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

[Jarno Peschier <jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl>]

At 10:03 16-01-96 -0500, you wrote:
>When I stationed outside London in the late 80's there was a big flap over
>this book with articles written in Nature refuting its claims.  They also put
>the British specimen on display in the the Museum of Natural History in South
>Kensington.  A detailed guide to the the speciamen was included in the
>display refuting H&W's claims.
>
>There have been several Archaeopteryx specimens uncovered.  The most recent
>one was within the last 20 years.  One specimen was originally miss
>identified as a coelosaur but properly identified in the early 70's.  Allof
>the specimens have feather imprints and most have a discernable furcula.  

Mmm, this seems to compare to the info in the book and other info I had
heard/read about Archaeopterix. A total of 5 specimens, one misidentified
(the one from Haarlem, here in Holland, reidentified as Archaeopterix in the
1960's (?) by Ostrom (?)), two with imprints and those only the two
mentioned in the book (from 1861 and 1877). Only the "al lot of the
specimens have feather imprints" seems to clash here. Is the rest of my info
about Archaeopterix outdated?

>The experts think that the H&W book was cranky and it has descended into a
>well deserved oblivion.

Well, I'm curious about the other replies. Anyway, it is a rather
interesting book. True or not...

          Jarno Peschier, jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl, 2:2802/245.1@Fido
      162:100/100.1@Agora, 74:3108/102.1@QuaZie, 27:2331/214.1@SigNet
___________________________________________________________________________
     What was was, before was was was? Before was was was, was was is.