E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Xing Lida and Liu Yi
An artist's conception shows how the birdlike dinosaur known as Xiaotingia zhengi might have looked.
The newfound fossil of a 155 million-year-old feathered dinosaur has led scientists to claim that Archaeopteryx, the species long held forth as the "oldest bird," is no bird at all.
Chinese researchers made the claim in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, and an outside expert says the study "is likely to rock the paleontological community for years to come." Ohio University paleontologist Lawrence Witmer noted that the latest research, focusing on a fossil species dubbed Xiaotingia zhengi, comes 150 years after the discovery of Archaeopteryx, which marked a milestone in the study of the origin of birds.
"It's fitting that 150 years later, Archaeopteryx is right back at center stage," Witmer told me.
Xiaotingia was found by a collector in China's Liaoning Province, a hotbed for feathered-dino fossils, and sold to the Shandong Tianyu Museum of Nature. Paleontologists led by Xing Xu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences analyzed the fossil's skeletal measurements in detail and fed them into a computer database with measurements from 89 fossilized dinosaur and bird species, including Archaeopteryx.
Without Xiaotingia, the computer analysis put Archaeopteryx on the evolutionary line leading to modern-day birds. But when Xiaotingia was included, Archaeopteryx was placed in a group of birdlike dinosaurs known as deinonychosaurs. The differences had to do with details such as the shape of the wishbone and the skull's snout.
Archaeopteryx was about the size of a modern-day crow, and Xiaotingia was as big as a chicken.
Xu et al., Nature
The fossil skeleton of Xiaotingia zhengi is splayed out in rock.
"If you just looked at Xiaotingia, you'd say, 'Oh, boy, another little feathered dinosaur from China,'" Thomas Holtz, a paleontologist at the University of Maryland at College Park who reviewed the study for Nature, told me. "In and of itself, it is not a particularly unusual animal. But the combination of traits, at least in their analysis, pulls Archaeopteryx over to the deinonychosaur side of things."
The researchers acknowledged that their reclassification was "only weakly supported by the available data," but they said this kind of fuzziness was to be expected when the fossils being analyzed are close to the common ancestor of now-extinct dinosaurs and modern birds. "This phenomenon is also seen in some other major transitions, including the origins of major mammalian groups," they wrote.
Witmer agreed: "We're looking at an origin, and consequently it's going to be messy."
The 150 million-year-old Archaeopteryx fossil, which was discovered in southern Germany in 1861, was long seen as the oldest evidence of a bird species because the rocky imprint bore traces of feathers. But over the past decade or two, many dinosaur fossils have been found with evidence of feathers — to the extent that some scientists have been able to figure out how the feathers were colored. As a result, some researchers have argued for years that Archaeopteryx should be reclassified.
In the past, creationists have used Archaeopteryx in their arguments against evolutionary theory, contending that birds always existed in their feathered form and did not evolve from dinosaurs. Evolution's critics may try to spin these latest findings to their advantage as well, Witmer said.
"It may well be they're going to suggest that we evolutionists don't know what we're doing," he told me. "In reality, it's just the opposite. It just shows what evolution is all about. A prediction of evolutionary theory is that it should be really hard for us to figure out what's going on in an origin."
Archaeopteryx's dethronement means the title of "oldest bird" could fall to other ancient species, such as Epidexipteryx hui, Jeholornis and Sapeornis, Witmer said. "They're not exactly household names," he noted. "These new characters have been known only for 10 years or less." Archaeopteryx, meanwhile, would be lumped in with Xiaotingia as well as another feathered-dino species called Anchiornis huxleyi.
G. Mayr / Senckenberg
An Archaeopteryx specimen highlights wing and tail feather impressions.
The renewed debate over Archaeopteryx's classification is far from finished. Holtze said he knew some researchers who were inclined to go with a completely different classification scheme, which would put the deinonychosaurs along with Archaeopteryx on the evolutionary line leading to modern-day birds.
The debate could also require a rethinking of how birds arose, and how features such as feathers and flight developed. Holtz said some paleontologists have suggested that Archaeopteryx was not a particularly good flier, and putting it in the deinonychosaur category would make more sense on that score. It may turn out that deinonychosaurs gradually evolved from so-so fliers into feathered but flightless animals. "They would have been nasty predatory analogs to ostriches," Holtz said.
