Talk:Archaeopteryx/Archive 2

1777:

conclusion to be made about their position. So even if we would accept Senter's argument that it is more parsimonious to presume that the preserved position of the shoulder girdle is the original one — a dubious maxim with birds given the weight and magnitude of the wings — the position of the glenoids in relation to the ribcage as a whole simply cannot be ascertained. However, we can at least determine that the scapulae are positioned above the level of the pelvis and running parallel to the lower backbone. That the thorax is not very strongly twisted upwards is proven by the fact that the scapular blades are close to the rib heads. Senter counters this by claiming: "However, only the tips of the scapulae overlap the proximal ends of the ribs in that specimen". This is however, an illusion caused by these tips having broken off and being absent. About 40% of the blade length of the right scapula and 60% of the left one must have touched the top of those ribs that have been preserved. No preserved ribs contact the other parts of the scapulae. Moreover, there is a wide angle between the upper rib shafts and the scapular blades indicating the scapulae were oriented subhorizontally, and the glenoids were positioned anterodorsally, not anteroventrally. So, if anything, the Solnhofen shows us a thorax with two closely spaced scapulae nicely on top of it :o).

2641:"Archaeopteryx had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the down stroke of the wings. Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status—a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves. Finally, Archaeopteryx skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e., at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird." <Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution 2 Chapter 8 - Argument: The fossil record supports evolution. Greenforest AR: Master Books, 2002. (p131-132): --> 1650:

scapula remaining in place and the left being displaced. However, in fact the specimen landed on its back — the plate shows the underside of the layer — and the shoulder girdle was preserved in that position. The pelvis, hind limbs and neck — but not the tail — rotated clockwise. This creates the illusion that we are looking at the right side of the thorax, while in fact the top of its is shown and the dorsal surface of the scapulae. That this is really so was proven in the nineties (of the 19th century, mind you) by Gustav Borchert who freed the coracoids reaching them from the underside of the slab. I presume the cast is bit defective at this point ;o). So in fact the Berlin specimen strongly supports the hypothesis that the scapula was positioned parallel to the backbone.

860: 236:(Which might be taken to imply that if God exists, He has strange ways of pointing evolutionary biologists into the right direction ;-) Darwin's theory was looking as if it would languish and might even be rejected, and then, poof! out pops the most perfect fossil to vindicate him after all. The original missing link, and still without equal over 150 years later. The odds of such a find coming at such a time when it was sorely needed are astronomically against, considering that only since about 10 years or so we have sufficient knowledge of geology to point out places where we suspect missing links await discovery.) 313:(I suspect they are from the same species though. For as much as we know (which is not enough but close) Archie seems to have a "reptilian" mode of growth, growing to adult size not quickly over the course of a few months as most modern birds do, but slowly, taking one-third or more of its whole life to reach adult size. It surely fits the specimens' sizes, which are mostly in mid-range (presumably, such a small theropod reached full adult size not too often and thus the bulk of its population consisted of sexually mature but not fully-grown individuals). Thus, the feather 836: 848: 3572:, Fraas, Oscar. Vor Der Sündfluth! Eine Geschichte Der Urwelt. Stuttgart: Hoffmann’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1866; Baur, Georg. “Dinosaurier Und Vögel. Eine Erwiederung and Herrn Prof. W. Dames in Berlin.” Morphologisches Jahrbuch. Eine Zeitschrift für Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte 10 (1885): 447-54; Baur, Georg. “W. K. Parker’s Bemerkungen Über Archaeopteryx, 1864, Und Eine Zusammenstellung Der Hauptsächlichsten Litteratur Über Diesen Vogel.” Zoologischer Anzeiger 9 (1886): 106-09. 1437:

as stiff as the flight-related feathers. Apart from that, the feather traces in the Berlin specimen are limited to a sort of "proto-down" not dissimilar to that found in the dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, being decomposed and fluffy, and possibly even appeared more like fur than like feathers in life (though not in their microscopic structure). These occur on the remainder of the body, as far as such structures are both preserved and not obliterated by preparation, and the lower neck.

2986:, Dinoguy for finally addressing my main point. I wasn't aware that this was a minority view and later studies shot it down. Unlike some people on here, I am not afraid to be proven wrong as long as I am shown why. All the two people above seemed to do was mock me which is no way to behave on Knowledge. I have been editing Knowledge for over two years and only rarely have I run into people like that. Thank you for removing the contradiction in the lead. 3251:"Urschwinge was the favored translation of Archaeopteryx among German scholars in the late nineteenth century" - I think not. I've been spending quite a bit of time in old Archaeopteryx literature, and I've never come across the term. Moreover, an search seems to confirm its rarity, and prominent contemporary literature does not use it, either. In popular literature, "Urvogel" was common, while scientists usually did not bother to translate " 31: 2451:

there if it were made of cement, that alone is overwhelming proof that those two astronomers were mere morons who wanted to believe it was a fake, so they did. The piece of silicone rubber they found on the specimen doesn't support the theory, either. It is completely irrelevant to the article, and most likely a misunderstanding of the neutrality concept of this encyclopedia. If somebody doesn't delete the section, then I will.

1401: 3533:. I don't have access to the source, but how about: "Most of the specimens of Archaeopteryx that have been discovered come from the Solnhofen limestone in Bavaria, southern Germany, which is a lagerstätte, a rare and remarkable geological formation known for its superbly detailed fossils laid down during the early Tithonian stage of the Jurassic period, approximately 150.8–148.5 million years ago." 2718:

studies have cast doubt on this assessment, finding that it might instead be a non-avialan dinosaur closely related to the origin of birds." This is contradictory: How can we definitively state that it is an "early bird" and then go on to say that we aren't sure? Nevermind the fact that it is unsourced, and old accounts from the 1800s don't really count. Can someone rationalize this?

804:

fossil) is knwon since 2004 and has never been lost. The newly surfaced specimen was not found in Solenhofen limestone, but in somewhat younger sedimants at Daiting, Suevia, probably around 1990. A cast of this specimen was knwon since 1997 (so this is the 8th sceleton fossil), but the original fossil has now surfaced for the first time, and was displayed over the last weekend at the

143:

but not a bird (if you define bird a Neornithes), both (if you use a more expansive definition for bird, but a less expansive one for "reptile"), or, strictly speaking, neither (if you define bird as Neornithes, but reptile as excluding feathered flyers. Reliable sources disagree about classification, so we follow ;-). --

1323:

more fossils of Archaeopteryx have surfaced." While it is implied that one or more incomplete fossils had been discovered prior to the complete one mentioned, this isn't very clear and causes the next paragraph (the former of my quotes) to seemingly make a sudden jump. I figured I'd mention it here instead of being

2397:'s one from 2007. If you look at the edit history from around this time, you can see the "History of discovery" section being added piecemeal by different editors, so it was clearly not copied in its entirety from another source. Though I don't think additional verification is necessary, I have just looked up the 2800:

a bird, I made a previous edit saying that modern studies have found that it may be more closely related to feathered theropod dinosaurs than modern birds. I am aware that it is a transitional form and therefore shares features of both groups. I am currently just pointing out the contradiction in the

2770:

is an extremely primitive, if not the most primitive known bird/avian dinosaur, representing a transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs like the maniraptorans, and avian dinosaurs. Please be aware that one of the defining qualities of a "transitional form" is that said form has enough qualities

2420:

Yes, this site has clearly copied our content (which they're free to do *if* they attribute us correctly and follow the license agreements,). There's no reason to blank out our article however, their claim of copyright is quite nonsensical since the content of the article predates the site by several

2401:

for archeopteryx.info and you can see that the site was created in 2011, long after the original text was added to this article by Knowledge editors. Unfortunately I think the external site is probably violating their host's TOS by willfully claiming copyright for borrowed text. Hopefully this can be

788:

Now the owner claims it to be a new species. Unfortunately for him, there are quite a few recent studies (the PLoS one for example) that quite certainly determine that the apparent "many species" of archaeopterygids are just differently-aged individuals of one single species, because the critter grew

205:

Actually, feathers are now known not to be unique to birds. In fact, little of what is commonly thought of being unique to birds is only fouind in birds. There are dinosaurs that had beaks, or stubby bird-like tails... insofar, there is no single trait that defines "bird" anymore, and if Archie would

3058:

No, I obviously was not stating that his mistakes are you guys' faults. Only that there was some validity to his argument. SkepticalRaptor is certainly correct about not relying too heavily on primary sources, which is why I stressed "secondary" above, but primary sources can be used as long as they

3000:

And not to take sides, but the sources Cadiomals offered up are reliable sources. The question is are they reliable for the information he wanted to add. The answer is also yes, although peer-reviewed, secondary scholarly sources are preferred and news articles should only be used sparingly, if used

2585:

It's still contentious, the new paper is a more thorough analysis but the authors state the bird outcome is still not certain. Given how close Archie is to the bird/deinonychosaur split, it will probably jump between these two branches forever and never be fully resolved. What we should do is try to

2474:

creationists are ill-informed enough to try to cite Hoyle as support for their claims, the best refutation is that provided by the article - a scientific disproof. Omitting this would allow the article to be dismissed as 'censored' to avoid mention of scientific questioning regarding authenticity.

2242:

is an excellent, incredibly comprehensive secondary source and it includes a lot of information on each specimen, and goes into a lot of detail about their origins, history, and significance, citing additional sources along the way. I also think that the current state of things, where every specimen

2168:

I agree, since in its current form, the article can't bear more information on each specimen, so the other other option would be creating an articles for each, which I at least think is a bad idea, considering that the specimens of Tyrannosaurus works pretty well, even though it is a bit incomplete.

