"Most scientific breakthroughs are nothing else than the discovery of the obvious", Eberhard Zangger comments his well-founded opinion that Atlantis is merely a saga about the Trojan War, distorted by translation errors into Egyptian and back. I leave it to you to judge whether my paper is a breakthrough in science or in blockheadedness, but before I add a disclaimer: I haven't seen any of the fossils I'm writing of, only the Confuciusornis specimen at the Natural History Museum here in Vienna (and it didn't support or falsify any of my opinions; I couldn't look very close), I have derived everything from the literature. Therefore everyone else could have arrived at my conclusions, at least some of which are pretty obvious to me, by simply reading all the papers and websites (dinosauria.com, Dinosauricon, archives of this list) I have used. Indeed, a few have been reached by others (remember Details on Microraptor where HP Mickey Mortimer found Archaeopteryx closer to dromaeosaurs than to birds?) My ideas are few, most of them is putting the published pieces together.
Parts of the paper are even outdated: The Early Jurassic dromaeosaur teeth from Antarctica, Microraptor, Yandangornis (for which I hardly had information) and Avimimus (which I thought to be a chimera) lack.
I have copied much of the paper, because I can best paraphrase my own words in my own words...
I still can't give a complete citation, as I haven't received the Dinosaur Society Quarterly Journal 4.1 yet. Has anyone else found it?
The abstract is very short (because the paper is very long):
"Archaeopteryx completely lacks bird synapomorphies; therefore the cladogram of derived coelurosaurs is rearranged to (((Metornithes + Oviraptorosauria) + Arctometatarsalia) + (Archaeopterygidae + Dromaeosauridae))."
I should have inserted a few words on the origin of flight...
Archaeopterygidae is to mean A. and Unenlagia ?= Megaraptor ?= Unquillosaurus (possible synonymies after the Dinosauricon); analyses by HP Mickey Mortimer put U., at least, in the Dromaeosaurinae.
The main paper begins with "When Archaeopteryx was discovered, birds were thought to have lots of autapomorphies, many of which were recognised in Archaeopteryx. But for the past 20 years or so, former bird autapomorphies have been 'sliding down the cladogram', so it has now become very difficult to diagnose a bird."
Explicitely (most of this not new to anyone on this list, I think; I hope this lines up correctly on your screens):
Former bird autapomorphy found in A. | Argument that it has slided down the cladogram
opisthopubic pelvis | is orthopubic in A. and Patagonykus, opisthopubic in dromaeosaurs [and secondarily orthopubic in U., if HP Mickey Mortimer is right) => probably prone to convergence
furcula | (you all know)
feathers | (you all know)
wing and tail feathers | (you all know)
unserrated teeth with constriction | you know, Pelicanimimus, Byronosaurus... "Elzanowski & Wellnhofer (1996) note that the
between root and crown teeth of Archaeopteryx itself only sometimes have a slight constriction, and no sign of an
expanded root like that occuring in Ichthyornis. They seem to be an adaptation for
eating fish, not a feature useful in cladistics."
Former bird autapomorphy found in A. | Argument that it has migrated up the cladogram
loss of the postorbitals | A. has postorbitals, only euornithines, it seems, don't
various forms of skull kinetics | all unknown in A., because no complete A. skull is known;
seems rather improbable from what is known
loss of coronoid (III) | "In fact, this feature has a very spotty distribution – Archaeopteryx and
ornithomimids lack a distinct coronoid, Oviraptor has a tiny one, while
Dromaeosaurus and Velociraptor (Currie, 1995) still have two (fused
coronoids II and III), which is considered highly plesiomorphic."
Blue emphases, inserted for easier reading, not in the original.
Brackets  are in the original, for commenting I use <> here.
"In addition, it has been discovered that Archaeopteryx lacks some features that birds share with arctometatarsalians and oviraptorosaurs. Sometime it is mentioned that the latter three taxa (troodontids and tyrannosaurs: Currie, 1995, oviraptorosaurs: Sues, 1997 contra Norell et al. 2000) have a separate exit for the cranial nerve V1, which normally exits the braincase through a large foramen together with V2 and V3. Dromaeosaurus (Currie, 1995) and Archaeopteryx (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer, 1996) exhibit the primitive condition. Arctometatarsalians and oviraptorosaurs also share pneumatised quadrates and articulars not occuring in Archaeopteryx (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer, 1996) and Dromaeosaurus (Currie, 1995). Andrzej Elzanowski is sometimes referred to as having discovered that some features of the oviraptorosaur palate are more birdlike than that of Archaeopteryx. <Has been published in detail in the meantime, I still haven't found the paper.> Osmólska & Maryanska (1997) note that oviraptorid quadrates are double-headed, i. e. they have an additional contact to the braincase, and they are much more pneumatised than in arctometatarsalians (Osmólska & Maryanska, 1997). <I have posted the relevant quotes a few weeks ago.> Both are features occuring in birds but not in Archaeopteryx (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer, 1996, Chatterjee, 1997, Paul 1997) <...>. Oviraptorosaurs (Sues, 1997) (including Caudipteryx <and Protarchaeopteryx?>) also share with alvarezsaurids (Novas, 1997) rather short tails that are not stiffened distally, a condition seen in no other theropods. <...> Pneumatic features also fit this picture: Archaeopteryx is no more extensively pneumatised than dromaeosaurids, i. e. cervical and dorsal vertebrae as well as their ribs are pneumatised (Britt et al., 1998). In oviraptorosaurs (Currie, 1995) and alvarezsaurids (Novas, 1997), pneumatic foramina (or depressions) occur as far back as the middle of the tail! (In recent turkeys (Britt et al., 1998), the sacral and free caudal vertebrae are pneumatised, in ostriches (Britt et al., 1998) the caudals are not.) With the description of Nomingia (Keesey, 2000, /genera/nomingia.html), the pygostyle has joined the list of maniraptoran (see cladogram) synapomorphies (no alvarezsaurid tail end is known, Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx could have pygostyles <just discussed>, judging from photographs (Ackerman, 1998), the resolution of which is too coarse to be certain)."
"A commonly cited bird apomorphy in Archaeopteryx is the reverted hallux; all preserved feet are crushed, the joint surface between metatarsals I and II is destroyed [in e. g. the London specimen and not prepared in the Berlin one], thus to what extent the halluces were reverted is still a matter of debate. In any case, Archaeopteryx was incapable of perching, because the halluces were too short and situated too high on the foot. <Both characters not present in Microraptor... only we don't know to what extent its halluces were reverted either.> Caudipteryx dongi (Normile, 2000), on the other hand, seems to have a reverted hallux as long as the other toes <I have meanwhile found, but not yet copied, the original Vertebrata PalAsiatica paper; it wasn't that long> – its description will fuel lots of additional debates <for which I am waiting>. A single bird synapomorphy, according to Elzanowski & Wellnhofer (1996), has been left to Archaeopteryx: the triradiate palatines. I think that it is most parsimonious to explain this feature by convergence <ô surprise>, though I have no idea why this should have occurred."
Birds down to Alvarezsauridae have prokinesis (Chiappe, Norell & Clark, 1998); confuciusornithids have akinetic skulls (Hou et al., 1999), which is probably secondary because the jugals don’t have ascending processes.
The cladogram includes all Ornithodira, so most of it is simply copied from elsewhere. Let's see whether I can write it Dinosauricon-style:
|--Dryptosaurus, Diplotomodon, Deltadromaeus?
| |--Archaeopterygidae (see above)
Archaeopteryx has no bird synapomorphies, and is probably nothing more than a glorified small flying near-dromaeosaur, '[a]nd in spite of the fact that dromaeosaurids are often proclaimed to be the most birdlike of the theropods <...>, they lack many of the theropod-avian synapomorphies found in other theropod families, and have too many specialisations to be plausible avian ancestors' (Currie, 1995, page 587). Considering this along with the 'theropod-avian synapomorphies' listed above <below> produces a cladogram <...> which differs from all others in the following features: oviraptorosaurs are the closest relatives of birds, with which they form the taxon Maniraptora (conventionally defined as Neornithes > Ornithomimus, in Sereno  defined as Oviraptor + Neornithes; at present, these definitions do not change the contents of Maniraptora). Maniraptora and Arctometatarsalia form Maniraptoriformes, which has been defined as Ornithomimus + Neornithes. The taxon with the definition Deinonychus + Neornithes has recently been named Eumaniraptora. Its name implies that it was meant to be a part of Maniraptora, whereas now it is vice versa -- the irony of cladistic definitions.
I propose to name the taxon which includes Archaeopteryx and dromaeosaurids Archaeopterygiformes, which is among the oldest available names, and to define it as Archaeopteryx > Neornithes. Sereno (1998) has defined Archaeopteryx this way – that is why I consider it useless to define genera.
But what about birds themselves? A commonly used definition is Aves: Archaeopteryx + Neornithes (e. g. Sereno 1998) and Avialae: Neornithes > Velociraptor. In this case, Aves is <in terms of content> a senior synonym of Eumaniraptora and Avialae one of Paraves ( = Neornithes > Oviraptor [Sereno, 1998]), and, whether Aves or Avialae is called 'birds', Tyrannosaurus is a bird. Now the question is whether we accept animals lime Tyrannosaurus or Ornithomimus as birds or whether we allow the definitions to change <we can do the latter when PhyloCode is enacted>. In the latter case I propose to define Avialae as Neornithes > Oviraptor, Ornithomimus, Velociraptor and other well-known non-avian theropods and to forget Aves until an animal is found (perhaps Rahonavis or Protoavis, when they are <will be, I mean> be better known and studied -- see below) being closer to Metornithes than to Oviraptor. Metornithes is unaffected by the change of the position of Archaeopteryx and is a useful taxon that continues to be defined as Mononykus + Neornithes."
The following part is largely copied from the version on my computer where I wrote it; I have added a few slight changes, which I can't reconstruct because I would have to find the old emails which were made nearly inaccessible in the last few computer crashes, and the editor, Jeff J. Liston, has corrected a few mistakes in my English. So the actual published paper is minimally different.
"Evolutionary and palaeoecological implications
If it is true that Archaeopteryx, being capable of flight, is less closely related to birds than many flightless genera, then all the current theories ( = not much more than the cursorial and the arboreal ones) on the evolution of bird flight and feathers are in serious trouble, and even Baron Nopcsa's hypothesis that wings increase running speed, which was repeated as late as 1999 (Burgers & Chiappe, 1999), cannot save the former <but that paper can possibly save A.'s ability to take off from the ground>. But, as Ebel has shown in 1996, they are in trouble anyway, and there is already an alternative (Ebel, 1996):
First, protofeathers evolved as a protein sink: Bird ancestors, early tetanurans, theropods, dinosaurs or ornithodirans in general are commonly thought to have been insectivorous. Insects, which radiated in the early Mesozoic, contain much more fat and protein than vertebrates and thus are a good reason for becoming and staying endothermic. (Let’s simplify the case and assume that all ornithodirans were endothermic – Paul & Leahy  have shown excellently that even the largest ones were forced to be.) But insect protein contains more sulphur than small endotherms can use or excrete. So these animals deposited the sulphur-rich amino acids in their scales, which are made of keratin, a protein containing up to 3 % sulphur. The scales were enlarged and split during growth, used for insulation and display, and sometimes they were shed to get rid of the sulphur. This is a wonderful explanation for why birds moult (Reichholf 1997 <and others, which may be cited in the published version>). Sinosauropteryx, Sinornithosaurus and, if you kindly forget its diet, Beipiaosaurus can be considered examples for such animals. Because the scutes on bird feet are often considered to be modified feathers, it is possible (Poling, 1996) that feathers are in fact an ornithodiran synapomorphy, that pterosaur hairs are protofeathers and that the typical polygonal scutes of many skin impressions from large dinosaurs show that large dinosaurs lost feathers several times independently like large mammals which lost hair. Polar hypsilophodontids from the Early Cretaceous of Victoria/Australia are often illustrated bearing feathers which they could surely need.
After that, some tetanuran invented lying on its eggs and holding them with its arms. The arms of the famous brooding Oviraptor and ?Ingenia skeletons all circle the eggs in a way that if they had borne wing feathers, they had covered the nests and shielded them from sun and rain (Hecht, 1998 <yes, HP Jeff Hecht who mentioned this hypothesis by HP Tom Hopp in New Scientist>). Apparently there was a strictly Darwinian advantage in lengthening the arms and the feathers: longer arms = more wing area = bigger nests = room for more eggs = more offspring."
May be a good argument, at least it sounds like one, doesn't it? =8-)
"Then one of them, maybe the first eumaniraptoran, started eating fish instead of insects. For catching fish it is useful to be able to swim. <Ô surprise.> How would a tetanuran have swum? Undulating the tail, which many have suggested, was impossible – the distal half was stiffened – and would have been ineffective, because dinosaur tails were always pointed at the end instead of flattened like in crocodiles. Using their legs would have been ineffective, too, because they weren’t able to sprawl and their toes were not webbed. There was only one other possibility – using the arms, which already bore wing feathers . Thus this species learned to fly underwater like the dippers, which have only one adaptation to their lifestyle, the ability to close their nostrils with skin that cannot fossilize. <In Ebel's paper wing feathers evolved for swimming -- rather improbable IMHO, but *asymmetrical* wing feathers probably evolved at this stage.> Flight capabilities were able to be steadily sophisticated without the danger of falling down, in contrast to flying in air, which must be nearly perfect from the beginning. At the same time, the tail was lightened, stiffened further and got long, stiff tail feathers for steering (Ebel, 1996). The semilunate carpal may also have evolved at this stage.
If a large-winged animal can fly underwater, it can also fly in air, because in air there is much less drag. Ebel (1996) has calculated that flying at a speed of 0,35 m/s underwater produces the same dynamic pressure as flying at 10 m/s in air. Thus, after having got a fish, it’s easier to reach the shore by flying in the air than underwater. Being able to fly is also an advantage in such a lifestyle because "the range of accessible fishing grounds […] [can be] enlarged" (Ebel, 1996, page 279). This condition is beautifully seen in Archaeopteryx. Note that Archaeopteryx was unable to glide: its long tail positioned the centre of gravity in the hips, which is useful for bipedal running and unimportant in underwater flying, but requires constant flapping in air. Ornithothoracines have reduced the tail to place the centre of gravity between the shoulders, at the same place as the centre of lift, and therefore can glide and soar. (Ebel, 1996)
Dromaeosaurids became secondarily "flightless". <We know this from somewhere, don't we?> They used their tails for balancing, their hands for grasping only, enlarged the claws on their hyperextendable second toes and changed their diet. This seems to have been an instant success, since there is a possible dromaeosaurid from the US Late Jurassic as well as some dromaeosaurid remains from the UK Middle Jurassic (Ebel, 1996)."
As well as other Middle and even Early Jurassic ?dromaeosaurs mentioned onlist by HP Mickey Mortimer.
"Arctometatarsalians did the same, but they changed to long-distance pursuing, as indicated by their feet. They were already present at the same time as dromaeosaurids – there are the troodontid Koparion, some ornithomimid teeth <and that Kimmeridgian finger from Great Britain -- thanks to the list I mention it in the published version> and the probable tyrannosaurid Stokesosaurus (Chure & Madsen, 1998) from the Late Jurassic of the USA, and if Stokesosaurus is a tyrannosaurid, then Iliosuchus from the Middle Jurassic of Great Britain, where troodontid teeth have been found (Keesey, 1999, Poling [ed.], 1997 – 1999), is one, too (Keesey, 1999, Poling, /clado/tyrannosauroidea.html <see below>). Therefore, eumaniraptorans, including maniraptorans, must have diversified at that time or even earlier. <...> Early Jurassic and even Late Triassic bird tracks are appearing all over the world (e. g. Chatterjee, 1997, Gierlinski, 1996 <another paper, not the 'feather' impressions>). Surely somewhere in the reader’s head there is lurking the idea that Protoavis might fit this picture <...>. Protoavis is a problem because of its poor preservation, and it is probably a chimera, but it is very difficult to explain which part comes from which animal. For instance, the "hand" looks much like an herrerasaur foot – but only the first three digits: "metacarpal IV" bears no phalanges, and no similar bone occurs in any known herrerasaur, as is the case with the "quill knobs" on "metacarpals II and III". There is no explanation for the (though unfused) furcula and the keeled sternum. Additionally, the chimera argument doesn’t really work – if only a single bone attributed to Protoavis is avian, then there was a Triassic bird (Chatterjee, 1997). The braincase at least is surely tetanurine (Currie, 1995)."
Protoavis quite clearly has a common exit for the 3 branches of cranial nerve V. Bad for me or bad for that braincase?
"Oviraptorosaurs must also have originated at that time, but the fossil record keeps silent. <Not entirely true, see below.> They seem to have changed their diet from fish to freshwater snails, which were abundant in Mongolia and Liáoníng/China, and (like many birds later) from underwater flying to wading (Chirostenotes is often said to have had wading adaptations). A diet of mainly freshwater snails is probably the best explanation for their odd skulls as well for the protruding premaxillary teeth of Caudipteryx which might have been used in pulling snails out of mud.
Rahonavis (Forster et al., 1998) states a problem for my ideas about theropod phylogeny. Its tail looks just like that of Archaeopteryx, but the scapula-coracoid joint was mobile, indicating that Rahonavis should be closer to ornithothoracines and confuciusornithids than alvarezsaurids. The quill knobs are so small that I’m sure no one has really looked for them in Archaeopteryx, so they might be a general eumaniraptoran feature. Someone should find the skull and a hand (where most relevant apomorphies are located), without which I cannot place Rahonavis accurately."
Still true. :-( Is it likely that a mobile scapula-coracoid joint can evolve twice (or be a misinterpretation)? In this case Rahonavis could belong to Archaeopterygiformes... MORE FOSSILS!!!
Yandangornis and Avimimus are probably maniraptorans because of their similarities to oviraptorosaurs and alvarezsaurids.
The 7th specimen of Archaeopteryx was made the holotype of the new species A. bavarica based only on its ossified and fused sternum indicating maturity in contrast to the other specimens in which the sterna were not ossified (the mysterious 8th specimen has not been described yet). I think the bone reported as the sternum is just one (the left or the right one) and should be rotated by 90°, which would explain its odd shape (for a theropod) and small size (the gastralia don’t reach it according to [Poling [ed.], 1998, /lungs.html]). Therefore, the 7th specimen may turn out to be immature (it is a ?neotheropod synapomorphy that the sterna fuse in adults) and the separate species A. bavarica to be unnecessary."
Has been contested onlist.
Guide to the cladogram (shortened)
"Ornithodira: endothermy, insectivory, parasagittal limb posture, bipedality, ?jumping locomotion, hairlike feathers?
Dinosauriformes: running locomotion
Neotheropoda or earlier: furcula? (not ossified – like the sternum – in e. g. compsognathids, attached to the scapula by ligaments and therefore frequently falling off before burial, which explains its rare preservation [Makovicky & Currie, 1998]; the ventral ends of the clavicles of Sinornithoides and probably Carnotaurus are broken – perhaps the middle part of a furcula has broken away [Mortimer, 2000 <in the List archives, can't find it now; it is properly cited in the published version>])
Neotetanurae: fused distal carpal 1 + 2 semilunate to permit the swivel wrist motion, 'terrible claws' ?convergently or ?primitively in Ornitholestes, Archaeopterygiformes (the 2nd toes of Archaeopteryx are hyperextendable, too [Paul, 1996]), Troodontidae, Confuciusornithidae (pers. obs. and Ji, Chiappe & Ji, 1999), recent seriema (Cariama cristata) and Rahonavis, the relationships of which are unknown beyond Eumaniraptora (Forster et al., 1998) – see below <above>. Sereno (1998) defends his usage of Neotetanurae by stressing the point that Avetheropoda was originally <PDW etc.> used not as a node-based taxon Allosaurus + Neornithes, but as a more inclusive stem-based one.
Carnosauria: nearly triangular antorbital fenestra, some features of hand, lower jaw, skull and pelvis according to Paul (1998); includes Allosauridae, Ornitholestidae, probably Sinraptoridae and Carcharodontosauridae. <Any comments???>
Eumaniraptora: nearly all cervical and dorsal vertebrae pneumatised to varying degrees, furcula boomerang-shaped, shoulder joint facing laterally, arms (theoretically) reaching at least the level of the ankles when fully extended downwards, semilunate carpal enlarged, metacarpal I reduced in length and metacarpal II long and slender to improve the opposability of the thumb, and probably wing and tail feathers.
Maniraptoriformes: separate exit for the cranial nerve V1, articulars and quadrates pneumatized.
Maniraptora: tail short (no more than about 30 vertebrae) and not stiffened distally, quadrate extensive-ly pneumatised and double-headed, cervical, dorsal, sacral, and proximal caudal vertebrae pneumatised, ornithoid eggshell (Varricchio et al., 1997)
Archaeopterygidae (newly defined as Archaeopteryx > Deinonychus) <may be redundant again>
Oviraptorosauria: loss of maxillary and dentary teeth, skull boxlike and adapted to crush ?freshwater snails;includes Oviraptoridae, Caenagnathidae, Microvenator, Caudipteryx and probably Protarchaeopteryx (still not completely prepared). Thecospondylus with its ?7 or more sacrals from the Isle of Wight and a femur from the same site (Naish, 2000) also are probably oviraptorosaurian. Keesey (2000, /taxa/coelurosauria.html) mentions an oviraptorosaurian caudal vertebra from the US late Jurassic.
Metornithes: loss of jugular ascending process, carpometacarpus
'Dryptosaurus etc.' = Dryptosaurus + Deltadromeus. Holtz (1996) refers to this group as Dryptosauridae, but that term has already been used for Dryptosaurus + Diplotomodon. Dryptosauria is suggested as and alternative name for the group.
'Unenlagia etc.' = Unenlagia, ?Megaraptor, ?Unquillosaurus. Megaraptor and Unquillosaurus may be junior synonyms of Unenlagia (Keesey, 1999).
Kakuru, a tibia and a toe phalanx from the Early Cretaceous of Australia, could be an alvarezsaurid, because it resembles the respective parts of Avimimus which are thought to be mononykine (if Avimimus is indeed a chimera <obviously not>). A probable Early Cretaceous caenagnathid is known from Victoria/Australia, and there is a possible oviraptorid sacrum and ilium from the same time of Brazil (33), which I guess to be possibly alvarezsaurid (for biogeographical reasons)."
The answer to the title question is 'No – otherwise I wouldn’t ask.' Archaeopteryx lacks any bird synapomorphies as well as synapomorphies shared by arctometatarsalians, oviraptorosaurs and birds. Oviraptorosauria and Metornithes form (by definition) Maniraptora, which is diagnosed by short tails lacking a transition point, backbones pneumatized back to the middle of the tail, and extensively pneumatized double-headed quadrates. Maniraptora and Arctometatarsalia form Maniraptoriformes, whose synapomorphies include an extra exit for the cranial nerve V1 and pneumatized quadrates and articulars. Archaeopterygidae and Dromaeosauridae are confirmed as closest relatives; the taxon containing both is suggested to be called Archaeopterygiformes. Archaeopterygiformes and Maniraptoriformes form (by definition) Eumaniraptora, to whose synapomorphies can be added boomerang-shaped furculae (reversed in Dromaeosauridae sensu stricto) and probably wing and tail feathers. The relationships of Rahonavis and Protoavis remain unclear. <...> – The separate species Archaeopteryx bavarica for the 7th specimen is probably unnecessary.
