Archaeopteryx-Bird or Dinosaur?

[HD-man]

The skeleton is just not anymore birdlike then most dromaeosaur.

Actually, it is (See Chapter 10: http://www.evolbiol.ru/large_files/dinosaurs2009.pdf ), hence why "Archaeopteryx is still widely recognised by palaeontologists as the first bird" ( http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2013/aug/08/dinosaurs-fossils ).

[Trisdino]

Independently? no, of course not. They obviously have a common ancestor. But the fact of the matter is that Archaeopteryx is no more birdlike than microraptor. It being able to fly does not count.

[Newt]

Please clarify what you mean by "birdlike".  Are you talking about any specific characters that Microraptor shares with crown-group birds but that Archaeopteryx lacks?  I only know the basics about Microraptor's anatomy, but that's enough- it clearly was adapted to a fundamentally different type of flight than the style shared by Archaeopteryx and Aves. 

You could posit that Microraptor is a secondarily flighted development of a secondarily flightless member of the flighted (Archaeopteryx - Aves) clade to explain that fundamentally different flight style. This wouldn't be unprecedented; Whiting et al. posited just such a scenario for stick insects.  However, as far as I am aware, no one has suggested such a phylogeny.

Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are each basal members of closely-related clades, and so have a lot in common, but as far as I can see Archaeopteryx is as clearly an avialean as Microraptor is a dromaeosaur. 

Again, to repeat what HD-man pointed out, "bird" is a term of convenience, without a proper phylogenetic definition.  If you wish to restrict "bird" to the clade Aves, then yes, Archaeopteryx is not a bird, and nor are Hesperornis or Ichthyornis or any other basal members of the bird group.  I have never come across such a restricted use of the term.

[HD-man]

Independently? no, of course not. They obviously have a common ancestor.

No offense, but the above quote doesn't make much sense. What are you talking about when you say "Independently"? What does any of that have to do w/what I said in my previous post?

But the fact of the matter is that Archaeopteryx is no more birdlike than microraptor. It being able to fly does not count.

1stly, make up your mind. Is Archaeopteryx "not anymore birdlike then most dromaeosaur" or "no more birdlike than micro raptor" (b/c last I checked, "most dromaeosaur" =/= "micro raptor").

2ndly, I literally just showed you how the skeleton of Archaeopteryx is more "birdlike" than that of any dromaeosaurid when I said "See Chapter 10" (which makes me think you didn't even open the associated link).

3rdly, while I never said anything about powered flight, I don't see why it shouldn't count, given that it's something that 1) all birds inherited (& in some cases, lost) from a common ancestor, & 2) all non-bird dinos lack. As indicated by my previous post, the scientists who study Archaeopteryx think it should count.

[wings]

Please clarify what you mean by "birdlike".  Are you talking about any specific characters that Microraptor shares with crown-group birds but that Archaeopteryx lacks?  I only know the basics about Microraptor's anatomy, but that's enough- it clearly was adapted to a fundamentally different type of flight than the style shared by Archaeopteryx and Aves. 

You could posit that Microraptor is a secondarily flighted development of a secondarily flightless member of the flighted (Archaeopteryx - Aves) clade to explain that fundamentally different flight style. This wouldn't be unprecedented; ...However, as far as I am aware, no one has suggested such a phylogeny.

Actually Paul has proposed such hypothesis in the Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology and his book Dinosaurs of the air . Perhaps Trisdino has based his idea on Paul's study (which Paul thinks animal such as Sinornithosaurus has more advanced flight-related features like large ossified sternum, ossified sternal ribs and uncinate processes, well developed posterolateral flange on the proximal bone of the central finger which Archaeopteryx lacks or not yet found). So Trisdino's observation on flight adaptation isn't entirely baseless. I guess it would be hard to determine the difference in their "flight styles" yet as we don't quite have the technology at this moment to do so (for example we have no idea how Archaeopteryx flapped their wings (upstrokes) if Senter's study is correct that Archaeopteryx can't raise their arms above horizontal).

[Newt]

Thanks, wings. I was not aware of Paul's hypothesis.

[Trisdino]

A bunch of quotes have been jumbled up apparently. My previous post was not referring to the one before it, though at the time of me clicking the "post" button, it was..

[HD-man]

A bunch of quotes have been jumbled up apparently. My previous post was not referring to the one before it, though at the time of me clicking the "post" button, it was..

My bad for assuming then.