1436:

The article says this (sorry for the redundancy if you were the one who wrote it in the first place, heheh): "There was a patch of pennaceous feathers running along the back which was quite similar to the contour feathers of the body plumage of modern birds in being symmetrical and firm, though not

3361:

Section 2.1.1 on Archaeopteryx mentions(ed) a graduate student called 'Ryan Carney' and his team. I've changed the article to refer to 'researchers' instead, as, to me, it doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia to refer to individuals in such a (possibly like a journal/newspaper) context when

2537:

fossils of being forgeries in the first place because he was trying to wave away a terribly inconvenient datum that contradicted his own pet panspermia hypothesis of how birds and mammals evolved into their modern forms due to a space virus that rode in on the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. Not

2473:

And if you delete the section, I will reinstate it. While Hoyle and Spetner were clearly wrong in claiming forgery, they attracted considerable attention with their claims - and whatever else Hoyle was, he was neither a 'moron' nor a 'creationist'. The subject deserves discussion in the article. If

1680:

but these could well be an illusion given the fact that what is left of the humerus is broken. So apart from the fact that the backbone is strongly twisted upwards, completely distorting the ribcage and making any conclusion about the original position of the shoulder girdle highly speculative, the

3081:

The change made by Dinoguy, a perfectly fine and appropriate one, ended up being completely different that the one edit-warred by Cadiomal. Otherwise, I'm perfectly in agreement with all of your points. Archaeopteryx is a bird seems to be the consensus of real scientists in the real world, and we

1675:

The AMNH cast of the Eichstätt is also very deceptive. On both the original plate and counterplate the front of the thorax is heavily damaged. Senter shows a picture of the counterplate on which an arrow is supposed to point at the glenoid. But there is in fact no bone present there. When the slab

1378:

would it kill us to have a couple of illustrations of what people speculate the animal looked like!? i know its not fact but one could show different versions based on different theories. this article really lacks imagination. surely there used to be illustrations and there was some petty argument

1322:

In the introduction it is stated that "Many of these eleven fossils include impressions of feathers...". This strikes me as slightly confusing, as in the paragraph preceding this one only ten are described: "The first complete specimen of Archaeopteryx was announced in 1861... Over the years, nine

1133:

will always be a bird and there is no possible discovery that could change that. Whether or not this is a good scenario is debatable... We already know Archie grew like a reptile, was indistinguishable from "raptors" in life appearance and probably couldn't fly well if at all. How is it any more a

142:

If you take a closer look at the page, it becomes clear that this is a matter of definition. Reptiles are not monophyletic, as Aves (Birds) is excluded from it. Depending on how you define Aves, Archaeopteryx is a bird, but not a reptile (if you define bird as "flying, with feathers"), a reptile,

4136:

I really don't have the expertise to write that up, but I suppose it could start off by elaborating the main hypotheses (Archaeopteryx is closer to birds than other dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx is closer to other dinosaurs than to birds , and of course maniraptorans are not in actuality coelurosaurs,

2450:

Is the authenticity section of the controversies really necessary or relevant to this page. It was nothing more than a desperate attempt to bring back creationism. It was obviously a failed theory. The single feather specimen, as it says in the article, shows evidence of melanin which wouldn't be

1614:

I'd have to re-read Senter to be sure but if I remember correctly Senter assumes, based on articulated specimens, that the shoulder blades of animals like Archaeopteryx sit lower down on the side of the ribcage. GSP on the other hand assumes they are higher up in a more avian possition. If GSP is

2614:

The fact is that there are only two studies that have found Archie to be a non-bird, both published within the past four months or so. A new study has directly tested and somewhat refuted the hypothesis in one of them. Basically, there is not enough evidence yet for consensus to have changed. If

2150:

article. I support creating a new article for all of the specimens together over each specimen having its own article because there is much more source material for some specimens than others, and some, like the most recent "11th specimen", haven't yet been published fully and don't yet have the

2141:

I support the branching off of this article, and I'd be willing to do the bulk of the work if we can reach a consensus on how to do it. I support creating a new article, "Specimens of Archaeopteryx", where each specimen has its own section. The "history of discovery" section in the Archaeopteryx

3510:

The description starts with "Archaeopteryx lived during the early Tithonian stage of the Jurassic period, approximately 150.8–148.5 million years ago" and references "Ammonite biostratigraphy as a tool for dating Upper Jurassic lithographic limestones from South Germany – first results and open

3433:

I was wondering why we don't just collapse the huge synonym lists of this and other animals in the taxobox, instead of having lengthy lists in article space? According to the manual of style, articles should not have list if it can be written as prose or otherwise circumvented. It works well in

2966:

Um, all Cadiomals is saying here is that if there is published papers doubting the classification as a bird, some equivocation is necessary. "probable early bird" or something. One study that came out last year found it to be a non-avialan dinosaur, but other studies repeating the analysis with

2696:

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

1649:

Well, the problem with Senter (2006) is that it was based on AMNH casts, not on a study of the original specimens. Senter assumed that the Berlin specimen is preserved on its side and that the difference in relative position of the left and right scapula to the axial column was due to the right

2717:

The first sentence in the lead says that Archaeopteryx was a genus of "early bird". The paragraph then goes on to say "Since the late 19th century, it has been generally accepted by palaeontologists, and celebrated in lay reference works, as being the oldest known bird, though some more recent

1582:

Yup, remove the image, I've read the Senter paper and the pose is definitely not possible from Senter's viewpoint. Not sure what the other paleo folks think though... GSP for one is still a believer in the flapping ability of archie. See his answer to the Nudd et al report dating October 2010:

803:

There is some confusion about the fragmentary fossils in the article and in the timeline graphics here. In fact, the "chicken wing" is on display at the Bürgermeister Müller museum, so the "chicken wing" and the "Bürgermeister Müller" speciemn are one an the same. This fossil (the 9th sceleton

3043:

between various sources seems to cause this misunderstanding. The fact is that the Nature new article could have been brought forward initially, but still it was a primary source, and we deprecate primary sources because they can, and often, are later disputed. As this one was. A good science

1776:

is also articulated, retains the head and neck, and is preserved on its side. Its glenoids are also anteroventral to the ribcage...". Again this interpretation is highly problematic. The anterior dorsal vertebrae have not been preserved and what is left of the neck does not allow any reliable

2488:

I strongly agree with AndyTheGrump. The multiple specimens of Archaeopteryx have stood up to intense scrutiny which was prompted by ill-informed criticism of a few of the main specimens, and this is worthy of note for various reasons. Although the suspicion of tampering was ill-founded, the

1567:

I dunno. There might be a perspective problem. The foreground wing is definitely in an impossible pose, but the angle of the back wing looks fine, probably about maximum extension. The foreground wing should be more edge-on to the viewer if it's supposed to match the angle of the back wing.

3413:

This article frequently refers to "weight estimates", expressed in kilograms. Obviously this is the popular corruption of weight (expressed in Newtons) into mass (kilograms). Should it be corrected to "mass estimates", or is the popular word "weight" acceptable in this scientific context?

615:

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

421:

Investigates the claim that Archie was diurnal via an estimate of eyeball size. Finds that Berlin specimen was very likely diurnal, whereas Eichstätt specimen was not. The latter might be due to the specimen being the smallest (and presumably youngest) by far, and thus it might have had

2216:

Aawww, it's only 6105 words. I agree that some sort of list of all specimens is better than each specimen having an article, though as is, I am a bit iffy on splitting now. I'd be marginally happier leaving as is, but if you want to expand upon the specimens then splitting is prudent.

1731:

In any case this point is irrelevant to the anatomical correctness of the picture which does not show a high elevation of the humerus. That the wingtips are far above the back is caused by a strong supination of the humerus. Modern birds can achieve this but it is generally doubted

1975:

a bird by definition. In Xu's paper, they arbitrarily re-define 'bird' as anything closer to modern birds than to deinonychosaurs. It's really just an issue of semantics. I think "often considered the first bird" would be fair, if not for the fact that wherever on the tree it is,

1537:

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

256:

Well, the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature issues in question are now on the Internet Archive, and I looked up the things pointed out by Bühler & Bock. Yes, they are correct: though the ICZN mis-cites the page number as "578" (should be 678), the description of

2528:

And yet, Jinx69, in your frantic rush to prostitute your inane anti-evolution agenda here in Knowledge, you deliberately and completely ignore why Hoyle and Spetner were called "morons" in the first place: i.e., 1) that after repeated thorough examinations, the

3044:

researcher knows how to not cherry pick research that confirms their bias, instead, looking at the broad consensus. An amateur generally utilizes confirmation bias to pick and choose the science articles that meet whatever they want. That's what happened here.

929:

There was also a cast of the lost Maxberg specimen on display at the Munich show. I took a photo, but the shot is not great. Anyway, I will upload the image to the commons later. Then we have at least one photo of each and every Archaeopteryx fossil known. :-)

1059:

grew very slowly compared to bids, and more like a dinosaur. It seems like many want to question it's status as bird, after what I have read about it. We must change the text from "primitive bird" to dinosaur? How shall we do? Conty 10:11, 13 November 2009.

2868:. All those articles say that Archaeopteryx was probably more closely related to feathered dinosaurs than modern birds. I don't have access to professional research papers, only these secondary sources. But you guys have dodged my main point several times: 2615:

consensus has changed, it's to one of higher uncertainty about whether or not Archie is a bird, not that it probably is or is not. Note that there is still the issue of what "bird" even means--traditionally, Aves has been defined as that group containing

422:

proportionally large eyes. Or young Archies were crepuscular or nocturnal, while the older individuals were diurnal. Both hypotheses are entirely sensible and not mutually exclusive; the abstract contains no information on whether either is preferrable.

3840:

could go there. There are also a few more things undfer In popular culture that could be listed there. In fact, I think wee don't even need a pop culture section here once a disambig page is made, it is only about things named after this animal...

2562:

After scrolling through a news article, I just learned that Archaeopteryx is once again considered to be a bird and not a dinosaur (at least not a reptilian one) after all. Once we have a bit more info, the article should be updated to fit this.

