Jump to content

Talk:Archaeopteryx/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Is Archaeopteryx a bird or a reptile?

I always understood that Archaeopteryx was a very primitive bird. Your wikipedia page on Avialae says this:

Archaeopteryx from the late Jurassic Period may be the earliest known theropod dinosaur which may have had the capability of powered flight.

Avialae is traditionally defined as an apomorphy-based clade (that is, one based on physical characteristics). Jacques Gauthier named Avialae in 1986, and first defined it in 2001 as all dinosaurs that possessed feathered wings used in flapping flight, and the birds that descended from them.

So, what is Archaeopteryx? Is is a bird as this pages states, or is it a reptile as that page suggests? Please explain the reason for the differences between these two pages. Jon (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you take a closer look at the page, it becomes clear that this is a matter of definition. Reptiles are not monophyletic, as Aves (Birds) is excluded from it. Depending on how you define Aves, Archaeopteryx is a bird, but not a reptile (if you define bird as "flying, with feathers"), a reptile, but not a bird (if you define bird a Neornithes), both (if you use a more expansive definition for bird, but a less expansive one for "reptile"), or, strictly speaking, neither (if you define bird as Neornithes, but reptile as excluding feathered flyers. Reliable sources disagree about classification, so we follow ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
What about feathered non-fliers like Beipaosaurus?--Mr Fink (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Depends on how you define "bird", again, and on top of that, how you define "feather" (and, if talking about things like Archaeopteryx and Microraptor, how you define "flight"!). Is a feather any dermal filament homologous with modern feathers? Is it only branching filaments? Only feathers with a central vane and barbs? Without solid definitions, Beipiaosaurus could be a bird if you want it to, or a reptile if you want it to, or neither, or whatever. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, feathers are now known not to be unique to birds. In fact, little of what is commonly thought of being unique to birds is only fouind in birds. There are dinosaurs that had beaks, or stubby bird-like tails... insofar, there is no single trait that defines "bird" anymore, and if Archie would be unearthed only today, we'd probably not classify it as a bird (because the first fossil birds to be discovered would in this case be the "Odontornithes", which are unequivocally on the bird side of things). Thus, where we draw the limits between "bird" and "not bird" actually depends on the fact that Archie was discovered when it was discovered. Note also that the first Archaeopteryx specimen ever to be unearthed was for more than 100 years believed to be a conventional dinosaur.
So, it is really right in between bird and non-bird.
(Which might be taken to imply that if God exists, He has strange ways of pointing evolutionary biologists into the right direction  ;-) Darwin's theory was looking as if it would languish and might even be rejected, and then, poof! out pops the most perfect fossil to vindicate him after all. The original missing link, and still without equal over 150 years later. The odds of such a find coming at such a time when it was sorely needed are astronomically against, considering that only since about 10 years or so we have sufficient knowledge of geology to point out places where we suspect missing links await discovery.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Big trouble (or so it seems)

Well, the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature issues in question are now on the Internet Archive, and I looked up the things pointed out by Bühler & Bock. Yes, they are correct: though the ICZN mis-cites the page number as "578" (should be 678), the description of Archaeopteryx lithographica is the 1861 article that describes the feather in detail and mentions "a skeleton of an animal covered in feathers" based on hearsay and in passing and in insufficient detail for the skeleton to constitute a valid holotype:

"To be available, every new name published before 1931 must [...] be accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by [a reference to a previously published description or definition, as per Systema Naturae, correction of homonyms etc].

[...]
The mention of any of the following does not in itself constitute a description, definition, or indication: a vernacular name, locality, geological horizon, host, label, or specimen."
(ICZN Article 12. Emphasis added.)

As only the feather is "described" in the taxonomic source given for Archaeopteryx and A. lithographica by the ICZN, while the skeleton is only "mentioned", this would technically make Archaeopteryx a nomen dubium, because the original single feather does not quite match those on the skeletons... :(

(I suspect they are from the same species though. For as much as we know (which is not enough but close) Archie seems to have a "reptilian" mode of growth, growing to adult size not quickly over the course of a few months as most modern birds do, but slowly, taking one-third or more of its whole life to reach adult size. It surely fits the specimens' sizes, which are mostly in mid-range (presumably, such a small theropod reached full adult size not too often and thus the bulk of its population consisted of sexually mature but not fully-grown individuals). Thus, the feather probably was (IIRC) from a very old individual, larger than any of which bones have been found.

But still, as the feather has no bones associated with it, all skeleton specimens would technically be "cf. Archaeopteryx lithographica" or even some entirely different name.)

Somebody ought to do what Bühler & Bock suggested 7 years ago and propose the ICZN to fix the name to the London skeleton. Because despite what many think, this has not been done in Opinion 607 and neither in Opinion 1070. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

dark band limestone = dimple limestone?

Hi, as reported in the article in Science there was a 'dark band' before the surface feather imprints. Science it was due to impurities in sedimentation.

