[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


Jeff Poling wrote:

> None of the references I have, including _The Dinosauria_, lists the
> era/stage that Archaeopteryx is associated with.  They merely say "Late
> Jurassic."  Anybody happen to know the era/stage Archie is associated with?

Yeah, _Archaeopteryx lithographica_ is Tithonian. This is the uppermost Stage
of the Jurassic (follows Oxfordian and Kimmeridgian): some European workers
consider it to consist of Portlandian and Purbeckian. Remains previously
allocated to _Archaeopteryx_ (perhaps they should have been Archaeopterygidae
sp. or cf. _Archaeopteryx_) from eastern Europe are from the earliest Stage of
the Lower Cretaceous (Berriasian), but I think they're now thought to be
pterosaurian. I wouldn't put money on the exact age of _A. bavarica_.

[There seems to be a difference of opinion on the age of _Archaeopteryx_
here.  Does anyone have a definitive reference? - Chris]

The Korean bird is even younger - anyone? According to Chiappe, it's not enough
like _Archaeopteryx lithographica_ to be in the same genus, but other than that
he hasn't said (AFAIK).

If (as Brian Franczak has reported), Weish-Dod-Os says Kimmeridgian for
_Compsognathus_, they may be referring to the Nice specimen. I seem to recall
that this isn't of exactly the same age as the German example. Anyone?

"I used to ride with a vending machine repair man"