Talk:Archaeopteryx/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Syntax

only seven specimens of Archaeopteryx have been found in the Solnhofen limestone of southern Germany. As I read this, perhaps it should say "only seven specimens of Archaeopteryx have been found, all in the Solnhofen limestone of southern Germany" RickK 02:54, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well yes, because there aren't any at all anywhere else. An eighth find, the first one, was a stray feather. Wetman 03:05, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Wetman, I modified the article. RickK 03:08, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Creationist straw man refutation

The Archaeopteryx is the most common response whenever a creationist says "There are no transitorial fossils". Is this something worth noting in the article; or should this article have the word "transitorial" in it somewhere? Samboy 06:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to strive for a NPOV :). I expanded the intro a little, and mentioned transitional fossils in the first paragraph. 68.81.231.127 08:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

why was it important?

It's not necessarily POV but might it be a little off-topic? Jimp 6Dec05

This really has very little to do with Creationism. What is significant is that Archaeopteryx is just the textbook example of a transitional fossil.--Pharos 08:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

the pronunciation is ar-kee-op-teh-ricks

Pronunciation?

Is it Are-Kay-Oh-Tear-Ix ? Arkee-opter-icks? Archie-opter-icks?

—Hobart 04:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain if you're following the Latin model it should be Ar-kay-op-ter-iks. There's probably a lot of people out there who pronounce it (or would if they knew it) archie or arkee, and you'd have a hell of a time telling them they're wrong, because none of them is speaking Latin anyways.   freshgavin TALK    05:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think this has much to do with pronunciation, but Archaeopteryx is Greek, not Latin. anonymous 21:43, 15 August 2006

the ar-kee-op-teh-ricks is the pronunciation i had 2 do a project on it

The IPA pronunciation doesn't look quite right to me (why is there a long iː sound & a secondary stress on the last syllable?). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

IPA is gibberish to me, but here's what my Webster's has: ar ke op' ter iks. I can't put in the special markings over the letters, so here's the equivalent: ar as in "arm", e as in the first e of "event", o as in "odd", e as in "maker", i as in "ill". There is a soft stress on the first syllable and a strong stress on OP. "ae" in Latin is typically transliterated as "ee", not "ay", but that's just just Webster. For example, we pronounce Caesar as "seezer" rather than "sayzer". Wahkeenah 16:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that proper Greek pronunciation should be more like "ark-ay-o-ter-icks", being as the end of the name (pteryx) is Greek for wing and therefore the word junction occurs between "archaeo" and "pteryx". This point has also been brought up in discussion of pronouncing apoptosis, which is of course very commonly (and very inaccurately) pronounced a-pop-tow-sis rather than the correct ah-po-tow-sis. However, someone else countered by pointing out that we pronounced helicopter as hel-ee-cop-ter, rather than the presumably correct hel-ee-co-ter. 24.58.33.115 01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, Greeks would pronounce the "p" (or "π" actually) even when a word begins with "pt-" (or "pn-"). 134.68.222.246 17:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Nick Theodorakis

I added Freshgavin's pronunciation; feel free to edit it if there is a better plain-language pronunciation available. The article needs one, because, statistically speaking, nobody can read IPA and nobody uses it. Tempshill 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ar-kay-op-ter-iks" [ɑː(ɹ)kɪˈɒptəɹɪks]) - At present, these do not match. "kay" is rendered as "keɪ" or something like that in IPA (I'm not sure of the exact rendering); is there a letter missing here? -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 05:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A pretty common variant pronunciation is ar-kee-op-ter-iks, though I agree ar-kay-op-ter-iks is probably more correct. Compare with ar-kay-ol-o-gee Dinoguy2 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to make more sense to pronounce it as archaeo-pteryx: the cited pronunciation is common, but seems to be a bastardization, similar to kilOMetre (instead of kilo-metre - after all, you wouldn't say kilOGram, centIMetre, or milIMetre, either). Pronunciation as archaeo-pteryx is more consistant with other dinosaur names, such as pterydactyl (which has a silent 'p', although as mentioned above perhaps it shouldn't). The most bastardized name of all is probably diplodocus (commonly pronounced dip-PLOD-duh-cus and even cited in museum displays as such, even though it should probably be diplo-docus). We could do with some expert opinion on this, especially as wikipedia pronunciations guides tend to err towards american slang in many articles.

New specimen

I've just read an online article referencing a new speciment -- the Thermopolis specimen -- notable for particularly well-preserved feet. Indications are that Archaeopteryx did not have a true perching toe. Someone more knowledgeable may want to update this article.--130.76.32.16 22:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry -- the above is my anonymous edit. I forgot to log on!!--andersonpd 22:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Archie's Family

I'm fixing the following: The main entry currently lists Archaeopteryx as a member of the family coeluridae. Archaeopteryx is in fact a member of archaeopterygidae. Coelurids are a completely different kind of dinosaur. Dinoguy2 04:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Feathered dinosaur forgery

This was removed as vandalism:

However, a Chinese paleontologist proved that dinosaur tails had been glued to primitive birds, and they have been confirmed to be fakes.

But actually, this did happen with one alleged feathered dinosaur fossil that made the news not long ago. Of course, the statement is not true as a whole, ie. there are a number of reputable feathered dinosaur fossils that pass scientific muster; I just thought the reverter should know.--Pharos 04:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The alleged fossil wasn't claimed to be an archaeopteryx, it was called archaeoraptor --JPotter 05:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Archie's Class

I think for the sake of consistancy, Archaeopteryx should be switched over to Avian taxonomy (currently it follows the standard dinosaur taxobox). Since Archie is considered the first bird by definition, would I be out of line switching it to Class Aves, Order Archaeopterygiformes? Dinoguy2 21:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

How is the Archaeopteryx.....

seen as an intermediate fossil ? How do we know it wasn't just another clawed, toothed bird that has gone extinct? How can feathers on reptiles, or teeth on birds give us any indication that transitional/intermediate fossils are what they are?

Technically every fossil is intermediate, since evolution doesn't go in spurts. Archie just serves as a classic example by virtue of being the *first* clawed, tooth bird ever found, and the one most similar to deinonychosaurs in skeletal features other than the obvious claws and teeth.Dinoguy2 15:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with the "doesn't go in spurts", but not with the "every fossil is is intermediate". But what you prolly mean with "no spurts" is "no saltationism", i.e. features do not materialize out of thin air, and I'm 100% with you on that one. Radiation events, e.g. following major extinctions, which occurred under drastically decreased/altered selective pressure (due to most life being extinct and the selective forces - ability to survive in arctic darkness under sulfuric-acid-rain or whatever - being not representative of selective forces as occur most of the time), give "freak" forms a chance to survive, multiply, diversify. Thus, you actually end up with a sort of "spurt" in evolution, because stuff that otherwise would have been outcompeted can survive as not letting your relatives eat all the food and get all the kids doesn't matter when there are hardly any relatives left... in the fossil record, this looks like a real "jump", but even then, it is gradual: the generation-to-generation steps are not larger by quantity, but can be larger by quality Dysmorodrepanis 17:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to understand exactly what a transitional fossil is and why it's important. Archie may well have gone extinct and not be a direct descendant of birds. There are some features that it has that suggest that this is the case. However, that's irrelevant to its status as a transitional fossil. What's important is that it bears the unmistakable mark of both an old lineage and a modern day lineage: it has the distinctive collections of traits that BOTH lineages otherwise have uniquely. That's what makes it transitional. Whether it's a direct ancestor is not important: it shows us something about the general structure of the branches farther back, regardless of whether or not Archie's branch reaches out into the modern day or not.Plunge 06:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply put: Archie was not a bird in the modern sense. It was no real dinosaur either. And there were more such beasts around some 20 million years later. One of these was the ancestor of all modern birds. Hasn't been identified yet and indeed it might never be; it is after all luck to find a fossil (we habe 10.000 beids species now, and some 30 mya there were much more. And although there were considerably less than that in the Cretaceous, we know what, some dozen maybe. The rest is still out there somewhere, or perhaps no remains have survived at all).