Does anyone know if this is the same as the light-dark-light in 'dimple limestone. http://keckgeology.org/files/pdf/symvol/8th/Remote_sensing/clarke_stewart.pdf and does this date the limestone? Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Most limestones (of whatever age) are colour-banded on some scale or other, due to the presence of things other than calcite in the rock. The Solnhofen limestone is already well-dated (to Kimmeridgian - Upper Jurassic) due to the beautifully preserved fossils (apart from archaeopteryx) that are found in this Lagerstätte. Mikenorton (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

JVP 27(Supplement): p.142A

Abstract of a talk held at the 2007 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting:

"Diel activity pattern of Archaeopteryx"

Investigates the claim that Archie was diurnal via an estimate of eyeball size. Finds that Berlin specimen was very likely diurnal, whereas Eichstätt specimen was not. The latter might be due to the specimen being the smallest (and presumably youngest) by far, and thus it might have had proportionally large eyes. Or young Archies were crepuscular or nocturnal, while the older individuals were diurnal. Both hypotheses are entirely sensible and not mutually exclusive; the abstract contains no information on whether either is preferrable. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Earliest bird

Shouldn't it at least be mentioned somewhere on this page that Archaeopteryx is only still the "earliest and most primitive bird known" because it must be that way by definition? Aves = Archaeopteryx + Passer for now. Therefore Archaeopteryx (or another archaeopterygid) must always and forever be the first bird, regardless of the fact that other members of the clade Deinonychus < Passer have been found that are both earlier and more primitive (Scansoriopteryx, for example, is an avialan more basal than Archie and probably from the Middle Jurassic). Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your assumptions are correct. Passer is a subclade of living birds, and Aves is in no way Archaeopteryx + Passer. But yes, I agree that the claim that Archie is the earliest bird may need revision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The only definition of Aves I've seen that includes Archaeopteryx is indeed Archaeopteryx + Passer (or some other living bird used as a specifier, it doesn't really matter which specific genus). See TaxonSearch, which lists all published definitions. The only alternative definition is variations of the crown clade (Passer + Struthio etc.), in which case Archaeopteryx is not an Avian bird and the "earliest, most primitive known bird" would be... Vegavis I guess. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I misread your terminology. If by "X+Y" you mean "the crown clade of X and Y", then I agree with that definition (in the terminology of Taxonsearch, the "<" is significant). I assumed you meant set union with "+". But in that case, no, we can find something that is ancestral to Archaeopteryx and Neornithes, so Archie's status as the oldest is not guaranteed. But the whole situation around the base of Aves/Avialae is confused, and as far as I can tell there is no agreement yet in the literature.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox image

Shouldn't an actual fossil, such as the iconic Berlin specimen, be the lead image rather than an artist's impression that had to be cropped to remove inaccuracies? This image [1] is a cast, but it's clear even at small sizes and isn't currently elsewhere in the article to illustrate points made in the text. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I have been thinking the same, but then there would be three images of the Berlin specimen. What about actual picture of the Berlin specimen rather than a cast? We have a few on Commons, and we could move the one from the discovery section to the taxobox maybe, it's lighting is alright. FunkMonk (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and switched with the actual Berlin specimen, I think the detail is nice. And by the way, the size comparison image is incorrect, since none of the specimens shown have leg feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it that obvious in a silhouette? Maybe they're a tad less extensive than they should be, but theere are clearly feathers protruding from the posterior end of the femur. Archie didn't have *metatarsal* feathers like Pedopenna and Microraptor if that's what you're referring to, as far as I know. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I might have expected something bigger and bushier, like that flying squirrel-like restoration I saw somewhere. But yeah, after a closer look they look fine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Lost" specimen resurfaces?

News article in German here. Contains inconsistencies (a skull???), so I am not sure whether it refers to the Maxberg specimen. Probably it is "Chicken Wing", which is not yet mentioned in the text. de:Archaeopteryx mentions it as "known from a cast since 1997", which except for the date (which match the Maxberg specimen best) agrees best with the information given in the news article. I am a bit at a loss here, but more will be known tomorrow. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so the discussion at the German article about many specimens on display at the Mineralientage München strongly suggests it's "Chicken Wing". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Now the owner claims it to be a new species. Unfortunately for him, there are quite a few recent studies (the PLoS one for example) that quite certainly determine that the apparent "many species" of archaeopterygids are just differently-aged individuals of one single species, because the critter grew so slowly. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
There is some confusion about the fragmentary fossils in the article and in the timeline graphics here. In fact, the "chicken wing" is on display at the Bürgermeister Müller museum, so the "chicken wing" and the "Bürgermeister Müller" speciemn are one an the same. This fossil (the 9th sceleton fossil) is knwon since 2004 and has never been lost. The newly surfaced specimen was not found in Solenhofen limestone, but in somewhat younger sedimants at Daiting, Suevia, probably around 1990. A cast of this specimen was knwon since 1997 (so this is the 8th sceleton fossil), but the original fossil has now surfaced for the first time, and was displayed over the last weekend at the Munich Mineral show. A first, quick look by scientists indicate that this might be not Archaeopteryx lithographica, but a new species, but further, more detailled work is certainly required. I have seen the display at the Munich Mineral show, and I have uploaded photos of both "chicken wing" and the newly surfaced Daiting specimen to the commons (as well as a few photos from other specimens that were on display there). Hope this helps. --User:de.Vesta) 10:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Newly surfaced Daiting specimen
    Newly surfaced Daiting specimen
  • Chicken wing
    Chicken wing
  • Cast of Maxberg specimen
    Cast of Maxberg specimen
Nice images! They should certainly be added to the article, but are they all described in the history swction? FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
These specimens (in fact, all Archaeopteryx-fossils ever found - the ten sceleton fossils and the singe feather) are described in the history section, but as I noted above, there is some confusion about the "chicken wing" and the newly surfaced Daiting Specimen. I'll try to fix this. --User:de.Vesta 07:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (User Vesta on Commons)
I have cleared the confusion between the "chicken wing" and the Daiting Specimen specimen. Maybe someone could also correct the timeline graphics, where these two are still mixed up. --User:de.Vesta 08:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Great! This article must have one of the best collections of Archaeopteryx images anywhere. I don't know how to edit SVGs, but if anyone who can sees this, please help out! FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
There was also a cast of the lost Maxberg specimen on display at the Munich show. I took a photo, but the shot is not great. Anyway, I will upload the image to the commons later. Then we have at least one photo of each and every Archaeopteryx fossil known. :-) --User:de.Vesta 13:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, would be cool to have it out on the web, regardless of quality, I haven't been able to find images of that specimen anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I have now uploaded a photo of the cast of the lost Maxberg specimen to commons. I have also included it in the gallery above, so you may take a quick look, if you want. --de.Vesta (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with that image! I'll see if I can make room for it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The crude piece of wood they used to hold the casts is rather ugly... ;^) --de.Vesta (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Heheh, the coolness of the subject compensates for any shortcomings. By the way, wouldn't it be nice to have a "specimens of Archaeopteryx" article, like the Specimens of Tyrannosaurus one? Archie must be one of the few fossil animals were the number of specimens isn't too uncommonly known, and where the history of each specimen is potentially interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Just occurred to me that we now have an image of every single specimen in the article, only two being replicas, good work! FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bird, dinosaur or something between?

