Re: Archaeopterix? What Archaeopterix....?!

[Stan Friesen <swf@ElSegundoCA.ATTGIS.COM>]

 From: Jarno Peschier <jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl>
 > The other one is "Achaeopteryx, The Primordial Bird. A Case of Fossil
 > Forgery." by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (Christopher Davies
 > Publishers Ltd., Swansea, 1986, ISBN 0-7154-0665-5). I saw it in a
 > second-hand bookshop and simply could not leave without it, because it
 > seemed so interesting....
 > 
 > Both authors are actually astronomers, but they present a seemingly (?)
 > airtight case proving Archaeopterix never existed! 

This is old stuff.  They were thoroughly wrong, and do not even
understand fossil preparation procedures as practiced at the time
the early specimens were found, let alone comparative anatomy.

 > All 5 specimens are
 > simply Compsognathus remains. 

Not a chance.  The detailed *bone* anatomy is quite different, and
even the misidentified specimen would eventually have been removed
from Compsognathus - even *if* the two feathered specimens had never
been found.  (Actually, I think there are now 6 specimens). It
might not have been recognized as abird wiithout the feathers, but
it would have been recognized as a different genus, and probably
different family.

Differences include:
        One elongate finger on each hand (digit 4???)
        Hyper-extensible inner toe (similar to that of Dromaeosaurus,
                                    but much smaller).
        Pubis is rotated backwards (as in birds).

 > The three that are even without feather
 > imprints aren't mentioned much in the book (they are hardly mentioned at
 > all) but the other two famous specimens with feather imprints are proven to
 > be forgeries.

No, they are *alleged* to be forgeries, based on misunderstandings
and misinterpretations. (They apparently mistook the shelac used
to *preserve* the specimen for *paint*).


swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com              sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.