But what we do know is that 120-80 million years ago, roughly, avian flight was tried out by a huge number of half-birds and three-quarter-birds and full birds which were nonetheless not related to today's, and dinosaurs which did the bird thing but never became more birdish than growing some feathers, and so on. And that is the major point of transitional fossils: they do not exist for a long time, usually, because they are always half-adapted for several things, at least one of them new. But this is often just as well or maybe even better as being fully adapted for one same-old-same-old thing. So if you find one crucial transitional fossil, that's an indication for scientists to look closer, because in some thin strata there will be many more around. As of now, they're getting pretty close to unravel the evolution of limbs from fins, for example. Await more astounding half-fishes, three-quarter-fishes and so on to be discovered in the next years, now they have a good idea where to look for them. Dysmorodrepanis 08:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, "transitional fossil" is itself a kind of 'fossil' term prone to misinterpretation. Creationists raise some brouhaha occasionally on how Archie is not "transitional" but "mosaic", combining avian and dinosaurian feature. But this is precisely how we now know that it is a transitional form. In Darwin's time up into the early 20th century, the unspoken assumption - a leftover from Creationist days - was that prehistoric forms changed from one kind of critter into another wholesale. But this is not true; there is indeed no reason why it should be true at all (except for microorganisms). Rather, evolution works by changing bits and pieces at a time. Although there is a tendency for basal ("primitive") forms of a lineage to have been ecological generalists more often than derived ("advanced") forms, this is not certain and it must always be remembered that nutural selection will see to that every species, no matter how transitional it may be, is expertly adapted to its particular mode of life. Compare with dinosaur teeth: they were lost several times independently in the lineages (note plural!) of Mesozoic birds. Indeed, the ancestors of Hesperornis seem to have lost them and later re-evolved veritable bird teeth which are unique in several respects among all teeth known to have borne by other animals.

It is somewhat unfortunate that we have a pretty clear idea when and from what Archie evolved, but that any indication of what it evolved into are missing. It cannot be allied with other known Mesozoic birds at present. Indeed, there is no reason to suppose (given that the Late Jurassic fossil record of Eurasia has been less than thoroughly worked in comparison with e.g. the Cretaceous Liaoning deposits or the Messel pit) that it did have a lineage of successors that survived for dozens of millions of years. It might, and such fossils may one day be discovered. But the Archie lineage may just as well have died out before the Cretaceous. Dysmorodrepanis 17:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"But what we do know is that 120-80 million years ago, roughly, avian flight was tried out by a huge number of half-birds and three-quarter-birds and full birds which were nonetheless not related to today's, and dinosaurs which did the bird thing but never became more birdish than growing some feathers, and so on." -- Ok, real quick. How would you know? Were you walking the earth 120-80 million years ago? Colonel Marksman (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Because of the many fossils we have with preserved wing feathers that indicate what kind of flight or non-flight they were engaging in. Also, you realize you're responding to a three year old comment and not article content right? Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My Edit

Why was it removed? My article is just the same as the Arguements articles that appear on many Wiki pages. --Scorpios 07:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

For one, the article does not even mention Archaeopteryx being evidence for evolution as a whole, just where it fits into the evolution of dinosaurs. Unless you plan to write a paragraph on the arguments that archie is a "missing link" (which is a rediculous, innacurate buzz-word), a counter argument is not needed.Dinoguy2 17:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx is the name

"Archaeopteryx" is the name of this article, but when a reader starts reading the article, the article immediately refers to A. lithographica. Later on in the article, the other specimens are mentioned. Since the article is presumably about all the specimens, is it wise to start off the article mentioning only the best known specimen?

In other words, I would change the opening paragraph to read something like:

Archaeopteryx (ahr-kee-OP-ter-ix) meaning "ancient wing" (Greek archaio = ancient + pteryx = wing), from the Late Jurassic of Germany, is the earliest and most primitive known bird. The discovery of the first intact specimen, Archaeopteryx lithographica, in 1861, two years after Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, set off a firestorm of debate about evolution and the role of transitional fossils that endures to this day.

--Firsfron 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good suggestion. I think there is actually a wiki guideline that says the intro should directly reflect the title of the article, which the Dinosaur project says should be the generic name, not binomial.Dinoguy2 22:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Woot! Looks better now, at least IMO. Thanks dinoguy!--Firsfron 16:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I will expand the taxonomy section a bit sometime in the next days. Maybe add a subsection on synonymy, as that's far too much for the taxobox ;-). There is a nice German-only paper by the guys who found out that the feather still was the holotype in 2001 (which would have made Archaeopteryx technically an ichnogenus...) and had that changed. Dysmorodrepanis 18:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancient pinion -- does Meyer use this etymology in the description? If not, I think "ancient feather" is a much more user-friendly translation (assuming we're not gonig with the more common "ancient wing").Dinoguy2 18:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bühler & Bock argue that if any variant is wrong, it is "wing". They suggest that "feather" is what von Meyer must have had in mind, because when he penned the decription he had just barely heard of the skeleton and certainly not seen ist. "Pinion" (German "Schwinge") expresses that ambiguity.

FWIW, von Meyer's descriptions probably read something like "pteron[in Greek letters] = Schwinge" (it can also mean "fin" BTW. "Flapping appendage" in general, more or less) as was usual at that time (for a long time during the early 20th century, etymologies were usually not provided in descriptions at all). Dysmorodrepanis 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Jurrasic and Cretaceous

Archaeopteryx did not only live in the Jurassic instead it lived in the Jurassic and Cretaceous.--Elmo125.467/891.011.121.415.164.057.984.887.982.481.215.470.890.199.919.652.468.Yay 20:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. It has been found only in Late Jurassic deposits of Germany. If you have a citation that refutes this i'd love to see it. You've already changed this category a few times, and have changed other articles in a similar fashon, always with incorrect information, always without discussion. any further additions of this kind and I will nominate your account be permantly blocked.Dinoguy2 20:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

CT Scan

CT scan won't show brain regions associated with vision, motion or hearing. FMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) is the only imaging which show brain functions. And FMRI can only be done for live humans. CT scan of fossils might show brain gyrus but I doubt that too. And gyrus doesn't mean same as functional area. That part of article is ridiculous though Witmer's article has been published in Nature (I don't know if quote is done wrongly). Tkkoski

Dinoguy2: Tell me what is better way to guide people to read my comment above? I really thought about it but I couldn't find a better way. For awhile I considered that I should delete the whole cite on Witmer's article. It won't met Wikipedia's requirements on science. But I didn't want to do it, cause it's always better to have first a good debate. Tkkoski

Tkkoski, there are three possibilities: (1) the person who wrote Wikipedia's paragraph on the CT scan may have misread or misunderstood Witmer's article (2) Witmer may be wrong (3) you may be wrong.

• If (1) has happened, you need to read Witmer's article yourself and correct Wikipedia's paragraph to show what he really said.
• If (2), Wikipedia is not the place to argue with him (see WP:V to understand why). The editors of Nature clearly found his article convincing. So you need to write a letter to the editors of Nature, not try to eliminate him from Wikipedia.
• Number (3) is always a possibility, so re-read his article carefully.

By the way, you can sign your name by typing four tildes ~~~~

I hope this helps, The Singing Badger 17:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A quote from Witmer's article's abstract: "We investigated this problem by computed tomography scanning and three-dimensional reconstruction of the braincase of the London specimen of Archaeopteryx. Here we show the reconstruction of the braincase from which we derived endocasts of the brain and inner ear. These suggest that Archaeopteryx closely resembled modern birds in the dominance of the sense of vision and in the possession of expanded auditory and spatial sensory perception in the ear. We conclude that Archaeopteryx had acquired the derived neurological and structural adaptations necessary for flight. An enlarged forebrain suggests that it had also developed enhanced somatosensory integration with these special senses demanded by a lifestyle involving flying ability."

So the solution isn't (1). Question is: Is your second or third proposal right. As a doctor I see CT scans almost daily and I understand CT scans possibilities. Reconstruction of a skull really don't show brain function... So Witmer makes his conclusions with unproven hypothesis. Witmer's hypothesis may be right or wrong but we really don't know it. And I understand that this is not the right place to arque that. I'm just wondering why everything has to be written in Wikipedia. Tkkoski 19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If a sorce is published, it trumps an un-published source. Witmer is a published source on this topic, you (as far as I know) are not. I don't doubt you credentials, but I also ask that you find a source which specifically identifies the methods Witmer used as flawed, and modify the paragraph accordingly, citing this source. As a doctor I'm sure you have acess to some article, any article, which identifies the flaws in this method. It is sometimes frustrating when you can find a flaw in someone's work, but as Wikipedia prohibits original research, there's nothing you can do about it save publishing on it yourself or finding an existing published source to back up your idea.Dinoguy2 20:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's not really fair to judge an article on its abstract alone. Presumably the full article gives Witmer's justifications for arguing that the CT scans can be informative about brain functions? The Singing Badger 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

CT Scans have been conducted for dinosaurs since at least 2004. Using the scans, researchers are able to construct 3D models of the braincases of the dinosaurs. If researchers see "bulges" or "lumps" in the braincase of Archaeopteryx, similar to those found in modern birds, such as bumps in modern bird brains that are already known to affect olfactory or visual sense, there are many reasons to believe Archaeopteryx shared similar traits. These CT Scan findings have been generally accepted by the paleontological community, as far as I know.

