Essay About Fossil Archaeopteryx Fraud

Click on an image to view larger version & data in a new window


A model of Archaeopteryx lithographica at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History.

Archaeopteryx lithographica in Greek means ancient wing from the printing stone. ἀρχαῖος archaios from the greek, 'ancient' and πτέρυξ pteryx which means, 'feather' or ‘wing’ (Nedin, 1999).  It is named after the limestone in which it was discovered, in the Solnhofen Limestone deposits in southern Germany (George Washington University, 2002).  Therefore, it is also sometimes called by its German name Urvogel, which means ‘first bird’ or ‘original bird’.

Archaeopteryx is an early prehistoric bird, dating from about 150 million years ago during the Jurassic period.  Consequently, it is considered by many to be the oldest known bird. Archaeopteryx shares both the features of theropod dinosaurs as well as modern birds. It is thus widely considered a transitional fossil between the birds and reptiles.  In many ways, Archaeopteryx is more similar to small theropod dinosaurs  than it is to modern birds. However, the evolutionary history of Archaeopteryx has never been that simple. It has always been hugely controversial in the past and continues to be an integral part of many scientific debates about the origin and evolution of birds.

The Origin of Birds: Evolutionary History

Archaeopteryx is the earliest, most primitive bird known. The skeletal anatomy of Archaeopteryx is very similar to that of contemporaneous coelurosaurian dinosaurs (Ostrom, 2008). Every skeletal feature of Archaeopteryx closely relates to contemporaneous coelurosaurian dinosaurs, with the only exception of fused clavicles and unique ischial morphology (Ostrom, 2008). This has been shown by analysing five known skeletal Archaeopteryx specimens and comparing them with the skeletal anatomy of several reptilian groups such as Ornithopoda, Theropoda, Pseudosuchia and Sphenosuchia, which were proposed as possible ancestors of birds (Ostrom, 2008). The presence of many commonly derived characters establishes that coelurosaurian theropods as the closest ancestral relatives of Archaeopteryx (Ostrom, 2008). 

It has been argued that feathers are unique and only evolved in birds; hence making modern birds the closest relatives of Archaeopteryx.  This theory is weakening with the emergence of newer data.  Recently, Dr. Kundrat provided evidence representing the oldest feathered dinosaurs.  The new fossil data from China and Mongolia suggest that feathers are not uniquely an avian feature (Kundrat, 2004).  Kundrat (2004) pointed to the appearance of feathery appendages in theropods and showed their evolutionary importance in achieving higher metabolic rates, improved locomotion abilities associated with distinct behaviours and visual communication.  This important evidence for pre-Archaeopteryx feathery appendages dispels the theory about uniqueness of feathers in Aves.

History of Discovery

Archaeopteryx is widely considered a transitional fossil between the birds and reptiles (Bakalar, 2005).  It was one of the most important discoveries in the Jurassic Solnhofen limestone deposits of southern Germany (Bakalar, 2005).  In 1860, a single feather was unearthed thus marking the start of the study of Archaeopteryx.  The discovery was described by Christian Erich Hermann von Meyer, a German palaeontologist; the Archaeopteryx fossil was found in a limestone slab as a feathered impression.  It was about 6 cm long and 1.1 cm wide.  Apparently, at first glimpse it looked like a feather impression of a living bird.  Except that the feather was 150 million years old! (Herreid, 1999).  Within a month, Hermann von Meyer found a fossil skeleton, which looked like a bird with a lot of reptilian characteristics.  It was a remarkable discovery and despite of its distinct reptilian features, von Meyer called it a bird and hence the name Archaeopteryx, ‘ancient wing’ (Herreid, 1999).  The fossil skeleton was then sold to the British Museum of Natural History, while the slab and counterslab of the feather were sold to museums in Munich and Berlin (Herreid, 1999).  Soon after, several different specimens were discovered and to this day, ten skeletal fossil specimens and an Archaeopteryx feather have been discovered (Bakalar, 2005).

