Talk:Archaeopteryx/Archive 1

1508:"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." 3374:(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. 3777:, 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. 1182:

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

522:

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.

1227:- 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. 479:

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

1824:

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... :)

1051:(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 3587:

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. I hope to be able to make an exact depiction and description of it for the

1186:"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. 833:

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."

346:

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.

31: 504:

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.

1386: 2451:

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,

645:(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. 2143:

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...

569:"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? 918:

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.

1055:. 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 848:

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 Knowledge 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.

2181: 2213: 1216:"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 2035: 2108: 1059:... 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 1204:

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

2284:), 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. 3498:. 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. -- 3757:

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

3373:

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 +

3367:

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

2690:

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

2094:

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

1562:

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.

1170:

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

758:

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

616:

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

555:

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

503:

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.

4397:

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

3586:

From the lithography slates 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

2450:

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

2208:

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

1391:

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

1181:

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

1080:, 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 917:

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

892:

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

836:

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

517:

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

274:

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

256:

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

3848:

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,

541:

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

536:

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

4093:

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

3834:

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

3422:

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

2142:

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

1883:

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...

1823:

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

1098:

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

777:

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

3724:

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

2041:

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

1855:

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

781:

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 Knowledge's requirements on science. But I didn't want to do it,

3701:

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

3288:

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

832:

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

3018:

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

2080:

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

2316:

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

2268:

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

1136:

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

1203:

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'

847:

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

521:

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

730:

FWIW, von Meyer's descriptions probably read something like "pteron = 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).

345:

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

3761:

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

478:

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

726:

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

4074:

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

3690:

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.

410:

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

531:

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

444:

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?

3579:

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

464:

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

694:

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

3246:

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

2972:

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.

2681:

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

3436:. 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. 3473:

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 ;-)

3379:

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

3649:

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...

275:

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.

3749:

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

2317:

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.

1796:

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,

518:(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). 354:

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

1921:, 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, 3068:

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?).

3659:

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

2460:

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.

4194:

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.

1774:

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

459:

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?

3835:

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.

632:"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 3195:

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...

1534:

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.

927:

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

583:

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?

112:

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?

1093:

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

1496:

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

876:

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

3741:

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,

3333:

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.

1038:

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

297:

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.

3211:

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.

1150:

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

4338:

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,

2415:

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

658:

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.

3276:

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.

3145:

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... :)

1292:

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 could look at this, correct, expand and such.

1958:

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.

3702:

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.

3056:

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?

897:

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.--

2913:" - 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, 861:

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?

556:

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.

3668:

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).

1836:

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,

786:

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

4000:

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

1278:

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. --

2421:

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"

888:

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

3859: 1948:

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...

717:-- 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"). 3384:

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.

311:"Ar-kay-op-ter-iks" ) - 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? -- 3738:

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.

3155:

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.

3815: 2247:

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,

837:

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 Knowledge.

257:

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".

537:

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

3530:

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.

3822:

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,

4162:

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.

3279:

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. --

4288:

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

2325:

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.

1735:

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?

2790:

Buisonje, P.H. de (1985). "Climatological conditions during deposition of the Solnhofen limestones". In Hecht, M.K.; Ostrom, J.H.; Viohl, G.; and Wellnhofer, P. (eds.) (ed.).

3734:

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

185:

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)

1618:(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? -- 881:, 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 1137:

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.

3432:

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

2831: 1189:(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?) 3321:

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

3235:

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

2300:(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!:) 4470:

Barsbold, Rhinchen. (1983) "Carnivorous dinosaurs from the Cretaceous of Mongolia. transactions of the joint Soviet-Mongolian Paleontological Expedition". 19:5-119.

3231:"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 3317:

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

2621:

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.

998:

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.

778:

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

3532:" -- 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 "... 2470:

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.

2119:

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

1603:, 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! 4258:

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.

1427: 893:

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

4075:"hyperextendible second toe", yet this article states it wasn't even considered until the Thermopolis specimen was examined. Shouldn't that be changed too? 4461:

Kurzanov, S.M. (1987) "Avimimidae and the problem of the origin of birds" "Transactions of the joint Soviet - Mongolian Paleontological Expedition 31:31-94

548:

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.

3618:'"The eleven fossils currently classified as Archaeopteryx are the oldest evidence of feathers on the planet and the only ones dated from Jurassic times." 2992: 4435:

Lowe, P.R. (1935) "On the relationship of the Struthiones to the dinosaurs and to the rest of the avian class, with special reference to the position of

3162: 3117: 3076: 2956: 1034:

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

1015:

Anonymous (1961). Opinion 607, Archaeopteryx Von Meyer, 1861 (Aves); Addition to the Official list. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 18(4): 260-261.

150:

This really has very little to do with Creationism. What is significant is that Archaeopteryx is just the textbook example of a transitional fossil.--

3725:

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.

1586:

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...) --

1076:

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

4359:

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?

3818:, 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 2369:

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.

2322:

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

1599:

wasn't a dinosaur. Maybe the heading could be "Recognized as Dinosaur or Pterosaur Fossils" ? Also, the 2007 assignments should be credited to Mayr

3460: 1171:

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.

331:

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

3925:

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...

2997:

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.

1511:

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

4479:

Zweers, G.A., Vanden Berge, J.C. (1997) "Evolutionary patterns of avian trophic diversification" Zoology: Analysis of Complex Systems. 100:25-57.

4056:

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

3819: 2359:

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? --

1303:

The only google hits I'm getting for "Archaeopteryx simensii" are 53 Russian sites. Nothing in English. Do you know of any English references?

4420:

Witmer, L.M. (2005). “The Debate on Avian Ancestry; Phylogeny, Function and Fossils”, “Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs” : 3-30.

3875:. As Dinoguy says, the term is something readers would find in books for the average reader, as well as professional paleontological papers. 3599:

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

2985:

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.

2580:

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

4268: 4205: 2489:

fullstops in captions. It's a matter of personal style & we don't really need to change anything unless someone opposes on the FAC...

2058:-- I'll see about doing a comparison diagram between a few Archie specimens using Spindler's drawing, which appears to be public domain. 1526:

in 1861 without a species name (note that in the pdf listing, 1862 is in parentheses, and the reference says 1861); Woodward indeed used

1355:. Such non-standard usage therefore calls for a citation if it is to be used. Meanwhile, I'm switching it to something more appropriate. 405:

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

4366: 1426:

Wagner seems to have been reported at 1862 (after the finding of London specimen?) ,although other online informations describe as 1861

2670:

climbing large trees, these seem to have been absent from the islands; few trunks have been found in the sediments and fossilised tree

4043: 3289:

this, as does the time frame. Either that, or the most advanced dromies are not really that close to microraptorians and troodontids.

2875: 2802: 1614:

Fixed, thanks. In this version I added the recent classifications of Elzanowski (2002) and Sester & Robins (2003) as well as Mayr

2935:

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)

4424: 4179: 2774: 2608: 121:

Yes, but we need to strive for a NPOV :). I expanded the intro a little, and mentioned transitional fossils in the first paragraph.

4029:

lineages are extremely birdlike, and suggested that different groups of birds may have descended from different dinosaur ancestors.

3463:

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.

2384:

Were we planning on getting into things like the Hoyle feather fakery claims? I think they're important enough to warrant comment.

3664:, at least, are described as modern in all aspects but their symmetry, very dissimilar from the 'fuzz' of primitive coelurosaurs. 3628:

are Middle or, more likely, Late Jurassic, this situation is not so straightforward. Shouldn't the possibility that feathers from

2686:

from an arboreal lifestyle; several species of extant bird live exclusively in low shrubs. Various aspects of the morphology of

3358:

and Archie descended and evolved flight-related apomorphies independently from non-volant, non-flight-feathered ancestors (and

2666:

of these islands was adapted to these dry conditions and consisted mostly of low (3 m ) shrubs. Contrary to reconstructions of

2617:

fossils and other terrestrial fossils found at Solnhofen indicates that they did not travel far before becoming preserved. The

1644:, so that checks out (except for Senter as Sester). I don't have Elzanowski (2002), but I can confirm that it has Solnhofen as 1374: 322: 4140:

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.