Recently, G. Ericson and some others discovered that Archaeopterx grew very slowly compared to bids, and more like a dinosaur. It seems like many want to question it's status as bird, after what I have read about it. We must change the text from "primitive bird" to dinosaur? How shall we do? Conty 10:11, 13 November 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conty (talk • contribs)

I doubt that, especially since by now nearly every biologists accepts that being a bird implies being a dinosaur. Can you point to your sources in some detail? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a transitional fossil closely related to the lineage of dinosaurs that evolved into birds. It's not a modern bird. Evercat (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Its classification as a bird has nothing to do with its physical traits, only its phylogenetic position on a cladogram. Anything in clade Aves is a bird. Archaeopteryx is a member of Aves by definition! Even if it turned out Archaeopteryx was really a wingless, scaly, snake-like animal, it would still be a bird because the definition of the word Aves depends on it. In other words, unless this definition changes, Archaeopteryx will always be a bird and there is no possible discovery that could change that. Whether or not this is a good scenario is debatable... We already know Archie grew like a reptile, was indistinguishable from "raptors" in life appearance and probably couldn't fly well if at all. How is it any more a bird than Velociraptor? Only by accident of history and definition. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Its classification as a bird has nothing to do with its physical traits, only its phylogenetic position on a cladogram" - which has everything to do with its physical traits. I don't think Archaeopteryx is in Aves "by definition"; it's there because of its relationship to birds. Evercat (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. One of the most common definitions of Aves is "all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of modern birds and Archaeopteryx lithographica", which indeed does make Archie a Bird "by definition". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Also the definition of Aves varies, and this all depends on whether Aves=bird. If we use the crown group definition, is Archaeopteryx still a bird even though it falls well outside Aves? Is Hesperornis still a bird? Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. OK. Evercat (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

History of discovery - Location

Considering that both Eichstätt and Daiting are some 20 km away from Solnhofen, is saying that all specimen have been found near Solnhofen not a little wrong? Calistemon (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, why? 20km is close, even in crowded old Europe. More to the point, all of the specimen have been found in the Solnhofen limestone, a formation that is found around Solnhofen (and Eichstätt). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, mate. Calistemon (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Broken reference

There is a broken reference, reference number 3 which goes to http://www.paleograveyard.com/archaeopteryx.html, a "domain for sale" page. Also, in the same reference there is a link to http://qilong.deviantart.com/art/The-Many-Archaeopteryx-24468274 which is a blog page selling prints and not a reliable source. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction confusion

In the introduction it is stated that "Many of these eleven fossils include impressions of feathers...". This strikes me as slightly confusing, as in the paragraph preceding this one only ten are described: "The first complete specimen of Archaeopteryx was announced in 1861... Over the years, nine more fossils of Archaeopteryx have surfaced." While it is implied that one or more incomplete fossils had been discovered prior to the complete one mentioned, this isn't very clear and causes the next paragraph (the former of my quotes) to seemingly make a sudden jump. I figured I'd mention it here instead of being bold as I am new on Wikipedia and do not want to risk damaging a featured article with my clumsy wording. Whitecroc (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The specimen found before the first complete fossil would be the single feather. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, this is clear if you read the rest of the article; I am objecting to the phrasing in the introduction where only ten fossils are mentioned, yet it is stated that these add up to eleven. Whitecroc (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Illustration

would it kill us to have a couple of illustrations of what people speculate the animal looked like!? i know its not fact but one could show different versions based on different theories. this article really lacks imagination. surely there used to be illustrations and there was some petty argument about the legitimacy of one depiction vs another and so on. i'm not going to be bold. i just want to get this conversation started.98.193.69.129 (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course we need one, the problem is that all the restorations available to us are incorrect. Which means someone has to make a new one. It hals already been requested here: [2]
The one we have that is closest to being correct is this one, but it has vaned feathers on its body, which is incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
IIRC Archie had vaned feathers on the torso and legs but not the head and neck. Still, incorrect. Not to mention the apparently naked pelvic area and upper legs. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The article says this (sorry for the redundancy if you were the one who wrote it in the first place, heheh): "There was a patch of pennaceous feathers running along the back which was quite similar to the contour feathers of the body plumage of modern birds in being symmetrical and firm, though not as stiff as the flight-related feathers. Apart from that, the feather traces in the Berlin specimen are limited to a sort of "proto-down" not dissimilar to that found in the dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, being decomposed and fluffy, and possibly even appeared more like fur than like feathers in life (though not in their microscopic structure). These occur on the remainder of the body, as far as such structures are both preserved and not obliterated by preparation, and the lower neck.[20]
However, there is no indication of feathering on the upper neck and head." FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that later part is correct, I'm pretty sure the feather paper discusses feathers on the neck. But I'll have to check it later. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Found this interesting article by accident, which is solely about the body feathers of Archaeopteryx, could maybe be used as ref: http://dinonews.nuxit.net/rubriq/docs/plumes_archaeopteryx_christiansen.pdf FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Specimens of Archaeopteryx