Holtz acknowledged that Archaeopteryx "has been our image of what early birds are like, for the historical reason that it's been known for 150 years as having all these feathers." The fact that the fossil was found just two years after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" added to its image as an evolutionary icon. A dramatic change in that image might come as another scientific shock to folks who are already being told that there's no such thing as a brontosaur, and that Pluto no longer ranks among the solar system's major planets.
"To which I say, 'Get over it!'" Holtz said. "Science is about changing ideas based on evidence, not about ignoring evidence to conform to our comfortable ideas."
More about birds and dinosaurs:
- Are dinosaurs alive?
- From 1999: Debating a dinosaur detective story
- Gallery: Nine links in the dinosaur-bird transition
- T. rex analysis supports dinosaur-bird link
In addition to Xu, the authors of the Nature report, "An Archaeopteryx-like Theropod From China and the Origin of Avialae," include Hailu You, Kai Du and Fenglu Han. Witmer is the author of a commentary in Nature titled "An Icon Knocked From its Perch."
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also add me to your Google+ circle, and check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Xiaotingia is only 5 million years older than Archaeopteryx. At that time in the Jurassic there must have been numerous bird-like dinosaurs and dinosaur-like birds. It is much easier to think of all bony tailed, toothed, feathered animals as bird-like dinosaurs, whether they could fly or not. It is apparent that the evolutionary separation between modern birds and Xiaotingia or Archaeopteryx is much greater than between them and the Dromaeosaurs.
Hey, I'll give you $500 bucks for that Berlin archeopteryx plate if you're done with it!
Thanks Dale... very helpful info!
But which one did Noah take on the Ark?
Tweety
Big Bird
.
Well I'm no etymologist, but I hardly think mild sarcasm qualifies as 'bashing'
I think - I say - I think Foghorn Leghorn was there on the Ark too. Right next to those 4 species of kangaroos that somehow managed to travel all the way to Australia as a group without leaving any record of their passing and without being mentioned in the old testament. :-)
bird is the word
Have you heard?
I like that bird, I bet he's a Colts fan too.
I would say he's a Toronto fan.
It's a closet Steelers fan
If a football team called themselves the Xiaotingias, would anybody root for them?
Would it be off topic to ask
Does science have a clear grasp on what the oldest living bird species is?
If I (a VERY laymen) had to guess-I would say Hoatzin.
Also-for us laymen-I would LOVE to watch a documentary on this. Graphics are key when trying to get this complicated info to the public.
Your right in thinking "Google it"...but all I got was Sandhill Crane from an organization nobley trying to increase that birds numbers.
I just am not ready to believe the sandhill crane is the oldest species still alive because of their own website.
Plus I've seen hoatzin and sandhill crane in the wild and (this is going to sound flaky) the Hoatzin seem "otherworldly".
"Clear grasp" is dependant on how many pieces of the puzzle you have, while not knowing how many are in the puzzle in total anyway. The available fossil record on most species we know about is VERY partial. Only a few species' evolutionary paths are so well doccumented to the point that any self-respecting scientist would use the term "clear grasp". LOL (And I'm one of them). There ARE a few examples that I can think of that we have a clear grasp on the evolutionary path of; horses canids (dogs) and whales come to mind, as do many forms of vegetation. There are several more but to cite them doesn't really answer your question. Your nomination of the Hoatzin as one of the longest lived still extant bird species on Earth is probably close to the mark if not completely correct. I'd like to see data on how old the California Condor and some Eagle species are ...
As for how I view this article; very interresting but it's only the beginning of the proper interpretation of this new data. As someone else already (wisely) said, this species is dated to a mere 5 million years prior to the well known Archeopteryx - a tick of the clock in evolutionary terms. Reptile-like birds and bird-like reptiles almost certainly co-existed for awhile as competition for food and habitat eventually lead to one surviving and continuing to evolve while the other line died out. (Similar dynamic to our own pre-human acnestors). That's the norm by the way, dying out; welll over 99% of all species we know about no longer exist. Good question! Greg
"Clear grasp" is when you have completed a jigsaw puzzle, so that you know what picture it is.