885:

shared similar traits. These CT Scan findings have been generally accepted by the paleontological community, as far as I know.

3101: 3032: 2555: 2527: 2439: 2394:

A Featured Article is supposed to be comprehensive. I agree the Hoyle fakery claims, as well as others, should be discussed.

2162: 2006: 1930: 1806: 1779:

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

1146:

Obviously this is a situation that needs to be addressed with a clear designation of a neotype b the ICZN. The fact is that

1127:"Die von mir dargelegte fossile Feder von Solenhofen wird von einem ähnlichen Thiere herrühren, für dass ich die Benennung 1732:

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

1636:

Okay: Senter and Robins (2003; Sester is a typo) have Berlin, Maxberg, Haarlem, Eichstatt, Munich, and London together as

551:

It is somewhat unfortunate that we have a pretty clear idea when and from what Archie evolved, but that any indication of

4012:

was a dinosaur that was no more closely related to birds than were other dinosaur groups. Kurzanov (1987) suggested that

1379:

though aspect ratio is incorrect, maybe because of the commons server settings. Actual view should be like png file below

4111:

Yet another thing, our main images of Archie appear to be wrong, the Oxford University Museum model lacks leg feathers.

66: 1320:

I see nothing about the creature's size, even roughly. It'd be great if someone could look that up and add it. Thanks.

4038: 3495: 3159: 3136: 3114: 3073: 3001: 2989: 2953: 2917: 2892:

I've added the qualifier "tree" to make it "tree pollen", as I can't find a source which mentions anything other than

2887: 2872: 2605: 2518:

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,

1047:

was the holotype. And therefore, they conclude, O.607 is valid in establishing that Archie is indeed correctly called

1571:; and Eichstaat, Burgermeister-Muller, and Chicken Wing were not assigned to a species, so you can leave them alone. 3989:

added some great info on archie and early birds that was a a tad overspecialised for the more general and overlong

3951: 1396:

The combinations of scientific names and specimens in timeline are correct? Especially London specimen and Feather.

574: 38: 3130:

that they were nowhere near each other. Anyway, you should feel free to edit as you see fit. We all do, at least.

791:

If (1) has happened, you need to read Witmer's article yourself and correct Knowledge's paragraph to show what he

4126:

Good catch, Arcie definitely had feathers on the lower leg. The images should be removed per WP:Dino guidelines.

3903: 3019:

conifers, this meagre record suggests the forests were scarce at best." thus I mentioned conifers as there was

951:

It seems to be still unresolved whether the London specimen is actually the holotype and since when, or whether

4304: 193:, and you'd have a hell of a time telling them they're wrong, because none of them is speaking Latin anyways. 2601:

This section was volunteered in the FAC. I'm placing this here until its ready to move into the main article.

2019:

at my Uni bookshop yesterday, might have to pick it up so I have something worthwhile to contribute myself :)

1461:

corrected SVG error on aspect ratio and italicizing, so I replaced the image above to svg version. Thanks.) --

4370: 4272: 606:

Why was it removed? My article is just the same as the Arguements articles that appear on many Wiki pages. --

285:

In any case, Greeks would pronounce the "p" (or "π" actually) even when a word begins with "pt-" (or "pn-").

93:

Well yes, because there aren't any at all anywhere else. An eighth find, the first one, was a stray feather.

4209: 3687:

The popular media use this term in a way that seems to confuse some people (who typically are creationists).

862: 822: 3782: 3298:

It appears I've misinterpreted Mayr and Peters (06)based on comments made by Corfe and Butler. Sorry, all!

4035: 3907: 3156: 3111: 3070: 2986: 2950: 2869: 2602: 919: 228: 1406: 1017:

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

286: 3763: 3703: 2727: 2462: 2370: 1439:, 9th ("Chicken wing") seems less-fragmented specimen than 8th. Which is Burgermeister-Muller specimen? 999: 570: 365: 122: 1260:

Have replaced images - but it has screwed up the text placement, and that problem needs correcting. --

356: 276: 3867: 3844:

I know that GSP, at least, uses the term Urvogel very often and prominantly in his books, to refer to

3778: 3726: 1115:(the alternative would be noncompliance with ICZN rules)! I cannot imagine how it could get any worse. 4362: 4264: 4201: 4175: 4167: 3955: 3604: 3570: 3464: 3385: 2127:

skeletal reconstructions gathered together in one image, shown to scale (click on image to zoom in).

1228: 1190: 1138: 1085: 984: 732: 700: 557: 523: 491: 199: 3858:

Gregory Paul is one major English-speaking paleontologist who uses the term 'Urvogel' in his books (

2949:

Unless I can find some more refs tomorrow at the library this is as much as I can do at the moment.

209:

I don't really think this has much to do with pronunciation, but Archaeopteryx is Greek, not Latin.

80:

only seven specimens of Archaeopteryx have been found in the Solnhofen limestone of southern Germany

4300: 3499: 3475: 3252: 3243:

may be a moot point, having little bearing on how this happened in the ancestors of modern birds."

2301: 1857: 318: 3329:

may be a moot point, having little bearing on how this happened in the ancestors of modern birds.

2052:

I have the original templates for those scale diagrams, including a more 'zoomed in' version from

1660:; maybe someone else here has the book it's in, and can speak to Maxberg, Haarlem, and Eichstatt? 838: 748:

Archaeopteryx did not only live in the Jurassic instead it lived in the Jurassic and Cretaceous.--

4403: 4386: 4145: 4131: 4116: 4099: 4080: 4064: 3591:

soon. The rock is the common lithography slate, from the cleavage planes of which here and there

3097: 3028: 2812: 2644: 2551: 2523: 2435: 2360: 2219: 2158: 2002: 1926: 1802: 1765:

Yeah I reckon looks better without the bullets but the paras need some tweaking - doable though.

1675:

I fixed the typo, and I think I can release the timeline in this version. Thank you very much! --

1373:

of Archaeopteryx and now making SVG file of the Timeline. I've uploaded the first version of it (

965:

as a nomen conservandum. One of these statements has to be wrong... all are currently un-sourced.

589: 505: 386:

is in fact a member of archaeopterygidae. Coelurids are a completely different kind of dinosaur.

47: 17: 1030:

That post antedates the paper which casts quite some doubt upon it by 5 years :(. If it were in

2237:

I've stacked all the specimens in the first image, and zoomed it in a bit. Is that any better?

82:. As I read this, perhaps it should say "only seven specimens of Archaeopteryx have been found 4421: 4252:) 8 - 8th (very incomplete) (?) 9 - 9th (inaccessible, private hands) (?) 10 - Thermopolis ( 3836: 2799: 2771: 2340: 2150:

P.S. Will stick in that picture until we can get a better one - if we can get a better one...

1269:

Fixed, finally - and the detail of the London specimen, with the feathers, is now included. --

428: 3871:

These are big names in paleontology, and their lead has been followed in other sources, like

3772: 3872: 3814:, but you claimed in your edit summary that "'urvogel' is not used in English." You can see 3508: 3424: 3345: 3335: 3280: 2998: 2704: 2411:

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

1321: 636:

the specimens, is it wise to start off the article mentioning only the best known specimen?

390: 3562: 3325:(the Jurassic ancestor of which remains unknown), how exactly flying ability was gained in 3239:(the Jurassic ancestor of which remains unknown), how exactly flying ability was gained in 2280:

Ok, something strange is going on here. I was going by the scale in his panoply ("The Many

2081:

picture, you might be able to use it to create an Archie diagram using the same concept...