I actually don't know your background, but I assume you must be an MD by your post, since you claim CT Scans can only be conducted on living humans (what about animals?). If you are a doctor of human medicine, Tkkoski, it is understandable that considering human brains, it might be hard to see why "bulges" are considered evidence for greater sensitivity. The bird brain, and those of reptiles, however, is much more divided, with each section of brain more seperated than in the human version, and senses divided into lobes. If the lobe is large, it indicates the animal needed greater sensitivity in that region of the brain. Witmer's claim, then, that Archaeopteryx had specific adaptations similar to modern birds (seeing, hearing, and adapted senses for flight) do not seem at all wrong-headed, and I haven't read any claims to the contrary until your edits today.--Firsfron 01:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I try to keep this short. I didn't claim that CT scans may be done only on humans. I said it above about FMRI. CT scan can be done on everything. And I'm not claiming that Witmer is totally wrong, I said that Witmer makes hypothesis which can't be proved. CT scans show brain gyrus and sulcus, but we don't know how those indicate different senses on dinosaur. You can presume brain functions from a CT scan, but you don't know it for sure. And in my opinion discussion on CT scans possibilities don't belong in this article of Archaeopteryx, so I let it be this way. All that I wanted was a word to indicate uncentainty, but I understand that after that word I't hasn't been a direct quote from Witmer. 128.214.191.201 04:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you've got a reputable reference on the uncertainty of CT Scans in extinct animals, feel free to add the caveat of uncertainty, citing your source. The reference can be a book, a magazine article, a scientific journal, a reputable web-site...--Firsfron 04:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Type Specimen

Recently added to the article: "It seems to be still unresolved whether the London specimen is actually the holotype and since when, or whether A. lithographica only refers to the single feather" and speculates that Archaeornis may be the correct name. It then goes on to list A. lithographica as a nomen conservandum. One of these statements has to be wrong... all are currently un-sourced.Dinoguy2 21:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read ICZN Opinion 607? Bühler & Bock interpret it as only suppressing the rat-tail of synonyms, but not setting a neotype. Dysmorodrepanis 15:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Head of London Specimen

The article currently states that the London Specimen lacks a head. This is wrong, the skull was revealed by preparation to the specimen carried out in the 1960s. 157.140.1.101 16:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC) David Godrfey

Opinion 607

Opinion 607 is used throught the text as a source and is listed in References--Anonymous (1961). Opinion 607, Archaeopteryx Von Meyer, 1861 (Aves); Addition to the Official list. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 18(4): 260-261. I don't have a copy, and I don't know how or where to obtain one, but this post by Tracy Ford on the DML [1] seems to confirm that it's legit.Dinoguy2 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That post antedates the paper which casts quite some doubt upon it by 5 years :(. If it were in reaction to it and started with "I looked up Bühler & Bock's comments..." I'd be glad. But alas, the one thing that we KNOW O.607 does is to establish that A. lithographica is a nomen conservandum (the pre-1861 "crassipes" names of Archie fossils were suppressed by O.1070). The point of Bühler/Bock is apparently that their research shows that the feather is the original holotype, and that everybody, including the ICZN in 1961 thought that the London specimen was the holotype. And therefore, they conclude, O.607 is valid in establishing that Archie is indeed correctly called A. lithographica (as opposed to "Griphosaurus" or whatnot), BUT that that name is still attached to that indeterminable feather. Swinton in the proposal which launched O.607 writes, apparently arguing as to why he thought the London specimen to be the holotype, "von Meyer announced the receipt of a nearly complete skeleton". The original description has "Skelett eines mit Federn bedeckten Thiers [...] gefunden worden sey" ("the skeleton of an animal covered in feathers [...] is said to have been found"). This makes it quite obvious that von Meyer in 1861 had heard of, but not seen or even received, and consequently refrained to link the feather to what would later become the London specimen and what according to B&B everyone has since long believed to be the holotype. So I shall see to that I get me O.607 (and Swinton's) myself. The point to check out - and it seems that before 2002 nobody hat taken note of this really - is whether it contains a designation of neotype for the London specimen; if not, it merely suppresses the synonyms. This is indeed possible beacuse it was obvious to every modern observer that attaching the name to the feather made it a nomen dubium... and by 1960, nobody would believe that this could remain undetected for so long, and thus, by inference, the London specimen was assumed to be the holotype. Luckily, the content of O.607 does not change: for an opinion on suppression of some name, it is not important whether the conserved name is attached to some holotype specimen or another, only that it is attached to one at all.

That all this is not inconceivable shows the trouble I had to go through to establish that Aiolornis is the correct form (not "Aiornis", even though this makes no sense etymologically while the correct name does make perfect sense). Google will give, oh, just 4 times as many hits for the wrong version... or the St. Croix Macaw, where nobody seems to be sure whether it is -cthones or -chtones or -chthones. These things happen, and it is only human if any researcher for decades would have thought that the type is the London specimen, because the notion of the name being stuck to that feather and staying stuck there without anybody raising a ruckus is too hilarious. But quite possibly, that's exactly what happened. Dysmorodrepanis 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, the issue seems to be the fault of De Beer (1954), who claimed as forcefully as wrongly that von Meyer's lumping of the feather with the London specimen made the latter the holotype as the former was not diagnostic. but it is diagnostic at least insofar as that it cannot be identified to have come from the same animal. Until Bühler/Bock's review, and especially in 1960/1961, De Beer's view seems to have been accepted. But this is not correct as the feather was the only specimen available to the describer at the time of the description. Indeed, the conclusion is that if there has not been a formal neotype designation, we're actually left with Archaeopteryx being, by all gods, not only a nomen dubium but also an ichnotaxon (the alternative would be noncompliance with ICZN rules)! I cannot imagine how it could get any worse.

De Beer's reasoning in a nutshell: as von Meyer stated in 1862 (Palaeontographica 10(2): 56),

"Die von mir dargelegte fossile Feder von Solenhofen wird von einem ähnlichen Thiere herrühren, für dass ich die Benennung Archaeopteryx lithographica (Jahrb. für Mineral., 1861. S.679) gewählt habe."

supposedly implies that he considered the London specimen his "type", but this is both incorrect according to ICZN §73.1.2 (types can only specimens under review, not specimens known from hearsay - if not so, we'd have 2 paratypes as per ICZN §73.2 and could be cool with that), and not a valid neotype designation either (ICZN §12.3 unequivocally precludes any designation by a throwaway line "a similar animal, for which I choose the name..." to be valid). Sigh. Dysmorodrepanis 16:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this is a situation that needs to be addressed with a clear designation of a neotype b the ICZN. The fact is that Archaeopteryx the taxon (not ichnotaxon) prevails ovewhelmingly in the literature, and while you are right about all this, it's original research until published. In other words, nothing needs to be changed in the article itself here ;)Dinoguy2 02:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wing vs Feather (again)

Dysmorodrepanis wrote in an edit summary: "the one thing -pteryx certainly does not mean in this case is "wing"... the descr. refers without any doubt remaining to the single feather." I don't have access to the original paper, but you can't really assume such a thing. The athor may have presumed the presence of a feather implied the presence of a wing. Does the paper actually state what the intended etymology is? If not, the issue is unresolved.Dinoguy2 02:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting, I was to rash in my statement. Not having read the original descriptions but knowing how these things looked like then ("Museum Heineanum" is a good and roughly contemporary comparison), I'd assume that von Meyer gave the overall etymology (probably in a footnote, and in Greek letters) but did not specify any one meaning. What is certain is that he goes on about the feather and nothing but in the description (which is unmercifully brief, just a picture and some measurements and the attachment of the name to the specimen - not much more to say in 2 pages at most of what apparently was at that time a small-format gazette) and merely mentions the London specimen as something that may have bearing on the case; he neither states that there MUST be a connection, nor had he seen it when he penned the original description, BUT it must also have been clear to him (as is is immediately clear to anyone who has ever taken a good close look at a bird) that what he had there was a remix. Compare to descriptions of all those moa "species" which have had taxonomists going nuts over them all those years because they were so horribly undiagnostic. Somebody should really go and public domain the original description; there seem not many copies left in Germany (a lot were firebombed away in the 40s) but SAPE probably can - and IHMO eventually will - put it online when one of their folks finds time. Maybe dropping Gerald Mayr a note could speed things up... Senckenberg's library should either hold or get access to the von Meyer paper.