At the British Museum of Natural History, the job to describe the skeletal Archaeopteryx went to Sir Richard Owen, a prominent anatomist of the British Museum. However, Thomas Huxley, an awe-inspiring anatomist, also known as ‘Darwin's Bulldog’ showed a lot of interest (Herreid, 1999).  Huxley and Owen were old rivals; after Owen described the specimen, soon after Huxley pointed out grave inaccuracies in Owen’s analysis of Archaeopteryx.  Huxley in his paper challenged Owen's many predictions including the presence of a toothless beak, just like other birds.  Huxley further pointed out that the pelvis and feet of Archaeopteryx closely resembled those of several dinosaurs that walk on two feet, especially the small dinosaurs.  He was critical of the fact that if Archaeopteryx did not have feathers, it would easily be mistaken for a reptile (Herreid, 1999).  Thomas Huxley thus opened a new debate in favour of evolution and thus associated Archaeopteryx in close ancestral relationship with reptiles.  His analysis was so fascinating, that on January 19th 1890, O. C. Marsh from the New York Herald responded, “He is certainly a wise man who to-day can tell a bird from a reptile, with only the fragments of an ancient form before him." (Majka, 1992).


Click on an image to view larger version & data in a new window

The "Berliner Exemplar" specimen of Archaeopteryx from Eichstätt, Germany.

A total of ten specimens of Archaeopteryx have been discovered till date.  However, the matter is of dispute, whether all the specimens belong to the same species or not (Senter & Robins, 2003).  Significant differences among the specimens have been noted which have resulted in an argument of taxonomic diversity within Archaeopteryx (Senter & Robins, 2003).  Some of the noted disparity results from the following differences (Senter & Robins, 2003):

  • differences in length of ulna relative to humerus
  • differences in length of tibia relative to femur
  • lack of pedal flexor tubercles
  • lack of the iliofemoralis internus fossa
  • lack of the anteroventral process on the anterior iliac blade in some specimens
  • various dental differences

However, researchers, most notably Senter & Robins (2003), dispel those claims by arguing that iliac markings absent in the two smaller specimens can be attributed to the difference in age of the birds where tendency of bony markings increase in prominence with age in vertebrates.  Dental differences between the specimens have been interpreted by researchers as a result of ontogeny (Senter & Robins, 2003). Because of varied opinion amongst researchers, the taxonomic history has become very complicated.  However, most of the research data does point to a single species, Archaeopteryx lithographica. It is widely believed that Archaeopteryx forms the sister group to all other birds, and coelurosaurian theropods are its closest ancestral relatives.

Anatomy & Physiology

Archaeopteryx exhibits both reptilian and bird like characteristics.  Similar to reptilians, Archaeopteryx had a complete set of teeth. Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a flat sternum, a long, bony tail, gastralia, and three claws on the wing, believed to be used in grasping its prey or maybe trees. However, it also had characteristics of a modern bird, which included feathers, wings, furcula and reduced fingers (UCMP, 2009).

Avian Features

Feathers:  Feathers are generally a defining structure when looking at modern birds, although they cannot be relied upon as the sole identifying structures as this same feature has been found in fossils of the dinosaurs Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui (Ji et al. 1998).  Archaeopteryx appears to have possessed well developed flight feathers, which are asymmetrical and contain a large amount of curvature as well as three distinct vanes.  In some aspects however, the feathers of Archaeopteryx appear to be slightly more primitive than extant bird capable of flight with slightly less apparent asymmetry (Norberg 1995).

Limbs: The hallux, or first toe, in Archaeopteryx appears to be flexible, a trait not seen in remains of dinosaurs (Nedin 1999).

Reptilian Features

Limbs:  Archaeopteryx possesses several characteristics present only in reptiles or bird embryos relating to the feet and claws, including the presence of claws on three toes (Metcalfe 1987).  No extant bird species retains more than two claws on unfused digits entirely into adulthood.  The “hand” bones of Archaeopteryx remain free and are not fused as seen in the carpo-metacarpus of modern birds.  Also lacking in Archaeopteryx are fused metatarsals of the foot.  Another feature present only in bird embryos, Archaeopteryx possessed foot bones free of the tarsometatarsus unlike modern adult birds (Nedin 1999).

Cranial Features:  A feature common to extant birds is the connection of the skull to the spine at the base rather than the back as seen in reptiles and ArchaeopteryxArchaeopteryx lacks the keratin horn-cover on the maxilla and premaxilla, composing the bill in all extant bird species.  These bones are also teeth bearing, a feature only seen in the development of bird embryos.  Finally, the nasal openings of Archaeopteryx are positioned far forward on the skull, in front a large opening in the skull.  This opening is generally absent or much reduced in modern birds (Metcalfe 1987, Nedin 1999).

Vertebrae, Tail:  The tail of Archaeopteryx is unlike that of modern birds, in that it is long and possesses several individual vertebrae.  Those of modern birds are generally much shorter and contain fused vertebrae (Nedin 1999).