1458: 1066:

That all this is not inconceivable shows the trouble I had to go through to establish that

449: 4171: 3849:

big-name scientits doing the popularizing, so it's not exactly "thagomizer"-esque trivia.

3630: 3603:

finished the drawing at that time. The 1862 volume has that plate missing, unfortunately.

2974: 2824: 2763: 2744: 2636: 2631: 2385: 1736: 1685: 1661: 1628: 1604: 1572: 1536: 1488: 1479: 1077: 194: 3964:

Interesting. Would be nice if they said what the material was. Also doesn't say it's not

1997:

on me bookshelf - kickass book. Have had a browse and there's some stuff ta add.cheers,

1785:; Arthur put a lot of work into it, and I'd hate to see that "go to waste", so to speak. 1718:

list of specimens needs delistifying somehow, unless others feel a list is the way to go:

1518:

looks like your best bet for a clear version of the running order for the 1861-62 names.

542:

independently in the lineages (note plural!) of Mesozoic birds. Indeed, the ancestors of

3775: 1474:

Holy cow! That looks spectacular! I'll see what I can come up with on it. I know who

3986: 3926: 3651: 3547: 3537: 3197: 3147: 2914: 2588: 2506: 2490: 2452: 2326: 2248: 2209:

example of most specimens that have been assigned to their own genera or new species.

2197: 2144: 2082: 2054: 2043: 1949: 1885: 1863: 1837: 1825: 1385: 1370: 1356: 749: 312: 299: 258: 236: 3688: 806:

clearly found his article convincing. So you need to write a letter to the editors of

4399: 4382: 4314: 4289: 4141: 4127: 4112: 4095: 4076: 4060: 4020: 4008: 4002: 3997: 3969: 3917: 3876: 3850: 3823: 3735: 3712: 3692: 3669: 3641: 3625: 3484: 3437: 3414: 3299: 3290: 3266: 3213: 3184: 3131: 3093: 3058: 3024: 2939: 2923: 2897: 2882: 2547: 2519: 2471: 2431: 2395: 2285: 2270: 2238: 2228: 2171: 2154: 2128: 2096: 2068: 2059: 2020: 1998: 1978: 1960: 1922: 1798: 1786: 1781: 1766: 1749: 1723: 1331: 1304: 1294: 1279: 1270: 1261: 1172: 1152: 1084:

raising a ruckus is too hilarious. But quite possibly, that's exactly what happened.

1021: 966: 929: 898: 849: 760: 759:

further additions of this kind and I will nominate your account be permantly blocked.

718: 674: 659: 649: 618: 607: 585: 466: 446: 424: 387: 332: 2625:

skeletons are considerably less numerous in the deposits of Solnhofen than those of

4407: 4390: 4374: 4317: 4308: 4292: 4276: 4213: 4183: 4149: 4135: 4120: 4103: 4084: 4068: 3972: 3958: 3929: 3920: 3910: 3881: 3853: 3839: 3828: 3786: 3766: 3729: 3715: 3706: 3695: 3672: 3654: 3644: 3607: 3573: 3550: 3540: 3511: 3502: 3489: 3478: 3467: 3440: 3427: 3417: 3388: 3338: 3304: 3293: 3283: 3271: 3255: 3218: 3200: 3189: 3183:

redirects here. I believe this term should be mentioned in the article, but where?

3150: 3104: 3063: 3035: 2977: 2944: 2928: 2902: 2591: 2558: 2530: 2509: 2493: 2476: 2465: 2455: 2442: 2400: 2388: 2373: 2363: 2329: 2304: 2288: 2275: 2262: 2251: 2241: 2231: 2200: 2176: 2165: 2147: 2133: 2099: 2085: 2073: 2062: 2046: 2023: 2009: 1983: 1965: 1952: 1933: 1888: 1866: 1840: 1828: 1809: 1791: 1769: 1752: 1739: 1726: 1688: 1679: 1676: 1664: 1631: 1622: 1619: 1607: 1590: 1587: 1575: 1557: 1554: 1548: 1545: 1539: 1491: 1482: 1465: 1462: 1447: 1444: 1436: 1359: 1334: 1324: 1309: 1297: 1282: 1273: 1264: 1247: 1231: 1193: 1175: 1155: 1141: 1088: 1024: 1002: 987: 969: 932: 922: 901: 865: 852: 841: 825: 763: 752: 750:

Elmo125.467/891.011.121.415.164.057.984.887.982.481.215.470.890.199.919.652.468.Yay

735: 721: 703: 677: 662: 652: 621: 610: 593: 578: 560: 526: 508: 494: 469: 431: 415: 368: 359: 335: 326: 302: 289: 279: 261: 239: 204: 180: 154: 3916:

I'd reccomend against it--the structure of the wing, for one thing, is all wrong.

3758:

dare link to on a science page be linked to on pages about anti-science movements?

3753:

Having thought about it, I suppose it doesn't really get used for anything else -

2196:

That's it that's it that's it!!!!! YAY! I thought I'd gone mad... Thank God... :)

1118:

De Beer's reasoning in a nutshell: as von Meyer stated in 1862 (Palaeontographica

4053:

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

3413:?), "Arctometatarsalia" for (I presume) just ornithomimosaurs? I'm suspicious... 1955:

P.S. I have not the expertise to do the species & classification sections...

1252:

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

4452:, and the origin of birds." Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 82:119-158 4026: 3993:

article. I summarised it there, but don't feel qualified to add it to this FA.

3354: 2845: 2344: 1563:

The quick version of their findings is: London, Haarlem, Maxberg, and Solnhofen=

1243:

How old are these things? There's no mention of dating anywhere in the article.

799: 544: 412: 177: 151: 114: 94: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3869: 2909:

I have a concern - the para which Cas created not long ago has this sentence: "

2868:

There is more to come. Please pick over an polish (I have to go to lunch now)

2691:

it with its jaws if it were small enough or with its claws if it were larger.

2426:

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

1013:

Opinion 607 is used throught the text as a source and is listed in References--

3943: 3900: 3349: 3322: 3236: 3126:

None here. In fact, I was a little surprised that they were seperate sections

2881:

I've added a reflist so we can see the references. Taking a look right now...

2659: 2356: 1244: 1112: 538: 101: 87: 2768:

Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds

2705:"The impact of decay and disarticulation on the preservation of fossil birds" 1595:

Beautiful! This is such a great image I almost hesitate to bring it up, but

1053:

what according to B&B everyone has since long believed to be the holotype

975:

Has anyone actually read ICZN Opinion 607? Bühler & Bock interpret it as

639:

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

3636: 3360: 2651: 2626: 2584: 2212: 1519: 1515: 1502: 1068: 1018: 232: 210: 136: 2218: 2120: 2034: 1977:

for a cow, with Johann Dörr." just doesn't sound quite right. Suggestions?

2341:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Archaeopteryx

2180: 2107: 2095:

the feet of the Spindler drawing, which had incorrect, reversed halluces.

1103:

there has not been a formal neotype designation, we're actually left with

227:

The IPA pronunciation doesn't look quite right to me (why is there a long

4014: 3251:? I suggest the wording is examined and should probably be watered down. 3023:

of them. :) Feel free to replace mine with SSs. This line is OK.cheers,

2655: 2643:, yet are common enough that it is unlikely that the specimens found are 2042:

could use in the above image. Thanks whoever you are who does this... :)

4224:

You mixed it all wrong. There are currently 10 skeletal specimens known

1478:

know if all of the dates are correct, but I don't think they edit here.

423:

The alleged fossil wasn't claimed to be an archaeopteryx, it was called

219:

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

3180: 2640: 1522:

has every name and misspelling as of 1999. Wagner appears to have used

4228:

the feather, which makes it 11 fossils! 0 - feather (?) 1 - London (

3110:

Any objections to my moving Paeloecology to the paleobiology section?