(As a side note, isn't that cool that all this stuff now gets collected up and put together on W'pedia, finally to be accessed and available for the general public?) Dysmorodrepanis 15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So what is there at present? Only a partial English translation, viz.:

Additional to my writing of the fifteenth of last month, I can notify you that I have inspected the feather from Solenhofen closely from all directions, and that I have come to the conclusion that this is a veritable fossilisation in the lithographic stone that fully corresponds with a birds' feather. Simultaneously, I heard from Mr. Obergerichtsrath Witte, that the almost complete skeleton of a feather-clad animals had been found in the lithographic stone. It is reported to show many differences with living birds. I will publish a report of the feather I inspected, along with a detailed illustration. As a denomination for the animal I consider Archaeopteryx lithographica to be a fitting name...

and a even less complete German original, viz:

"Zugleich erhalte ich von Herrn Obergerichtsrath Witte die Nachricht, dass das fast vollständige Skelet eines mit Federn bedeckten Thiers im lithographischen Schiefer gefunden worden sey. Von unseren lebenden Vögeln zeige es manche Abweichung. Die von mir untersuchte Feder werde ich mit genauer Abbildung veröffentlichen. Zur Bezeichnung des Thieres halte ich die Benennung Archaeopteryx lithographica geeignet..."

- but it stops where it starts to get interesting. Note that the "I will publish..." is really the introduction to the description; the stuff about the London specimen would be labelled "abstract" today. Note also that the ICZN not being in force, we have here the basis for all that taxonomic jumble, namely von Meyer simply lumping the feather (which is the original holotype - by monotypy as per ICZN §73.1.2, and not by designation!) with the London specimen and assuming that they were of the same species. If this were true, his non-designation of a holotype would not matter. But as it stands or stood, the taxon was at least initially attached to the feather which seems not to be from Archie. Dysmorodrepanis 16:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dates? Dates?

How old are these things? There's no mention of dating anywhere in the article. Graft 18:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

they were alive in the jurassic period in the mesazoic era. they are extinct now

Image placement

Have replaced [i.e. put in correct place] images - but it has screwed up the text placement, and that problem needs correcting. --Dumarest 20:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, finally - and the detail of the London specimen, with the feathers, is now included. --Dumarest 19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

They were relocated all on the right by one editor, and now they have again been placed near the text respective to the image - good job!! Thanks to whoever got to do this before I had a chance. --Dumarest 14:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A. simensii

Added to the taxonomic material the simensii specimen designation, per a few years ago, as in the Wiki taxa site. Maybe somone much more knowledgeable than I [doctorate but in biomedicine not paleontology] could look at this, correct, expand and such. --Dumarest 21:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The only google hits I'm getting for "Archaeopteryx simensii" are 53 Russian sites. Nothing in English. Do you know of any English references? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Size

I see nothing about the creature's size, even roughly. It'd be great if someone could look that up and add it. Thanks. David McCabe 08:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Added length to intro (0.6m), the size listed on DinoData.Dinoguy2 15:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Refer?

Neither wikipedia itself [2] nor wiktionary [3] define "refer" to mean "rename" as it is being used here, nor does my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Such non-standard usage therefore calls for a citation if it is to be used. Meanwhile, I'm switching it to something more appropriate. Wahkeenah 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

making timeline

I'm involved in ja.wp article of Archaeopteryx and now making SVG file of the Timeline. I've uploaded the first version of it (image:Archaeopteryx_timeline.svg, though aspect ratio is incorrect, maybe because of the commons server settings. Actual view should be like png file below)

The informations in timeline is mainly based on english version with some modification (list below). Although I hope this image will be useful for many lang version, it needs more modification and your verification. I'm glad if you help me to make this image, either directly modify the SVG file or give me advices. Thanks in advance.

1. The combinations of scientific names and specimens in timeline are correct? Especially London specimen and Feather.
2. The order of scientific names for London specimen at 1862 is OK?
3. The scientific names annotated are enough?
4. According to ICZN official list[4], Griphosaurus problematicus Woodward, 1862 seems to be correct, not Griphosaurus problematicus Wagner, 1861
5. In ICZN list, genus Griphosaurus Wagner seems to have been reported at 1862 (after the finding of London specimen?) ,although other online informations describe as 1861 [5],[6] . Which is suitable?
6. According to here, 9th ("Chicken wing") seems less-fragmented specimen than 8th. Which is Burgermeister-Muller specimen?

--Y tambe 08:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(commons:user:Calvero corrected SVG error on aspect ratio and italicizing, so I replaced the image above to svg version. Thanks.) --Y tambe 15:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow! That looks spectacular! I'll see what I can come up with on it. I know who would know if all of the dates are correct, but I don't think they edit here. J. Spencer 14:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No reply yet. J. Spencer 01:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

One person who has looked it over says that it checks out with Wellnhofer's article in "Feathered Dragons". There's been a change in status in some of the specimens, though, after Mayr et al.'s 2007 paper, that reintroduces A. siemensii. I don't have the article, unfortunately. A summary can be found here and below:

"An interesting outcome of this study is the distinction of two species: *A. lithographica*, including the London (1), Maxberg (3), Haarlem (4), and Solnhofen (5) specimens, and *A. siemensii*, including the Berlin (2), Munich (7), and Thermopolis (10) specimens. *Wellnhoferia grandis* is sunk because, while distinct from *A. siemensii*, it cannot be told apart from *A. lithographica*, and *A. bavarica* is sunk because the supposed sternum is part of the coracoid, removing the main difference between it and *A. siemensii* -- various proportions differ between the Munich specimen and the Berlin specimen, but in these the Thermopolis specimen is intermediate. The very small Eichstätt specimen (6), the very incomplete 8th specimen, and the inaccessible 9th specimen are not assigned to a species. -- *A. lithographica* is larger, has much larger flexor tubercles on the toe claws, different limb proportions, a stouter metatarsus, and a constriction in the middle of the premaxillary tooth crowns; the other features previously considered diagnostic for *Wellnhoferia* could also be diagnostic for *A. lithographica*, but are not preserved in the other three specimens; the end of the tail is not preserved in the Solnhofen specimen, so its tail length, previously considered diagnostic, can only be estimated."

Mayr, Pohl, Hartman and Peters, 2007. The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 149 (1), 97 -- 116.

As to the other questions: this looks like your best bet for a clear version of the running order for the 1861-62 names. This has every name and misspelling as of 1999. Wagner appears to have used Griphosaurus in 1861 without a species name (note that in the pdf listing, 1862 is in parentheses, and the reference says 1861); Woodward indeed used Griphosaurus problematicus in 1862, not Wagner; Griphornis longicaudatus was published in 1862 by Woodward from a manuscript by Owen, for unknown reasons. The combinations and citations look good, and the Burgermeister-Muller is the 8th, the "chicken wing" the 9th. I'll copy this over to your talk page. J. Spencer 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll update the timeline anytime soon.--Y tambe 15:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

updated. --Y tambe 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I'd suggest just a couple of tweaks: first, a legend somewhere to tell the reader what each color is for (or maybe just have that in the description of the figure); and second, to incorporate Mayr et al.'s suggested assignments if possible, although space is tight on the right-hand side. The quick version of their findings is: London, Haarlem, Maxberg, and Solnhofen=A. lithographica; Berlin, Munich, and Thermopolis=A. siemensii; and Eichstaat, Burgermeister-Muller, and Chicken Wing were not assigned to a species, so you can leave them alone. J. Spencer 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. How is this? (I resized the image above for a bit to remake the unbroken preview because an error occured during uploading...) --Y tambe 10:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful! This is such a great image I almost hesitate to bring it up, but Pterodactylus wasn't a dinosaur. Maybe the heading could be "Recognized as Dinosaur or Pterosaur Fossils" ? Also, the 2007 assignments should be credited to Mayr et al., since there were four authors, and without that people might have trouble finding the article. With those two little tweaks, I think it would be ready to go! J. Spencer 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. In this version I added the recent classifications of Elzanowski (2002) and Sester & Robins (2003) as well as Mayr et al (2007), though I'm afraid of it taking on too much. I hope it may help understanding the controversy in taxonomy and getting near to NPOV. Could you help me to verify it? --Y tambe 09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out, although I think you've got it right. J. Spencer 14:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay: Senter and Robins (2003; Sester is a typo) have Berlin, Maxberg, Haarlem, Eichstatt, Munich, and London together as A. lithographica, and accept Solnhofen as Wellnhoferia, so that checks out (except for Senter as Sester). I don't have Elzanowski (2002), but I can confirm that it has Solnhofen as Wellnhoferia, Berlin as A. siemensii, Munich as A. bavarica, and London as A. lithographica; maybe someone else here has the book it's in, and can speak to Maxberg, Haarlem, and Eichstatt? J. Spencer 15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the typo, and I think I can release the timeline in this version. Thank you very much! --Y tambe 14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! You've done a lot of work on this, and it looks great! J. Spencer 03:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To-Do List

Hi guys, what I can see needs doing:

• needs a Description section after the lead, some material can be gleaned from Paleobiology.
• list of specimens needs delistifying somehow, unless others feel a list is the way to go:

thoughts? Cas Liber 22:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've asked someone to have a look at the timeline graphic, so hopefully we'll get some suggestions on that in near future.