1932:

nothing in the lead refers to this matter. THe point here is that mainstream media are reporting that this is no longer a bird whether we agree with that or not is irrelevent this is suppose to be a FA its doesnt meet the current FA requirements.

3511:

questions", but I don't see the 150.8 - 148.5 million years ago anywhere in the paper. I also can't find any mention of archaeopteryx in the paper outside of the references. Does anybody know how that date range was derived from this reference?

896:-fossils ever found - the ten sceleton fossils and the singe feather) are described in the history section, but as I noted above, there is some confusion about the "chicken wing" and the newly surfaced Daiting Specimen. I'll try to fix this. -- 2751:

This isn't my opinion. It's an observation. There is a contradiction in the lead and someone needs to fix it. Is Archaeopteryx a bird as stated in the beginning of the paragraph, or are we not sure, as stated towards the end of the paragraph?

3473:

was placed in when we also have a genus synonym section. The way it is now makes it seem like there are far more synonyms than there really are, when it's simply the same species (in some cases the same specimen) being shifted among genera.

2906:

Whatever, I'm not going to get worked up over this, especially considering the fact that you have absolutely failed to even address my main point. There are plenty of other articles which will appreciate my well thought out improvements.

754:

mentions it as "known from a cast since 1997", which except for the date (which match the Maxberg specimen best) agrees best with the information given in the news article. I am a bit at a loss here, but more will be known tomorrow.

2506:

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

1819:

Give the recent finding in China the lead of this article should be rewritten from its current state to include the fact that its position of being the bird fossil. It should also now include that this position is clearly disputed

2680:

form? Studies by anatomists like S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom and other have seen between Archæopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinterpretations.

327:

Somebody ought to do what Bühler & Bock suggested 7 years ago and propose the ICZN to fix the name to the London skeleton. Because despite what many think, this has not been done in Opinion 607 and neither in Opinion 1070.

2837:, opinion is irrelevant, only sources. Every response seems to be based on opinion, rather than a few peer reviewed articles. I think after three responses, we aren't going get it, and we've got to the point of a violation of 2187:

article is rather longish as it is. There's certainly ample material for a new article in the specimen list. Actually, Just as it is it will be longer than most palaentology articles in species or genera. I'm for splitting.

648:

Is it that obvious in a silhouette? Maybe they're a tad less extensive than they should be, but theere are clearly feathers protruding from the posterior end of the femur. Archie didn't have *metatarsal* feathers like

564:

of X and Y", then I agree with that definition (in the terminology of Taxonsearch, the "<" is significant). I assumed you meant set union with "+". But in that case, no, we can find something that is ancestral to

1507:

An article about the Maxberg specimen has been started, but I believe it would make more sense to split off the section about individual specimens from this article and have one big focused one. See talk page here:

261:

is the 1861 article that describes the feather in detail and mentions "a skeleton of an animal covered in feathers" based on hearsay and in passing and in insufficient detail for the skeleton to constitute a valid

1966:

One thing the media is ignoring in its reporting is that it depends enitely on the definition of 'bird'. Most published work up until now has defined Aves as the last common ancestor, and all its descendants, of

1920:

Mentioned within the article is expected, but as its now clear that there is significant issue with it being the first bird and has been since 1935, add to that the work of Xing Xu, Fenglu Han, Hailu You and Kai

2237:

Well, the main reason I wanted to suggest the split is because I think a great more information in reliable sources could be added to the specimens list - enough to probably double it, if not more. Wellnhofer's

3171:

There seems to be some contoversy on wether Archaeopteryx is an avian or deinonychosaur with supporters of the latter saying that Archeopyeryx has the sickle claw among other hallmarks of a deinonychosauria.

2142:

article would then be rewritten to be a much shorter and more general synopsis of the specimens and their history, using sources that talk about the totality of the specimens on the whole. I own Wellnhofer's

2243:

is included in this article but one of them (the Maxberg specimen) has its own article as well, is a bit unorganized. If no one objects, I'd like to go ahead with the split sometime in the next few days. -

3021:

So it's all our fault and not Cadiomals' that he apparently could not be bothered to doublecheck the veracity of the sources of his claims, or check and see if they represented the majority consensus?--

816:, and I have uploaded photos of both "chicken wing" and the newly surfaced Daiting specimen to the commons (as well as a few photos from other specimens that were on display there). Hope this helps. -- 2393:) etc. also appear to be directly copied from Knowledge, which can be confirmed by looking at an older revision (earlier than 2011) of the page. This is true even of much older revisions of the page: 2004:

is a bird, it cannot be considered the earliest known in any way. As long as any description of it as a 'bird' is equivocal we should be ok for now. Xu himself notes his phylogeny is not rock solid.

183:, how you define "flight"!). Is a feather any dermal filament homologous with modern feathers? Is it only branching filaments? Only feathers with a central vane and barbs? Without solid definitions, 2146:

on which I would intend to base the structure. That book has a great deal more information about each specimen than currently exists in this article, more along the lines of the completeness of the

3811:

Maybe, depending on just how many things have the article title Archaeopteryx. Especially considering all of those articles would be named after the taxon, the taxon should keep the priority name.

631:

I went ahead and switched with the actual Berlin specimen, I think the detail is nice. And by the way, the size comparison image is incorrect, since none of the specimens shown have leg feathers.

3825: 3782:

It seems a bit silly that we now have one "see also" entry at the top of the article, when the see also section at the end of the article mentions several other subjects named after the animal.

2967:

better resolution seem to have shot this idea down. So, if anything, I'd recommend not mentioning the non-avialan hypothesis near the lead but just as an anecdote in the classification section.

1356:

Indeed, this is clear if you read the rest of the article; I am objecting to the phrasing in the introduction where only ten fossils are mentioned, yet it is stated that these add up to eleven.

573:, so Archie's status as the oldest is not guaranteed. But the whole situation around the base of Aves/Avialae is confused, and as far as I can tell there is no agreement yet in the literature.-- 1155:"Its classification as a bird has nothing to do with its physical traits, only its phylogenetic position on a cladogram" - which has everything to do with its physical traits. I don't think 906:

I have cleared the confusion between the "chicken wing" and the Daiting Specimen specimen. Maybe someone could also correct the timeline graphics, where these two are still mixed up. --

2855:

I don't know if you would call these "reliable sources" but I found a number of news articles which say doubt has been cast on the traditional view of Archaeopteryx as the first bird:

2638:

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

2533:

fossils clearly are not forgeries, 2) that all of the alleged reasons for propagating a conspiracy to create fake fossils are silly and nonsensical, and 3) Hoyle only accused the

722:

Could maybe be fixed, but I think we really need a completely new, up to date life restoration of Archie, with hyperextended toes and everything. But it would be quite a task...

1821: 1129:

was really a wingless, scaly, snake-like animal, it would still be a bird because the definition of the word Aves depends on it. In other words, unless this definition changes,

2066:

DOES need correction! Archie should be at most listed as "first KNOWN bird" - even if later the majority view is that it is sister-rather-than-ancestor. Cool animal, though.

1394:

Of course we need one, the problem is that all the restorations available to us are incorrect. Which means someone has to make a new one. It hals already been requested here:

597:

Shouldn't an actual fossil, such as the iconic Berlin specimen, be the lead image rather than an artist's impression that had to be cropped to remove inaccuracies? This image

999:

one? Archie must be one of the few fossil animals were the number of specimens isn't too uncommonly known, and where the history of each specimen is potentially interesting.

4094: 2600:

But is that really the consensus? It seems from the media and expert dino-blogs, lists, et al, that they seem to be about evenly split. How was such consensus determined?

915:

Great! This article must have one of the best collections of Archaeopteryx images anywhere. I don't know how to edit SVGs, but if anyone who can sees this, please help out!

953:

I have now uploaded a photo of the cast of the lost Maxberg specimen to commons. I have also included it in the gallery above, so you may take a quick look, if you want. --

750:. Contains inconsistencies (a skull???), so I am not sure whether it refers to the Maxberg specimen. Probably it is "Chicken Wing", which is not yet mentioned in the text. 1600:

Well, that has to do with feather strength, not arm elevation. Flapping in this case could be just a downstroke. He doesn't say anything that directly contradicts Senter.

2489:

attention given to demonstrating that the specimens are entire (ie not composite) and unaltered is an important aspect of the recent history of these wonderful specimens.

1676:

was sawed a large chunk of it broke off, taking the adjacent bones with it. There are some vague impressions left that might indicate the position of the glenoid and the

671:

Oh yeah, I might have expected something bigger and bushier, like that flying squirrel-like restoration I saw somewhere. But yeah, after a closer look they look fine.

1796:

The very attractive time-line diagram contains a mistake: the eighth specimen, the "Daiting", is called the "Bürgermeister-Müller". But that's a possible name of the

3606:

Schweigert, G. (2007). "Ammonite biostratigraphy as a tool for dating Upper Jurassic lithographic limestones from South Germany – first results and open questions".

119:

named Avialae in 1986, and first defined it in 2001 as all dinosaurs that possessed feathered wings used in flapping flight, and the birds that descended from them.

3994:

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

2874:

and that is entirely relevant to the improvement of the article and not a forum discussion. Either the first statement needs to be removed or the second one does.

2026:

by Hurmata addresses my concerns about the lead not being a reflection of the article as well as accommodating what is being reported within the mainstream media.

859: 3936: 3932: 3918: 3720: 3716: 3702: 1422:

IIRC Archie had vaned feathers on the torso and legs but not the head and neck. Still, incorrect. Not to mention the apparently naked pelvic area and upper legs.