1430: 1351:

define "refer" to mean "rename" as it is being used here, nor does my

1198:

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

2671: 1974: 1684:

Sounds good! You've done a lot of work on this, and it looks great!

813:

Number (3) is always a possibility, so re-read his article carefully.

3906:

page. We opted out; however, if you ae interested I can pursue it.--

4398:

the following paragraph (saying eleven fossils) makes more sense.

4024:.Barsbold (1983) and Zweers&Vanden Berge (1998) noted that many 3565:. (Not much to be made out of it though... it certainly would be a 3179:

in this article, which is supposed to be comprehensive. Currently,

4299:

No, "Thier" is an archaic spelling of "Tier", meaning "animal". --

2663: 2211: 2179: 2106: 2033: 1748:

Sounds good, as they are significantly sized paras anyway. cheers

1501:. I don't have the article, unfortunately. A summary can be found 3456: 2650:

The islands that surrounded the Solnhofen lagoon were low lying,

172:

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

3990: 3980: 3368:

out that 35-page piece of work YESTERDAY! To whet your appetite,

2264:

is around 20 cm long, not including possible tail feathers. The

1399:

The order of scientific names for London specimen at 1862 is OK?

4283:

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

364:

Sorry -- the above is my anonymous edit. I forgot to log on!!--

1183: 782:

cause it's always better to have first a good debate. Tkkoski

483:

gradual: the generation-to-generation steps are not larger by

135:

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

25: 2296:

This scale diagram is very good, the size of the four famous

818:

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

3897: 2798:. Eichstätt: Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstätt. pp. 45–65. 1913:

section belongs as a subheading with an expanded section on

2575:

Taking Wing: Archaeopteryx and the Evolution of Bird Flight

1072:

is the correct form (not "Aiornis", even though this makes

3762:

agree/disagree with/don't understand at all etc. you two.

2792:

The beginnings of Birds: Proceedings of the International

1711:

section after the lead, some material can be gleaned from

1330:

Added length to intro (0.6m), the size listed on DinoData.

798:

If (2), Knowledge is not the place to argue with him (see

3459:

that the Thermopolis Archie (or a cast) is on display at

2911:

Plants include cycads and conifers while animals found...

1862:" If really wanted returned, just paste above section... 1627:

I'll check it out, although I think you've got it right.

378:

I'm fixing the following: The main entry currently lists

231:

sound & a secondary stress on the last syllable?). --

3771:

It might help if a better example had been used such as

2647:

from the larger islands 50 km (31 miles) to the north.

4347:

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

3811: 3352:) suggests rather strongly that it is indeed the case: 2352: 2269:

noticed, but the others may be on the small side, too.

673:

Woot! Looks better now, at least IMO. Thanks dinoguy!--

3640:

are known from the same time or earlier be mentioned?

3507:

Awesome! I've added one of the images to the article.

3344:

Upcoming paper in Journal of Systematic Paleontology (

3228:

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

3092:

Tweaked it -it kinda acts like an intro now..cheers,

1544:

Thanks a lot! I'll update the timeline anytime soon.--

4018:

was more likely to be the ancestor of all birds than

2153:

I remember the pic too, now where was it????cheers,

3175:

There is no mention of the (originally German) term

1346: 699:

technically an ichnogenus...) and had that changed.

