Archaeopteryx a forgery? Again?
Introduction
Taylor (1990) has recently revived the claim that the "Berlin" and
"London" specimens of Archaeopteryx -- the best known
specimens -- are fakes, as proposed by Hoyle and others in 1985 and
subsequent years. For background on the original claim and evidence, see the
talk.origins FAQ archive entry by Chris Nedin on the subject.
Taylor's more recent claim is based mainly on "unexplained" differences
between early engravings, historical photographs, and the modern appearance.
Douglas Cox (tcc@sentex.net) has been discussing these claims in talk.origins,
and my comments here are based on the information he has provided.
Therefore, there is an important caveat in this presentation: I have
not yet read Taylor's paper. I base my comments on the specifically
confirmed indication from Douglas that Taylor claims the modern appearance
of the "Berlin" specimen has the "curved" feathers on the left wing as
seen in the engravings from about 1884-1887, and contrary to the "straight"
appearance of the feathers in photographs by Hurst, 1893. If there is
more to Taylor's claims, it is not considered here, with the exception
of a comment on Compsognathus.
This page collects together some relevant images to test Taylor's claim.
Some of the images are from Taylor's paper (courtesy of Douglas -- thanks
greatly), some are from other sources.
Important note: For the images dating from the 1800's, the copyright has
expired and they can be used freely. These are specifically indicated.
Other images retain the copyright of their original authors and are
presented here only for the purpose of scientific criticism.
Unless otherwise indicated, all images retain their original copyright.
19th-Century Engravings
Zittel, 1887
Copyright has expired on these, so feel free to distribute these images
as you like.
The "Berlin" specimen
Entire "Berlin" specimen -- Zittel The same engraving is used in several
publications, including Reinohl, 1940 and Schindewolfe, 1950.
Zittel apparently uses the same illustration as used
by W. Dames in 1884 to initially describe the "Berlin" specimen,
but I have been unable to independently confirm this (although
Zittel does cite Dames). According to Douglas, this is the same
engraving Taylor refers to.
There are several differences from the actual specimen in
modern photographs:
The last feature is the one Taylor apparently talks about in his paper,
and which Hurst also described as being inaccurate in the
early engravings. I do not know if Taylor discusses the other differences,
which seem far greater than for the feathers.
Large degrees of modification were routine in 19th-century and even early
20th-century engravings and drawings. For example, matrix obscuring a
fossil may have been "removed", broken areas may have been "reconstructed",
the outline of the enclosing matrix may have been changed (often it was
made rectangular), or more serious changes. The quality varies
considerably, and although usually it is inconsequential, there is
no substitute for photographs or the actual specimen because of
the common occurrence of inaccuracies in engravings.
The "London" specimen
The "London" specimen -- Zittel
Note the extensive "modification" of the surrounding slab of this specimen in
order to make room for the detailed diagrams of the legs. The actual specimen
has a more complete rectangular slab. There are other significant
differences too.
Owen, 1864
The "London" specimen
The first extensive description of the "London" specimen of
Archaeopteryx was performed by F.R.S. Owen in 1864.
The "London" specimen -- Owen
Although a very detailed engraving (the original size is a large foldout
of 17X22 inches!), there are significant differences between the appearance
of the engraving and the modern appearance of the specimen (e.g., see
the illustration in Ostrom, 1976). For example, the tail feathers are
longer and their margin is more rounded. This is apparently due to further
preparation of the specimen in subsequent years (briefly mentioned in Charig
et al., 1986, p.232). Also note the presence of
dendrites
(dark branching encrustations of manganese oxide) along the crack in the upper
left of the specimen, overlapping the feather impressions. As
documented by Charig et al., these have perfect mirror-image equivalents
on the counterslab, and would be very difficult to forge.
19th-Century and Modern Photographs
Hurst, 1893
Scanned from Taylor, 1990. Images courtesy of Douglas Cox. I think
these can be freely used because they originate from the late 1800s.
left wing of the "Berlin" specimen -- Hurst (Taylor re-illustration)
left wing of the "Berlin" specimen (half size) -- Hurst (Taylor re-illustration)
These illustrations show what Taylor apparently describes as "straight"
feather morphology, referring to the large, distal feathers on the left
side, which do not extend continuously to the bones of the arm on the
right, contrary to the earlier engravings.
Barthel et al.1990
For comparison, here is the left-hand wing of the Berlin specimen as
illustrated by Barthel et al. (1990) on p.198.
left wing of the "Berlin" specimen -- Barthel et al.
The quality of this image is not great (the photo was really too small).