An article about the Maxberg specimen has been started, but I believe it would make more sense to split off the section about individual specimens from this article and have one big focused one. See talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maxberg_specimen#Specimens_of_Archaeopteryx FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobu Tamura's new restoration

A new Nobu Tamura restoration was added to the article, but there's one thing I'm somewhat concerned about. Are the wings being lifted too high? Senter's 2006 paper on basal avialians (which is mentioned in the article) concludes that they couldn't lift the wings above the back. Albertonykus (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Damn, there's always something wrong with the Archaeopteryx restorations! FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I dunno. There might be a perspective problem. The foreground wing is definitely in an impossible pose, but the angle of the back wing looks fine, probably about maximum extension. The foreground wing should be more edge-on to the viewer if it's supposed to match the angle of the back wing. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, remove the image, I've read the Senter paper and the pose is definitely not possible from Senter's viewpoint. Not sure what the other paleo folks think though... GSP for one is still a believer in the flapping ability of archie. See his answer to the Nudd et al report dating October 2010: [3]. NobuTamura (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, that has to do with feather strength, not arm elevation. Flapping in this case could be just a downstroke. He doesn't say anything that directly contradicts Senter. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd have to re-read Senter to be sure but if I remember correctly Senter assumes, based on articulated specimens, that the shoulder blades of animals like Archaeopteryx sit lower down on the side of the ribcage. GSP on the other hand assumes they are higher up in a more avian possition. If GSP is correct then animals like Archaeopteryx might have been able to lift their arms higher. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the problem with Senter (2006) is that it was based on AMNH casts, not on a study of the original specimens. Senter assumed that the Berlin specimen is preserved on its side and that the difference in relative position of the left and right scapula to the axial column was due to the right scapula remaining in place and the left being displaced. However, in fact the specimen landed on its back — the plate shows the underside of the layer — and the shoulder girdle was preserved in that position. The pelvis, hind limbs and neck — but not the tail — rotated clockwise. This creates the illusion that we are looking at the right side of the thorax, while in fact the top of its is shown and the dorsal surface of the scapulae. That this is really so was proven in the nineties (of the 19th century, mind you) by Gustav Borchert who freed the coracoids reaching them from the underside of the slab. I presume the cast is bit defective at this point ;o). So in fact the Berlin specimen strongly supports the hypothesis that the scapula was positioned parallel to the backbone.
The AMNH cast of the Eichstätt is also very deceptive. On both the original plate and counterplate the front of the thorax is heavily damaged. Senter shows a picture of the counterplate on which an arrow is supposed to point at the glenoid. But there is in fact no bone present there. When the slab was sawed a large chunk of it broke off, taking the adjacent bones with it. There are some vague impressions left that might indicate the position of the glenoid and the caput humeri but these could well be an illusion given the fact that what is left of the humerus is broken. So apart from the fact that the backbone is strongly twisted upwards, completely distorting the ribcage and making any conclusion about the original position of the shoulder girdle highly speculative, the fossil should not be simply presented as an "articulated specimen" regarding the orientation of the glenoid. That glenoid is now an ex-glenoid :o).
But I haven't read Senter (2010) which might address these issues...
In any case this point is irrelevant to the anatomical correctness of the picture which does not show a high elevation of the humerus. That the wingtips are far above the back is caused by a strong supination of the humerus. Modern birds can achieve this but it is generally doubted Archaeopteryx could.--MWAK (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I forgot that Senter also mentions the Solnhofen specimen. It is described by him in this way: "The holotype of the basal bird Wellnhoferia grandis is also articulated, retains the head and neck, and is preserved on its side. Its glenoids are also anteroventral to the ribcage...". Again this interpretation is highly problematic. The anterior dorsal vertebrae have not been preserved and what is left of the neck does not allow any reliable conclusion to be made about their position. So even if we would accept Senter's argument that it is more parsimonious to presume that the preserved position of the shoulder girdle is the original one — a dubious maxim with birds given the weight and magnitude of the wings — the position of the glenoids in relation to the ribcage as a whole simply cannot be ascertained. However, we can at least determine that the scapulae are positioned above the level of the pelvis and running parallel to the lower backbone. That the thorax is not very strongly twisted upwards is proven by the fact that the scapular blades are close to the rib heads. Senter counters this by claiming: "However, only the tips of the scapulae overlap the proximal ends of the ribs in that specimen". This is however, an illusion caused by these tips having broken off and being absent. About 40% of the blade length of the right scapula and 60% of the left one must have touched the top of those ribs that have been preserved. No preserved ribs contact the other parts of the scapulae. Moreover, there is a wide angle between the upper rib shafts and the scapular blades indicating the scapulae were oriented subhorizontally, and the glenoids were positioned anterodorsally, not anteroventrally. So, if anything, the Solnhofen shows us a thorax with two closely spaced scapulae nicely on top of it :o).

Error in time-line image

The very attractive time-line diagram contains a mistake: the eighth specimen, the "Daiting", is called the "Bürgermeister-Müller". But that's a possible name of the ninth specimen, the "Chicken Wing". This can be easily changed, I think — but not by me, I'm totally inept at these things :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead is inaccurate