1349: 4448:Thulborn, R.A. (1984) "The avian relationships of 3409:? No support for Oviraptorifirmes (did he include 2485:Yeah, but I've also been told in previous FACs to 2067:That would be very excellent; thank you, Dinoguy. 2257:Is there something off with the scale? Headden's 1131:(Jahrb. für Mineral., 1861. S.679) gewählt habe." 961:may be the correct name. It then goes on to list 2896:. I hope this meets with your approval, Sabine. 2577:? Might be worth putting it in the References. 2170:Could it have been this one? Three allosaurids? 1099:the description. Indeed, the conclusion is that 86:in the Solnhofen limestone of southern Germany" 4343:more fossils of Archaeopteryx have surfaced... 4248:) 6 - Eichstätt (very small) (?) 7 - Munich ( 2922:Excellent point. This also deserves attention. 4006:truly was the first bird. They suggested that 3896:I was offer the use of an image by Karen Carr 1211:and a even less complete German original, viz: 2770:. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 8: 4355:fossils include impressions of feathers... 3557:Hooray! The original description is online! 3461:Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe 1973:This sentence: "He exchanged this precious 2343:of redlinks in this article -- I see that 1402:The scientific names annotated are enough? 979:suppressing the rat-tail of synonyms, but 810:, not try to eliminate him from Knowledge. 3483:Looking forward to seeing the photos! :) 2938:Thank you, Sabine. I look forward to it. 2854:Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2830:CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list ( 2573:Are you familiar with Pat Shipman's book 164:the pronunciation is ar-kee-op-teh-ricks 100:Thanks, Wetman, I modified the article. 4381:11 is with the single feather included. 2583:Looking good: good luck with the FAC! -- 4413: 3561:Free-for all, thanks Google Books! See 2695: 1911:Archaeopteryx & the origin of birds 200: 195: 3862:, but he's not the only one. Feduccia 2820: 2810: 2758: 2756: 2754: 2740: 2736: 2725: 382:as a member of the family coeluridae. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1703:Hi guys, what I can see needs doing: 1392:give me advices. Thanks in advance. 7: 3393:So, is Senter saying flight evolved 2503:It's official - Archie is up for FAC 3584:"Frankfurt-on-Main, August 15, 1861 1853:Removed the pop culture section - " 1353:Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 802:to understand why). The editors of 3950:at Cherves-de-Cognac, France? See 2090:Ok, for some reason I feel like I 1567:; Berlin, Munich, and Thermopolis= 24: 4330:The 5th paragraph reads in part: 1020:seems to confirm that it's legit. 955:only refers to the single feather 2635:, the group which dominated the 1384: 1375:image:Archaeopteryx_timeline.svg 949:Recently added to the article: " 108:Creationist straw man refutation 29: 3810:I'm not sure what was going on 1405:According to ICZN official list 1107:being, by all gods, not only a 400:This was removed as vandalism: 4318:10:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 4309:07:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 4293:06:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 4190:Isolated Archaeopteryx feather 3921:00:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC) 3911:00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC) 3624:With the possibility that the 3534:launched in the 1990s or 2000s 3265:develop flight independently. 3261:Several lineages of theropods 2613:The excellent preservation of 1: 4391:21:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4375:21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 4256:) Species assigment based on 4214:20:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 4150:17:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 4136:17:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 4121:23:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 4104:17:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 4085:13:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3882:14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 3854:08:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 3840:08:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 3787:20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 3397:times within basal paraves?? 1984:18:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 1966:04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1953:03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1934:03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1889:03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1867:02:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1841:02:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1829:02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1810:00:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1792:00:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1770:23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1753:23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1740:23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1727:22:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1483:14:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 1466:15:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1448:08:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 1310:23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 1298:21:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 1274:19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 1041:everybody, including the ICZN 622:17:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 611:07:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 455:How is the Archaeopteryx..... 4277:11:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 4184:23:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4044:03:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 3973:15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 3959:14:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 3930:04:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 3496:Image:Archaeopterix ka01.jpg 3364:too as regards apomorphies). 2315: 1360:04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 1335:15:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC) 1325:08:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC) 1265:20:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 1248:18:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 1232:16:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1194:15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1156:02:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1142:16:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 594:01:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 579:00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 470:15:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 450:21:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 432:05:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 416:04:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 391:04:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 369:22:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 360:22:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 205:05:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 181:04:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 155:08:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 3829:23:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 3767:20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 3730:15:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 3716:02:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 3707:08:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 3696:03:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 3673:06:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 3655:04:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 3645:01:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 3551:02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 3451:Thermopolis specimen photo? 2796:Conference, Eichstatt, 1984 2347:doesn't have an article on 1514:As to the other questions: 1283:14:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 1218:Archaeopteryx lithographica 1206:Archaeopteryx lithographica 1176:02:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1129:Archaeopteryx lithographica 1089:22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 1025:15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 736:19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 561:17:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 527:08:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 509:06:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 495:17:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 336:06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 327:05:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 303:02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 290:17:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 280:01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 4496: 3904:Introduction to Evolution 3219:20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3201:04:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3190:22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 3163:23:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3151:23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3137:23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3118:23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3105:20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3077:20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3064:19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3036:19:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 3002:19:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 2993:19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 2978:18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 2957:08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 2945:05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 2929:05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 2918:05:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 2903:22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 2888:23:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2876:22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2852:and the origin of birds". 