Talk:Archaeopterygidae

Families
Most families listed as belonging to Archaeopterygiformes are still classified as dinosaurs on their own pages. I'm not sure which classification is right (those families are dinosaurs if you ask me, though), so could someone clarify? Jerkov 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've fixed some of the original research here and added an in-line cite. Paul, I think, is the only published source for placing other families in this group, but I'll look aorund to see if there are more. The pages themselves, espeically taxoboxes, should reflect current consensus.Dinoguy2 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Deinonychosaurs share link with Archaeopteryx
Mayr et. al. (2005) showed that the specimen of Archaeopteryx they described has a hyperextendible second toe, as deinonychosaurs do. This would mean that the Deinonychosauria is part of Archaeopterygiformes. In this case, the group Deinonychosauria is included within Archaeopterygidae and splits into two subfamilies, Dromaeosaurinae and Troodontinae. The subfamily Dromaeosaurinae includes two tribes, Dromaeosaurini and Microraptorini.

Mayr, G., B. Pohl & D.S. Peters (2005). A well-preserved Archaeopteryx specimen with theropod features. Science 310 (5753): 1483-1486.
 * Were those new family-level names actually published in Mayr? I've never heard of Dromaeosaurini, Microraptorini, etc. before. also, while I agree with this classification for the most part, it is not well supported enough in the literature yet to use it in wholesale changes to the dinosaur articles.Dinoguy2 01:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Taxobox vs. lead
It seems inconsistent that this article's taxobox lists Archaeopterygidae as part of Deinonychosauria, but the lead section of the article says that "Archaeopterygidae is a group of early birds". If the taxobox is going to be based on the classification proposed in the Xiaotingia paper, shouldn't the lead section be based on it also? --Captain Occam (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Likelihood reinstates Archaeopteryx as a primitive bird
I haven't had time since october, so ¿could someone rewrite this sentence :"Some recent studies have recovered Anchiornis, previously considered a troodontid, and Xiaotingia, to also be members of the Archaeopterygidae" and add some of the Lee & Worthy study perspective (if is truly neccesary)? Thanks.--Ornithodiez (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Classification Confusion.
this page states that Anchiornis is a bird like Archaeopteryx, but the page for Anchiornis says its a Troodont so what should we do here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.213.207 (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It states that some studies suggest Anchiornis is a close relative of Archaeopteryx, which is true--others suggest it isn't. Nothing is said about whether it's a bird or not. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)