To make matters worse, the
illumination direction is clearly different from Hurst. Judging from
the shadows on other parts of the specimen and the lack of shadow on
the edge of the rock layer at top, the light is coming from the lower right
to bottom. This approaches parallel the feathers of the left wing, greatly
suppressing their contrast. This could be potentially confusing if trying to
interpret their geometry. Other than the effect of illumination, there
is no obvious difference in feather geometry between this and Hurst's
illustration.
Psihoyos, 1994
Again for comparison, here is the left-hand wing of the Berlin specimen
as illustrated by Psihoyos (1994) on p.127.
left wing of the "Berlin" specimen -- Psihoyos
Note that this illustration unfortunately has the tip of the feathers cut off.
This was the limit of the illustration. Like Hurst's illustration, this one
is illuminated from the "top", as indicated by shadows, although at slightly
different orientation from Hurst. It also has low-angle illumination,
which enhances the appearance of the feathers. Note how much more similar
in appearance the feather arrangement is to Hurst compared to the
illustration from Barthel et al. above. Also note the modification
of the claws on the wing/arm. Apparently the claws were not completely
exposed, and were only recently excavated. The feathers, however, appear
to have the same geometry as Hurst's illustration.
In summary, the modern appearance of the "Berlin" specimen, based
on published photographs, looks like Hurst's -- "straight" distal
feathers which are not continuous to the bones of the "arm". This
interpretation is confirmed by examination of any modern reconstruction
of Archaeopteryx -- the distal feathers extend only partially over
the wing (e.g., see Barthel et al., p.200 or Psihoyos, p.126).
No one in recent work appears to have interpreted the
feathers as Taylor has.
Taylor claims, apparently on the basis of a cast, that the feathers are
actually "curved" as in the engravings from the 1800s. I do not see
evidence for this in the photos I have access to, although the
subtlety of the feather impressions would make confusion possible.
Compsognathus
Some of the authors suggesting forgery have proposed Compsognathus
longipes Wagner, a small dinosaur found in the Solnhofen Limestone,
was the reptile chosen by the forger to add the feather imprints.
To my knowledge, no one has
suggested the skeleton was also forged, as this would be a considerable
challenge. A genuine skeleton is therefore needed, of which there is
a limited choice from Solnhofen. Barthel et al., 1990 list
the known Solnhofen fauna in an appendix. For "Saurichian dinosaurs", the
only group with the appropriate skeletal anatomy, only
Compsognathus is listed, and elsewhere in the text (p.186), it is stated
Compsognathus is the only dinosaur known from the Solnhofen limestone.
The other "reptiles" include lizards, crocodiles, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs,
ichthyosaurs, and turtles. None of these are viable candidates. They
are either quadrupedal, have flippers, or obviously different (e.g., the
pterosaurs, with one of the fingers extremely elongated).
Superficially, the skeleton of
Compsognathus is similar to Archaeopteryx. They are both
bipedal, have a long tail, reduced forelimbs, a toothed jaw, etc. However,
when examined in detail, there are numerous significant differences. For
example, a particularly obvious difference is the presence of pronounced
ventral spines on the vertebrae of the tail of Compsognathus, while
those on Archaeopteryx are completely reduced.
Compsognathus
Tail of Compsognathus from Barthel et al., 1990, p.186.
The base of the tail is at the lower left, and tail tapers towards its
end to the upper right (tip not visible). Note the large spines extending
towards the ventral side (right) of each of the vertebrae.
Archaeopteryx
Tail of the "Berlin" specimen of Archaeopteryx from Barthel
et al., 1990, p.198.
What spines? They are greatly reduced and are only clearly visible at the
base of the tail (towards the top). Even these are tiny in proportion
to the tail vertebrae. If a reptile was used to fake Archaeopteryx,
it was not Compsognathus longipes Wagner, the only one known
from Solnhofen.
Conclusions
Taylor's claim that the "Berlin" specimen currently has "curved"
feathers extending from the edge of the wing to the bones of the "arm"
like those of engravings from the 19th century appears to be
incorrect. Photographs of the modern appearance of the specimen are
indistinguishable in terms of the geometry of the feathers from photographs
taken by Hurst in 1893, again contrary to Taylor's claims. This
interpretation is confirmed by the appearance of modern reconstructions
of Archaeopteryx with distal feathers extending only part of the width
of the wing. Any differences in appearance in photographs may be due
to different illumination. Differences in the 19th-century engravings
of Archaeopteryx are no more extreme than differences observed
when comparing other fossil specimens to illustrations from this period.
These conclusions are tentative because they are based on a second-hand
description of Taylor's claims.