2609:22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2592:15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 2559:11:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 2531:07:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 2510:06:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 2494:06:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 2477:06:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 2466:05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 2456:05:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 2443:04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 2401:16:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 2389:15:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 2374:15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 2364:13:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 2330:09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 2015:Excellent! I actually saw 1993:I suddenly realised I had 1665:15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1640:, and accept Solnhofen as 1632:14:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1623:09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1608:14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1591:10:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1576:18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 1558:12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 1549:15:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC) 1540:03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC) 1528:Griphosaurus problematicus 1417:Griphosaurus problematicus 1410:Griphosaurus problematicus 933:04:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 923:04:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 902:01:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 866:23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 853:20:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 842:19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 826:17:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 764:20:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 753:20:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 396:Feathered dinosaur forgery 262:16:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 240:16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 4408:10:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 3608:16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 3574:15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 3546:Delete it, it's trivia. 3541:04:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC) 3350:10.1017/S1477201907002143 2305:05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC) 2289:11:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 2276:08:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 2252:07:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 2242:06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 2232:10:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 2201:03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 2177:02:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 2166:02:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 2148:01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 2134:22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 2100:08:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 2086:08:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 2074:08:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 2063:08:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 2047:08:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 2024:09:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 2010:09:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 1689:03:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 1680:14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 1492:01:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 1415:seems to be correct, not 1345:Neither wikipedia itself 1043:in 1961 thought that the 678:16:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC) 663:22:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 653:22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 628:Archaeopteryx is the name 117:06:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) 104:03:08, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC) 97:03:05, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC) 90:02:54, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC) 4069:19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 3595:-like forms stand out." 3512:23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 3503:23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 3490:22:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 3479:17:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 3468:16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 3441:14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 3428:13:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 3418:01:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 3389:16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 2407:Moving toward FA...To-Do 2221:File:Archiesizesome1.png 1856:future birds. See also: 1532:Griphornis longicaudatus 1003:16:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 988:15:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 125:08:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3946:sister taxon of Archie 3339:12:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3305:02:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3294:00:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3284:18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 3272:17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 3256:17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 2335:Redlinks: German places 1208:to be a fitting name... 1166:Wing vs Feather (again) 1063:attached to one at all. 994:Head of London Specimen 970:21:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 744:Jurrasic and Cretaceous 722:18:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 704:18:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 487:, but can be larger by 4357: 4345: 4326:ten or eleven fossils? 3878:Firsfron of Ronchester 3825:Firsfron of Ronchester 3524:Pop culture reference: 3486:Firsfron of Ronchester 3423:before including it. — 3376: 3331: 3301:Firsfron of Ronchester 3268:Firsfron of Ronchester 3215:Firsfron of Ronchester 3186:Firsfron of Ronchester 3133:Firsfron of Ronchester 3060:Firsfron of Ronchester 2941:Firsfron of Ronchester 2925:Firsfron of Ronchester 2899:Firsfron of Ronchester 2884:Firsfron of Ronchester 2639:currently occupied by 2473:Firsfron of Ronchester 2397:Firsfron of Ronchester 2272:Firsfron of Ronchester 2225: 2216: 2184: 2173:Firsfron of Ronchester 2130:Firsfron of Ronchester 2111: 2070:Firsfron of Ronchester 2038: 1980:Firsfron of Ronchester 1962:Firsfron of Ronchester 1788:Firsfron of Ronchester 1306:Firsfron of Ronchester 1225: 1210: 1133: 957:" and speculates that 373: 129:why was it important? 4349: 4332: 3938:New archaeopterygids? 3371: 3315: 2662:and little rain. The 2224: 2215: 2183: 2110: 2037: 1530:in 1862, not Wagner; 1214: 1201: 1125: 439: 213:21:43, 15 August 2006 42:of past discussions. 4439:". Ibis 5(2):398-432 4094:specimen etc. etc." 4059:So which one is it? 3804:(moved from my talk) 2123:has Jaime Headden's 1459:commons:user:Calvero 1432:. Which is suitable? 1422:In ICZN list, genus 553:what it evolved into 4158:Archaeopteryx fraud 3899:of Archaeopteryx 3711:argh athiest raeg! 2430:Thoughts? cheers, 2017:Glorified Dinosaurs 1858:Grandfather paradox 983:setting a neotype. 821:I hope this helps, 4244:) 5 - Solnhofen ( 2823:has generic name ( 2735:Unknown parameter 2703:Davis, P. (1998). 2310:Comments on Archie 2226: 2217: 2185: 2112: 2039: 863:The Singing Badger 823:The Singing Badger 18:Talk:Archaeopteryx 4365:comment added by 4313:Aha! Thanks! :-) 4267:comment added by 4204:comment added by 4170:comment added by 3908:Random Replicator 3589:Palaeontographica 2677:The lifestyle of 2674:is also absent. 2030:New image request 1995:Feathered Dragons 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4487: 4480: 4477: 4471: 4468: 4462: 4459: 4453: 4446: 4440: 4433: 4427: 4418: 4377: 4279: 4246:A. lithographica 4242:A. lithographica 4240:) 4 - Haarlem ( 4238:A. lithographica 4236:) 3 - Maxberg ( 4230:A. lithographica 4216: 4186: 4041: 4036:Sabine's Sunbird 3879: 3826: 3614:Oldest feathers? 3536:...". Thoughts? 3487: 3302: 3269: 3216: 3187: 3157:Sabine's Sunbird 3134: 3112:Sabine's Sunbird 3071:Sabine's Sunbird 3061: 2987:Sabine's Sunbird 2951:Sabine's Sunbird 2942: 2926: 2900: 2885: 2870:Sabine's Sunbird 2862: 2861: 2842: 2836: 2835: 2828: 2822: 2818: 2816: 2808: 2787: 2781: 2780: 2764:Paul, Gregory S. 2760: 2749: 2748: 2742: 2738: 2733: 2731: 2723: 2721: 2720: 2700: 2603:Sabine's Sunbird 2585:NigelG (or Ndsg) 2474: 2398: 2339:Re a mention at 2318: 2273: 2222: 2174: 2131: 2071: 1981: 1963: 1789: 1658:A. lithographica 1656:, and London as 1638:A. lithographica 1565:A. lithographica 1388: 1369:I'm involved in 1307: 1049:A. lithographica 1036:A. lithographica 963:A. lithographica 953:A. lithographica 571:Colonel Marksman 315: 292:Nick Theodorakis 233:NigelG (or Ndsg) 230: 202: 197: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4495: 4494: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4478: 4474: 4469: 4465: 4460: 4456: 4447: 4443: 4434: 4430: 4419: 4415: 4360: 4328: 4285: 4262: 4232:) 2 - Berlin ( 4222: 4199: 4192: 4165: 4160: 4051: 4039: 3984: 3956:Dysmorodrepanis 3940: 3894: 3877: 3824: 3801: 3685: 3631:Epidendrosaurus 3616: 3605:Dysmorodrepanis 3571:Dysmorodrepanis 3559: 3526: 3485: 3465:Dysmorodrepanis 3453: 3386:Dysmorodrepanis 3300: 3267: 3226: 3214: 3209: 3185: 3173: 3132: 3059: 2940: 2924: 2898: 2883: 2866: 2865: 2844: 2843: 2839: 2829: 2819: 2809: 2805: 2789: 2788: 2784: 2777: 2762: 2761: 2752: 2734: 2724: 2718: 2716: 2702: 2701: 2697: 2632:Rhamphorhynchus 2599: 2571: 2472: 2409: 2396: 2382: 2337: 2312: 2271: 2220: 2172: 2129: 2069: 2032: 1991: 1979: 1961: 1787: 1701: 1367: 1365:making timeline 1348:nor wiktionary 1343: 1318: 1305: 1290: 1258: 1256:Image placement 1241: 1229:Dysmorodrepanis 1191:Dysmorodrepanis 1168: 1139:Dysmorodrepanis 1086:Dysmorodrepanis 1078:St. Croix Macaw 1045:London specimen 1011: 996: 985:Dysmorodrepanis 947: 920:128.214.191.201 775: 746: 733:Dysmorodrepanis 701:Dysmorodrepanis 630: 604: 558:Dysmorodrepanis 524:Dysmorodrepanis 492:Dysmorodrepanis 457: 442: 398: 376: 374:Archie's Family 352: 313: 170: 110: 77: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4493: 4491: 4482: 4481: 4472: 4463: 4454: 4441: 4428: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4394: 4393: 4351:Many of these 4327: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4301:Stephan Schulz 4296: 4295: 4284: 4281: 4269:83.10.113.145 4221: 4218: 4206:72.194.116.63 4196: 4191: 4188: 4159: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4088: 4087: 4050: 4047: 3987:User:Jbrougham 3983: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3939: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3893: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3806: 