Archaeopteryx-Bird or Dinosaur?

[Concavenator]

Hey guys!
I'm doing an Archaeopteryx picture and I'd like to know if Archaeopteryx was a bird or a maniraptoran.Thanks for the help.

[tyrantqueen]

Since when were the two mutually exclusive? Birds are maniraptoran dinosaurs.

[Concavenator]

Since when were the two mutually exclusive? Birds are maniraptoran dinosaurs.

Thanks,but I'd like to know if Archaeopteryx had a sickle claw.
Also,were troodontids and tyrannosaurs birds too? 

[Balaur]

Archaeopteryx had a sickle claw, ableit it is small.

No, troodontids and tyrannosaurs are not birds.

[tyrantqueen]

Also,were troodontids and tyrannosaurs birds too?

Er..no.

All birds are maniraptorans, but not all maniraptorans are birds (although some are very birdlike).

[CityRaptor]

Basically you should ask if the Urvogel was a bird or a non-avian Dinosaur. Benton ( 2005 ) and Xu et al. (2011 ) both classify it as an Avian Dinosaur.

[Gwangi]

This might help, take note of the sickle claw.

[postsaurischian]

  Niiice! I also want a Scott Hartman encyclopaedia book now.

[HD-man]

Also,were troodontids and tyrannosaurs birds too? 

No. For future reference, see the simplified theropod cladogram below. Also (in reference to your 1st post), last I checked ( http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2013/aug/08/dinosaurs-fossils ), "Archaeopteryx is still widely recognised by palaeontologists as the first bird. Effectively it is the first dinosaur that is closer to modern birds than to other dinosaurs and thus provides a clear picture of what an intermediate between the two would be like."

Archaeopteryx had a sickle claw, ableit it is small.

This might help, take note of the sickle claw.

No offense guys, but hyperextendable 2nd toe doesn't necessarily = sickle claw (E.g. Google "Seriema"). In this case, Archaeopteryx had the former, but not the latter. I figured that was obvious based on Hartman's skeletal.

[Gwangi]

No offense guys, but hyperextendable 2nd toe doesn't necessarily = sickle claw (E.g Google "Seriema"). In this case, Archaeopteryx had the former, but not the latter. I figured that was obvious based on Hartman's skeletal.

Being a bit pedantic there don't you think?  Your correction does not bother me, just that little jab about what is or is not obvious. I'm not a paleontologist, it was not an obvious distinction to me.

EDIT: "The Complete Dinosaur" calls it a sickle claw too so at least I can rest easy now knowing more educated people than me have referred to it as such and you are indeed just being pedantic.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hk5ecvEv0GcC&pg=PA368&lpg=PA368&dq=archeopteryx+sickle+claw&source=bl&ots=hBq6fGINAI&sig=RZ83hnbCvj8W0nL22AWX6U8o2Lk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hi4uU8S8BIKPrAGgkIHADQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=archeopteryx%20sickle%20claw&f=false

[HD-man]

Being a bit pedantic there don't you think? 

Sorry if it comes off that way, but I don't think it's pedantic, given that there's a big difference btwn just having a hyperextendable 2nd toe & having an actual sickle claw. Again, the Seriema's a good example of what I mean (See the Fowler et al. quote).

Quoting Fowler et al. (See "Supporting Information": http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028964 ):

Some comparison has been made between dromaeosaurids and the extant seriema birds (Cariamidae: Cariama cristata: crested seriema; Chunga burmeisteri: black-legged or Burmeister's seriema), as both possess an enlarged ungual on pes D-II. Seriemas are medium to large (Cariama stands about 90cm tall) long-legged ground birds native to South America, living in woodland or grassland, and feeding on fruits, insects, and small vertebrate prey (Miranda-Ribeiro. 1937; Burmeister, 1937; Sick, 1993). While the terrestrial habits and hooked D-II ungual appear favorable for initial comparison, further investigation reveals that dromaeosaurids and seriema birds are dissimilar in most aspects of their pes anatomy.

We studied two specimens (AMNH 1392, female: one foot; AMNH 12374, male: both feet; American Museum of Natural History, New York), four photographs, and four published figures (Miranda-Ribeiro, 1937; Burmeister 1937) of Cariama cristata feet. AMNH 1392 was precisely measured and included in the dataset for Fowler et al. (2009).

Firstly, the D-II talon of AMNH 1392, while certainly exhibiting unusually high curvature, is only slightly larger (4%) than the D-III claw (an observation confirmed from other specimens and photos). While this is within a typical range for falconids, and higher than expected for passerines, it is hardly similar to the hypertrophied condition seen in Accipitridae (n=17, mean=36.5% larger, s.d.=16.8%; Fowler et al., 2009) and Dromaeosauridae (n=7, mean=57.8% larger, s.d.=24.6%). Indeed, the seabirds puffins (Fratercula) and skuas (Stercorariidae) also possess an unusually hooked, yet not significantly enlarged claw on D-II (Peters & Gorgner, 1992), yet there have been no comparisons of these taxa with dromaeosaurids.