I like having separate paragraphs for each specimen. They're each a bit short for full subsections, so maybe just remove the bullets and see how they look as short paragraphs? J. Spencer 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, as they are significantly sized paras anyway. cheers Cas Liber 23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I reckon looks better without the bullets but the paras need some tweaking - doable though. Cas Liber 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

They need more than just tweaking, I think (I just did a bit, and they need a lot more attention). I agree they work as paragraphs, though. Obviously, the paragraph on the fragments needs expanding. Aside from references, we'll also need to create a lot of articles for all the red links. In all of this, let's not forget the actual collaboration of the month is supposed to be Compsognathus; Arthur put a lot of work into it, and I'd hate to see that "go to waste", so to speak. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken; alot of what I have done I've done away from home where copyediting and formatting are alot easier than gleaning new info from books which I have at home. I am keeping an eye on the other but am finding that one more difficult to add to. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I can probably start a description section soon. The history of discovery section is horrific. Yikes, it needs a bunch of work done & I'll definitely need some help with that. The opening para's are taking shape, but seem to be rather repetitive & not descriptive enough for an opening section. I'm thinking however, does the Pop culture section need to be there? It's got 1 song from a dead beat group & that's the only thing. I say we scrap it & concentrate on other things. In an FAC, the pop culture section would be ripped to shreds & be deleted eventually anyway. Other than that, for the Paleobiology section, are there any other burning topics that need to be included - We only have plumage & flight ability so far. Does anyone have anything on feeding & behaviour etc? I'm going to do some shuffling round later today, so it may look a bit disjointed for a while. Hopefully we can get it half good... I bags noming it once it is... :) Spawn Man 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Started a description section & have begun prose checking. Question - Should the "Archaeopteryx & the origin of birds" section be moved under Paleobiology or left as a lone section? Thanks, Spawn Man 02:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed the pop culture section - "Popular culture - Track 11 on the Lemon Demon CD Dinosaurchestra is entitled "Archaeopteryx". The song is about a person with an intense dislike of birdkind based on a jealousy of their flight ability. The person then travels back in time and kills the original Archaeopteryx, thus killing off all future birds. See also: Grandfather paradox." If really wanted returned, just paste above section... Spawn Man 02:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A serious concern of mine in the article is the prose. It sounds as it parts have been copied & pasted into the article from the scientific papers, giving it that examination feel & a 1st person dialogue. This needs to be changed, & I've tried, but I can't seem to get its stench out... Spawn Man 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel the Archaeopteryx & the origin of birds section belongs as a subheading with an expanded section on Taxonomy and Classification, both could go somwhere under Discovery and Species or in their own section. There must be a pile of stuff on taxonomy to go into the article. In terms of pop culture, the image in stone is pretty iconic but I can't think where it has been used. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, just as you said that I finished merging the archie & origin of birds section into the description section. I think it fits quite well, but I can revert if you think it's too much... Spawn Man 03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I have not the expertise to do the species & classification sections...

Archie is definitely an icon of evolution, and I think any pop culture section needs to emphasize that fact. An asteroid (9860 Archaeopteryx) is also named after it, which also belongs in such a section. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This sentence: "He exchanged this precious fossil for a cow, with Johann Dörr." just doesn't sound quite right. Suggestions? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum

I suddenly realised I had Feathered Dragons on me bookshelf - kickass book. Have had a browse and there's some stuff ta add.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I actually saw Glorified Dinosaurs at my Uni bookshop yesterday, might have to pick it up so I have something worthwhile to contribute myself :) Dinoguy2 09:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

New image request

Alas I do not have photoshop (or potatochop for that matter), or else I'd create an image like the above one for archie. If anyone would be able to, it would be a great help in getting the article closer to FAC. There are some suitable images on Commons (link at bottom of Archie article) that you could use in the above image. Thanks whoever you are who does this... :) Spawn Man 08:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the original templates for those scale diagrams, including a more 'zoomed in' version from Jinfengopteryx -- I'll see about doing a comparison diagram between a few Archie specimens using Spindler's drawing, which appears to be public domain. Dinoguy2 08:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be very excellent; thank you, Dinoguy. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh hi Dinoguy, I've been meaning to ask you for your help on Archie but forgot. I can't remember where I saw it, but there was a similar scale picture where numerous theropod dinosaurs were lined up in different colours showing their different sizes along side each other. If you could find that picture, you might be able to use it to create an Archie diagram using the same concept... Spawn Man 08:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for some reason I feel like I just saw a list of Archie specimens, their sizes, etc., but I can't find it. All my dino books are on the other side of the planet (DoA is too heavy for carry-on ;) ). Anybody have that info? For now, here's one based on the Berlin specimen, which I believe is 0.6 m, I assume not counting retrices. I modified the feet of the Spindler drawing, which had incorrect, reversed halluces. Dinoguy2 08:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the image. Are you still travelling, Dinoguy? Well, I'm not sure which list the two of you are talking about (or even if it's the same list), but this site has Jaime Headden's Archaeopteryx skeletal reconstructions gathered together in one image, shown to scale (click on image to zoom in). Firsfron of Ronchester 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I was talking about a picture I've recently seen on here that Dinoguy could have based this picture off. The only thing is, the picture I saw, I can't find it again! This has been happening a lot around here & not just to me (Dinoguy above, me, Cas...) The picture was of I think, Big Al, T rex, Allosaurus, Albertosaurus & they were different colours & placed in front & behind each other on a scale graph like the above picture. This picture showed the different sizes of each as the bigger ones overlapped the smaller ones. Hard to explain, but it's drving me nuts as I saw it not long ago!!!! GRRRRRR! Maybe I never saw it... Ah well. Thanks for the picture Dinoguy, I'll talk to you soon... Spawn Man 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. Will stick in that picture until we can get a better one - if we can get a better one...

I remember the pic too, now where was it????cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Could it have been this one? Three allosaurids? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's it that's it that's it!!!!! YAY! I thought I'd gone mad... Thank God... :) Spawn Man 03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I made two versions of the size comparison--one with all eight specimens Headden illustrated, arranged diagonally to fit (I also tried it stacked as with the allosaurs, but it was harder to see what's going on at that small size), and one with the largest two and the smallest two, which gives an example of most specimens that have been assigned to their own genera or new species.

File:Archiesizesome1.png

Dinoguy2 10:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've stacked all the specimens in the first image, and zoomed it in a bit. Is that any better? Dinoguy2 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As per your talk - perfect. Just in case there is any problems at FAC, you might consider keeping the previous images & uploading them to Commons so they aren't deleted. Thanks, Spawn Man 07:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there something off with the scale? Headden's Jurapteryx image [7] is around 20 cm long, not including possible tail feathers. The Jurapteryx on your image is no more than 15 cm long, including tail feathers. While 5 cm may not seem like a big deal, it is when it's about 1/4th the length of the entire animal. Even accounting for the different neck positions (stretched out vs. further back), it seems a little small. This is the one I noticed, but the others may be on the small side, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, something strange is going on here. I was going by the scale in his panoply ("The Many Archaeopteryx), in which the Eichtatt specimen is only slightly longer than the scale bar, which is labelled 10cm. All of the individual skeletals at the Grave Yard site are significantly larger than their counterparts in the panoply. I'm betting the bar was mis-labelled in the latter? I'll ask him about it tomorrow and see what's up. Dinoguy2 11:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This scale diagram is very good, the size of the four famous Archaeopteryx (like in spanish we say "arqueopteríx") specimens in comparison with a human. I wanted to do my allosaurids scale diagram like this but the allosaurs are too big!:) Dropzink 05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Archie

Given that it is now well established that several lineages of theropods evolved feathers and flight independently, the question of how precisely the ancestors of Archaeopteryx became able to fly has lost dramatically in importance for the time being. Since it is quite likely that this species belongs to a lineage of birds unrelated to the Neornithes (the Jurassic ancestor of which remains unknown), how exactly flying ability was gained in Archaeopteryx may be a moot point, having little bearing on how this happened in the ancestors of modern birds.

I think this whole paragraph is evolutionarily unparsimonius and needs to be rehauled, or conveniently sourced. Reasons should be painfully obvious.

There is no consistent description of what type of sediment/fossilizing environment Archie was preserved in and what paleoecological setting the animal would have lived in. Dracontes 09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks: German places

Re a mention at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Archaeopteryx of redlinks in this article -- I see that Workerszell doesn't have an article on German-language Wikipedia, and that Blumenberg there is a disamb page with references to various people and places. I don't see how we can provide meaningful articles on these. Thoughts? -- Writtenonsand 13:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like these nameplaces are not notable even for the Germans to justify an article in an encyclopedia. I suggest to remove the links altogether. ArthurWeasley 15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversey?