1085:

I doubt that, especially since by now nearly every biologists accepts that being a bird implies being a dinosaur. Can you point to your sources in some detail? --

1178:

is "all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of modern birds and Archaeopteryx lithographica", which indeed does make Archie a Bird "by definition". --

3068: 3008: 2294:

if anyone would like to contribute! So far it's little more than an amalgamation of the current specimens list + the Maxberg article, with additional images. -

1236:

Considering that both Eichstätt and Daiting are some 20 km away from Solnhofen, is saying that all specimen have been found near Solnhofen not a little wrong?

995:

Heheh, the coolness of the subject compensates for any shortcomings. By the way, wouldn't it be nice to have a "specimens of Archaeopteryx" article, like the

347:

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

1117:

Its classification as a bird has nothing to do with its physical traits, only its phylogenetic position on a cladogram. Anything in clade Aves is a bird.

3001:

at all, for a topic like this. But the sources Cadiomals offered up are not just news sources. Nature.com, for example, is an online counterpart to the

2398: 3560:

S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, Vol 69, 1985, p. 178; A. D. Walker, Geological Magazine,Vol 177, 1980, p. 595.

1681:

fossil should not be simply presented as an "articulated specimen" regarding the orientation of the glenoid. That glenoid is now an ex-glenoid :o).

4055: 1192:

Yes, that's what I meant. Also the definition of Aves varies, and this all depends on whether Aves=bird. If we use the crown group definition, is

270:"To be available, every new name published before 1931 must be accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by . 3067:. If it hadn't been there to begin with, he wouldn't have gotten confused about the topic. His actions are still his, but that text led to them. 2864: 1872: 2888:

Do you realize that you chose a series of articles that report essentially one source. Good job there. And you're still missing the point of

1464:

I'm not sure that later part is correct, I'm pretty sure the feather paper discusses feathers on the neck. But I'll have to check it later.

835: 598: 3662: 3271: 1882: 2771:

of both the ancestral and derived groups that it is hard to tell at first (or second, or third) glance which group it properly belongs to.

1532: 1946:

Professor Xu Xing is highly regarded, but this is a new story so I doubt much secondary sourcing has appeared. Need to read and digest...

4138: 3461:

That sounds like a good option here. We could have separate collapsed lists for genus-level and two different species levels to include

3255:" at all - considering the animal's fame, there wasn't cause to. So if there are no dissenting voices, I shall remove these sentences. 3179: 2570: 2458: 1380: 2866: 359: 2358:

4071: 3914:

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

3590: 939:

Yeah, would be cool to have it out on the web, regardless of quality, I haven't been able to find images of that specimen anywhere.

1379:

about the legitimacy of one depiction vs another and so on. i'm not going to be bold. i just want to get this conversation started.

2087: 1484:

Found this interesting article by accident, which is solely about the body feathers of Archaeopteryx, could maybe be used as ref:

600:

is a cast, but it's clear even at small sizes and isn't currently elsewhere in the article to illustrate points made in the text.

4009: 2381:

copied text from this article, and not the other way around, and the copyright flag only popped up after I made the new article (

2367: 2090:

an eleventh specimen has been found. Is there enough information available on the specimen to update the specimen list here?--

1772:

I forgot that Senter also mentions the Solnhofen specimen. It is described by him in this way: "The holotype of the basal bird

457:(or another archaeopterygid) must always and forever be the first bird, regardless of the fact that other members of the clade 214:", which are unequivocally on the bird side of things). Thus, where we draw the limits between "bird" and "not bird" actually 3862: 2407: 2299: 2268: 2248: 2228: 2156: 2053: 1957: 3362:

no bio page exists for the individual in question. Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of wikipedia policy.

1922: 747: 4115:

than to Neornithes. Mortimer's "Theropod Database" agrees with Hartman's proposed phylogeny on multiple aspects, including

1930:

a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;

1800:

specimen, the "Chicken Wing". This can be easily changed, I think — but not by me, I'm totally inept at these things :o).--

1035:

Just occurred to me that we now have an image of every single specimen in the article, only two being replicas, good work!

3371: 355: 3904: 1408:

The one we have that is closest to being correct is this one, but it has vaned feathers on its body, which is incorrect.

175:

Depends on how you define "bird", again, and on top of that, how you define "feather" (and, if talking about things like

3979: 3763: 2101: 1100:

It's a transitional fossil closely related to the lineage of dinosaurs that evolved into birds. It's not a modern bird.

59: 3072: 3012: 1395: 4051: 3099:? I made no more than two edits and then went to the talk page. Looks like this experienced user needs to look up the 2363: 1076: 2377:(Copy-pasting what I said elsewhere to explain the situation to people watching this page) I think it's obvious that 2193: 369:

Most limestones (of whatever age) are colour-banded on some scale or other, due to the presence of things other than

847: 3837: 3347: 3339: 3311: 2860: 2421:

years. In the mean time, let's not create unnecessary disruption for our readers (almost 30 000 in the last month)

2382: 2291: 996: 38: 1251:

No, why? 20km is close, even in crowded old Europe. More to the point, all of the specimen have been found in the

3087: 3049: 2940: 2897: 2846: 2742: 2702: 2403: 2295: 2244: 2152: 794: 779: 760: 427: 333: 241: 4137:

then elaborate each hypothesis, and then go into the question of multiple origins of flight or multiple losses.

3935:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3719:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3198:

Wouldn't it make more sense for plumage and colour t obe subsections of description, rather than palaeobiology?

3063:. All in all, Cadiomals's suggestion was WP:UNDUE. But so was any mention of this dispute in the lead, which is 351: 3267: 1260: 1183: 1090: 878:

Nice images! They should certainly be added to the article, but are they all described in the history swction?

578: 503: 148: 1886: 1485: 1384: 445:

is only still the "earliest and most primitive bird known" because it must be that way by definition? Aves =

4142: 3970: 3896: 3754: 3648: 3183: 2858: 2605: 2574: 2462: 2071: 812:, but a new species, but further, more detailled work is certainly required. I have seen the display at the 320:

But still, as the feather has no bones associated with it, all skeleton specimens would technically be "cf.

4075: 528:, which lists all published definitions. The only alternative definition is variations of the crown clade ( 4046: 4030: 3802: 3026: 2926: 2824: 2787: 2666: 2543: 2494: 2479: 2189: 1860: 1543: 525: 166: 2766:

And do you have reputable sources to confirm your observations? Current scientific consensus holds that

4156: 4151:

Some IP replaced ‘bird-like dinosaur’ the short description with ‘bird with saurian features’ Cheers

3954:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3942: 3833: 3829: 3738:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3726: 3663:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060209193641/http://www.ucm.es/info/paleo/personal/patricio/DMKCR-2004.pdf

3343: 3307: 2135: 986: 958: 3895:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3647:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2490: 4152: 4005: 3997: 3693: 3259: 3175: 3140: 3083: 3045: 2936: 2893: 2842: 2738: 2698: 2566: 2454: 1909: 1878: 1620: 1591: 1547: 1327:

as I am new on Knowledge and do not want to risk damaging a featured article with my clumsy wording.

1274: 1241: 1064: 790: 775: 756: 423: 394: 329: 237: 1838: 1357: 1328: 524:(or some other living bird used as a specifier, it doesn't really matter which specific genus). See 3419: 3382: 3367: 3263: 3108: 2991: 2912: 2879: 2838: 2806: 2757: 2723: 2030: 1937: 1852: 1842: 1828: 1361: 1332: 1296: 1256: 1252: 1179: 1086: 574: 499: 374: 144: 2333:.I would have said they copied it from us but they appear to be claiming copyright for the page. 210:

classify it as a bird (because the first fossil birds to be discovered would in this case be the "

4126: 3869: 3846: 3787: 3493: 3488:

I've now collapsed the taxobox lists. Perhaps it would be time to merge the list in the article?

3479: 3451: 3398: 3232: 3218: 3203: 2972: 2862: 2856: 2643: 2624: 2601: 2591: 2510: 2314: 2262: 2222: 2174: 2115: 2067: 2047: 2042:

Nice job. My free time evaporated today. The stuff that is coming out of China is fascinating :)

2009: 1951: 1605: 1573: 1558: 1516: 1492: 1469: 1455: 1427: 1413: 1347: 1308: 1205: 1143: 1040: 1004: 972: 944: 920: 883: 727: 713: 699: 676: 662: 636: 621: 605: 551: 476: 192: 132: 47: 17: 3939:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3723:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3666: 1068: 412: 3955: 3739: 3656: 127:

as that page suggests? Please explain the reason for the differences between these two pages.

4120: 4026: 3798: 3587: 3060: 3022: 2922: 2820: 2783: 2662: 2539: 2475: 2207: 1856: 1539: 1222: 1164: 1105: 162: 385:) due to the beautifully preserved fossils (apart from archaeopteryx) that are found in this 3615: 3516: 3465:. I'd probably consolidate his even more and drop all but the first species combination. On 3040: 3003: 2686: 2658: 2647: 2514: 2430: 2147: 2096: 471:, for example, is an avialan more basal than Archie and probably from the Middle Jurassic). 187:

could be a bird if you want it to, or a reptile if you want it to, or neither, or whatever.

116: 3962: 3746: 3393:

On Carney, is our all-black restoration now incorrect, or is it still within the possible?

1837:

It seems to me that the article is fine as is (see Description and Phylogenetic position).

691:

By the way, what was wrong with this illustration, which the size comparison was based on?

4108: 4001: 3538: 3442: 3136: 2619:

and everything closer to birds than that, making Archie a bird by default no matter what.

1996: 1925: 1905: 1616: 1587: 1270: 1237: 1072: 467: 390: 96: 3619: 2151:

notability for a full article, yet are still important to mention in context. Thoughts? -

4101: 1615:

correct then animals like Archaeopteryx might have been able to lift their arms higher.

1584: 498:. But yes, I agree that the claim that Archie is the earliest bird may need revision. -- 310:, because the original single feather does not quite match those on the skeletons... :( 218:

on the fact that Archie was discovered when it was discovered. Note also that the first

3921:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3705:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3415: 3378: 3363: 3154:

states the lede should "contain no more than four paragraphs". It's hardly 'gigantic'.