Furthermore, our observations found that the proportions of the Cariama hindlimb and pes are quite unlike dromaeosauridae, and typical of a cursorial bird, with an extremely elongated metatarsus, outer digits (especially D-IV) much shorter than D-III, shortened distal phalanges, and lengthened proximal phalanges. These findings are in agreement with other reports (Burmeister, 1937; Sick, 1993; Hallager, 2004) where the authors conclude that the short toes of seriemas are of little use in grasping prey. Instead, seriemas either hold prey in their beaks and beat them against the ground, or use their beaks to dismember their prey while it is pinned under the feet (Boyle, 1917; Burmeister 1937; Redford & Peters, 1986; Sick, 1993; Hallager, 2004), employing the D-II claw in a similar fashion to the pinning of small prey by accipitrids (Fowler et al., 2009). In this sense, use of the D-II talon by Seriema birds is similar to part of what we propose for Deinonychosauria, further illustrating that more hooked claws may be associated with active predation (although there are exceptions, see main manuscript section on owls).

Seriema D-II claws have also been observed being used to help gain purchase on tree trunks when the bird is finding a roosting spot, or returning to its nest (Sick, 1993). From this, it might be suggested that the claw serves in some small amount as an adaptation to trunk climbing. However, while some birds (such as woodpeckers) are clearly specialized for the task, all birds use their claws to aid in climbing, so the fact that Cariama does so is uninformative.

Interestingly, stability flapping has been previously observed for Cariama. Redford and Peters (1986) record "an aggressive encounter between two seriemas that repeatedly jumped at one another, feet first, flapping their wings for balance". This is not unexpected, since many birds engage in stability flapping to aid balance and positioning when their feet are engaged in some other activity.

Finally, it is worthy of note that despite the enlarged D-II claw typically being carried raised above the ground, a shallow D-II claw impression is preserved in the only published footprints of a seriema (Chunga burmeisteri; Gaston, 2003).

[Gwangi]

I'm not sure "sickle claw" is a scientific term even worth debating. The overall toe anatomy of the Archeopteryx appears much more similar to that of a dromaeosaur than it does to the seriema but I will concede that the claw itself does not approach the proportions of the typical dromaeosaur claws.

So would this mean we shouldn't refer to the D-II claw on other deinonychosaurs as sickle claws because they don't approach the proportions of the claw on Velociraptor or Deinonychus? For example...Troodon.



It is just hard to see where the line should be drawn on what is or is not a sickle claw. I always figured it applied to any claw held of the ground, just as a layman term really.

[HD-man]

I'm not sure "sickle claw" is a scientific term even worth debating.

What about "bigass claw" ( http://dml.cmnh.org/1997Aug/msg00540.html )?

So would this mean we shouldn't refer to the D-II claw on other deinonychosaurs as sickle claws because they don't approach the proportions of the claw on Velociraptor or Deinonychus? For example...Troodon.

That's a good point & I see what you mean now. To be fair, though, Troodon's D-II claw is larger & more highly curved the that of Achaeopteryx (See Fig. 4.5C, page 60: http://books.google.com/books?id=OUwXzD3iihAC&pg=PA61&dq=%22in+the+manner+of+dinosaurs+and%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BD8uU7S7KujG0QGviIGYBQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22in%20the%20manner%20of%20dinosaurs%20and%22&f=false ).

[Everything_Dinosaur]

A. lithographica shows characteristics of birds and Theropod dinosaurs, just twelve fossils known as and far as we are aware, Archaeopteryx definitely classified as a member of the Aves Order (birds), however, your interpretation can be as reptilian as you like, in terms of outward appearance of this bird, very difficult to agree a consensus as to appearance.

[Trisdino]

As stated above, they are not mutually exclusive. Birds are dinosaurs, and  more specifically, maniraptorans. But if what you meant to ask was "is Archaeopteryx a bird", then the answer is no. Archaeopteryx was a very bird like dinosaur, but it was a close relative, not an actual bird, or even an ancestor. This may seem confusing since it looks so much like a bird, but if you look at its skeleton, it is very different.

[HD-man]

But if what you meant to ask was "is Archaeopteryx a bird", then the answer is no.

Actually, it probably is (See my 1st post).

[Trisdino]

No, it really is not.  If you looked at its skeleton, without knowing that it had feathers, and then compared it to, say, a microraptor, you would not call this a bird. It was a close relative to birds, but it was not a member of aves.

[HD-man]

It was a close relative to birds, but it was not a member of aves.

I never said it was a member of Aves (I.e. Living birds), just that it was probably a member of Avialae (I.e. All birds, living & extinct). Last I checked (See the simplified theropod cladogram below), you don't have to be the former to be the latter.

[Trisdino]

It is currently placed there, yes, but several scientists now agree that it probably did not belong there. The skeleton is just not anymore birdlike then most dromaeosaur.

[Newt]

So, do you believe the bird-like adaptations for flight in Archaeopteryx evolved independently from those in (non-Archaeopteryx) birds?  Or that there is a broader clade of maniraptorans with bird-like flight adaptations, including both Archaeopteryx and "true" birds, but which itself does not deserve the name "birds"?

I have to admit I'm not caught up on the relevant literature, but the former seems unlikely to me, while the latter simply doesn't make sense. 

The skeleton is just not anymore birdlike then most dromaeosaur

If Archaeopteryx falls outside (dromaeosaurs + birds) on a cladogram, that's more an argument to include dromaeosaurs within birds than to exclude Archaeopteryx from birds, as I see it.