And as others have pointed out, whether or not Archaeopteryx is a “bird” is a matter of definition: how we define birds.

I know Written in Stone has a full chapter on this so I’ll have to go back and reread that chapter keeping in mind this new finding.

This is only valid with certain definitions of Aves: the ones that Xu et al. prefer.
If you use Sereno 2005, or Chiappe, 1997, or Padian, 1997, then Archaeopteryx keeps being a member of Aves.

Mayr is one of several palaeontologists who think that the deinonychosaurs are actually birds themselves. According to him, they’re flightless members of a group that includes Archaeopteryx and modern birds, like smaller extinct versions of today’s ostriches and emus.

Looking at the cladograms shown, this doesn’t actually seem that much different a hypothesis. You’re basically just taking Paraves and calling them all birds, rather than calling the Avialae birds and the Deinonychosauria not-birds, aren’t you?

Also, fully agree with Bob LaVesh’s third paragraph: “This in no way diminishes the important part Archaeopteryx has played historically in promoting evolutionary sciences (even if our understanding then was incorrect) – and even as an important clue between the link between dinos and birds.”

People have suggested this day would come sooner or later – it’s interesting to see it may finally be here. I can’t wait to read Andrea Cau and Mickey Mortimer’s thoughts (once they plug the data into their own Theropod matrices)

Whether Archie remains a bird, however, depends upon your definition of Aves. It’s only not a bird if your definition is stem based and something like “modern birds and all fossil taxa closer related to birds than Dromeosaurus” or some such. On the other hand, if it’s a apomorphy-based definition, say due to flight, than all Deinonychosauria may come along for the ride.

One thing he seems to have gotten wrong though is on the origins of flight. Although none of the basal “birds” seem to have been great fliers, there are now taxa in bot major branches of Paraves which seem to be flighted. Thus either flight (or at least proto-flight) evolved twice, or was basal to the entire group, meaning it might have an insectivorous origin regardless.

It will always be very difficult to determine with a high certainty that one species begot another- we will never know with many if they are true ancestors or just a branch from a common ancestor.

This in no way diminishes the important part Archaeopteryx has played historically in promoting evolutionary sciences (even if our understanding then was incorrect) – and even as an important clue between the link between dinos and birds.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, you define aves as the LCA of Passer domesticus and Archaeopteryx lithographica and its descendents. Then you get into your time machine and go and look at this LCA. You notice that in the next valley lives a species which is almost indistiguishable, being a sibling of aforesaid LCA. In any sane world you would name it as another species within the same genus, but you’ve defined aves in such a way that it can’t be a member. In fact, in traditional taxonomy you’ve put it in a different class.

This way lies madness, it seems to me. As a total amateur in these matters, I react by thinking that “What was the first bird?” is a bad question, possibly meaningless, certainly unanswerable, even if we had all the data. But the popular press, at least, continues to ask it. What’s a simple soul to do?