Talk:Archaeopteryx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Archaeopteryx is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do: edit MAJOR taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae
Biology WikiPortal

This article is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.

Archaeopteryx is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents 1 Syntax 2 Creationist straw man refutation 3 Pronunciation? 4 Archaeopteryx fraud 5 New specimen 6 Archie's Family 7 Feathered dinosaur forgery 8 Archie's Class 9 How is the Archaeopteryx..... 10 My Edit 11 Archaeopteryx is the name 12 Jurrasic and Cretaceous 13 CT Scan 14 Type Specimen 15 Head of London Specimen 16 Opinion 607 17 Wing vs Feather (again) 18 Dates? Dates? 19 Image placement 20 A. simensii 21 Isolated Archaeopteryx feather 22 Size

[edit] Syntax

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

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

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

[edit] Creationist straw man refutation

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

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

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

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

[edit] Pronunciation?

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

—Hobart 04:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Archaeopteryx fraud

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

[edit] New specimen

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

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

[edit] Archie's Family

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

[edit] Feathered dinosaur forgery

This was removed as vandalism:

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

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

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

[edit] Archie's Class

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

[edit] How is the Archaeopteryx.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] My Edit

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

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

[edit] Archaeopteryx is the name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Jurrasic and Cretaceous

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

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

[edit] CT Scan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Type Specimen

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

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

[edit] Head of London Specimen

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

[edit] Opinion 607

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wing vs Feather (again)

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

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

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

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

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

and a even less complete German original, viz:

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

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

[edit] Dates? Dates?

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

[edit] Image placement

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

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

[edit] A. simensii

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

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

[edit] Isolated Archaeopteryx feather

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

[edit] Size

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

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