3151: 3104: 2987: 2908: 2875: 2802: 2753: 2719: 2027: 1934: 1825: 1805: 1741: 1324: 386: 317:

was (IIRC) from a very old individual, larger than any of which bones have been found.

3961:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3905:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070209063731/http://dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/archie.htm

3745:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1400: 692: 4122: 3888: 3865: 3842: 3783: 3640: 3527: 3489: 3475: 3447: 3436: 3394: 3228: 3214: 3199: 3155: 2968: 2935:

Yes, I've noticed your "well thought out improvements." Interesting self-assessment.

2620: 2587: 2352: 2310: 2258: 2218: 2170: 2131: 2111: 2043: 2005: 1990: 1947: 1601: 1569: 1554: 1512: 1488: 1465: 1451: 1423: 1409: 1343: 1300: 1201: 1139: 1036: 1000: 982: 968: 954: 940: 931: 916: 907: 897: 879: 817: 723: 709: 695: 672: 658: 632: 617: 601: 547: 472: 211: 188: 128: 80: 2586:

reflect consensus (currently in favor of bird) while acknowledging the uncertainty.

350:

Does anyone know if this is the same as the light-dark-light in 'dimple limestone.

4160: 4146: 4130: 4112: 4079: 4059: 4034: 3984: 3873: 3850: 3819: 3806: 3791: 3768: 3542: 3520: 3497: 3483: 3455: 3423: 3402: 3386: 3351: 3315: 3275: 3236: 3222: 3207: 3187: 3160: 3144: 3112: 3100: 3091: 3076: 3053: 3036: 3030: 3016: 2995: 2976: 2944: 2930: 2916: 2901: 2889: 2883: 2850: 2834: 2828: 2810: 2791: 2761: 2746: 2734: 2727: 2706: 2690: 2670: 2651: 2628: 2609: 2595: 2578: 2547: 2518: 2498: 2483: 2466: 2437: 2411: 2371: 2318: 2303: 2272: 2252: 2232: 2211: 2203: 2197: 2178: 2160: 2119: 2104: 2075: 2057: 2033: 2013: 1961: 1940: 1912: 1890: 1864: 1846: 1831: 1809: 1745: 1624: 1609: 1595: 1577: 1562: 1520: 1496: 1473: 1459: 1431: 1417: 1388: 1365: 1351: 1336: 1312: 1292: 1278: 1264: 1245: 1226: 1218: 1209: 1187: 1168: 1160: 1147: 1109: 1101: 1094: 1044: 1008: 990: 976: 962: 948: 934: 924: 910: 900: 887: 821: 798: 783: 770:

OK, so the discussion at the German article about many specimens on display at the

764: 751: 731: 717: 703: 680: 666: 640: 625: 609: 582: 555: 507: 480: 431: 398: 378: 363: 337: 306: 245: 196: 170: 152: 136: 3908: 3135:

It's gigantic. Remove some spaces to make larger paragraphs. Remove somethings. --

3007:

journal, which is an accepted science source and is already used in this article.

1342:

The specimen found before the first complete fossil would be the single feather.

300:

by the ICZN, while the skeleton is only "mentioned", this would technically make

3928: 3812: 3712: 3512: 2682: 2423: 2091: 1531: 967:

I don't see anything wrong with that image! I'll see if I can make room for it.

561: 409:

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

46:

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

540:

is not an Avian bird and the "earliest, most primitive known bird" would be...

3927:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3711:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3672: 3534: 2390: 2337: 1984: 1978: 2386: 2342: 2130:

I came across the discussion about branching the specimen list (found in the

2000:(on the avialan branch) are all earlier by several million years. So even if 1159:

is in Aves "by definition"; it's there because of its relationship to birds.

352:

http://keckgeology.org/files/pdf/symvol/8th/Remote_sensing/clarke_stewart.pdf

1801: 1737: 1299:

which is a blog page selling prints and not a reliable source. Regards, —

981:

The crude piece of wood they used to hold the casts is rather ugly... ;^) --

1486:

http://dinonews.nuxit.net/rubriq/docs/plumes_archaeopteryx_christiansen.pdf

1450:

However, there is no indication of feathering on the upper neck and head."

1295:, a "domain for sale" page. Also, in the same reference there is a link to 1553:

Damn, there's always something wrong with the Archaeopteryx restorations!

1509: 382: 263: 123:

So, what is Archaeopteryx? Is is a bird as this pages states, or is it a

103: 100: 1510:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Maxberg_specimen#Specimens_of_Archaeopteryx

542: 370: 124: 88: 280:

does not in itself constitute a description, definition, or indication

3797:

Silly or not, situation apparently calls for a disambiguation page.--

487: 292:

As only the feather is "described" in the taxonomic source given for

1875:

is a better article on the same. Seems big enough to get a mention

1706:

But I haven't read Senter (2010) which might address these issues...

808:. A first, quick look by scientists indicate that this might be not 282:: a vernacular name, locality, geological horizon, host, label, or 1399: 112: 4021:

Why is Portugal mentioned if there is no source or discussion of

2138:

and I think it would be wise to proceed with a suggestion there.

693:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Archaeopteryx_Spindler2005s.jpg

4089:

I thought it could be worth mentioning that the studies by Wang

3082:

Wikipedians seem to respect that point of view in this article.

1297:

http://qilong.deviantart.com/art/The-Many-Archaeopteryx-24468274

1255:, a formation that is found around Solnhofen (and Eichstätt). -- 1175: 84: 1901: 441:

Shouldn't it at least be mentioned somewhere on this page that

226:

for more than 100 years believed to be a conventional dinosaur.

2782:

a bird, then please provide reputable sources to support it.--

1291:

There is a broken reference, reference number 3 which goes to

25: 3667:

http://www.ucm.es/info/paleo/personal/patricio/DMKCR-2004.pdf

3357:

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

2402:

sorted out quickly, as it is clearly an open and shut case. -

3826:

Archaeopteryx (evolutionary tree visualization and analysis)

3678:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

3657:

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2013/ja/c3ja50077b

3608:

Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen

2362:

claim to own the copyright hence asked for an investigation.

560:

Maybe I misread your terminology. If by "X+Y" you mean "the

2378: 2359: 2347: 2330: 3899:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3651:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2385:) with the same text. The other sections on that website ( 465:

have been found that are both earlier and more primitive (

2833:

I said this in my original reply to the OP. According to

1851:

I prefer to trust a source by someone reputable, i.e., a

3990:

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

2737:. Your opinions holds no credence on Knowledge. Thanks. 1196:

still a bird even though it falls well outside Aves? Is

3892: 3644: 3531: 3326:

It would be nice if the inconsistent capitalisation of

3064: 2394: 2023: 1855:, than that of a sensation-seeking local news pundit.-- 111:

Avialae is traditionally defined as an apomorphy-based

3506:

Reference for 150.8–148.5 million years ago date range

2329:

A large portion of this article has been copied from

657:

if that's what you're referring to, as far as I know.

3227:

Reshuffled, not much of a difference, but why not...

1055:

Recently, G. Ericson and some others discovered that

490:

is a subclade of living birds, and Aves is in no way

106:

which may have had the capability of powered flight.

3356: 1924:

the lead should at the very least cover that as per

512:

The only definition of Aves I've seen that includes

3931:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3715:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3150:There's nothing wrong with a four-paragraph lede. 2353:http://archeopteryx.info/history_of_discovery.html 115:(that is, one based on physical characteristics). 2921:Have fun and remember to cite reliable sources.-- 3469:, there's not much point in listing every genus 1293:http://www.paleograveyard.com/archaeopteryx.html 1174:Well, no. One of the most common definitions of 3909:http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/archie.htm 708:The reversed hallux is what jumps out at me... 3917:This message was posted before February 2018. 3701:This message was posted before February 2018. 2801:lead paragraph and that it needs to be fixed. 1138:? Only by accident of history and definition. 2819:is a non-avian feathered theropod dinosaur?-- 2290:I've started the new article in my userspace 8: 486:I don't think your assumptions are correct. 3673:http://dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/archie.htm 3586:. New York: Dorling Kindersley. pp. 38–81. 2815:So where are these modern studies that say 2338:http://archeopteryx.info/controversies.html 3995: 3887:I have just modified one external link on 2343:http://archeopteryx.info/paleobiology.html 3639:I have just modified 3 external links on 324:" or even some entirely different name.) 3553: 2126:A new article for the list of specimens 831: 774:strongly suggests it's "Chicken Wing". 343:dark band limestone = dimple limestone? 206:be unearthed only today, we'd probably 3213:Plumage, definitely--color, probably! 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3690:to let others know (documentation at 3377:References to Carney included. Good:) 2240:Archaeopteryx - the icon of evolution 2144:Archaeopteryx — the icon of evolution 1928:point 1(d) is neutral, and point 2(a) 157:What about feathered non-fliers like 75:Is Archaeopteryx a bird or a reptile? 7: 2796:I never said that Archaeopteryx was 2713:Contradictory statements in the lead 1051:Bird, dinosaur or something between? 4066:Why does not change until this time 2871:We have a contradiction in the lead 1988:(on the deinonychosaur branch) and 288:(ICZN Article 12. Emphasis added.) 2132:Archaeopteryx#History_of_discovery 354:and does this date the limestone? 24: 3891:. Please take a moment to review 3643:. Please take a moment to review 3338:etc. present in this article and 3620:10.1127/0077-7749/2007/0245-0117 3035:Agreed. His lack of interest in 1530: 858: 846: 834: 29: 3671:Corrected formatting/usage for 3655:Corrected formatting/usage for 2538:that you give a damn, though.-- 2399:domain registration information 2110:Enough to mention it at least. 1525: 1232:History of discovery - Location 841:Newly surfaced Daiting specimen 3863:Archaeopteryx (disambiguation) 3498:05:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 3276:13:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 3167:Archeopteryx a deinonychosaur? 2499:14:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC) 892:These specimens (in fact, all 732:19:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC) 718:18:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) 704:18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC) 222:specimen ever to be unearthed 1: 4080:20:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC) 3851:20:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 3820:01:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC) 3424:20:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC) 3403:00:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC) 3161:05:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC) 3145:20:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 2676:Why it is still considered a 1971:and modern birds. This makes 1526:Nobu Tamura's new restoration 1279:23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC) 1265:14:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) 1246:13:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC) 1227:21:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 1210:21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 1188:17:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 1169:17:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 1148:16:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 1110:09:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 1095:09:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 681:19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC) 667:19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC) 641:17:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC) 626:07:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 610:00:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 583:18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 556:18:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 508:18:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 481:17:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 432:12:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 4161:22:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC) 4131:01:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC) 3807:15:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 3792:13:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 3769:05:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC) 3113:19:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 3092:19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 3077:16:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 3054:16:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 3039:, and ability to understand 3031:15:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 3017:14:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 2996:13:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 2977:12:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 2945:16:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 2931:04:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 2917:04:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 2902:03:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 2884:03:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 2851:01:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 2829:01:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 2811:01:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 2792:00:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 2762:20:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 2747:19:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 2728:19:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 2707:15:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC) 2691:14:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC) 2671:22:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC) 2652:22:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC) 2629:13:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 2610:13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 2596:12:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 2579:00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 2484:03:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 2467:02:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 2438:21:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC) 2412:20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC) 2372:20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC) 2319:10:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC) 2304:06:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC) 2273:03:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC) 2253:02:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC) 2233:13:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 2212:18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC) 2198:21:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC) 2179:01:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 2161:00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 2120:21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC) 2105:21:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC) 2076:10:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC) 1497:09:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 1313:18:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 1045:12:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 1009:07:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 991:22:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 977:21:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 963:20:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 949:14:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 935:13:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 925:11:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 911:08:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 901:07:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 888:01:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 822:10:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 799:14:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 784:11:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 765:11:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 252:Big trouble (or so it seems) 95:Archaeopteryx from the late 3543:09:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC) 3237:17:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 3223:10:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 3208:01:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 2657:We do not base articles on 2548:04:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC) 2519:09:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 1474:02:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1460:23:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 1432:23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 1418:18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 1389:17:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 810:Archaeopteryx lithographica 742:"Lost" specimen resurfaces? 399:09:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 364:09:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 322:Archaeopteryx lithographica 259:Archaeopteryx lithographica 4179: 3948:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3884:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3874:14:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC) 3838:Specimens of Archaeopteryx 3732:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3636:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3584:The Ultimate Dinosaur Book 3521:10:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 3409:Need help with mass/weight 3340:Specimens of Archaeopteryx 3188:11:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC) 3101:definition of edit warring 2383:Specimens of Archaeopteryx 2086:According to this article 1810:07:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 1746:08:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC) 1625:14:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 1610:20:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 1596:16:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 1578:14:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 1563:13:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 1548:13:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 1503:Specimens of Archaeopteryx 997:Specimens of Tyrannosaurus 413:"Diel activity pattern of 405:JVP 27(Supplement): p.142A 377:is already well-dated (to 99:may be the earliest known 3484:10:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC) 3456:10:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC) 2309:That's how it should be! 2202:I support the splitting. 