Were we planning on getting into things like the Hoyle feather fakery claims? I think they're important enough to warrant comment. J. Spencer 15:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A Featured Article is supposed to be comprehensive. I agree the Hoyle fakery claims, as well as others, should be discussed. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving toward FA...To-Do

Looking over the page it is taking shape rather nicely. The main things I can think of are:

• The long list of synonyms for mine is a bit of an eyesore; would it be worthwhile just highlighting (in a paragraph) the several that are important and why - e.g. recent proposed new species and griphosaurus etc.)?

• I have borrowed Luis Chiappe's book on Glorified Dinosaurs - it describes archies environment and what Solnhofen/bavaria was like at the time. It may make a good subsection "Environment of Archie"

• How do folk feel about the paragraphed list of specimens? OK or still to listy?

Thoughts? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the list of synonyms are actually okay to be honest - Numerous other articles have a similar set up. Of course, if this was a problem in FAC, then we could easily cram it into a para or two. In regard to the specimens, I think it's about right. It's not too listy, but it doesn't exactly look the tidiest, but that's just my OC coming out. ;) I'm thinking that if that's all we have to worry about, I see no reason why I shouldn't nom soon. Even if I nom'd today, Cas would still have enough time to create a short para on the archie environment. The article is well cited, informative & has everything that an FA would need. Who's with me? If anyone is, I'll nom soon. Right? (Please say yes, I'm so itchy to nom...) Thanks, Spawn Man 05:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The list can be shorten quite a bit if you removed all the lapsi (they really rather refer to the genus name not the binomial name, ex: Archeopterix instead of Archeopteryx). That would lead to only 7-8 synonyms for which a small sentence can be added. ArthurWeasley 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone on the last FAC said we needed either full captions or to remove the periods (full stops). There is also a lot of uncited text in the specimens section. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I've also been told in previous FACs to put fullstops in captions. It's a matter of personal style & we don't really need to change anything unless someone opposes on the FAC... Spawn Man 06:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's official - Archie is up for FAC - Yay! :) Spawn Man 06:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I'll try and whip up something in a few hours when I get home on environment. bit tied up at present. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(Phew!) done cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking Wing

Are you familiar with Pat Shipman's book Taking Wing: Archaeopteryx and the Evolution of Bird Flight? Might be worth putting it in the References.

I've done a bit of Wikignoming by correcting the Ancient Greek (adding accents & breathings). I hope most browsers can still read it.

Looking good: good luck with the FAC! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Paeleoecology

This section was volunteered in the FAC. I'm placing this here until its ready to move into the main article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The excellent preservation of Archaeopteryx fossils and other terrestrial fossils found at Solnhofen indicates that they did not travel far before becoming preserved. The Archaeopteryx specimens found are likely therefore to have lived on the low islands surrounding the Solnhofen lagoon rather than been corpses that drifted in from further away. Archaeopteryx skeletons are considerably less numerous in the deposits of Solnhofen than those of pterosaurs such as Rhamphorhynchus, the group which dominated the niche currently occupied by seabirds, yet are common enough that it is unlikely that the specimens found are vagrants from the larger islands 50 km (31 miles) to the north.

The islands that surrounded the Solnhofen lagoon were low lying, semi-arid and sub-tropical with a long dry season and little rain. The flora of these islands was adapted to these dry conditions and consisted mostly of low (3 m [10 ft]) shrubs. Contrary to reconstructions of Archaeopteryx climbing large trees, these seem to have been absent from the islands; few trunks have been found in the sediments and fossilised tree pollen is also absent.

The lifestyle of Archaeopteryx is difficult to reconstruct and there are several theories regarding it. It has been suggested by some researchers that it was primarily adapted to life on the ground, while other researchers suggest that it was principally arboreal. The absence of trees does not preclude Archaeopteryx from an arboreal lifestyle; several species of extant bird live exclusively in low shrubs. Various aspects of the morphology of Archaeopteryx point to either an arboreal or ground existence, the length of its legs, the elongation in its feet; and some authorities consider it likely to have been a generalist capable of feeding in both shrubs, open ground and even alongside the shores of the lagoon. It most likely hunted small prey, seizing it with its jaws if it were small enough or with its claws if it were larger.

There is more to come. Please pick over an polish (I have to go to lunch now) Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reflist so we can see the references. Taking a look right now... Firsfron of Ronchester 23:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the qualifier "tree" to make it "tree pollen", as I can't find a source which mentions anything other than tree pollen. I hope this meets with your approval, Sabine. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a concern - the para which Cas created not long ago has this sentence: "Plants include cycads and conifers while animals found..." - Isn't SS trying to say there was no conifers, or if there was, very very few? Basically these two para's contradict each other... Thoughts & fixes as they're both on the same subject? Thanks, Spawn Man 05:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. This also deserves attention. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My major source is Gregory (2002), and the refs he uses. I'll try and finish my bit tonight after dinner. 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Sabine. I look forward to it. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I can find some more refs tomorrow at the library this is as much as I can do at the moment. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As a sucker for paleobiology/paleoecolgy, I like it. I'd even put it in right now. I've noticed, though, that the {{cite journal}}/{{cite book}} elements aren't in use, and though it doesn't bother me much one way or the other, someone's bound to comment on it at the FAC. J. Spencer 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If people want to convert it,let them. I can't stand those templates, they are hideous and cumbersome, snd I point blank refuse to use them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The templates add a lot of extra code which makes editing difficult. I find that typing out references by hand is much simpler and faster. Mgiganteus1 19:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Above looks great. I just woke up and am a bit bleary eyed but I can't see where it says there are few conifers. It is similar to what I looked at -Chiappe says "Although a handful of plnat remains and the existence of insects with wood-boring larvae supports the presence of trees, particularly conifers, this meagre record suggests the forests were scarce at best." thus I mentioned conifers as there was something of them. :) Feel free to replace mine with SSs. This line is OK.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 19:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added Sabine's longer section to Cas' short section on the article page. J. has changed it to the citation template style, for consistency. In your opinions, does this make anything too redundant? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I had anticipated the whole section being in paleobiology, under flight. Also the whole thing needs some rewording, especialy since Cas's section talks about trees that later my section says aren't there (maybe my section should read are very uncommon?). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tweaked it -it kinda acts like an intro now..cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Any objections to my moving Paeloecology to the paleobiology section? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

None here. In fact, I was a little surprised that they were seperate sections and that they were nowhere near each other. Anyway, you should feel free to edit as you see fit. We all do, at least. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I object! No that's out of the way... ;) My rationale is that there is more in there for paleoecology than there is for paleobiology. Just my opinion, but I love what you've done with the section SS... :) Spawn Man 23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, I just think the ecology section belongs near the biology section, not sandwiched between human controversy and cultural refs. It can be a section on its own up there, if need be. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Urvogel

There is no mention of the (originally German) term Urvogel in this article, which is supposed to be comprehensive. Currently, Urvogel redirects here. I believe this term should be mentioned in the article, but where? Firsfron of Ronchester 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe you could list it in the description part & just say that in Germany where it was discovered, the term for Archie was Urvogel... Or something of the like. Too trivial to put in opening & nowhere else would suit it... Spawn Man 04:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

DOIs

Someone on the last FAC indicated DOIs should be included with each new FAC submission, and helpfully provided a DOI linking tool. I can't find it now; does anyone know where that link is? I'd like to add the DOIs. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Flight

I'm concerned about this para at the end of 'flight':

"Given that it is now well established that several lineages of theropods evolved feathers and flight independently, the question of how precisely the ancestors of Archaeopteryx became able to fly has lost dramatically in importance for the time being. Since it is quite likely that this species belongs to a lineage of birds unrelated to the Neornithes (the Jurassic ancestor of which remains unknown), how exactly flying ability was gained in Archaeopteryx may be a moot point, having little bearing on how this happened in the ancestors of modern birds."

Though I'm not a specialist here, this para seems to go much too far and be much too definite on a topic that is still fluid. I suggest we have here an opinion rather than a widespread agreement amongst researchers. Several lineages of theropods evolved feathers and flight independently? I suggest the wording is examined and should probably be watered down. Macdonald-ross 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Several lineages of theropods did develop flight independently. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think we know that. It very well could have only been developed once, and lost several times. Also the paragraph is flat out wrong when that feathers developed in several lineages independently.

Further, I'd say we still don't know that Archie wasn't the ancestor of all birds (the evidence is weak), and we won't know until we find a clearly more advanced earlier one. --John.Conway 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll still bet my lunch on the idea that at least all paravians evolved from archaeopterygid ancestors capable of some form of powered flight. The fact that the most bird-like, most likely-to-have-flown dromies and troodonts are the most basal and most Archie-like really seems to support this, as does the time frame. Either that, or the most advanced dromies are not really that close to microraptorians and troodontids. Dinoguy2 00:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears I've misinterpreted Mayr and Peters (06)based on comments made by Corfe and Butler. Sorry, all! Firsfron of Ronchester 02:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that it is now well established that several lineages of theropods evolved feathers and flight independently, the question of how precisely the ancestors of Archaeopteryx became able to fly has lost dramatically in importance for the time being. Since it is quite likely that this species belongs to a lineage of birds unrelated to the Neornithes (the Jurassic ancestor of which remains unknown), how exactly flying ability was gained in Archaeopteryx may be a moot point, having little bearing on how this happened in the ancestors of modern birds.