3800: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3759: 3751: 3743: 3739: 3718: 3684: 3683:"missing link" 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3615: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3585: 3582: 3581: 3558: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3525: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3500:Stephan Schulz 3476:Stephan Schulz 3452: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3420: 3411:Incisivosaurus 3377: 3369: 3365: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3277: 3253:Macdonald-ross 3225: 3222: 3208: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3172: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3121: 3120: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2864: 2863: 2837: 2804:978-3980117807 2803: 2782: 2775: 2750: 2694: 2693: 2598: 2595: 2570: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2546:done cheers, 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2513: 2512: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2428: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2417: 2408: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2381: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2336: 2333: 2320: 2319: 2311: 2308: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2245: 2244: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2055:Jinfengopteryx 2031: 2028: 2027: 2026: 1990: 1987: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1919:Classification 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1743: 1742: 1733: 1720: 1719: 1716: 1700: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1512: 1509: 1506: 1487:No reply yet. 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1441: 1440: 1433: 1420: 1413:Woodward, 1862 1403: 1400: 1397: 1366: 1363: 1342: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1317: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1289: 1286: 1257: 1254: 1240: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1212: 1199: 1196: 1187: 1167: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1134: 1123: 1116: 1064: 1010: 1007: 1005:David Godrfey 995: 992: 991: 990: 946: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 909: 907: 906: 905: 904: 886: 871: 870: 869: 868: 856: 855: 831: 829: 828: 819: 815: 814: 811: 796: 788: 787: 774: 771: 769: 767: 766: 745: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 728: 715:Ancient pinion 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 666: 665: 629: 626: 625: 624: 617:is not needed. 603: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 566: 565: 564: 563: 549: 529: 519: 512: 511: 500: 499: 498: 497: 473: 472: 456: 453: 441: 440:Archie's Class 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 408: 407: 397: 394: 375: 372: 351: 348: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 306: 305: 294: 293: 287:134.68.222.246 273: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 266: 265: 264: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 217: 216: 215: 214: 183: 169: 168:Pronunciation? 166: 162: 161: 160: 159: 158: 157: 143: 142: 141: 140: 127: 126: 109: 106: 76: 73: 70: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4492: 4476: 4473: 4467: 4464: 4458: 4455: 4451: 4450:Archaeopteryx 4445: 4442: 4438: 4437:Archaeopteryx 4432: 4429: 4426: 4425:0-520-20094-2 4423: 4417: 4414: 4409: 4405: 4401: 4396: 4395: 4392: 4388: 4384: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4376: 4372: 4368: 4367:75.150.94.137 4364: 4356: 4354: 4348: 4344: 4342: 4337: 4331: 4325: 4319: 4316: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4297: 4294: 4291: 4287: 4286: 4282: 4280: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4260: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4219: 4217: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4197: 4189: 4187: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4163: 4157: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4118: 4114: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4057: 4054: 4049:Contradiction 4048: 4046: 4045: 4042: 4037: 4032: 4031: 4028: 4025: 4022: 4021:Archaeopteryx 4019: 4016: 4013: 4010: 4009:Archaeopteryx 4007: 4004: 4003:Archaeopteryx 4001: 3999: 3998:Archaeopteryx 3994: 3992: 3988: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3971: 3967: 3966:Archaeopteryx 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3937: 3931: 3928: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3919: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3898: 3891: 3883: 3880: 3874: 3870: 3868: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3852: 3847: 3846:Archaeopteryx 3843: 3842: 3841: 3838: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3827: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3808: 3805: 3799:Archaeopteryx 3798: 3788: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3773: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3765: 3764:85.92.173.186 3760: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3737: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3728: 3723: 3722:intentionally 3719: 3717: 3714: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3705: 3704:85.92.173.186 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3694: 3689: 3682: 3674: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3653: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3643: 3639: 3638: 3633: 3632: 3627: 3626:Daohugou Beds 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3613: 3609: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3594: 3590: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3556: 3552: 3549: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3523: 3513: 3510: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3488: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3477: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3450: 3442: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3426: 3421: 3419: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3387: 3383: 3378: 3375: 3370: 3366: 3363: 3362: 3357: 3356: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3337: 3330: 3328: 3327:Archaeopteryx 3324: 3320: 3319:Archaeopteryx 3306: 3303: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3292: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3282: 3278: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3270: 3264: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3254: 3250: 3249:independently 3244: 3242: 3241:Archaeopteryx 3238: 3234: 3233:Archaeopteryx 3229: 3223: 3221: 3220: 3217: 3206: 3202: 3199: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3188: 3182: 3178: 3170: 3164: 3161: 3158: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3149: 3144: 3143: 3138: 3135: 3129: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3119: 3116: 3113: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3078: 3075: 3072: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3062: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3037: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3003: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2991: 2988: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2976: 2958: 2955: 2952: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2943: 2937: 2936: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2927: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2901: 2895: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2886: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2874: 2871: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2850:Archaeopteryx 2847: 2841: 2838: 2833: 2826: 2814: 2806: 2801: 2797: 2794:Archaeopteryx 2793: 2786: 2783: 2778: 2776:0-8018-6763-0 2773: 2769: 2765: 2759: 2757: 2755: 2751: 2746: 2729: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2699: 2696: 2692: 2689: 2688:Archaeopteryx 2685: 2684:Archaeopteryx 2680: 2679:Archaeopteryx 2675: 2673: 2669: 2668:Archaeopteryx 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2648: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2633: 2628: 2624: 2623:Archaeopteryx 2620: 2619:Archaeopteryx 2616: 2615:Archaeopteryx 2611: 2610: 2607: 2604: 2597:Paeleoecology 2596: 2594: 2593: 2590: 2586: 2581: 2578: 2576: 2568: 2560: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2532: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2511: 2508: 2504: 2501: 2500: 2495: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2478: 2475: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2464: 2463:ArthurWeasley 2459: 2458: 2457: 2454: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2425: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2406: 2402: 2399: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2387: 2380:Controversey? 2379: 2375: 2372: 2371:ArthurWeasley 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2362: 2361:Writtenonsand 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2334: 2332: 2331: 2328: 2323: 2314: 2313: 2309: 2307: 2306: 2303: 2299: 2298:Archaeopteryx 2290: 2287: 2283: 2282:Archaeopteryx 2279: 2278: 2277: 2274: 2267: 2263: 2260: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2250: 2243: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2230: 2223: 2214: 2210: 2202: 2199: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2151: 2149: 2146: 2141: 2135: 2132: 2126: 2125:Archaeopteryx 2122: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2109: 2101: 2098: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2084: 2079: 2075: 2072: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2061: 2057: 2056: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2045: 2036: 2029: 2025: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1988: 1986: 1985: 1982: 1976: 1967: 1964: 1957: 1956: 1954: 1951: 1947: 1946: 1935: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1890: 1887: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1868: 1865: 1861: 1859: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1842: 1839: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1827: 1811: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1790: 1784: 1783: 1782:Compsognathus 1778: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1768: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1754: 1751: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1741: 1738: 1734: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1717: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1698: 1690: 1687: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1678: 1674: 1666: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1597:Pterodactylus 1594: 1593: 1592: 1589: 1585: 1577: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1556: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1547: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1538: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1504: 1500: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1490: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1467: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1446: 1438: 1435:According to 1434: 1431: 1428: 1425: 1421: 1418: 1414: 1411: 1407: 1404: 1401: 1398: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1387: 1382: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1371:ja.wp article 1364: 1362: 1361: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1347: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1323: 1315: 1311: 1308: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1296: 1287: 1285: 1284: 1281: 1276: 1275: 1272: 1267: 1266: 1263: 1255: 1253: 1250: 1249: 1246: 1239:Dates? Dates? 