Talk:Protarchaeopteryx

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protarchaeopteryx article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technical Fixes

The entry concludes with:

Protoarchaeopteryx came before the Archaeopteryx. This means that Protoarchaeopteryx is a theropod dinosaur and not a bird. Protoarchaeopteryx did have symmetrical featehrs on its arms. Modern birds that have symmetrical feathers are flightless and it is assumed that the Protoarchaeopteryx was flightless as well. Protoarchaeopteryx is shaped more like a raptor than a bird.

It did not come before Archaeopteryx, though it may be more primitive. Birds are theropod dinosaurs, so the second sentence is meaningless without clarification. The statement that Protarchaeopteryx is shaped more like a raptor than a bird is confusing--most people associate 'raptor' with dromaeosaur, and it certainly did not look like one of those. I'm going to fix this bit up.Dinoguy2 03:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of family name is Chuniaoia anyway? Answer: it's not a family, but a controversial clade. Here's the NL WP article: [1] Dysmorodrepanis 19:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not a family as it doesn't end in -idae, but currently the only published clade name for the often supported group of Protarchaeopteryx + Incisivosaurus.Dinoguy2 23:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any idea about the status of Protarchaeopteryx vis a vis Archaeopteryx? As far as I know, true birds belong over in Paraves, along with Dromeasauridae. If this thing's an oviraptorasaur, it's about as closely related to Archaeopteryx as I am to a spider monkey. Moonsword 00:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. When first found, the authors thought Protarchie was an archaeopterygid. Pretty much all subsequent papers have placed it in oviraptorosauria as a close relative of Caudipteryx and Incisivosaurus (which might turn out to be a junior synonym of Protarchaeopteryx).Dinoguy2 23:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Pinging BleachedRice and IJReid) Since I don't want to start a new section on this, on another "technical" note, a photo of a fossil[2] recently added does not show Protarchaeopteryx, but a specimen of Caudipteryx, specifically this[3] specimen. The Protarchaeopteryx holotype is very incomplete[4], so perhaps it was adjacent to the Caudipteryx, and the photographer thought that was it, or something. FunkMonk (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was wondering about that. Certainly looks more like Caudipteryx or Similicaudipteryx. IJReid ^discuss 13:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogenetic status of Protarchaeopteryx

The placement of Protarchaeopteryx within Archaeopterygidae follows Chiappe, Ji, Ji & Norell (1999), Paul (2002), Zhou & Zheng (2002), and Chiappe (2002). For this reason, transfer Protarchaeopteryx to Aves.

Chiappe, L. M., 2002: Basal Bird Phylogeny: Problems and Solutions. 448-472. in Chiappe, L. M. & Witmer, L. M., (eds.) 2002: Mesozoic Birds - Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. –University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 2002, xii-520

Chiappe, L. M., Ji, Shu'an, Ji, Qiang & Norell, M. A., 1999: Anatomy and systematics of the Confuciusornithidae (Theropoda: Aves) from the Late Mesozoic of Northeastern China. –Bulletin of American Museum of Natural History: #242, 1-89

Paul, G. S., 2002: Dinosaurs of the Air: the evolution and loss of flight in Dinosaurs and Birds. –Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2002, ix-460

Zhou, Z. & Zhang, F., 2002: A long-tailed, seed-eating bird from the Early Cretaceous of China. –Nature: Vol. 418, July 26, pp. 405 - 409

Some of those authors also place place all oviraptorosaurs in Aves. Keep it here, barring a wholesale revision of maniraptoran phylogeny on Wikipedia. Dinoguy2 06:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoArchaeopteryx or Protarchaeopteryx

The book I am reading, Sibley's Guide to Bird Life and Behavior uses the former (with the "o") which also makes logical sense. Should we move this to the correctly spelled page? speednat (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the Sibley book, but are you sure they're not talking hypothetically, as in "proto Archaeopteryx", like the hypothetical "Proavis", as opposed to the actual species Protarchaeopteryx robusta? If not, it's probably just a typo. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correctly-spelled page. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it just seems weird, I also found this, but I am going to add a redirect. speednat (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]