The structure of feathers of the wings and tail appear to entail the ability of the animal to generate lift, although the extent to which it was able to do this is still a topic of debate.  The flexibility in the wrist of modern birds is crucial for powered flight (Storer 1948).  In Archaeopteryx the wrist joint possesses some of the traits necessary for flexibility, although it was clearly not as flexible as modern birds.  Another important consideration is the structure of the breast and range of motion in the wings of Archaeopteryx.  The shoulder joint present in the fossil record appears to be an intermediate form, somewhere between the dinosaurs and modern birds. 

A crucial factor in the capability of powered flight is the ability of the wing to undergo both adduction and abduction.  Archaeopteryx appeared to be capable of adduction, or the lowering of the arms below the shoulder, although Archaeopteryx was most likely incapable of abduction, or the raising of the arms above the back (Nedin 1999). This full range of motion is crucial for true powered flight (Storer 1948). The keel of the breastbone in modern birds is completely absent in Archaeopteryx suggesting that the pectoral muscles may have been anchored to an alternative location different from that in modern birds.  This would have reduced the muscle power available for flight (Greenewalt 1975).  It would appear that Archaeopteryx was not capable of the powered flight that is seen in modern birds, although that is not to say Archaeopteryx was incapable of flight in general.  Given the multitude of features necessary for this type of flight that are missing in Archaeopteryx it is likely that it was not a strong flier, and was almost certainly incapable of true powered flight and a standing takeoff.  Although Archaeopteryx may not have been capable of powered flight, it is likely that with the traits it did possess it was capable of some flapping and therefore flight after gaining a minimum speed, perhaps after a running start (Nedin 1999, Greenewalt 1975).


The pelvis of Archaeopteryx contains several features of both the modern birds and other saurischian dinosaurs.  The pubis in Archaeopteryx faces backwards, parallel to the ischium, unlike that of saurischians.  Unlike modern birds the pubis has retained a hooked end as seen in saurischians.  The angle between the illium and the pubis in Archaeopteryx also appears to be an intermediate between the saurischians and the modern birds, but a look at the embryonic development of birds provides an interesting narrative.  Early in the development of the chicken we see an angle of 45⁰, the same as Archaeopteryx (Nedin 1999).  As the embryo develops the pubis rotates until it is almost parallel to the illium at the time of hatching (Metcalfe 1987).


The behaviour and day to day life of Archaeopteryx has been a difficult topic to address.  Until recently it was believed that it lived in a forested environment, but the fossil specimens were rarely if at all found in the presence of fossilized tree detritus suggesting a different lifestyle.  It is entirely possible that Archaeopteryx thrived in smaller shrubs, feeding on smaller animals that would have lived within them (Chiappe 2007).


Archaeopteryx has been at the center of several controversies, ranging from disagreements over its position in the phylogenetic tree to the validity of several fossil specimens.  The arguments over the validity of the specimens originated over several perceived, but ultimately unsubstantiated discrepancies in the fossils.  The hypothesis that Archaeopteryx is in fact more closely related to dinosaurs than birds has and continues to be a contentious area of debate.  Part of this hypothesis states that Archaeopteryx is in fact not the earliest bird, which instead is Avimimus. A further assertion that Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate species at all and is in fact a true bird has also been claimed and is a cornerstone to the creationist argument.


While a general consensus of the position of Archaeopteryx in the evolution of modern birds is difficult to find, it is clear that it contained many transitory character states of both dinosaurs and modern birds.  Although it was most likely not a transitional species itself, the character states that it did possess would suggest that the transition from dinosaur to modern bird did indeed occur.

Information on the Internet


Bakalar, N. Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows. National Geographic News. 1 December 2005. 11 February, 2009. Retrieved from:

Chiappe, Luis M.. Glorified Dinosaurs: The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds. United States of America: Wiley-Liss, 2007.

George Washington University. The Evolution of Archaeopteryx: First Bird Considered to be 150 Million Years Old. 19 March 2002. 15 February 2009. Retrieved from:!/evolution.html

Greenewalt, Crawford H. The Flight of Birds, the significant dimensions, their departure from the requirements for dimensional similarity, and the effect on flight aerodynamics of that departure. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1975.

Herreid, C. F. Seven Skeletons and a Feather: The Mysteries of Archaeopteryx. State University of New York, Department of Biological Sciences. 30 Sep. 1999. 21 March 2009. Retrieved from:

Kundrat, M. (2004). When Did Theropods Become Feathered? - Evidence for Pre-Archaeopteryx Feathery Appendages. Journal of Experimental Zoology. 302B: 355-364.