<Have become more now and are published in different layout.>
J. Ackerman: Dinosaurs Take Wing, National Geographic July 1998, 74 – 99
B. B. Britt, P. J. Makovicky, J. Gauthier & N. Bonde: Postcranial pneumatization in Archaeopteryx, Nature 395, 374 – 376 (24 September 1998)
P. Burgers & L. M. Chiappe: The wing of Archaeopteryx as a primary thrust generator, Nature 399, 60 – 62 (6 May 1999)S. Chatterjee: The Rise of Birds. 225 Million Years of Evolution, Johns Hopkins University Press 1997Chen P., Dong Z. & Zhen S.: An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian formation of China, Nature 391, 147 – 152 (8 January 1998)
L. M. Chiappe, M. A. Norell & J. M. Clark: The skull of a relative of the stem-group bird Mononykus, Nature 392, 275 – 278 (19 March 1998)D. J. Chure & J. H. Madsen: On the presence of furculae in some non-maniraptoran theropods, JVP 16(3), 537 – 577 (September 1996)
D. J. Chure & J. H. Madsen: An unusual braincase (?Stokesosaurus clevelandi) from the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, Utah (Morrison Formation; Late Jurassic), JVP 18(1), 115 – 125 (March 1998)P. J. Currie: New information on the anatomy and relationships of Dromaeosaurus albertensis (Dinosauria: Theropoda), JVP 15(3), 576 – 591 (September 1995)
K. Ebel: On the origin of flight in Archaeopteryx and in pterosaurs, same magazine as (21) 202(3), 269 – 285 (December 1996)
A. Elźanowski & P. Wellnhofer: Cranial morphology of Archaeopteryx: Evidence from the seventh skeleton, JVP 16(1), 81 – 94 (March 1996)A. Feduccia: The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press 1996
C. A. Forster, S. D. Sampson, L. M. Chiappe & D. M. Krause: The Theropod Ancestry of Birds: New Evidence from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar, Science 279, 1915 – 1919 (20 March 1998)
E. Frey & D. M. Martill: A possible oviraptorosaurid [sic] theropod from the Santana formation (Lower Cretaceous, ?Albian) of Brazil, N. Jb. Geol. Paläont. Monatshefte 1995 [which month?], 397 – 412 (I’ve only read the abstract in Zentralblatt für Geologie und Paläontologie: Teil II – Paläontologie 5/6 , 367.)
G. Gierliński: Avialian theropod tracks from the Early Jurassic strata of Poland, Zubia 14, 79 – 87 (1996) (I’ve only read the abstract in Zentralblatt für Geologie und Paläontologie: Teil II – Paläontologie 5/6 , 337 <so far>.)