2058:11:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC) 2034:04:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC) 2014:12:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 1962:03:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 1941:01:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 1913:22:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 1891:22:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 1865:20:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 1847:16:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 1832:00:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 1521:11:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 338:01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 246:01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 197:16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 171:12:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 153:11:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 137:10:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 87:. Your wikipedia page on 79:I always understood that 4147:23:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC) 4060:19:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC) 4035:04:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC) 3985:22:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC) 3824:Yeah, it seems at least 3387:19:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 3372:18:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC) 3352:17:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC) 3316:15:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC) 3302:, in contrast, is not a 2379:http://archeopteryx.info 2360:http://archeopteryx.info 2348:http://archeopteryx.info 2331:http://archeopteryx.info 1792:Error in time-line image 1366:08:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC) 1352:22:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 1337:20:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 1125:! Even if it turned out 865:Cast of Maxberg specimen 356:Notpayingthepsychiatrist 278:of any of the following 3880:External links modified 3632:External links modified 3582:Lambert, David (1993). 3069:2001:43E8:8:100:0:0:0:2 3009:2001:43E8:8:100:0:0:0:2 903:(User Vesta on Commons) 746:News article in German 4070:Comr with your answer 3157:Firsfron of Ronchester 2982:Thank you, thank you, 2364:Pharaoh of the Wizards 2022:At this point in time 1404: 1318:Introduction confusion 772:Mineralientage München 290: 121: 108: 4085:Phylogenetic position 3834:Granger Archaeopteryx 3830:Ruppert Archaeopteryx 3342:could be resolved. -- 2733:Citations please per 2136:Talk:Maxberg_specimen 1403: 536:etc.), in which case 268: 109: 93: 83:was a very primitive 42:of past discussions. 3929:regular verification 3778:disambiguation page? 3713:regular verification 3283:Erm, it talks about 2774:And having that, if 2404:Ferahgo the Assassin 2296:Ferahgo the Assassin 2245:Ferahgo the Assassin 2153:Ferahgo the Assassin 1853:professor of biology 1774:Wellnhoferia grandis 1121:is a member of Aves 3919:After February 2018 3703:After February 2018 3682:parameter below to 3322:Small inconsistency 1269:Fair enough, mate. 1253:Solnhofen limestone 814:Munich Mineral show 806:Munich Mineral show 453:for now. Therefore 375:Solnhofen limestone 3973:InternetArchiveBot 3924:InternetArchiveBot 3757:InternetArchiveBot 3708:InternetArchiveBot 3065:why it was removed 2436: 1815:Lead is inaccurate 1405: 233:bird and non-bird. 18:Talk:Archaeopteryx 4047:Lythronaxargestes 4013: 4000:comment added by 3949: 3733: 3434:articles such as 3279: 3262:comment added by 3178:comment added by 2569:comment added by 2457:comment added by 2435: 2422: 1881:comment added by 1081: 1067:comment added by 373:in the rock. The 229:So, it is really 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4170: 3983: 3974: 3947: 3946: 3925: 3817: 3767: 3758: 3731: 3730: 3709: 3697: 3624: 3623: 3603: 3597: 3596: 3579: 3573: 3567: 3561: 3558: 3530:, who added it: 3344:Florian Blaschke 3308:Florian Blaschke 3278: 3256: 3190: 3158: 3131:Lede is too long 2581: 2558:Bird/Dino Debate 2469: 2433: 2428: 2426: 2325:Copyright issues 2148:Maxberg specimen 2099: 2094: 1893: 1534: 1305: 1287:Broken reference 1080: 1061: 862: 850: 838: 752:de:Archaeopteryx 298:A. lithographica 231:right in between 117:Jacques Gauthier 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4178: 4177: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4109:Dromaeosauridae 4087: 4068: 4019: 3992: 3977: 3972: 3940: 3933:have permission 3923: 3897:this simple FaQ 3882: 3861:Now done, see: 3813: 3780: 3761: 3756: 3724: 3717:have permission 3707: 3691: 3649:this simple FaQ 3634: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3605: 3604: 3600: 3593: 3581: 3580: 3576: 3568: 3564: 3559: 3555: 3508: 3443:Paraceratherium 3431: 3411: 3359: 3336:Munich Specimen 3332:Munich specimen 3324: 3257: 3249: 3196: 3173: 3169: 3156: 3133: 3084:SkepticalRaptor 3046:SkepticalRaptor 2937:SkepticalRaptor 2894:SkepticalRaptor 2843:SkepticalRaptor 2739:SkepticalRaptor 2715: 2699:SkepticalRaptor 2564: 2560: 2452: 2448: 2431: 2424: 2327: 2128: 2097: 2092: 2084: 2082:Specimen Eleven 1997:Scansoriopteryx 1876: 1817: 1794: 1528: 1505: 1376: 1320: 1301: 1289: 1234: 1062: 1053: 869: 866: 863: 854: 851: 842: 839: 791:Dysmorodrepanis 776:Dysmorodrepanis 757:Dysmorodrepanis 744: 595: 468:Scansoriopteryx 439: 424:Dysmorodrepanis 407: 345: 330:Dysmorodrepanis 254: 238:Dysmorodrepanis 97:Jurassic Period 77: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4176: 4174: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4117:Archaeopteryx' 4107:was closer to 4086: 4083: 4067: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4025:in Portugal?-- 4018: 4015: 3991: 3988: 3967: 3966: 3959: 3912: 3911: 3903:Added archive 3881: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3836:, and perhaps 3779: 3772: 3751: 3750: 3743: 3676: 3675: 3669: 3661:Added archive 3659: 3633: 3630: 3626: 3625: 3614:(1): 117–125. 3598: 3591: 3574: 3562: 3552: 3551: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3507: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3430: 3427: 3410: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3390: 3389: 3358: 3355: 3323: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3264:Ilja.nieuwland 3248: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3195: 3192: 3168: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3132: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2933: 2831: 2772: 2714: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2674: 2673: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2559: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2447: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2415: 2414: 2356: 2355: 2350: 2345: 2340: 2326: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2190:Petter Bøckman 2127: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2083: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2037: 2036: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1883:24.130.202.146 1869: 1868: 1867: 1816: 1813: 1793: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1527: 1524: 1504: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1398: 1397: 1375: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1319: 1316: 1288: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1257:Stephan Schulz 1233: 1230: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1200:still a bird? 1180:Stephan Schulz 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1098: 1097: 1087:Stephan Schulz 1052: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 904: 868: 867: 864: 857: 855: 852: 845: 843: 840: 833: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 743: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 629: 628: 594: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 575:Stephan Schulz 500:Stephan Schulz 438: 435: 406: 403: 402: 401: 344: 341: 287: 274: 271: 253: 250: 249: 248: 234: 227: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 145:Stephan Schulz 76: 73: 70: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4175: 4162: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4139:138.88.18.245 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4121: 4118: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4105:Archaeopteryx 4102: 4099: 4095: 4092: 4084: 4082: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4048: 4043: 4042:Archaeopteryx 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4023:Archaeopteryx 4016: 4014: 4011: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3989: 3987: 3986: 3981: 3976: 3975: 3964: 3960: 3957: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3944: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3920: 3915: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3889:Archaeopteryx 3885: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3864: 3860: 3859: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3839: 3835: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3818: 3816: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3804: 3800: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3777: 3776:Archaeopteryx 3773: 3771: 3770: 3765: 3760: 3759: 3748: 3744: 3741: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3728: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3704: 3699: 3695: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3674: 3670: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3658: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3641:Archaeopteryx 3637: 3631: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3602: 3599: 3594: 3592:1-56458-304-X 3589: 3585: 3578: 3575: 3571: 3566: 3563: 3557: 3554: 3550: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3529: 3528:User:Dinoguy2 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3505: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3444: 3439: 3438: 3437:Tyrannosaurus 3429:Synonym lists 3428: 3426: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3391: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3354: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3300: 3294: 3293:Archaeopteryx 3290: 3286: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3254: 3247: 3244: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3193: 3191: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3180:2.220.208.106 3177: 3166: 3162: 3159: 3153: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3130: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3005: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2867: 2865: 2863: 2861: 2859: 2857: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2817:Archaeopteryx 2814: 2813: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2799: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2776:Archaeopteryx 2773: 2769: 2768:Archaeopteryx 2765: 2764: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2679: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2639: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2617:Archaeopteryx 2613: 2612: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2602:HammerFilmFan 2599: 2598: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2571:24.36.148.242 2568: 2557: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2536: 2535:Archaeopteryx 2532: 2531:Archaeopteryx 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2459:24.36.130.109 2456: 2446:Controversies 2445: 2439: 2434: 2427: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2391:Controversies 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2354: 2351: 2349: 2346: 2344: 2341: 2339: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2332: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2274: 2270: 2267: 2264: 2260: 2257:Sounds good. 2256: 2255: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2241: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2227: 2224: 2220: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2185:Archaeopteryx 2182: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2149: 2145: 2139: 2137: 2133: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2103: 2100: 2095: 2089: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2068:HammerFilmFan 2065: 2064: 2059: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2035: 2032: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2020: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 2002:Archaeopteryx 1999: 1998: 1993: 1992: 1991:Epidexipteryx 1987: 1986: 1981: 1980: 1974: 1973:Archaeopteryx 1970: 1969:Archaeopteryx 1965: 1964: 1963: 1959: 