I've removed this from the article until it is corrected. I think it is making a fair point (that Archie is not considered as pivotal to the origin of bird flight as it used to be) -- but it need a substantial rewrite. --John.Conway 12:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming paper in Journal of Systematic Paleontology (doi:10.1017/S1477201907002143) suggests rather strongly that it is indeed the case: Microraptor and Archie descended and evolved flight-related apomorphies independently from non-volant, non-flight-feathered ancestors (and Rahonavis too as regards apomorphies).

Check it out. It's AMAZING. Not only does Senter do his statistics, but he also does what too few people in the field do - discuss alternate phylogenies (it's evidence-based statistics and not evidence, after all). I am so awaiting the discussion. So get yourself a Cambridge Journals access and check out that 35-page piece of work YESTERDAY! To whet your appetite,

The most comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the theropod clade Coelurosauria to date, is presented here, with 85 coelurosaurian ingroups and 360 characters, using Allosaurus and Sinraptor as outgroups. The strict consensus tree is highly resolved and has the following topology: Tyrannosauroidea + (Compsognathidae + (Arctometatarsalia + (Ornitholestes + (Therizinosauroidea + (Alvarezsauridae + (Oviraptorosauria + (Avialae + (Troodontidae + Dromaeosauridae)))))))). The analysis places Coelurus and Tanycolagreus at the base of Tyrannosauroidea, Deinocheirus within Arctometatarsalia, Protarchaeopteryx within Oviraptorosauria and Epidendrosaurus at the base of Avialae. The analysis results in wide phylogenetic separation between Caenagnathus (close to the base of Oviraptorosauria) and Chirostenotes (placed within a clade of crested oviraptorids), casting doubt on their synonymy. All taxa with an enlarged, trenchant ungual on the second toe are placed within Troodontidae or Dromaeosauridae; at the base of the latter is an unenlagiine clade that includes Unenlagia and Rahonavis. The hypothesis that dromaeosaurids are secondarily flightless birds is not supported.

In any case, the assumption that "paravian" flight evolved only once is by now a fringe opinion. Basically a BCF-light model. For one thing, it would require an inordinate number of lineages losing flight-related apomorphies. For another, it would work well only if Microraptor RE-EVOLVED flight... too many close and intermediate relatives that are quite unequivocally flightless (secondarily flightless according to a "flight came once" model) to be comfortable. Dysmorodrepanis 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So, is Senter saying flight evolved three times within basal paraves?? Microraptor, Rahonavis, and Avialae? No support for Oviraptorifirmes (did he include Incisivosaurus?), "Arctometatarsalia" for (I presume) just ornithomimosaurs? I'm suspicious... Dinoguy2 01:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well as the abstract doesn't really mention flight, and I can't access this paper at the moment (or indeed any non-free papers...) so I'm going to reserve judgement for now. Flight evolving three times does seem awfully suspicious to me — I think we need to wait for some sort of criticism/reaction before including it. —John.Conway 13:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the paper, and nowhere does Senter specifically argue that dromaeosaurids are not secondarily flightless, just that they are not secondarily flightless birds. It seems pretty clear in context that he's arguing against their membership in clade Aves. Unless I overlooked something, he doesn't rule out secondary flightlessness outside of Aves. I can't find any instance in the paper where he suggests flight arose multiple times. Dinoguy2 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thermopolis specimen photo?

I read here that the Thermopolis Archie (or a cast) is on display at Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe until May 29. Any chance that someone snaps a pic? Maybe sone user with account on the German WP might also place a request there. Dysmorodrepanis 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I went there today. They do have one specimen for a two week exhibition only. No-one I found could tell me which one, but it is a very nice specimen. I'll upload the images later today, once I got them of my camera. Thanks for making me buy a year pass to the museum ;-) --Stephan Schulz 17:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing the photos! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Then check Image:Archaeopterix ka01.jpg. I've put the main explanations and links to all 4 images there. Let me know if you need more - I bought a year pass (incredibly cheap) and can go back easily - the Museum is 5 minutes by bicycle from my home. The specimen will be there for another week, but I'm usually to busy on weekdays, so be quick. --Stephan Schulz 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! I've added one of the images to the article. Mgiganteus1 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture reference:

"A high-end brand of outdoor clothing, backpacks and other gear was launched in the 1990s or 2000s with the name "Arc’teryx." Their logo looks like the Berlin Archaeopteryx fossil." -- Should this be kept? I mean, it isn't cited, might be a vanity reference for some company & doesn't even know when precisely the brand was launched "...launched in the 1990s or 2000s...". Thoughts? Spawn Man 04:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete it, it's trivia. Tempshill 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! The original description is online!

Free-for all, thanks Google Books! See here. (Not much to be made out of it though... it certainly would be a nomen nudum today :) ) Dysmorodrepanis 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have translated the initial description of the then-unnamed feather, found on p.561 of the same volume. Somebody might double-check it; it might be put into the article, as it is one of the most important texts in the history of evolutionary biology and paleontology. Here goes [annotations in brackets & italicization added]:

"Frankfurt-on-Main, August 15, 1861
From the lithography slates[sic] of the Solhofen quarries a fossil, as slab and counterslab, situated on the separation or cleavage plane, has been conferred to me, which is in great clarity recognizable as a feather that is indistinguishable from the bird feathers.In the now so well-known bauplan of the pterodactylids there is nothing indicating a feather coat in these animals; thus this would be the first remains of a pre-Tertiary bird. The feather, of blackish appearance, was about 60 mm long and the vane, here and there a bit split, was nearly uniformly 11 mm wide. Its barbs are only about half as long on one side of the rachis than on the other. Also the calamus, which was quite strong, was indicated. The end of the vane has a somewhat obtuse angle. The feather would represent a remix- or pinion-feather[this is synonymous, but he's got it like that in the text]. I hope to be able to make an exact depiction and description of it for the Palaeontographica soon. The rock is the common lithography slate, from the cleavage planes of which here and there Saccocoma-like forms stand out."

I have, as a side note, been unable to find the feather on plate 5 of the 1861 volume, but von Meyer in his description suggests that he had not finished the drawing at that time. The 1862 volume has that plate missing, unfortunately. Dysmorodrepanis 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oldest feathers?

'"The eleven fossils currently classified as Archaeopteryx are the oldest evidence of feathers on the planet and the only ones dated from Jurassic times."

With the possibility that the Daohugou Beds are Middle or, more likely, Late Jurassic, this situation is not so straightforward. Shouldn't the possibility that feathers from Epidendrosaurus and Pedopenna are known from the same time or earlier be mentioned? Dinoguy2 01:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the citation given is relatively recent, so I don't think it's out of date material. Perhaps it means the first feathers used for flight rather than feathers used as down for dinosaurs such as t rex etc? I'm not sure as I don't have experience in the area... Spawn Man 04:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as long as this is actually what the cite says (I don't have it), I suppose it should stay as-is. The age of the Daohugou is still pretty controversial anyway, and every new paper on it seems to contradict the last. But, for the record, the feathers Pedopenna, at least, are described as modern in all aspects but their symmetry, very dissimilar from the 'fuzz' of primitive coelurosaurs. Pedopenna is a pretty immediate outgroup to Aves, that is, only a non-bird by technicality. (And now that I check, it was described a year after the source in the text. So yes, the source is a bit outdated). Dinoguy2 06:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"missing link"

The popular media use this term in a way that seems to confuse some people (who typically are creationists).[8] They seem to think that biologists are looking for one magic fossil that will prove everything, and if a "missing link" was announced today that means that the previous one was rejected. "Transitional fossil" is the scientific term and does not carry the same implication of uniqueness. Gazpacho 03:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame you picked a creationist citation. Read it. It describes evolution as a religious philosophy. Rubbish. The whole website is a propaganda machine to tell the same old lies. Indeed, this raises an interesting question: given that our editor consensus is pro-evolution in all scientific articles, which is sensible, should we also have some general procedure regarding when, if at all, articles - or even talk pages - can feature links to their pseudoscientific web pages? Just a thought. 85.92.173.186 08:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

argh athiest raeg! Gazpacho 02:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

He intentionally used a creationist citation to illustrate how creationists miss-understand and miss-use the phrase "missing link". He did not endorse the views expressed in the citation, in fact, he was using to illustrate that creationists tend to be ignorant on at least that one point. For what it's worth I agree that "missing link" has the incorrect popular connotation of a single unique fossil that needs to be found to prove evolution once and for all. 69.95.50.15 15:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what a raeg is (I did try looking it up), but for the record I am an atheist but my comments were not. If raeg refers to the following you're hateful, violating WP:NPA among other things - but, like I say, I don't know. If it's about the comment, you're just incorrect. Maybe it's rage (which means "a" was an improper insertion of mine). I don't know.