Give the recent finding in China the lead of this article should be rewritten from its current state to include the fact that its position of being the bird fossil. It should also now include that this position is clearly disputed see. Gnangarra 00:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article is fine as is (see Description and Phylogenetic position). Cochonfou (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I prefer to trust a source by someone reputable, i.e., a professor of biology, than that of a sensation-seeking local news pundit.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Here Here is a better article on the same. Seems big enough to get a mention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.202.146 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It is mentioned, here. . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned within the article is expected, but as its now clear that there is significant issue with it being the first bird and has been since 1935, add to that the work of Xing Xu, Fenglu Han, Hailu You and Kai Du[4] the lead should at the very least cover that as per WP:WIAFA point 1(d) is neutral, and point 2(a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; nothing in the lead refers to this matter. THe point here is that mainstream media are reporting that this is no longer a bird whether we agree with that or not is irrelevent this is suppose to be a FA its doesnt meet the current FA requirements. Gnangarra 01:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Professor Xu Xing is highly regarded, but this is a new story so I doubt much secondary sourcing has appeared. Need to read and digest...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
One thing the media is ignoring in its reporting is that it depends enitely on the definition of 'bird'. Most published work up until now has defined Aves as the last common ancestor, and all its descendants, of Archaeopteryx and modern birds. This makes Archaeopteryx a bird by definition. In Xu's paper, they arbitrarily re-define 'bird' as anything closer to modern birds than to deinonychosaurs. It's really just an issue of semantics. I think "often considered the first bird" would be fair, if not for the fact that wherever on the tree it is, Xiaotingia and Anchiornis (on the deinonychosaur branch) and Epidexipteryx and Scansoriopteryx (on the avialan branch) are all earlier by several million years. So even if Archaeopteryx is a bird, it cannot be considered the earliest known in any way. As long as any description of it as a 'bird' is equivocal we should be ok for now. Xu himself notes his phylogeny is not rock solid. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • At this point in time these edits by Hurmata addresses my concerns about the lead not being a reflection of the article as well as accommodating what is being reported within the mainstream media. Gnangarra 04:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Nice job. My free time evaporated today. The stuff that is coming out of China is fascinating :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
DOES need correction! Archie should be at most listed as "first KNOWN bird" - even if later the majority view is that it is sister-rather-than-ancestor. Cool animal, though. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Specimen Eleven

According to this article here an eleventh specimen has been found. Is there enough information available on the specimen to update the specimen list here?--Kevmin § 21:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Enough to mention it at least. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A new article for the list of specimens

I came across the discussion about branching the specimen list (found in the Archaeopteryx#History_of_discovery section) on Talk:Maxberg_specimen and I think it would be wise to proceed with a suggestion there.

I support the branching off of this article, and I'd be willing to do the bulk of the work if we can reach a consensus on how to do it. I support creating a new article, "Specimens of Archaeopteryx", where each specimen has its own section. The "history of discovery" section in the Archaeopteryx article would then be rewritten to be a much shorter and more general synopsis of the specimens and their history, using sources that talk about the totality of the specimens on the whole. I own Wellnhofer's Archaeopteryx — the icon of evolution on which I would intend to base the structure. That book has a great deal more information about each specimen than currently exists in this article, more along the lines of the completeness of the Maxberg specimen article. I support creating a new article for all of the specimens together over each specimen having its own article because there is much more source material for some specimens than others, and some, like the most recent "11th specimen", haven't yet been published fully and don't yet have the notability for a full article, yet are still important to mention in context. Thoughts? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, since in its current form, the article can't bear more information on each specimen, so the other other option would be creating an articles for each, which I at least think is a bad idea, considering that the specimens of Tyrannosaurus works pretty well, even though it is a bit incomplete. FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The Archaeopteryx article is rather longish as it is. There's certainly ample material for a new article in the specimen list. Actually, Just as it is it will be longer than most palaentology articles in species or genera. I'm for splitting. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I support the splitting. Abyssal (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Aawww, it's only 6105 words. I agree that some sort of list of all specimens is better than each specimen having an article, though as is, I am a bit iffy on splitting now. I'd be marginally happier leaving as is, but if you want to expand upon the specimens then splitting is prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, the main reason I wanted to suggest the split is because I think a great more information in reliable sources could be added to the specimens list - enough to probably double it, if not more. Wellnhofer's Archaeopteryx - the icon of evolution is an excellent, incredibly comprehensive secondary source and it includes a lot of information on each specimen, and goes into a lot of detail about their origins, history, and significance, citing additional sources along the way. I also think that the current state of things, where every specimen is included in this article but one of them (the Maxberg specimen) has its own article as well, is a bit unorganized. If no one objects, I'd like to go ahead with the split sometime in the next few days. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started the new article in my userspace here if anyone would like to contribute! So far it's little more than an amalgamation of the current specimens list + the Maxberg article, with additional images. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That's how it should be! FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A large portion of this article has been copied from http://archeopteryx.info .I would have said they copied it from us but they appear to be claiming copyright for the page.

These pages clearly state Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved. Archaeopteryx. Hence have asked for CCI investigation. The website http://archeopteryx.info claim to own the copyright hence asked for an investigation.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(Copy-pasting what I said elsewhere to explain the situation to people watching this page) I think it's obvious that http://archeopteryx.info copied text from this article, and not the other way around, and the copyright flag only popped up after I made the new article (Specimens of Archaeopteryx) with the same text. The other sections on that website (Paleobiology, Controversies) etc. also appear to be directly copied from Wikipedia, which can be confirmed by looking at an older revision (earlier than 2011) of the page. This is true even of much older revisions of the page: here's one from 2007. If you look at the edit history from around this time, you can see the "History of discovery" section being added piecemeal by different editors, so it was clearly not copied in its entirety from another source. Though I don't think additional verification is necessary, I have just looked up the domain registration information for archeopteryx.info and you can see that the site was created in 2011, long after the original text was added to this article by Wikipedia editors. Unfortunately I think the external site is probably violating their host's TOS by willfully claiming copyright for borrowed text. Hopefully this can be sorted out quickly, as it is clearly an open and shut case. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this site has clearly copied our content (which they're free to do *if* they attribute us correctly and follow the license agreements,). There's no reason to blank out our article however, their claim of copyright is quite nonsensical since the content of the article predates the site by several years. In the mean time, let's not create unnecessary disruption for our readers (almost 30 000 in the last month) henrik•talk 21:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