1956: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1939: 1936: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1914: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1894: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1830: 1827: 1823: 1814: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1791: 1775: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734:Archaeopteryx 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1679: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1535: 1533: 1523: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1511: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1487: 1483: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1396: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1381:98.193.69.129 1373: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1317: 1315: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1304: 1298: 1294: 1286: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1231: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1194:Archaeopteryx 1191: 1190: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1157:Archaeopteryx 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1132: 1131:Archaeopteryx 1128: 1127:Archaeopteryx 1124: 1123:by definition 1120: 1119:Archaeopteryx 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1058: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 993: 992: 988: 984: 980: 979: 978: 974: 970: 966: 965: 964: 960: 956: 952: 951: 950: 946: 942: 938: 937: 936: 933: 932:User:de.Vesta 928: 927: 926: 922: 918: 914: 913: 912: 909: 908:User:de.Vesta 905: 902: 899: 898:User:de.Vesta 895: 894:Archaeopteryx 891: 890: 889: 885: 881: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 861: 856: 849: 844: 837: 832: 823: 819: 818:User:de.Vesta 815: 811: 807: 802: 801: 800: 796: 792: 787: 786: 785: 781: 777: 773: 769: 768: 767: 766: 762: 758: 753: 749: 741: 733: 729: 725: 721: 720: 719: 715: 711: 707: 706: 705: 701: 697: 694: 690: 689: 682: 678: 674: 670: 669: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 638: 634: 627: 623: 619: 614: 613: 612: 611: 607: 603: 599: 593:Taxobox image 592: 584: 580: 576: 572: 568: 567:Archaeopteryx 563: 559: 558: 557: 553: 549: 545: 544: 539: 538:Archaeopteryx 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 518:Archaeopteryx 515: 514:Archaeopteryx 511: 510: 509: 505: 501: 497: 493: 492:Archaeopteryx 489: 485: 484: 483: 482: 478: 474: 470: 469: 464: 460: 456: 455:Archaeopteryx 452: 448: 447:Archaeopteryx 444: 443:Archaeopteryx 437:Earliest bird 436: 434: 433: 429: 425: 419: 418: 416: 415:Archaeopteryx 410: 404: 400: 396: 392: 388: 384: 380: 376: 372: 368: 367: 366: 365: 361: 357: 353: 348: 342: 340: 339: 335: 331: 325: 323: 318: 316: 311: 309: 308: 303: 302:Archaeopteryx 299: 295: 294:Archaeopteryx 289: 285: 281: 277: 272: 267: 265: 260: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 232: 228: 225: 221: 220:Archaeopteryx 217: 213: 212:Odontornithes 209: 204: 198: 194: 190: 186: 185:Beipiaosaurus 182: 178: 177:Archaeopteryx 174: 173: 172: 168: 164: 160: 156: 155: 154: 150: 146: 141: 140: 139: 138: 134: 130: 126: 120: 118: 114: 107: 105: 102: 98: 92: 90: 86: 82: 81:Archaeopteryx 74: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4116: 4113:Troodontidae 4104: 4097: 4096:and Hartman 4090: 4088: 4069: 4045: 4041: 4022: 4020: 3996:— Preceding 3993: 3971: 3968: 3943:source check 3922: 3916: 3913: 3886: 3883: 3814: 3781: 3775: 3755: 3752: 3727:source check 3706: 3700: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3677: 3638: 3635: 3611: 3607: 3601: 3583: 3577: 3569: 3565: 3556: 3548: 3509: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3441: 3435: 3432: 3412: 3360: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3325: 3303: 3298: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3258:— Preceding 3253:Archaeoptery 3252: 3250: 3245: 3197: 3174:— Preceding 3170: 3134: 3096: 3002: 2983: 2965: 2870: 2869: 2839:WP:NOTAFORUM 2816: 2797: 2779: 2775: 2767: 2716: 2678:transitional 2677: 2675: 2663:AndyTheGrump 2640: 2637: 2616: 2565:— Preceding 2561: 2534: 2530: 2509: 2505: 2491:Orbitalforam 2476:AndyTheGrump 2453:— Preceding 2449: 2387:Paleobiology 2357: 2328: 2289: 2265: 2239: 2225: 2184: 2143: 2140: 2134:section) on 2129: 2085: 2050: 2001: 1995: 1989: 1983: 1977: 1972: 1968: 1954: 1929: 1919: 1897: 1877:— Preceding 1818: 1797: 1795: 1773: 1733: 1678:caput humeri 1677: 1540:Albertonykus 1536: 1529: 1506: 1377: 1374:Illustration 1321: 1302: 1290: 1235: 1216: 1197: 1193: 1156: 1154: 1136:Velociraptor 1135: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1099: 1057:Archaeopterx 1056: 1054: 893: 853:Chicken wing 813: 809: 805: 771: 745: 654: 650: 630: 596: 570: 566: 541: 537: 533: 529: 521: 517: 513: 495: 491: 466: 462: 458: 454: 450: 446: 442: 440: 420: 414: 411: 408: 379:Kimmeridgian 349: 346: 326: 321: 319: 314: 312: 307:nomen dubium 305: 301: 297: 293: 291: 283: 279: 275: 273: 269: 258: 255: 230: 223: 219: 215: 207: 184: 180: 176: 159:Beipaosaurus 158: 122: 110: 94: 78: 65: 43: 37: 4153:Markbassett 4119:s position. 4072:41.59.84.74 3694:Sourcecheck 3304:translation 3289:translation 2024:these edits 1900:mentioned, 1198:Hesperornis 1063:—Preceding 789:so slowly. 655:Microraptor 562:crown clade 526:TaxonSearch 459:Deinonychus 387:Lagerstätte 276:The mention 181:Microraptor 91:says this: 36:This is an 4103:concluded 4044:is known. 4002:Phycodrys4 3980:Report bug 3774:Create an 3764:Report bug 3549:References 3285:Urschwinge 3246:Urschwinge 3215:MMartyniuk 3137:Harizotoh9 3103:. Thanks. 3061:WP:PRIMARY 2969:MMartyniuk 2621:MMartyniuk 2588:MMartyniuk 2006:MMartyniuk 1985:Anchiornis 1979:Xiaotingia 1906:dave souza 1617:Steveoc 86 1602:MMartyniuk 1588:NobuTamura 1570:MMartyniuk 1466:MMartyniuk 1424:MMartyniuk 1271:Calistemon 1238:Calistemon 1134:bird than 571:Neornithes 516:is indeed 391:Mikenorton 4017:Portugal? 3963:this tool 3956:this tool 3747:this tool 3740:this tool 3416:Serpinium 3379:1812ahill 3364:1812ahill 3105:Cadiomals 3041:WP:WEIGHT 2988:Cadiomals 2984:thank you 2909:Cadiomals 2876:Cadiomals 2803:Cadiomals 2778:truly is 2754:Cadiomals 2720:Cadiomals 2661:sources. 1839:Cochonfou 1358:Whitecroc 1329:Whitecroc 651:Pedopenna 546:I guess. 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4123:Kiwi Rex 4056:contribs 4010:contribs 3998:unsigned 3969:Cheers.— 3866:FunkMonk 3843:FunkMonk 3784:FunkMonk 3753:Cheers.— 3526:Pinging 3490:FunkMonk 3476:Dinoguy2 3463:seimensi 3448:FunkMonk 3395:FunkMonk 3328:specimen 3287:being a 3272:contribs 3260:unsigned 3229:FunkMonk 3200:FunkMonk 3194:Sections 3176:unsigned 3097:Edit war 2567:unsigned 2455:unsigned 2311:FunkMonk 2269:contribs 2259:Casliber 2229:contribs 2219:Casliber 2171:FunkMonk 2112:FunkMonk 2054:contribs 2044:Casliber 1958:contribs 1948:Casliber 1926:WP:WIAFA 1879:unsigned 1736:could.-- 1555:FunkMonk 1513:FunkMonk 1489:FunkMonk 1452:FunkMonk 1410:FunkMonk 1344:FunkMonk 1303:mattisse 1217:Ah. OK. 1202:Dinoguy2 1140:Dinoguy2 1077:contribs 1065:unsigned 1037:FunkMonk 1001:FunkMonk 983:de.Vesta 969:FunkMonk 955:de.Vesta 941:FunkMonk 917:FunkMonk 880:FunkMonk 724:FunkMonk 710:Dinoguy2 696:FunkMonk 673:FunkMonk 659:Dinoguy2 633:FunkMonk 618:FunkMonk 602:Dinoguy2 548:Dinoguy2 534:Struthio 473:Dinoguy2 383:Jurassic 381:- Upper 315:probably 284:specimen 264:holotype 189:Dinoguy2 104:dinosaur 101:theropod 4027:Mr Fink 3893:my edit 3799:Mr Fink 3680:checked 3645:my edit 3152:WP:LEDE 3059:follow 3023:Mr Fink 2923:Mr Fink 2821:Mr Fink 2784:Mr Fink 2540:Mr Fink 2204:Abyssal 1857:Mr Fink 1219:Evercat 1161:Evercat 1102:Evercat 543:Vegavis 371:calcite 216:depends 163:Mr Fink 125:reptile 89:Avialae 39:archive 4100:(2019) 4098:et al. 4093:(2018) 4091:et al. 3815:IJReid 3688:failed 3513:Jss367 3471:amplus 3467:T. rex 3004:Nature 2683:Agcala 2659:fringe 2644:Lebs27 2511:Jinx69 2425:henrik 1904:. . . 530:Passer 522:Passer 496:Passer 488:Passer 463:Passer 451:Passer 3535:DrKay 3299:vogel 3037:WP:RS 2890:WP:RS 2835:WP:RS 2735:WP:RS 2031:garra 1938:garra 1871:Here 1829:garra 1798:ninth 1069:Conty 461:< 113:clade 16:< 4157:talk 4143:talk 4127:talk 4111:and 4076:talk 4052:talk 4040:cf. 4031:talk 4006:talk 3870:talk 3847:talk 3803:talk 3788:talk 3684:true 3588:ISBN 3570:e.g. 3539:talk 3517:talk 3494:talk 3480:talk 3452:talk 3440:and 3420:talk 3399:talk 3383:talk 3368:talk 3348:talk 3334:vs. 3312:talk 3306:! -- 3268:talk 3233:talk 3219:talk 3204:talk 3184:talk 3141:talk 3109:talk 3088:talk 3073:talk 3050:talk 3027:talk 3013:talk 2992:talk 2973:talk 2941:talk 2927:talk 2913:talk 2898:talk 2880:talk 2847:talk 2825:talk 2807:talk 2788:talk 2758:talk 2743:talk 2724:talk 2703:talk 2687:talk 2667:talk 2648:talk 2625:talk 2606:talk 2592:talk 2575:talk 2544:talk 2515:talk 2495:talk 2480:talk 2463:talk 2432:talk 2408:talk 2395:here 2368:talk 2315:talk 2300:talk 2292:here 2263:talk 2249:talk 2223:talk 2208:talk 2194:talk 2183:The 2175:talk 2157:talk 2116:talk 2088:here 2072:talk 2048:talk 2028:Gnan 2010:talk 1994:and 1982:and 1952:talk 1935:Gnan 1910:talk 1902:here 1887:talk 1873:Here 1861:talk 1843:talk 1826:Gnan 1806:talk 1802:MWAK 1742:talk 1738:MWAK 1621:talk 1606:talk 1592:talk 1574:talk 1559:talk 1544:talk 1517:talk 1493:talk 1470:talk 1456:talk 1428:talk 1414:talk 1385:talk 1362:talk 1348:talk 1333:talk 1325:bold 1309:Talk 1275:talk 1261:talk 1242:talk 1223:talk 1206:talk 1184:talk 1176:Aves 1165:talk 1144:talk 1106:talk 1091:talk 1073:talk 1041:talk 1005:talk 987:talk 973:talk 959:talk 945:talk 921:talk 884:talk 795:talk 780:talk 761:talk 748:here 728:talk 714:talk 700:talk 677:talk 663:talk 653:and 637:talk 622:talk 606:talk 579:talk 569:and 552:talk 504:talk 477:talk 428:talk 395:talk 360:talk 334:talk 296:and 242:talk 193:talk 179:and 167:talk 149:talk 133:talk 85:bird 3937:RfC 3907:to 3721:RfC 3698:). 3686:or 3665:to 3616:doi 3612:245 3330:in 3291:of 2798:not 2780:not 2098:min 2093:Kev 1896:It 1822:see 224:was 208:not 161:?-- 129:Jon 4159:) 4145:) 4129:) 4078:) 4058:) 4054:| 4033:) 4012:) 4008:• 3950:. 3945:}} 3941:{{ 3872:) 3849:) 3832:, 3828:, 3805:) 3790:) 3734:. 3729:}} 3725:{{ 3696:}} 3692:{{ 3610:. 3541:) 3519:) 3496:) 3482:) 3454:) 3446:. 3422:) 3414:-- 3401:) 3385:) 3370:) 3350:) 3314:) 3297:Ur 3295:. 3274:) 3270:• 3235:) 3221:) 3206:) 3186:) 3143:) 3111:) 3090:) 3075:) 3052:) 3029:) 3015:) 2994:) 2975:) 2943:) 2929:) 2915:) 2900:) 2882:) 2849:) 2841:. 2827:) 2809:) 2790:) 2760:) 2745:) 2726:) 2705:) 2689:) 2669:) 2650:) 2642:-- 2627:) 2608:) 2594:) 2577:) 2546:) 2517:) 2497:) 2482:) 2465:) 2410:) 2389:, 2370:) 2317:) 2302:) 2271:) 2251:) 2231:) 2210:) 2196:) 2177:) 2159:) 2118:) 2074:) 2056:) 2012:) 1960:) 1921:Du 1908:, 1898:is 1889:) 1863:) 1845:) 1824:. 1808:) 1744:) 1623:) 1608:) 1594:) 1586:. 1576:) 1561:) 1546:) 1519:) 1495:) 1472:) 1458:) 1430:) 1416:) 1387:) 1364:) 1350:) 1335:) 1311:) 1277:) 1263:) 1244:) 1225:) 1208:) 1186:) 1167:) 1146:) 1108:) 1093:) 1079:) 1075:• 1043:) 1007:) 989:) 975:) 961:) 947:) 930:-- 923:) 886:) 820:) 797:) 782:) 763:) 730:) 716:) 702:) 679:) 665:) 639:) 624:) 608:) 581:) 554:) 532:+ 520:+ 506:) 494:+ 479:) 449:+ 430:) 397:) 389:. 362:) 336:) 304:a 286:." 266:: 244:) 195:) 169:) 151:) 135:) 4155:( 4141:( 4125:( 4074:( 4050:( 4029:( 4004:( 3982:) 3978:( 3965:. 3958:. 3868:( 3845:( 3801:( 3786:( 3766:) 3762:( 3749:. 3742:. 3622:. 3618:: 3595:. 3537:( 3515:( 3492:( 3478:( 3450:( 3418:( 3397:( 3381:( 3366:( 3346:( 3310:( 3266:( 3231:( 3217:( 3202:( 3182:( 3139:( 3107:( 3086:( 3071:( 3048:( 3025:( 3011:( 2990:( 2971:( 2939:( 2925:( 2911:( 2896:( 2892:. 2878:( 2845:( 2823:( 2805:( 2786:( 2756:( 2741:( 2722:( 2701:( 2685:( 2665:( 2646:( 2623:( 2604:( 2590:( 2573:( 2542:( 2513:( 2493:( 2478:( 2461:( 2429:• 2406:( 2366:( 2313:( 2298:( 2266:· 2261:( 2247:( 2226:· 2221:( 2206:( 2192:( 2173:( 2155:( 2114:( 2102:§ 2070:( 2051:· 2046:( 2008:( 1955:· 1950:( 1885:( 1859:( 1841:( 1804:( 1740:( 1619:( 1604:( 1590:( 1572:( 1557:( 1542:( 1515:( 1491:( 1468:( 1454:( 1426:( 1412:( 1383:( 1360:( 1346:( 1331:( 1307:( 1273:( 1259:( 1240:( 1221:( 1204:( 1182:( 1163:( 1142:( 1104:( 1089:( 1071:( 1039:( 1003:( 985:( 971:( 957:( 943:( 919:( 882:( 793:( 778:( 759:( 726:( 712:( 698:( 675:( 661:( 635:( 620:( 604:( 577:( 550:( 502:( 475:( 426:( 417:" 393:( 358:( 332:( 240:( 191:( 165:( 147:( 131:( 50:.

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

Index