J. Hecht: Let me take you under my wing…, New Scientist (25 April, 1998), 22Hou L., L. D. Martin, Zhou Z., A. Feduccia & Zhang F.: A diapsid skull in a new species of the primitive bird Confuciusornis, 399, 679 – 682 (17 June 1999)
Ji Q., L. M. Chiappe & Ji S.: A new Late Mesozoic confuciusornithid bird from China, JVP 19(1), 1 – 7 (March 1999)T. M. Keesey: The Dinosauricon, dinosaur.umbc.edu = www.dinosauricon.com = dinosauricon.com
P. J. Makovicky & P. J. Currie: The presence of a furcula in tyrannosaurid theropods, and its phylogenetic and functional implications, JVP 18(1), 143 – 149 (March 1998)
D. Naish: A small, unusual theropod (Dinosauria) femur from the Wealden Group (Lower Cretaceous) of the Isle of Wight, England, N. Jb. Geol. Paläont. Monatshefte 2000 (4), 217 – 234 (April 2000)M. A. Norell, P. Makovicky & J. M. Clark: A Velociraptor wishbone, Nature 389, 447 (10 October, 1997)
M. A. Norell, P. J. Makovicky & J. M. Clark: A new troodontid theropod from Ukhaa Tolgod, Mongolia, JVP 20(1), 7 – 11 (March 2000)
D. Normile: New Feathered Dino Firms Up Bird Links, Science 288, 1721 (9 June 2000)F. E. Novas: Anatomy of Patagonykus puertai (Theropoda, Avialae, Alvarezsauridae), from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(1), 137 – 166 (March 1997)
H. Osmólska & T. Maryańska: Mongolian Oviraptorids, The Dinosaur Report Spring 1997, 1, 8 & 9
G. S. Paul: Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, Simon and Schuster/New York Academy of Sciences 1988G. S. Paul & G. D. Leahy: Terramegathermy in the Time of the Titans: Restoring the Metabolics of Colossal Dinosaurs, 177 – 198 in: G. D. Rosenberg & D. L. Wolberg (ed.), R. S. Spencer ("Series Editor"): Dino Fest. Proceedings of a conference for the general public – The Paleontological Society Special Publication No. 7, The Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1994
G. S. Paul: Dromaeosaurid Archaeopteryx, www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/dromey.htm (1996)G. S. Paul: Paul’s comments about Feduccia’s bird digit paper, www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/paulfed.htm (1997)
J. Poling: Feathers, scutes and the origins of birds, www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm (1996)
J. Poling (ed.): Responses to dinosaur lung claims, www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/lungs.html (1998)
J. Poling (ed.): Skippy the dinosaur, www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/scipionyx.html (1998)
J. H. Reichholf: Die Vogelfeder – ein Eiweiß-Endlager?, kosmos 4/97, 68 – 71 <Or, Why it is useful to know German. =8-) >P. C. Sereno: A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher-level taxonomy of Dinosauria, Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen 210(1), 41 – 83 (October 1998)
H. D. Sues: On Chirostenotes, a Late Cretaceous oviraptorosaur (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from western North America, JVP 17(4), 698 – 716 (December 1997)
D. J. Varricchio, F. Jackson, J. J. Borkowski & J. R. Horner: Nest and egg clutches of the dinosaur Troodon formosus and the evolution of avian reproductive traits, Nature 385, 247 – 250 (16 January 1997)
Xu X., Tang Z. & Wang X.: A therizinosauroid dinosaur with integumentary structures from China, Nature 399, 305 – 354 (27 May 1999)
Xu X., Wang X. & Wu X.: A dromaeosaurid dinosaur with a filamentous integument from the Yixian Formation of China, Nature 401, 262 – 266 (16. 9. 1999)Zhao X. & Xu X.: The oldest coelurosaurian [sic], Nature 394, 234f. (16 July, 1998)
Despite that there are probably some similarities, and I’d like to read it, I’ve never had the opportunity to read
R. A. Thulborn: The avian relationships of Archaeopteryx, and the origin of birds, because I have no possibility to get the Zoological Journal of the Zoological Society of London (82, 119 – 158 ) anywhere near my hands <this may have changed>. I’ve copied this reference from Feduccia (1996), and I disagree with its cladogram reprinted there.
The extra exit for the V1 nerve in maniraptoriforms has first been recognized in
R. T. Bakker, M. Williams & P. J. Currie: Nanotyrannus, a new genus of pygmy tyrannosaur, from the latest Cretaceous of Montana, Hunteria 1(5), 1 – 30, which for me is unavailable, too <maybe no more>; a cladogram from there is reprinted in Feduccia (1996), from where I’ve got the reference, but except that I only have a popular article about Nanotyrannus and its V1 nerve not quoting anything."
Oh boy, this post took me the whole day.
=8-) =8-) =8-)