CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 149Paleontology and Evolutionary BiologyEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFossil Insects in Amber

The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx

Open access
MAYR, GERALD, POHL, BURKHARD, HARTMAN, SCOTT, PETERS, D. STEFAN·2007·Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
DOI 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2006.00245.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We describe the tenth skeletal specimen of the Upper Jurassic Archaeopterygidae. The almost complete and well-preserved skeleton is assigned to Archaeopteryx siemensii Dames, 1897 and provides significant new information on the osteology of the Archaeopterygidae. As is evident from the new specimen, the palatine of Archaeopteryx was tetraradiate as in non-avian theropods, and not triradiate as in other avians. Also with respect to the position of the ectopterygoid, the data obtained from the new specimen lead to a revision of a previous reconstruction of the palate of Archaeopteryx. The morphology of the coracoid and that of the proximal tarsals is, for the first time, clearly visible in the new specimen. The new specimen demonstrates the presence of a hyperextendible second toe in Archaeopteryx. This feature is otherwise known only from the basal avian Rahonavis and deinonychosaurs (Dromaeosauridae and Troodontidae), and its presence in Archaeopteryx provides additional evidence for a close relationship between deinonychosaurs and avians. The new specimen also shows that the first toe of Archaeopteryx was not fully reversed but spread medially, supporting previous assumptions that Archaeopteryx was only facultatively arboreal. Finally, we comment on the taxonomic composition of the Archaeopterygidae and conclude that Archaeopteryx bavarica Wellnhofer, 1993 is likely to be a junior synonym of A. siemensii, and Wellnhoferia grandis Elżanowski, 2001 a junior synonym of A. lithographica von Meyer, 1861.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2006.00245.x

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All non-avian theropods, and the first bird Archaeopteryx, lack a reversed hallux.

    “All non-avian theropods, and the first bird Archaeopteryx, lack a reversed hallux [20].”

    From Assessing Arboreal Adaptations of Bird Antecedents: Testing the Ecological Setting of the Origin of the Avian Flight Stroke (2011) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Description and comparison section (p. 16) says Archaeopteryx’s first toe was not fully reversed but spread medially. The paper does not establish the claim about all non-avian theropods, and its qualification ‘not fully reversed’ is more precise than ‘lack a reversed hallux.’ (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • This would be particularly acute in non-avian theropod like Microraptor, given the lack of a reversed hallux to aid in securing a purchase.

    “This would be particularly acute in non-avian theropod like Microraptor, given the lack of a reversed hallux to aid in securing a purchase [19], [20].”

    From Assessing Arboreal Adaptations of Bird Antecedents: Testing the Ecological Setting of the Origin of the Avian Flight Stroke (2011) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Palaeobiological Implications section (p. 18) links Archaeopteryx’s incompletely reversed first toe to the absence of a perching foot, while noting that its foot retained some grasping function. The Description and comparison section (pp. 14, 16) compares its metatarsals with Microraptor’s but does not establish Microraptor’s hallux orientation or its ability to secure a purchase. The claim extends a finding about Archaeopteryx to Microraptor. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Barsbold R, Osmólska H. 1990. Ornithomimosauria. In: Weishampel DB, Dodson P, Osmólska H, eds. The Dinosauria . Berkeley: University of California Press, 225-244.
  2. El { anowski A. 2002. Archaeopterygidae (Upper Jurassic of Germany). In: Chiappe L, Witmer L, eds. Mesozoic birds: above the heads of dinosaurs . Berkeley: University of California Press, 129-159.
  3. Heinroth O. 1923. Die Flügel von Archaeopteryx . Journal für Ornithologie 71: 277-283.
  4. The beginnings of birds. Proceedings of the International Archaeopteryx Conference, Eichstätt, 1984. Eichstätt: Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstätt, 177-183.
  5. Martin LD. 1991. Mesozoic birds and the origin of birds. In: Schultze H-P, Trueb L, eds. Origins of the higher groups of tetrapods: controversy and consensus . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 485-540.
  6. Middleton KM. 2002. Evolution of the perching foot in theropods. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22: 88A.
  7. Ostrom JH. 1991. The question of the origin of birds. In: Schultze H-P, Trueb L, eds. Origins of the higher groups of tetrapods: controversy and consensus . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 467-484.
  8. Rietschel S. 1985. Feathers and wings of Archaeopteryx , and the question of her flight ability. In: Hecht MK, Ostrom JH, Viohl G, Wellnhofer P, eds. The beginnings of birds. Proceedings of the International Archaeopteryx Conference, Eichstätt, 1984. Eichstätt: Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstätt, 251-260.
  9. Tarsitano S. 1991. Archaeopteryx : quo vadis?. In: Schultze HP, Trueb L, eds. Origins of the higher groups of tetrapods: controversy and consensus . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 485-540.
  10. Witmer LM. 2002. The debate on avian ancestry: phylogeny, function, and fossils. In: Chiappe L, Witmer L, eds. Mesozoic birds: above the heads of dinosaurs . Berkeley: University of California Press, 3-30.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
MAYR, G., POHL, B., HARTMAN, S., & PETERS, D. S.
Affiliations
Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt/M (DE)
ORCID
HARTMAN, SCOTT
Venue
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2007-01
Volume
149
Issue
1
Pages
97-116
ISSN
  • 0024-4082 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-3642
DOI
10.1111/j.1096-3642.2006.00245.x
OpenAlex
W2024552857
Cited by
149
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1 (tdm, 3165 d)
Locations
  • Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society (publishedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fossil Insects in Amber
Keywords
osteology, ectopterygoid, coracoid process, tarsal bones, avian origin, arboreality, junior synonym, Late Jurassic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review