ues ▁star ling ▁spec im ens , ▁which ▁could ▁indicate ▁dim orphism . ▁ ▁Gün ther ▁and ▁Newton ▁noted ▁that ▁the ▁sk ull ▁of ▁the ▁Rod rig ues ▁star ling ▁was ▁sh aped ▁somewhat ▁differently ▁and ▁longer ▁than ▁that ▁of ▁the ▁ho op oe ▁star ling , ▁being ▁about ▁ ▁long ▁from ▁the ▁oc cip ital ▁cond yle ; ▁it ▁was ▁also ▁nar ro wer , ▁being ▁ ▁wide . ▁The ▁eyes ▁were ▁set ▁slightly ▁lower , ▁and ▁the ▁upper ▁r ims ▁of ▁the ▁eye ▁so ckets ▁were ▁about ▁ ▁apart