When you start the jigsaw puzzle, you don't know what it will look like (unless you cheat and look at the picture on the box.
As the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, you can make better and better guesses about the finished picture.
What we do know is that all life on Earth has evolved from single cell organisms to become the diversity we see today, as living plants and animals, as well as those that have been extinct for hundreds of millions of years.
One of the debates in the scientific community is which animals and plants belong to which groups of extincts plants and animals. Another is to try to determine what the missing links should look like.
Well, technically there is no such thing as the "oldest living bird," since they have all been evolving for the same length of time. The Hoatzin has retained some primitive features, but it also has derived features evolved specifically for its current environment.
You don't know that at all. Because there is life and you believe in evolution you must assume it started from a single cell to validate your premise. I say that isn't good science or evidence.
frespech - Evolution doesn't necessarily require that all life came from the same common ancestor, but current evidence suggests strongly that it did. ALL of life has so many biochemical commonalities at its core that a common beginning is the best scientific explanation.
all birds alive today are evolved and evolving species - as such, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say that any one species is older than another. After all, they have all been responding to the same selective processes for a long, long time. Some species may appear (superficially) to be less evolved than others, but natural selection has outfitted every species for its particular (and ever changing) niche.
As for the "first bird," it is quite likely that every old fossil recovered was a dead end and contributed nothing as far as genetic material is concerned, to successive generations of bird-like species or to modern "birds." What these paleontologists are referring to are convergent, or even parallel, forms of evolution... that is, sets of traits that may be similar in structure, but differentially stimulated responses to a variety of selective forces. The search for the "first bird" is foolishly based on a-priori assumptions that are not tenable and lead to false conclusions. What is searched for is the earliest known and confirmable bird-like organism to share certain traits that are recognized as contributing to the capacity for flight. This search would include any variety of flightless species that may share certain traits.
...Which brings us to the inappropriate and superficial use of superlatives to describe the mundane.
At the very beginning of the bird family tree (and even this is kind of arbitrary - where do the "birds" begin and the "dinosaurs" end? What exactly do you define as a bird?) there was a dense bush of closely related, very similar lineages, all of which share, to varying degrees, the transitional features between dinosaurs and birds. One of these lineages was the one Archeopteryx belongs to. By definition, modern birds can only possibly descend from one of these lineages, but trying to figure out which one, precisely, that it was, may well be impossible.
It is entirely possible that we don't even have a fossil of that exact lineage. Given the rarity of fossilization, it is far more likely that any fossil we find is one of the many close relatives in the bush of lineages than the exact one that is the ancestor.
This is one reason why scientists hate the term "missing link" and prefer the term "transitional form". The second term does not imply direct descent, only close relationship and the sharing of important characteristics.
Yes, we 'believe' in evolution. And gravity. And germs. I know, it's no where near as well-tested as the overwhelming evidence of a once-magical Jew, but whatcha gonna do?
To label a piece of fossil as the 'Oldest' of any life is really to show that we have limited knowledge.
A fossil is labeled as "oldest", until an older one is found.
And, duh!, yes we have limited knowledge. Science works with the information it has to come up with theories. As new information becomes available, all or parts of a theory may be modified to take into consideration, additional evidence.
The Creationist theory of Intelligent Design can not be changed, because it is not based on an scientific observations of the natural world. How can a so-called scientific theory, not based on science, be called scientific, by the supporters of ID?
Victor, they just mean the oldest one found so far.
We would not have science if we already knew everything. It's about learning. That is why research is the driving force in science.
Birds have existed in their present form, since God create the World 6000 years ago, and no species of plant or animal has ever evolved into any other species of plant or animal.
Just ask any creationist to explain how this all works.
net
What a silly statement. It is in no way necessary to be an atheist to accept the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact, few scientists actually claim to be atheists because they realize that it is no easier to disprove the existence of God than it is to prove God exists.
Bashing incoherent right-wing, fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible is also very different from "bashing religion".
Perhaps we should just stop and let the deluded take over the country?
Oh, wait... checking the Republican candidates for President... I see...
We may be too late.
I want to know how creationists might view this latest development like I want to know how NAMBLA views the latest season of "Toddlers and Tiaras".
Hey everyone...someone who has no valid points so chooses to point out something that doesn't matter.
