ARCHAEOPTERIX and feathered Dinosaurier

caudipteryx is current descripted to be secundr flightless byrd in the line of aves..... beipiasaurus is current descripted to be a member of the famile therizinosaura ..the familie of therizinosaura are descripted in the line between aviale and aves .... ...microraptor,sinornitosaurus,protoarchaeopterix are members of the familie droemosaur.....sinosauropteryx is a member of the compsognathidae..confuciusornis is a flying byrd.... caudipteryx (flightless) and beipiaosaurus (flightless) are in the line aviale and or aves..all others are descripted dinosaurs..caudipteryx (flightless byrd) handskeleton is relativ short...pitt[This message has been edited by pitt, 09-16-2003]

Nope Caudipteryx is a basal oviraptorosaur. Therizinosaurs are not in Avilae.

Nope Caudipteryx is a basal oviraptorosaur. Therizinosaurs are not in Avilae.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------you are right that caudipteryx is a basal oviraptorsaur....but New phylogentic analysis confirm the position of the familie oviraptorsaur to aves....if the position of oviraptorsaur are now NEW descripted aves, so the basal oviraptor caudipteryx is a byrd where is evoluted later in a flightless byrd....caudipteryx with RELATIV modern feathers and tendenz to a pygostyl is descripted from scientist to be a sister to the oviraptor nomingia gobiensis where has a pygostyl....the foundplace of nomingia gobiensis allow not preservation of feathers..the yixan formation allow it...so we dont know nomingia gobiensis has feathers but its very possible..dr peter wellnhofer a specialist for flying reptils,dinosaurs and archaeopterix is one of some scientist where believe and descript it..but i agree there are some other meanings too..pitt

No, Oviraptorosauria is not in Aves.Try this link: Dinosauricon – Dinosaurios

Simply pointing out that basing an hypothesis on
the morphology is perhaps jumping the gun.Find a disjointed chicken skeleton and, without knowing
that it is a chicken, one would have trouble deciding whether
or not the thing could fly or just run.

Currently rather confused of trying to attack or defend interpretations based on some fossils that I have not seen myself.Almost everybody knows what Archaeopteryx look like. The Cretaceous birds (Ichthyornis, Hesperornis) are also well known. I have the Protoavis paper by Chatterjee and the Microraptor gui paper by Ji et al., and I have the Nat Geo issue featuring Caudipteryx, Confusiusornis and Sinosauropteryx. So I know how these guys look. However I am still ignorant about all other fossils you mention here. Where can I see how these fossils actually look like? Original papers would be nice.Also, anybody using cladistics might want to be cautious about dino-bird supporters planting velociraptors (extant late Cretaceous) as outgroup then tracing the 'evolution from dinos to birds' all he way to Archaeopteryx living several million years before... thereby creating a cladogram with inverted chronology, with the earlier forms in the terminal position! Show me a dromaeosaur from times before Archaeopteryx (contemporary or slightly later will be fine too) and I shall convert.Off topic: maybe we can build a productive discussion over these. Maybe like making a bird evolution website that has more illustrations/fossil photos than the ones available.

the problem is, a good example is caudipteryx..caudipteryx is a fossil find in absolut great condition and complete and still famous experts dont know exactly to descript him...a secomd flighless byrd or a dino...it confirm only the relationship between both groups..here is a link and a descrption from a expert where has own meanings to caudipteryx....but he defend his position in this link , other scientists has other meanings..but very intresting...http://www.dinodata.net/Dd/Namelist/Tabc/C195.htmforget not.... fossilfinds of dinosaur ( coelorosaur) before archaeopterix are rare worldwide and complete finds with soft structures are nearly unknown before archi...the yixan formation is nearly icredible unique in the world to discover dinosaurs or byrds in this condition ......here is a link with picturres from sinornithosaurus..http://research.amnh.org/vertpaleo/dinobird.htmlpittps... i have send you a e-mail...<[This message has been edited by pitt, 09-18-2003]

here are some new informations from the chinise fossil byrd jeholornis prima..... www.springerlink.compitt edited url to fix page width[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 11-04-2003][This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 11-04-2003]

herr pitt, the link asks for a username and password...anyway thanks for the info on sinornithosaurus.

