New fossil might be oldest known bird

This artist's rendition released by Nature shows what scientists at Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing are dubbing "Xiaotingia zhengi." The discovery of its fossilized remains helped scientists propose an evolutionary tree that suggests archaeopteryx is not a bird.
AP Photo/Nature, Xing Lida and Liu Yi
This artist's rendition released by Nature shows what scientists at Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing are dubbing "Xiaotingia zhengi." The discovery of its fossilized remains helped scientists propose an evolutionary tree that suggests archaeopteryx is not a bird.
Posted July 27, 2011, at 8:48 p.m.
Last modified July 28, 2011, at 12:27 p.m.
This undated photo released by Nature shows the fossilized skeleton of what scientists at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing are dubbing "Xiaotingia zhengi." Its discovery helped scientists propose an evolutionary tree that suggests archaeopteryx is not a bird.
AP Photo/Nature
This undated photo released by Nature shows the fossilized skeleton of what scientists at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing are dubbing "Xiaotingia zhengi." Its discovery helped scientists propose an evolutionary tree that suggests archaeopteryx is not a bird.

LOS ANGELES — The famous winged and feathered fossil Archaeopteryx has been knocked off its perch as the oldest known bird by a newly discovered Chinese relative that has been dubbed Xiaotingia zhengi, according to new research. Instead, Archaeopteryx was most likely a dinosaur.

Archaeopteryx, discovered in Germany in 1861, lived during the late Jurassic period — about 150 million years ago. On the basis of its part-bird part-reptile features, paleontologists placed it in the avialan family, which includes the earliest ancestors of birds. Avialans are related to deinonychosaurs — birdlike dinosaurs such as Anchiornis and Microraptor — that lived during the late Jurassic and subsequent Cretaceous periods.

The new report, authored by Xing Xu, a paleontologist at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, and colleagues, described the anatomy of the newly found Xiaotingia, a 2-pound creature with feathers, sharp claws, fewer than 10 teeth and a small shallow snout like Archaeopteryx. It may have lived in the western Liaoning region in China during the late Jurassic period, the authors reported online Wednesday in the journal Nature.

The paleontologists then built a family tree of Archaeopteryx, Xiaotingia, avialans and deinonychosaurs by comparing features of the ancient creatures’ anatomy. They noted that the skulls of Archaeopteryx and Xiaotingia were very different than those of the early birds and far more similar to those of deinonychosaurs. Based on this and an analysis of other traits, such as structure of the pelvis, toes and legs, they concluded that Archaeopteryx was a deinonychosaur, not an early bird.

This new order on the family tree only came out if the scientists included Xiaotingia in the comparison.

This is not the first time Archaeopteryx’s place in bird evolution has been questioned. All of its birdlike features — its plumage, wishbone and three-fingered hands — also have been found in nonbird dinosaurs. And a 2010 study suggested its metabolism was similar to a velociraptor’s and that its heavy bones may have impeded it from flying.

But other experts said the case for shifting Archaeopteryx from bird to dinosaur status is not yet written in stone.

“We’re still figuring things out,” said Julia Clarke, a paleontologist at the University of Texas, Austin, who was not involved in the study.

Added Luis Chiappe, the director of the Dinosaur Institute at the Natural History Museum in Los Angeles, “I’m not 100 percent convinced of the results. We need to be cautious about embracing this proposal.” Some of the fossils used to build the new tree are very fragmented, he said: Xiaotingia’s remains, for example, were spread across five broken slabs of shale.

Also, the fossil’s exact origins are hazy. The specimen — the only one of its kind — was bought from a dealer who could not provide accurate information about where it was found. The authors, however, wrote that the color, texture and size of the bones suggest they all belonged to the same animal and that the fossil is not a forgery.

SEE COMMENTS →

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business
ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business