Is the authenticity section of the controversies really necessary or relevant to this page. It was nothing more than a desperate attempt to bring back creationism. It was obviously a failed theory. The single feather specimen, as it says in the article, shows evidence of melanin which wouldn't be there if it were made of cement, that alone is overwhelming proof that those two astronomers were mere morons who wanted to believe it was a fake, so they did. The piece of silicone rubber they found on the specimen doesn't support the theory, either. It is completely irrelevant to the article, and most likely a misunderstanding of the neutrality concept of this encyclopedia. If somebody doesn't delete the section, then I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And if you delete the section, I will reinstate it. While Hoyle and Spetner were clearly wrong in claiming forgery, they attracted considerable attention with their claims - and whatever else Hoyle was, he was neither a 'moron' nor a 'creationist'. The subject deserves discussion in the article. If creationists are ill-informed enough to try to cite Hoyle as support for their claims, the best refutation is that provided by the article - a scientific disproof. Omitting this would allow the article to be dismissed as 'censored' to avoid mention of scientific questioning regarding authenticity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I strongly agree with AndyTheGrump. The multiple specimens of Archaeopteryx have stood up to intense scrutiny which was prompted by ill-informed criticism of a few of the main specimens, and this is worthy of note for various reasons. Although the suspicion of tampering was ill-founded, the attention given to demonstrating that the specimens are entire (ie not composite) and unaltered is an important aspect of the recent history of these wonderful specimens.Orbitalforam (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

BAWHAHAHAHAH Hoyle and Spetner morons? HAHAHAHAHAHA. I agree with Andythegrump. Just because the atheism/neodarwinian myth religions 'evidence' is so weak it cant tolerate even minor criticism doesnt mean truth should be censored.

Jinx69 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And yet, Jinx69, in your frantic rush to prostitute your inane anti-evolution agenda here in Wikipedia, you deliberately and completely ignore why Hoyle and Spetner were called "morons" in the first place: i.e., 1) that after repeated thorough examinations, the Archaeopteryx fossils clearly are not forgeries, 2) that all of the alleged reasons for propagating a conspiracy to create fake fossils are silly and nonsensical, and 3) Hoyle only accused the Archaeopteryx fossils of being forgeries in the first place because he was trying to wave away a terribly inconvenient datum that contradicted his own pet panspermia hypothesis of how birds and mammals evolved into their modern forms due to a space virus that rode in on the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. Not that you give a damn, though.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Bird/Dino Debate

After scrolling through a news article, I just learned that Archaeopteryx is once again considered to be a bird and not a dinosaur (at least not a reptilian one) after all. Once we have a bit more info, the article should be updated to fit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's still contentious, the new paper is a more thorough analysis but the authors state the bird outcome is still not certain. Given how close Archie is to the bird/deinonychosaur split, it will probably jump between these two branches forever and never be fully resolved. What we should do is try to reflect consensus (currently in favor of bird) while acknowledging the uncertainty. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
But is that really the consensus? It seems from the media and expert dino-blogs, lists, et al, that they seem to be about evenly split. How was such consensus determined? HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The fact is that there are only two studies that have found Archie to be a non-bird, both published within the past four months or so. A new study has directly tested and somewhat refuted the hypothesis in one of them. Basically, there is not enough evidence yet for consensus to have changed. If consensus has changed, it's to one of higher uncertainty about whether or not Archie is a bird, not that it probably is or is not. Note that there is still the issue of what "bird" even means--traditionally, Aves has been defined as that group containing Archaeopteryx and everything closer to birds than that, making Archie a bird by default no matter what. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It really appears that simply by looking at the physical characteristics of Archaeopteryx and comparing them with both modern & ancient birds, Archaeopteryx is plainly a bird.

"Archaeopteryx had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the down stroke of the wings. Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status—a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves. Finally, Archaeopteryx skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e., at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird." <Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution 2 Chapter 8 - Argument: The fossil record supports evolution. Greenforest AR: Master Books, 2002. (p131-132)> --Lebs27 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not base articles on fringe sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why it is still considered a transitional form? Studies by anatomists like S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom and other have seen between Archæopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinterpretations. [1]Agcala (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You tagged this article with POV based on 20 and 25 year old articles? This has been settled. I'm removing your tags, unless you have something more substantial. The current consensus is stated correctly in this FA article. Don't tag it, unless you've got something really important to add here. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory statements in the lead