"What about Protoavis? It's older than all those dinosaurs and might be the real ancestor of Archeopteryx. Besides, coelurosaurs and dromaeosaurs were running animals with large hind legs and small arms. How do they evolve wings or flight? I'm in the Feduccia camp, 'birds are not from dinos'"Protoavis texensis is almost assuredly a faunal aggregate of material which is not conspecific, ergo, it is not a valid taxon but a chimera. Moreover, assuming avian status for Protoavis is not the disproof of theropod origin which Martin & Feduccia have maintained. Secondly, to categorize theropods as obligate cursors with disproportionate fore and hind limbs is entirely incorrect. As far as non-avian Archosauria are concerned, Theropoda possessed the greatest fore/hind limb ratio of them all, indeed, in Maniraptoriformes, we see a persistent pattern of elongation of the fore limbs. In Sinornithosaurus millenii, the fore limbs are around 80% the length of the hind limbs. And lastly, it is not advisable to be in the Feduccia camp. The evidence which supports the theropod derivation of Avialae is overwhelming.Vindex Urvogel[This message has been edited by Vindex Urvogel, 11-04-2003]

"Try Nomingia gobiensis. Had a pygostyle."It is questionable if Nomingia actually possessed a pygostyle, as claimed by Barsbold et al (2000). The structure identified in this research as a pygostyle homologue is first and foremost not particularly similar to the pygostyle seen in Pygostylia, and I feel that at the moment a pygostyle remains a valid synapomorphy of Avialae more derived than the urvogel.Vindex Urvogel------------------
"From its remains, Archaeopteryx might be considered a reptile in the disguise of a bird."Gerhard Heilmann, 1926[This message has been edited by Vindex Urvogel, 11-04-2003]

"I'm in the Feduccia camp, 'birds are not from dinos'"May one ask, what clade it is you think Avialae is descended from?Vindex Urvogel------------------
"From its remains, Archaeopteryx might be considered a reptile in the disguise of a bird."Gerhard Heilmann, 1926

"Tridactyl manus with manual digits IV, V lost,
Manual digit I robust,
Manual digit II longest in hand,
Manual digit III slender, with phalanges 3, 4 both short,
Semilunate carpal,
V-shaped furcula present,
Straplike scapula,
Functionally tridactyl pes with retroverted hallux,
Advanced mesotarsal ankle,
Splintlike metatarsal V,
Ascending process on astragalus,
Slender fibula,
Femur with orthogonally inturned head,
Perforate acetabulum,
Pelvis moderately opisthopubic,
Pubis long, rodlike with distal expansion,
Bladelike ilium,
Sacrum with at least 5 vertebrae (A. has six),
Long tail, distally stiffened,
Jaws with teeth."While by no means an opponent of the theropod origin of birds, I must point out that some these traits are either plesiomorphic, or not properly attributed to non-avialian theropods. Plesiomorphies listed here include:a)Mesotarsal ankle (plesiomorphic in all ornithodirans)b)Jaws with teeth(plesiomorphic in most vertebrates)c)Distally stiffened tail (plesiomorphic in Coelurosauria)d)Distal expansion of the pubis is only synapomorphic if this expansion lacks a cranial element.f)Acetabulum perforate (plesiomorphic in Dinosauria, and indeed, in derived archosaurs as a whole)The principal character listed which remains a valid synapomorphy of Avialae is the anisodactyl pes, which thus far has not been reliably established in any non-avialian theropod.Vindex Urvogel[This message has been edited by Vindex Urvogel, 11-04-2003]

uh, "plesiomorphic" what does that mean?

Plesiomorphic: in cladistics, this term describes primitive or generalized characteristics that arose early in the evolutionary history of a taxonomic group. These will be very widespread and will therefore not help in dividing the group into lower-level taxa.See Palaeos: Page not found