References
Barthel, K.W.; Swinburne, N.H.M.; Morris, Conway Morris, S., 1990. Solnhofen:
A study in Mesozoic palaeontology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
p.1-236. ISBN 0-521-45830
Charig, A.J.; Greenway, F.; Milner, A.C.; Walker, C.A.; and
Whybrow, J., 1986. Archaeopteryx is not a forgery. Science,
v.232, p.622-626.
Dames, W., 1884. Ueber Archaeopteryx. Palaeont. Abhandl., v.ii, p.119.
[As cited by Zittel, 1887]
Davis, P.G. and Briggs, D.E.G., 1995 (September). Fossilization of
feathers. Geology, v.23, no.9, p.783-786.
Hurst, C.H. Biological theories: The digits on a bird's wing.
Natural Science (London) October 1893 vol 3, p. 275-281. [As cited
by Taylor, 1990].
Ostrom, J., 1976. Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds. Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society, v.8, p.91-182.
Owen, F.R.S., 1864. On the Archaeopteryx of Von Meyer, with a
description of the fossil remains of a long-tailed species, from the
Lithographic Stone of Solenhofen. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, v.153, p.33-47, pl.1-4.
Psihoyos, L., 1994. Hunting Dinosaurs. Random House: New York, p.1-267.
ISBN 0-679-43124-1
Reinohl, F., 1940. Abstammungslehre. Schr. deutsch Naturkundever, n.s.
11, 176pp., 190 illus. Ohringen: Rau. [As cited by Schindewolf, 1950]
Schindewolf, O.H., 1950. Basic Questions in Paleontology: Geologic Time,
Organic Evolution, and Biological Systematics. 1993 translation by:
Schaefer, J., edited by: Reif, W.-E.. The University of Chicago Press:
Chicago, p.1-467, 32 plates. ISBN 0-226-73835-3
Taylor, Ian. 1990. The ultimate hoax: Archaeopteryx Lithographica.
R.E. Walsh, ed. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Creationism, 1990, vol 2, p. 279-291. Published by the Creation
Science Fellowship, Inc. 362 Ashland Ave, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15228.
Zittel, Karl A., 1887-1890. Hanbuch der Palaeontologie. I. Abtheilung,
Palaeozoologie. III. Band., Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves. Druck und
Verlag Von R. Oldenbourg: Munchen und Leipzig, p.1-900.
Other relevant references mentioned in talk.origins
In no particular order or consistent format. These citations were
mentioned by Chris Nedin, Darby South, Jim Lippard, Brett Vickers,
and possibly others (if I have forgotten names, send me a note).
Hoyle et al. (1985) British Journal of Photography, 132: 693.
Watkins et al. (1985a) British Journal of Photography, 132: 264.
Watkins et al. (1985b) British Journal of Photography, 132: 358.
Ian Taylor, "Archaeopteryx--A Case of Fossil Forgery," _Creation Science
Association of Ontario Newsletter_, Summer 1988.
Wellnhofer, "A New Specimen of Archaeopteryx," _Science_ 240(1988):1790-92
J. Richard Wakefield, "Painting Oneself Into a Corner with a Feather
Brush," _Creation/Evolution Newsletter_ (now National Centre for
Science Education Reports) vol. 8, no. 6, November/December
1988, pp. 16-17.
Andrew MacRae
macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca
Entire "Berlin" specimen -- Zittel The same engraving is used in several
publications, including Reinohl, 1940 and Schindewolfe, 1950.
The "London" specimen -- Zittel
The "London" specimen -- Owen
Although a very detailed engraving (the original size is a large foldout
of 17X22 inches!), there are significant differences between the appearance
of the engraving and the modern appearance of the specimen (e.g., see
the illustration in Ostrom, 1976). For example, the tail feathers are
longer and their margin is more rounded. This is apparently due to further
preparation of the specimen in subsequent years (briefly mentioned in Charig
et al., 1986, p.232). Also note the presence of
dendrites
(dark branching encrustations of manganese oxide) along the crack in the upper
left of the specimen, overlapping the feather impressions. As
documented by Charig et al., these have perfect mirror-image equivalents
on the counterslab, and would be very difficult to forge.
left wing of the "Berlin" specimen -- Hurst (Taylor re-illustration)
left wing of the "Berlin" specimen (half size) -- Hurst (Taylor re-illustration)
left wing of the "Berlin" specimen -- Barthel et al.
left wing of the "Berlin" specimen -- Psihoyos
Tail of Compsognathus from Barthel et al., 1990, p.186.
Tail of the "Berlin" specimen of Archaeopteryx from Barthel
et al., 1990, p.198.