The first sentence in the lead says that Archaeopteryx was a genus of "early bird". The paragraph then goes on to say "Since the late 19th century, it has been generally accepted by palaeontologists, and celebrated in lay reference works, as being the oldest known bird, though some more recent studies have cast doubt on this assessment, finding that it might instead be a non-avialan dinosaur closely related to the origin of birds." This is contradictory: How can we definitively state that it is an "early bird" and then go on to say that we aren't sure? Nevermind the fact that it is unsourced, and old accounts from the 1800s don't really count. Can someone rationalize this? Cadiomals (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations please per WP:RS. Your opinions holds no credence on Wikipedia. Thanks. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This isn't my opinion. It's an observation. There is a contradiction in the lead and someone needs to fix it. Is Archaeopteryx a bird as stated in the beginning of the paragraph, or are we not sure, as stated towards the end of the paragraph? Cadiomals (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
And do you have reputable sources to confirm your observations? Current scientific consensus holds that Archaeopteryx is an extremely primitive, if not the most primitive known bird/avian dinosaur, representing a transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs like the maniraptorans, and avian dinosaurs. Please be aware that one of the defining qualities of a "transitional form" is that said form has enough qualities of both the ancestral and derived groups that it is hard to tell at first (or second, or third) glance which group it properly belongs to.
And having that, if Archaeopteryx truly is not a bird, then please provide reputable sources to support it.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I never said that Archaeopteryx was not a bird, I made a previous edit saying that modern studies have found that it may be more closely related to feathered theropod dinosaurs than modern birds. I am aware that it is a transitional form and therefore shares features of both groups. I am currently just pointing out the contradiction in the lead paragraph and that it needs to be fixed. Cadiomals (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
So where are these modern studies that say Archaeopteryx is a non-avian feathered theropod dinosaur?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I said this in my original reply to the OP. According to WP:RS, opinion is irrelevant, only sources. Every response seems to be based on opinion, rather than a few peer reviewed articles. I think after three responses, we aren't going get it, and we've got to the point of a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if you would call these "reliable sources" but I found a number of news articles which say doubt has been cast on the traditional view of Archaeopteryx as the first bird: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. All those articles say that Archaeopteryx was probably more closely related to feathered dinosaurs than modern birds. I don't have access to professional research papers, only these secondary sources. But you guys have dodged my main point several times: We have a contradiction in the lead and that is entirely relevant to the improvement of the article and not a forum discussion. Either the first statement needs to be removed or the second one does. Cadiomals (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you realize that you chose a series of articles that report essentially one source. Good job there. And you're still missing the point of WP:RS.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, I'm not going to get worked up over this, especially considering the fact that you have absolutely failed to even address my main point. There are plenty of other articles which will appreciate my well thought out improvements. Cadiomals (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Have fun and remember to cite reliable sources.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed your "well thought out improvements." Interesting self-assessment. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, all Cadiomals is saying here is that if there is published papers doubting the classification as a bird, some equivocation is necessary. "probable early bird" or something. One study that came out last year found it to be a non-avialan dinosaur, but other studies repeating the analysis with better resolution seem to have shot this idea down. So, if anything, I'd recommend not mentioning the non-avialan hypothesis near the lead but just as an anecdote in the classification section. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Dinoguy for finally addressing my main point. I wasn't aware that this was a minority view and later studies shot it down. Unlike some people on here, I am not afraid to be proven wrong as long as I am shown why. All the two people above seemed to do was mock me which is no way to behave on Wikipedia. I have been editing Wikipedia for over two years and only rarely have I run into people like that. Thank you for removing the contradiction in the lead. Cadiomals (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
And not to take sides, but the sources Cadiomals offered up are reliable sources. The question is are they reliable for the information he wanted to add. The answer is also yes, although peer-reviewed, secondary scholarly sources are preferred and news articles should only be used sparingly, if used at all, for a topic like this. But the sources Cadiomals offered up are not just news sources. Nature.com, for example, is an online counterpart to the Nature journal, which is an accepted science source and is already used in this article. 2001:43E8:8:100:0:0:0:2 (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
So it's all our fault and not Cadiomals' that he apparently could not be bothered to doublecheck the veracity of the sources of his claims, or check and see if they represented the majority consensus?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. His lack of interest in WP:RS, and ability to understand WP:WEIGHT between various sources seems to cause this misunderstanding. The fact is that the Nature new article could have been brought forward initially, but still it was a primary source, and we deprecate primary sources because they can, and often, are later disputed. As this one was. A good science researcher knows how to not cherry pick research that confirms their bias, instead, looking at the broad consensus. An amateur generally utilizes confirmation bias to pick and choose the science articles that meet whatever they want. That's what happened here. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I obviously was not stating that his mistakes are you guys' faults. Only that there was some validity to his argument. SkepticalRaptor is certainly correct about not relying too heavily on primary sources, which is why I stressed "secondary" above, but primary sources can be used as long as they follow WP:PRIMARY. All in all, Cadiomals's suggestion was WP:UNDUE. But so was any mention of this dispute in the lead, which is why it was removed. If it hadn't been there to begin with, he wouldn't have gotten confused about the topic. His actions are still his, but that text led to them. 2001:43E8:8:100:0:0:0:2 (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The change made by Dinoguy, a perfectly fine and appropriate one, ended up being completely different that the one edit-warred by Cadiomal. Otherwise, I'm perfectly in agreement with all of your points. Archaeopteryx is a bird seems to be the consensus of real scientists in the real world, and we Wikipedians seem to respect that point of view in this article. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Edit war? I made no more than two edits and then went to the talk page. Looks like this experienced user needs to look up the definition of edit warring. Thanks. Cadiomals (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Lede is too long

It's gigantic. Remove some spaces to make larger paragraphs. Remove somethings. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with a four-paragraph lede. WP:LEDE states the lede should "contain no more than four paragraphs". It's hardly 'gigantic'. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Archeopteryx a deinonychosaur?

There seems to be some contoversy on wether Archaeopteryx is an avian or deinonychosaur with supporters of the latter saying that Archeopyeryx has the sickle claw among other hallmarks of a deinonychosauria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.208.106 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sections

Wouldn't it make more sense for plumage and colour t obe subsections of description, rather than palaeobiology? FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Plumage, definitely--color, probably! MMartyniuk (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Reshuffled, not much of a difference, but why not... FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Urschwinge

"Urschwinge was the favored translation of Archaeopteryx among German scholars in the late nineteenth century" - I think not. I've been spending quite a bit of time in old Archaeopteryx literature, and I've never come across the term. Moreover, an [Ngram Viewer] search seems to confirm its rarity, and prominent contemporary literature does not use it, either.[2] In popular literature, "Urvogel" was common, while scientists usually did not bother to translate "Archaeoptery" at all - considering the animal's fame, there wasn't cause to. So if there are no dissenting voices, I shall remove these sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilja.nieuwland (talk • contribs) 13:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Erm, it talks about Urschwinge being a translation of Archaeopteryx. Urvogel, in contrast, is not a translation! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Small inconsistency

It would be nice if the inconsistent capitalisation of specimen in Munich specimen vs. Munich Specimen etc. present in this article and Specimens of Archaeopteryx could be resolved. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed mentioning of 'Carney' in section 2.1.1 on colouring.