1238: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1213: 1209: 1207: 1200: 1197: 1195: 1192: 1188: 1185: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1165: 1157: 1154: 1149: 1148:Archaeopteryx 1145: 1144: 1143: 1140: 1135: 1132: 1130: 1124: 1121: 1117: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1105:Archaeopteryx 1102: 1097: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1070: 1065: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1023: 1019: 1016: 1008: 1006: 1004: 1001: 1000:157.140.1.101 993: 989: 986: 982: 978: 974: 973: 972: 971: 968: 964: 960: 956: 952: 945:Type Specimen 944: 934: 931: 928:web-site...-- 926: 925: 924: 921: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 903: 900: 896: 895:Archaeopteryx 891: 887: 884: 883:Archaeopteryx 880: 879:Archaeopteryx 875: 874: 873: 872: 867: 864: 860: 859: 858: 857: 854: 851: 846: 845: 844: 843: 840: 834: 827: 824: 820: 817: 816: 812: 809: 805: 801: 797: 794: 790: 789: 785: 784: 783: 779: 772: 770: 765: 762: 757: 756: 755: 754: 751: 743: 737: 734: 729: 725: 724: 723: 720: 716: 713: 705: 702: 698: 697:Archaeopteryx 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 679: 676: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 664: 661: 657: 656: 655: 654: 651: 646: 644: 643:Archaeopteryx 640: 637: 635: 627: 623: 620: 615: 614: 613: 612: 609: 601: 595: 591: 587: 582: 581: 580: 576: 572: 568: 567: 562: 559: 554: 550: 547: 546: 540: 535: 530: 528: 525: 520: 516: 515: 514: 513: 510: 507: 502: 501: 496: 493: 490: 486: 482: 477: 476: 475: 474: 471: 468: 463: 462: 461: 454: 452: 451: 448: 433: 430: 426: 425:archaeoraptor 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 414: 406: 403: 402: 401: 395: 393: 392: 389: 385: 384:Archaeopteryx 381: 380:Archaeopteryx 371: 370: 367: 362: 361: 358: 349: 347: 337: 334: 330: 329: 328: 324: 320: 316: 310: 309: 308: 307: 304: 301: 296: 295: 291: 288: 284: 283: 282: 281: 278: 263: 260: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 248: 241: 238: 234: 226: 225: 224: 223: 222: 221: 220: 212: 208: 207: 206: 203: 198: 192: 188: 184: 182: 179: 175: 174: 173: 167: 165: 156: 153: 149: 148: 147: 146: 145: 144: 138: 134: 133: 132: 131: 130: 124: 123:68.81.231.127 120: 119: 118: 116: 107: 105: 103: 98: 96: 91: 89: 85: 81: 74: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4475: 4466: 4457: 4449: 4444: 4436: 4431: 4416: 4358: 4352: 4350: 4346: 4340: 4335: 4333: 4329: 4261: 4257: 4254:A. siemensii 4253: 4250:A. siemensii 4249: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4234:A. siemensii 4233: 4229: 4225: 4223: 4198: 4193: 4164: 4161: 4110: 4058: 4055: 4052: 4033: 4030: 4027:maniraptoran 4023: 4017: 4011: 4005: 3996: 3995: 3985: 3965: 3947: 3941: 3895: 3863: 3845: 3809: 3803: 3802: 3754: 3746: 3745:However, my 3721: 3686: 3665: 3661: 3635: 3629: 3619: 3617: 3600: 3592: 3588: 3583: 3566: 3560: 3533: 3529: 3527: 3454: 3433: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3381: 3372: 3359: 3353: 3332: 3326: 3318: 3316: 3262: 3248: 3245: 3240: 3232: 3230: 3227: 3210: 3176: 3174: 3127: 3091: 3020: 2971: 2910: 2893: 2867: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2846:Ostrom, J.H. 2840: 2795: 2791: 2785: 2767: 2743:suggested) ( 2728:cite journal 2717:. Retrieved 2712: 2708: 2698: 2687: 2683: 2678: 2676: 2667: 2658:with a long 2649: 2630: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2612: 2600: 2582: 2579: 2574: 2572: 2543: 2502: 2486: 2429: 2410: 2383: 2348: 2338: 2324: 2321: 2297: 2295: 2281: 2265: 2258: 2246: 2227: 2207: 2124: 2091: 2053: 2040: 2016: 1994: 1992: 1972: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1854: 1822: 1780: 1776: 1721: 1713:Paleobiology 1712: 1708: 1702: 1657: 1653: 1652:, Munich as 1650:A. siemensii 1649: 1648:, Berlin as 1646:Wellnhoferia 1645: 1642:Wellnhoferia 1641: 1637: 1615: 1600: 1596: 1569:A. siemensii 1568: 1564: 1531: 1527: 1524:Griphosaurus 1523: 1499:A. siemensii 1498: 1475: 1442: 1424:Griphosaurus 1423: 1419:Wagner, 1861 1416: 1412: 1409: 1390: 1383: 1378: 1368: 1352: 1344: 1322:David McCabe 1319: 1291: 1277: 1268: 1259: 1251: 1242: 1226: 1221: 1217: 1215: 1205: 1202: 1169: 1147: 1128: 1126: 1119: 1111:but also an 1109:nomen dubium 1108: 1104: 1100: 1095: 1081: 1073: 1067: 1060: 1057:nomen dubium 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1035: 1031: 1014: 1012: 997: 980: 976: 962: 958: 954: 950: 948: 908: 894: 889: 882: 878: 835: 830: 807: 803: 792: 780: 776: 768: 747: 714: 696: 647: 642: 641: 638: 633: 631: 605: 552: 543: 533: 488: 484: 480: 458: 443: 409: 404: 399: 383: 379: 377: 363: 357:130.76.32.16 353: 350:New specimen 344: 277:24.58.33.115 272: 218: 190: 186: 171: 163: 128: 111: 99: 92: 83: 79: 78: 60: 43: 37: 4361:—Preceding 4263:—Preceding 4200:—Preceding 4172:Irrevenant 4166:—Preceding 3979:moved from 3779:Kaos Klerik 3727:69.95.50.15 3569:today :) ) 3567:nomen nudum 3509:Mgiganteus1 3494:Then check 3425:John.Conway 3399:Microraptor 3382:Microraptor 3355:Microraptor 3336:John.Conway 3281:John.Conway 2999:Mgiganteus1 2894:tree pollen 2737:|coauthors= 2569:Taking Wing 2355:, and that 2345:Workerszell 1909:I feel the 1709:Description 1654:A. bavarica 1553:updated. -- 1288:A. simensii 1220:geeignet... 1009:Opinion 607 959:Archaeornis 545:Hesperornis 539:generalists 196:freshgavin 36:This is an 3948:sensu lato 3944:Berriasian 3860:link here) 3323:Neornithes 3237:Neornithes 2975:J. Spencer 2719:2007-03-25 2660:dry season 2627:pterosaurs 2505:- Yay! :) 2386:J. Spencer 2357:Blumenberg 2351:-language 2266:Jurapteryx 2259:Jurapteryx 1737:J. Spencer 1722:thoughts? 1699:To-Do List 1686:J. Spencer 1662:J. Spencer 1629:J. Spencer 1605:J. Spencer 1573:J. Spencer 1537:J. Spencer 1505:and below: 1489:J. Spencer 1480:J. Spencer 1113:ichnotaxon 727:ambiguity. 366:andersonpd 355:article.-- 314:B.D.Mills 4220:Specimens 3942:Possible 3927:Spawn Man 3666:Pedopenna 3662:Pedopenna 3652:Spawn Man 3637:Pedopenna 3593:Saccocoma 3548:Tempshill 3538:Spawn Man 3403:Rahonavis 3361:Rahonavis 3198:Spawn Man 3148:Spawn Man 3021:something 2915:Spawn Man 2860:: 91–182. 2848:(1976). " 2813:cite book 2739:ignored ( 2715:(1): 3–13 2652:semi-arid 2507:Spawn Man 2491:Spawn Man 2453:Spawn Man 2353:Knowledge 2327:Dracontes 2249:Spawn Man 2198:Spawn Man 2145:Spawn Man 2121:this site 2083:Spawn Man 2044:Spawn Man 1950:Spawn Man 1886:Spawn Man 1864:Spawn Man 1838:Spawn Man 1826:Spawn Man 1767:Cas Liber 1750:Cas Liber 1724:Cas Liber 1357:Wahkeenah 1122:(2): 56), 1069:Aiolornis 300:Tempshill 259:Wahkeenah 211:anonymous 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 4383:FunkMonk 4363:unsigned 4315:Ling.Nut 4290:Ling.Nut 4265:unsigned 4202:unsigned 4180:contribs 4168:unsigned 4142:Dinoguy2 4128:Dinoguy2 4113:FunkMonk 4096:Dinoguy2 4077:FunkMonk 4061:FunkMonk 4034:Cheers! 4015:Avimimus 3970:Dinoguy2 3968:itself. 3918:Dinoguy2 3902:for the 3866:do, too. 3851:Dinoguy2 3820:top hits 3807:Hi Rex, 3747:question 3713:Gazpacho 3693:Gazpacho 3670:Dinoguy2 3642:Dinoguy2 3438:Dinoguy2 3415:Dinoguy2 3291:Dinoguy2 3102:contribs 3094:Casliber 3033:contribs 3025:Casliber 2821:|editor= 2766:(2002). 2741:|author= 2656:tropical 2654:and sub- 2645:vagrants 2641:seabirds 2629:such as 2556:contribs 2548:Casliber 2528:contribs 2520:Casliber 2440:contribs 2432:Casliber 2302:Dropzink 2286:Dinoguy2 2239:Dinoguy2 2229:Dinoguy2 2163:contribs 2155:Casliber 2097:Dinoguy2 2092:just saw 2060:Dinoguy2 2021:Dinoguy2 2007:contribs 1999:Casliber 1989:Addendum 1931:contribs 1923:Casliber 1915:Taxonomy 1807:contribs 1799:Casliber 1707:needs a 1332:Dinoguy2 1295:Dumarest 1280:Dumarest 1271:Dumarest 1262:Dumarest 1173:Dinoguy2 1153:Dinoguy2 1032:reaction 1022:Dinoguy2 967:Dinoguy2 930:Firsfron 899:Firsfron 850:Dinoguy2 761:Dinoguy2 719:Dinoguy2 675:Firsfron 660:Dinoguy2 650:Firsfron 619:Dinoguy2 608:Scorpios 586:Dinoguy2 485:quantity 467:Dinoguy2 447:Dinoguy2 388:Dinoguy2 333:Dinoguy2 3873:Palaeos 3455:I read 3407:Avialae 3181:Urvogel 3177:Urvogel 3171:Urvogel 2709:Palaios 2544:(Phew!) 1677:Y tambe 1620:Y tambe 1588:Y tambe 1555:Y tambe 1546:Y tambe 1463:Y tambe 1445:Y tambe 1151:here ;) 1082:anybody 839:Tkkoski 773:CT Scan 602:My Edit 489:quality 429:JPotter 411:know.-- 39:archive 4353:eleven 3864:et al. 3755:except 3742:sorry. 3736:WP:NPA 3405:, and 3224:Flight 2672:pollen 2416:etc.)? 2349:German 2261:image 1975:fossil 1601:et al. 1341:Refer? 808:Nature 804:Nature 793:really 506:Plunge 465:teeth. 413:Pharos 201:TALK 187:archie 178:Hobart 152:Pharos 139:6Dec05 115:Samboy 95:Wetman 75:Syntax 4336:first 3892:Image 3434:birds 3395:three 2664:flora 2637:niche 1616:et al 1476:would 1245:Graft 890:human 795:said. 191:arkee 102:RickK 88:RickK 84:, all 16:< 4422:ISBN 4404:talk 4387:talk 4371:talk 4341:nine 4334:The 4305:talk 4273:talk 4226:plus 4210:talk 4176:talk 4146:talk 4132:talk 4117:talk 4100:talk 4081:talk 4065:talk 4040:talk 3991:bird 3981:bird 3952:here 3816:here 3812:here 3783:talk 3750:for. 3634:and 3563:here 3457:here 3207:DOIs 3160:talk 3115:talk 3098:talk 3074:talk 3029:talk 2990:talk 2954:talk 2873:talk 2832:link 2825:help 2800:ISBN 2772:ISBN 2745:help 2606:talk 2589:Talk 2552:talk 2524:talk 2436:talk 2159:talk 2003:talk 1927:talk 1917:and 1803:talk 1520:This 1516:this 1503:here 1437:here 1316:Size 977:only 800:WP:V 590:talk 575:talk 237:Talk 137:Jimp 4400:Jon 4275:) 4212:) 4182:) 3837:Rex 3774:OR 3720:He 3601:not 3346:doi 3263:did 3128:and 3100:| 3031:| 2554:| 2526:| 2487:put 2438:| 2161:| 2005:| 1929:| 1805:| 1777:lot 1184:moa 981:not 634:all 189:or 4406:) 4389:) 4373:) 4307:) 4178:• 4148:) 4134:) 4119:) 4102:) 4083:) 4067:) 3954:. 3785:) 3474:-- 3401:, 3334:-- 3096:| 3027:| 2856:. 2817:: 2815:}} 2811:{{ 2753:^ 2732:: 2730:}} 2726:{{ 2713:13 2711:. 2707:. 2587:| 2550:| 2522:| 2434:| 2157:| 2001:| 1925:| 1801:| 1443:-- 1408:, 1381:) 1377:, 1293:-- 1120:10 1101:if 1096:is 1074:no 1061:is 648:-- 592:) 577:) 534:is 481:is 427:-- 325:) 321:, 235:| 229:iː 4402:( 4385:( 4369:( 4303:( 4271:( 4208:( 4174:( 4144:( 4130:( 4115:( 4098:( 4079:( 4063:( 3781:( 3580:: 3528:" 3348:: 2858:8 2834:) 2827:) 2807:. 2779:. 2747:) 2722:. 1860:. 1715:. 1457:( 1429:, 1222:" 588:( 573:( 323:C 319:T 317:( 176:— 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index