You have problems if stating reality is considered bashing.
Ding ding ding ding ding! Nailed right on the head there. That's something that a lot of people don't get when they point to disagreements - such as what the proper taxonometry of Archaeopteryx vs. Xiaotingia should be - as a criticism of science and evolution. The point is that science is less a method for "proving" something (as most people like to think it is) and more a method of dealing with uncertainty in evaluating observations. The lineage from these ancient organisms to modern ones is unclear, but the ultimate conclusion will depend on the accumulation of evidence pointing in one way or another. And that's the way science is supposed to be. It's messy, but so's the real world.
Atleast science has good track record :D
If evolution is incorrect, so say the creationist, then how come the human appendix no longer does what it did, ahem, 6000 years ago? Oh, the devil decided we did not need it anymore, so says Flip Wilson.
I don't think that birds and humans are that closely related, so why bring the humans into the conversation?
And maybe you would like to explain to all of us the differences of that organ from 6000 years ago until now.
By the way how would anyone living today have any clue as to what the appendix did 6000 years ago.
Cut the BS.
Probably not much has changed in 6000 years. Evolution rarely works that fast.
"netjunkie-3815757
Hey look everyone.....An atheist bashing religion in a science discussion.....How original."
Hey look everyone.....An idiot trying to contribute to a science discussion.....How original.
How do you know what the appendix did 6000 years ago? Were you there?
It won't change what creationists say because their minds are closed and they ignore all facts.
I don't think that anyone is still trying to change the minds of creationists.
They get to take the Old Testament, literally, and we get to believe in science.
Those of us that have taken the time to become "educated" in the Sciences, Arts, and Religion, know that the great majority of the Bible was never intended to be taken literally, but as "stories" intended to illustrate the Word of God. Labeling groups of people you don't agree with or understand in derogatory fashion simply illustrates your lack of insight at best and utter ignorance at worst.
"Labeling groups of people you don't agree with or understand in derogatory fashion simply illustrates your lack of insight at best and utter ignorance at worst."
Labeling people as "ignorant", because they choose not to educate themselves, should be acceptable in any culture.
I don't believe, though, that one should be labeled as "ignorant" for, justifiably pointing out someone else's ignorance.
It's not name calling if it's the truth.
Puddle, your rambling.
Puddle isn't rambling, nor is Puddle bashing religious people. Puddle is "bashing" (pointing out the truth) people who accept the Bible as literal, which even you, Bear, recognize isn't appropriate. Using religion as a morality-guiding mythology is much different than using it as a dogmatic and blinding veil against education and change.
"bearbryant
Puddle, your rambling."
Bearbryant, your English is atrocious.
Is that so Bear? Since I only have a doctorate in divinity, perhaps you can enlighten me a bit. Exactly what parts do you opine that we 'know' to be stories? Genesis, perhaps? If so, then you may want to let the prophets, Paul, and Jesus in on it, as they quote extensively from these "stories" as if they were fact.
No, a more correct statement would be: "As we've progressed out of the dark ages of science and reason, proving without a shadow of a doubt that most of the stories in the Bible are as false as false gets, we've decided to make them 'figurative' so that we might hold on to our ever-vanishing thread of faith."
Jon, well done.
Furthermore ...
... I'd also love to know which "religion" you are speaking of? Dare I presume Christianity? And, you think that makes you educated on religion? Why, because you've studied one faith out of a multitude of thousands.
Most atheists (at least the ones I've come to know and respect), actually have a vast understanding of multiple faiths and many disciplines. To call religion out for the manmade fingerprints it exudes is not "ignorance" ... it's enlightenment.
I've said this before: some would argue that the very nature of religion is born from ignorance. Christianity, Islam, etc ... founded at a time when we "knew" very little about the natural world we find ourselves in. Hence, at a time, when our species was very "ignorant." People need to realize the meaning of the word. It's not an insult. For instance, if you were to put a calculus book in front of me, I would be absolutely ignorant within my attempts to translate it (as numbers, to me at least, are equivalent to hieroglyphs.)
The worlds quite a large place bear ... much larger than one book.
To gaze up at the cosmos and admit this is freedom. It's truth and it's light. Now, if you want to call this a religious experience, you're welcome to it. Just don't confuse it with what you're selling.