Section 2.1.1 on Archaeopteryx mentions(ed) a graduate student called 'Ryan Carney' and his team. I've changed the article to refer to 'researchers' instead, as, to me, it doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia to refer to individuals in such a (possibly like a journal/newspaper) context when no bio page exists for the individual in question. Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of wikipedia policy.1812ahill (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

References to Carney included. Good:)1812ahill (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Need help with mass/weight

This article frequently refers to "weight estimates", expressed in kilograms. Obviously this is the popular corruption of weight (expressed in Newtons) into mass (kilograms). Should it be corrected to "mass estimates", or is the popular word "weight" acceptable in this scientific context? --Serpinium (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Synonym lists

I was wondering why we don't just collapse the huge synonym lists of this and other animals in the taxobox, instead of having lengthy lists in article space? According to the manual of style, articles should not have list if it can be written as prose or otherwise circumvented. It works well in articles such as Tyrannosaurus and Paraceratherium. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good option here. We could have separate collapsed lists for genus-level and two different species levels to include seimensi. I'd probably consolidate his even more and drop all but the first species combination. On T. rex, there's not much point in listing every genus amplus was placed in when we also have a genus synonym section. The way it is now makes it seem like there are far more synonyms than there really are, when it's simply the same species (in some cases the same specimen) being shifted among genera. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I've now collapsed the taxobox lists. Perhaps it would be time to merge the list in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference for 150.8–148.5 million years ago date range

The description starts with "Archaeopteryx lived during the early Tithonian stage of the Jurassic period, approximately 150.8–148.5 million years ago" and references "Ammonite biostratigraphy as a tool for dating Upper Jurassic lithographic limestones from South Germany – first results and open questions", but I don't see the 150.8 - 148.5 million years ago anywhere in the paper. I also can't find any mention of archaeopteryx in the paper outside of the references. Does anybody know how that date range was derived from this reference?Jss367 (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Dinoguy2, who added it: [11]. I don't have access to the source, but how about: "Most of the specimens of Archaeopteryx that have been discovered come from the Solnhofen limestone in Bavaria, southern Germany, which is a lagerstätte, a rare and remarkable geological formation known for its superbly detailed fossils laid down during the early Tithonian stage of the Jurassic period,[3] approximately 150.8–148.5 million years ago.[4]" DrKay (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, Vol 69, 1985, p. 178; A. D. Walker, Geological Magazine,Vol 177, 1980, p. 595.
  2. ^ e.g., Fraas, Oscar. Vor Der Sündfluth! Eine Geschichte Der Urwelt. Stuttgart: Hoffmann’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1866; Baur, Georg. “Dinosaurier Und Vögel. Eine Erwiederung and Herrn Prof. W. Dames in Berlin.” Morphologisches Jahrbuch. Eine Zeitschrift für Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte 10 (1885): 447-54; Baur, Georg. “W. K. Parker’s Bemerkungen Über Archaeopteryx, 1864, Und Eine Zusammenstellung Der Hauptsächlichsten Litteratur Über Diesen Vogel.” Zoologischer Anzeiger 9 (1886): 106-09.
  3. ^ Lambert, David (1993). The Ultimate Dinosaur Book. New York: Dorling Kindersley. pp. 38–81. ISBN 1-56458-304-X.
  4. ^ Schweigert, G. (2007). "Ammonite biostratigraphy as a tool for dating Upper Jurassic lithographic limestones from South Germany – first results and open questions". Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen. 245 (1): 117–125. doi:10.1127/0077-7749/2007/0245-0117.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Archaeopteryx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Create an Archaeopteryx disambiguation page?

It seems a bit silly that we now have one "see also" entry at the top of the article, when the see also section at the end of the article mentions several other subjects named after the animal. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Silly or not, situation apparently calls for a disambiguation page.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, depending on just how many things have the article title Archaeopteryx. Especially considering all of those articles would be named after the taxon, the taxon should keep the priority name. IJReid discuss 01:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems at least Archaeopteryx (evolutionary tree visualization and analysis), Ruppert Archaeopteryx, Granger Archaeopteryx, and perhaps Specimens of Archaeopteryx could go there. There are also a few more things undfer In popular culture that could be listed there. In fact, I think wee don't even need a pop culture section here once a disambig page is made, it is only about things named after this animal... FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archaeopteryx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please check - if you will. Is this entered as required?

Archeopterix. Small addition. As this is not my speciality, if any editor wishes to check its entry I will be happy!Phycodrys4 (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phycodrys4 (talk • contribs)

Portugal?

Why is Portugal mentioned if there is no source or discussion of Archaeopteryx in Portugal?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

cf. Archaeopteryx is known. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Why does not change until this time

Comr with your answer 41.59.84.74 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Phylogenetic position

I thought it could be worth mentioning that the studies by Wang et al. (2018)[12] and Hartman et al. (2019)[13] concluded Archaeopteryx was closer to Dromaeosauridae and Troodontidae than to Neornithes. Mortimer's "Theropod Database" agrees with Hartman's proposed phylogeny on multiple aspects, including Archaeopteryx's position.[14]Kiwi Rex (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I really don't have the expertise to write that up, but I suppose it could start off by elaborating the main hypotheses (Archaeopteryx is closer to birds than other dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx is closer to other dinosaurs than to birds [e.g. the Lori paper], and of course maniraptorans are not in actuality coelurosaurs, then elaborate each hypothesis, and then go into the question of multiple origins of flight or multiple losses. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Some IP replaced ‘bird-like dinosaur’ the short description with ‘bird with saurian features’ Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archaeopteryx/Archive_2&oldid=1180660967"