Re: The new Archaeopteryx from... Wyoming?

[Jeff Hecht <jeff@jeffhecht.com>]

At 3:44 PM -0600 12/1/05, Tim Williams wrote:
>Frank Bliss wrote:
>
>>As I have always said, material from private collectors eventually make it 
>>into museum's hands.
>
>Let's hope you are always right.  In the case of this specimen, it is only 
>through the good graces of the owner that it was given over to a museum.

The story is pretty complex and many details are rather mysterious. The 
previous owner was a former employee of one of the Solnhofen quarries who had a 
private collection of Solnhofen artifacts. When he died, his wife found the 
Archaeopteryx among that collection - he had not told her what it was, and it's 
not even clear if she had seen it. It had already been prepared, and he could 
have had it for many years. He also may have acquired it from someone else, 
perhaps as part of their collection. (It's likely that we will never know how 
he got it -- but we'll surely wonder if there were others like it out there.) 
Burkhard Pohl found out about it and arranged the sale to a third party who 
wishes to remain anonymous, but pledged to make it available. It's being cast 
now at Senckenberg, and then the original will be sent to the Wyoming Dinosaur 
Center. 

Pohl also organized tests to verify that the fossil had not been altered; the 
preparer had added some material to the edge of the slab, but that did not 
affect the fossil itself, which is on an uncracked slab. The images are 
impressive. I've seen them in both regular light and one with ultraviolet 
illumination that increases the contrast between stone and bone. 

[clipped] 

>Hmmm... I'm not sure it challenges the *monophyly* of Aves, given that 
>Aves/Avialae is defined as a clade, and so must be monophyletic.  It may 
>change the composition of Avialae/Aves, however - but that's no biggie.  A lot 
>of folks have been expecting deinonychosaurs to one day fall inside the 
>Avialae clade.
>
>The phylogenetic tree has an _Archaeoptery_+_Rahonavis_ clade as sister taxon 
>to a clade comprising deinonychosaurs and _Confuciusornis_ (with dromaeosaurs 
>closer to _Confuciusornis_ than troodontoids).  In fact, _Microraptor_ and 
>_Confuciusornis_ are recovered as sister taxa!  As mentioned in Jeff's New 
>Scientist article (and no doubt Mickey M. would agree) the analysis probably 
>needs to be fleshed out with more birds.  The article actually concedes this: 
>"Although this particular result may be due to the limited sampling of avian 
>taxa...".
>
Together with Pete Makovicky's analysis of Buiteraptor of a few weeks back, 
this shows that early avian evolution was very complex -- more a very tangled 
thicket of evolutionary sprouts than a classic tree with clearly defined 
branches. Greg Paul was on the right track when he suggested that dromeosaurs 
were flightless birds, but he now says it probably wasn't that simple. They may 
have been evolving and losing flight far more easily than anyone had thought. 
Juveniles may have been stronger flyers than adults -- once their bones 
solidified -- because their arms may have grown faster than their bodies. 

We need a lot more analysis, particularly with birds added to the picture, as 
well as more fossils. It should be fun for all. 

-- 
Jeff Hecht, science & technology writer
jeff@jeffhecht.com
Boston Correspondent: New Scientist magazine
Contributing Editor: Laser Focus World
525 Auburn St., Auburndale, MA 02466 USA
v. 617-965-3834; fax 617-332-4760