I would not use the bible as a moral guidance anymore than I would use it as an understanding of our world.
That dino looks SO gay...
Are you sure that dino doesn't date back to the disco era?
And on the eight day, God created the internet, Kentucky Fried Chicken and cheese. And he saw this on You Tube and said...I created that.
So why is the internet, KFC and cheese not in the Bible?
First we downgrade Pluto and now poor Archaeopteryx. We are in the age of reclassification.
True, but part of the problem is that the human mind seems to have a need to put things into categories, but nature tends to be a continuum, chock full of transitional forms.
We are also in the Age of Aquarius. Does that mean that some fish will be downgraded or reclassified, also?
Nah - that'll be during the Age of Pisces.
God told me that Jesus and Satan collaborated by inventing transitional fossils to trick us. What merry pranksters those jokers are!
oh it can't be that old...as per michele bachman of the tea baggers earth is only 5,000 years old...and if you ask her she'll tell you she know everything...
"netjunkie-3815757
Hey look everyone.....An atheist bashing religion in a science discussion.....How original."
I think your needle is sticking on the record. You might want to give it a nudge or upgrade to CDs.
What does carbon dating say? That should answer which was first. But then again, who knows. They could just as easily be cousins from the same period.
This research is so subjective.
Carbon dating can't be used on fossils, or anything else older than about 40,000 years. The dates they give would be from one of several other dating methods that work on that time scale - and often they will use more than one to check. We're getting pretty good at dating fossils, and it is not at all subjective.
...then god created us to destroy them all. ?
Huh?
NOW the question is...Which came first the Xiaotingia or the egg?
Xiaotingia. When the first one was born it was successful in passing on that small % of genes that make it an individual. Eventually, through offspring, that % became the norm in their genetics.
i'd have to say that octane99, amphiox and e.m.h. have just about got it down pat, at least on any thoughtful level of discussing new data/knowledge. it takes an open mind to challenge what you thought you knew, as new fossils come in to play. but then again, it's what some would call fuzy math; while others would say it's learning.
At the risk of attracting NetIdiot's ire, I just want to say that there are two kinds of people in the world; those that believe in science and those that do not.
Those that believe in science are open to new ideas and those who do not, already have their "truths" and won't be persuaded by any new thoughts or facts.
Logic, reason, they seem to be very absent. The fossil which has been described, Xiaotingia, is very similar to Archaeopteryx and only 5 million years older. Both are bony tailed, toothed, feathered flying dinosaur-like animals. At that time in the Jurassic there must have been numerous bird-like dinosaurs and dinosaur-like flying animals (birds). I think all bony tailed, toothed, feathered animals should be considered bird-like dinosaurs, whether they could fly or not. The evolutionary separation between modern birds and these Jurassic precursors is much greater than between them and the Dromaeosaurs.
ManBearPig-Bird.
I always find it interesting that the readers, and posters, on these kinds of stories have a perennial 'knack' of confusing 'science' with journalism. This is journalism, whatever Mr Boyle's 'scientific' credentials may be; it is not science!
It matters not a jot whether Archaeopteryx is dislodged from its perch, no-one believed it anyway; except for gullible readers of 'blogs' such as these. As far back as the the 1960s, Ostrom was proclaiming to the world that if it wasn't for the feather impressions, everyone would have deemed it to be a coelurosaur-like 'true' dinosaur; the distinction has always been blurred, except in the minds of journalists!
'Dinosaur' should be relegated to the same giant, cosmic dustbin as 'Brontosauraus'; the designation clearly no longer has any validity.
On a side issue, I wonder if Bob Bakker, in idle moments, reflects on how 'they' scoffed back in 'the good old days' when Feduccia-like opinions abounded! How on earth the heretic could become 'mainstream' belief?
I'm curious. Is there no speculation among evolutionary scientists as to why both species can't be early birds? Could there not have been independent speciation?
There is always speculation, and the scientists admitted that their results were tentative (as all new classification trees must be). But if true, it means that both species cannot be birds unless their common ancestor was also a bird. By definition, a named group in a classification cannot have more than one common ancestor. Otherwise they would not be related in the way the classification imples. They both could be in groups of very bird-like animals, but only one could be BIRDS.