65.95.50.15, I'll take your word for it. (I had expected a attempt to deobfuscate with a link to link to a deobfuscation rather than an incident of what needs deobfuscating.) Following that concession with a but in it, sorry.

However, my question stands: what should be the standard on links to creationist pages? Any ideas? Personally, I'd have it limited to the sort of thing I'm accepting Gazpacho did following your lead. I've already made it clear enough I'd be against using for what I thought it was for.

Having thought about it, I suppose it doesn't really get used for anything else - except in one context I worry about: pages on creationism or creationist conceptions - all that ID stuff included - that include links to their arguments as if somehow they had enough weight to be worth reading. Obviously, articles about the science don't do that. I'm wondering - should material we wouldn't dare link to on a science page be linked to on pages about anti-science movements?

If my opinion were being polled, I'd say so, because the selectivity seems weird to me. If consensus agrees with me, several articles would need to be brought in to line, which is why I think it's worth raising on the off-chance I'm on to something. Also, i had to post back to say where i agree/disagree with/don't understand at all etc. you two. 85.92.173.186 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It might help if a better example had been used such as [9] OR [10], although admittedly they do not address Archaeopteryx directly. Additionally it is disingenuous and arrogantly dismissive to say everyone who disagrees with macro evolution is anti-science. Science should go where the facts lead, not dismiss all counter-arguments because some of them are expressed poorly. Science and religion are not incompatible. Great scientist such as Newton, Pascal, Ohm, Priestly, Boyle, Copernicus, Leibnitz, Maxwell, Mendel, and so on were devotedly religious and more importantly saw no conflict between science and religion. If all the counter-arguments about Archaeopteryx being a transitional species are facades then they will fall flat under scrutiny. If so then any other arguments which may be linked to from them will then also be suspect. Kaos Klerik (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx

(moved from my talk)
Hi Rex,

I'm not sure what was going on here, but you claimed in your edit summary that "'urvogel' is not used in English." You can see here, however, the term "Urvogel" receives over a thousand hits when Google is restricted to English-language pages on sites limited to the U.S. and the top hits for the term are in English. Because the term is used quite frequently in English-language paleontological sources, I've restored the text that you removed for now. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see in that google test, is that it mostly has forum hits, and (more importantly) uses 'Urvogel', more in the sense of 'ancient/earliest birds', not specifically the Archaeopteryx. Apart from that I really have the idea that 'urvogel' is almost nonexistant in English. This explains why there are only 1,730 google hits for urvogel (half of which are examples of how it's called in German) and over 249,000 hits on Archaeopteryx. Btw, in German Archaeopteryx is also used far more, and urvogel is not limited to Archaeopteryx.Rex 08:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that GSP, at least, uses the term Urvogel very often and prominantly in his books, to refer to Archaeopteryx specifically (DoA, Scientific american book of Dinosaurs, probably PDW too). These are just he cites I have off the top of my head. My personal impression is that this is a very common term in English used to refer to Archie, probably in popular discourse more than in the literature, but it's real, big-name scientits doing the popularizing, so it's not exactly "thagomizer"-esque trivia. Dinoguy2 08:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Gregory Paul is one major English-speaking paleontologist who uses the term 'Urvogel' in his books (link here), but he's not the only one. Feduccia et al. do, too.[11][12] These are big names in paleontology, and their lead has been followed in other sources, like Palaeos. As Dinoguy says, the term is something readers would find in books for the average reader, as well as professional paleontological papers. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Image

I was offer the use of an image by Karen Carr [13]of Archaeopteryx [14] for the Introduction to Evolution page. We opted out; however, if you ae interested I can pursue it.--Random Replicator 00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd reccomend against it--the structure of the wing, for one thing, is all wrong. Dinoguy2 00:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - unless someone here fixed it or stated in the image caption that it's incorrect. She should at least upload it to Commons if she wants... Spawn Man 04:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

New archaeopterygids?

Possible Berriasian sister taxon of Archie sensu lato at Cherves-de-Cognac, France? See here. Dysmorodrepanis 14:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Would be nice if they said what the material was. Also doesn't say it's not Archaeopteryx itself. Dinoguy2 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

moved from bird

User:Jbrougham added some great info on archie and early birds that was a a tad overspecialised for the more general and overlong bird article. I summarised it there, but don't feel qualified to add it to this FA.

Archaeopteryx is so often assumed to be an ancestral bird that it has seemed almost heretical to suggest otherwise. Nonetheless, several authors have done so. Lowe (1935) and Thulborn (1984) questioned whether Archaeopteryx truly was the first bird. They suggested that Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur that was no more closely related to birds than were other dinosaur groups. Kurzanov (1987) suggested that Avimimus was more likely to be the ancestor of all birds than Archaeopteryx.Barsbold (1983) and Zweers&Vanden Berge (1998) noted that many maniraptoran lineages are extremely birdlike, and suggested that different groups of birds may have descended from different dinosaur ancestors.

Cheers! Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

The section about the Berlin specimen states: "it is the most complete specimen"

Further down, the section about the Thermopolis specimen states: "is considered the most complete and well preserved Archaeopteryx remains yet."

So which one is it? FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Another thing, I just miraculously found an imported copy of "Predatory Dinosaurs of The World" by Gregory S Paul in a provincial book store here in Denmark, the book must have been there since 1988, and in that, GSP already claimed that he had found evidence that Archaeopteryx had the "hyperextendible second toe", yet this article states it wasn't even considered until the Thermopolis specimen was examined. Shouldn't that be changed too? FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Paul had always claimed this though everyone else pretty much ignored him. We should definitely mention this in neutral language. Something like "Paul 1988 claimed to have found evidence of a hyperextensible toe, but this was not verified and accepted by other scientists until the Thermopolis specimen etc. etc." Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet another thing, our main images of Archie appear to be wrong, the Oxford University Museum model lacks leg feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, Arcie definitely had feathers on the lower leg. The images should be removed per WP:Dino guidelines. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the top-down image but the one in the taxobox can probably be fixed with a little cropping so I'll just replace it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx fraud

There have been a few instances where people (eg. Hoyle?) have claimed Archaeopteryx was a fraud. It would be useful to have these claims mentioned and how they were resolved.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrevenant (talk • contribs) 23:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Isolated Archaeopteryx feather

Many scientists agree that the feather impression, the original holotype of Archaeopteryx, is referrable to Archaeopteryx. The feather may have come from an as-yet-undiscovered Archaeopteryx specimen very similar to the Archaopteryx London specimen.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Specimens

You mixed it all wrong. There are currently 10 skeletal specimens known plus the feather, which makes it 11 fossils! 0 - feather (?) 1 - London (A. lithographica) 2 - Berlin (A. siemensii) 3 - Maxberg (A. lithographica) 4 - Haarlem (A. lithographica) 5 - Solnhofen (A. lithographica) 6 - Eichstätt (very small) (?) 7 - Munich (A. siemensii) 8 - 8th (very incomplete) (?) 9 - 9th (inaccessible, private hands) (?) 10 - Thermopolis (A. siemensii) Species assigment based on Mayr, G., Pohl, B., Hartman, S. and Peters, D.S. 2007. The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 149 (1): 97-116.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.113.145 (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "Thier" in German quote may be unnecessary; pls verify

• I believe it is a person's name, rather than a piece of the quoted content.. I mean, it appears in the original, but is irrelevant to our quote... Someone pls verify this. Tks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, "Thier" is an archaic spelling of "Tier", meaning "animal". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks! :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

ten or eleven fossils?

The 5th paragraph reads in part:

The first complete specimen of Archaeopteryx was announced in 1861, only two years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, and it became a key piece of evidence in the debate over evolution. Over the years, nine more fossils of Archaeopteryx have surfaced...

That's ten fossils, but then the next paragraph reads:

Many of these eleven fossils include impressions of feathers...

So which is it? Should the first paragraph say that 10 more fossils were found rather than 9, or should the second say 10 fossils, rather than 11? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.94.137 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• 11 is with the single feather included. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

One complete fossil, then nine more? The next paragraph says eleven fossils? The paragraph prior to that does NOT mention anything about a fossil of a feather. There is something missing here. Please add a remark about the feather in the paragraph that mentions about nine more fossils found, so that the following paragraph (saying eleven fossils) makes more sense. Jon (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)