Majka, C. Flying Dinosaurs: Archaeopteryx - is this bird a fraud? New Brunswick Naturalist, 1992.

Metcalfe, J.. Metcalfe: Development of the Avian Embryo. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1987.

Nedin, C. All About Archaeopteryx. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy. 15 Jan. 1999. 2 Apr. 2009. Retrieved from:

Norberg, R.A. (1995) Feather asymmetry in Archaeopteryx. Nature 374: 221.

Ostrom, J.H. (2008). Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 8(2): 91-182.

Qiang Ji; Currie, P.J.; Norell, M.A. & Shu-an ji. (1998) Two feathered dinosaurs from northeastern China. Nature, 393: 753-761.

Ruben et al, (1997). Lung structure and ventilation in theropod dinosaurs and early birds. Science 278, 1267-1270.

Senter, P., & Robins, J.H. (2003). Taxonomic Status of the Specimens of Archaeopteryx. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 23(4): 961-965.

Storer, John H.. The Flight of Birds: Analyzed Through Slow-Motion Photography. Bloomfield Hills: Cranbrook Institute Of Science, 1948.

UCMP - (University of California Museum of Paleontology). Archaeopteryx: An Early Bird. n.d. 11 February, 2009. Retrieved from:

Treehouses are authored by students, teachers, science enthusiasts, or professional scientists. Anyone can sign up as a treehouse contributor and share their knowledge and enthusiasm about organisms. Treehouse contributions are checked for general accuracy and quality by teachers and ToL editors, but they are not usually reviewed by expert scientists. If you spot an error, please get in touch with the author or the teacher. For more information about quality control of Tree of Life content, see Status of Tree of Life Pages.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has a new plan to combat climate change: sue fossil fuel companies for fraud.

In a May 29 op-ed in The Washington Post, Whitehouse argued that the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to discredit climate science and attack environmentalists may constitute deliberate deception of the kind the tobacco industry perpetrated in previous decades. In 2006, a federal judge found the tobacco industry guilty of fraud in a civil lawsuit brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Cigarette companies' efforts to hide the health effects of tobacco consumption included lying about the findings of their own studies on smoking.

Fossil fuel companies may be a ripe target for a civil lawsuit under RICO as well, Whitehouse wrote. The industry coordinates with conservative think tanks to disseminate industry-funded research contradicting the scientific consensus on man-made climate change. The use of think tanks may be “designed to obscure” the industry's own role and to lend intellectual credibility to otherwise unfounded scientific claims, Whitehouse wrote. And the industry’s direct funding of climate-denying scientists like Harvard’s Willie Soon could be evidence that it may be trying to buy favorable climate science.

Although Whitehouse conceded that the information currently available does not definitively prove that the fossil fuel industry is “engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry,” litigation would shed more light on the matter -- as it did in the case against tobacco. “Civil discovery would reveal whether and to what extent the fossil fuel industry has crossed [the] same line” as the tobacco industry, he wrote.

But a RICO case against the fossil fuel industries would face an uphill climb, Jeffrey Grell, an expert in RICO law and former assistant attorney general of Minnesota, told The Huffington Post.

First, the case would have to prove “intent to defraud” by showing that climate-denying scientists were lying about what they actually believed.

"It is hard to prosecute people for having an erroneous or stupid opinion," Grell said. “You could say that X percentage of the scientists disagree with them and there is empirical data they are lying about."

Demonstrating a financial conflict of interest among climate-change researchers who take industry funding could contribute to a case showing fraud was committed, but is not in itself evidence of fraud, he said.

Grell also raised the question of whether the government would have standing to sue the fossil fuel industry. In the case of tobacco, the government was able to argue that the tobacco companies’ deception had harmed its administration of Medicare and Medicaid. Such standing might be harder to claim against energy companies, Grell said.

Mark Hemingway, a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard, criticized Whitehouse’s analogy between the fossil fuels and tobacco industries, claiming that the scientific community is not as unanimous about the effects of climate change as it is about tobacco.

“Even among those who do agree that global warming is a problem, there's a tremendously wide variety of opinions about the practical effects,” Hemingway wrote.

Have a tip or story idea to share with us? Email us at We'll keep your identity private unless you tell us otherwise.

One thought on “Essay About Fossil Archaeopteryx Fraud

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *