Archaeoraptor

Archaeoraptor is the genus name assigned to a fossil described by an article published in National Geographic Magazine as a "missing link" between birds and theropod dinosaurs, but which became a scandal when it proved to be a forgery upon actual scientific study. The forgery was constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils. Zhou et al. found that the head and upper body actually belonged to to a specimen of the primitive fossil bird Yanornis. Rowe et al. found that the tail and legs belong to a specimen of the dinosaur Microraptor. Despite this forgery, many true examples of feathered dinosaurs have been found and demonstrate the evolutionary connection between birds and other theropods.

History

This article from the November 1999 issue of National Geographic was retracted after the purported type fossil for Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was shown to be fraudulent.

The purported fossil of "Archaeoraptor" was presented in 1998 at a gem show in Tucson, Arizona. It had been found in July 1997 in the Liaoning Province of China, sold on the black market and smuggled out of China and into the United States. The Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, purchased it. The Museum is run by Stephen Czerkas, who does not hold a university degree, but who is a dinosaur enthusiast and artist. He arranged for patrons of his museum, including trustee Dale Slade, to provide $80,000 for the purchase of the fossil. Christopher Sloan (see below) says that Czerkas intended the fossil to be "the crown jewel" of the Dinosaur Museum ..

Czerkas contacted paleontologist Phil Currie and the National Geographic Society. Currie agreed to study the fossil on condition that it was eventually returned to China. The society intended to announce the find to the larger public, immediately after a publication in Nature. During the first investigation it already became clear to Currie that the left and right leg mirrored each other perfectly and that the fossil had been completed by using both slab and counterslab. He then sent it to Timothy Rowe in Austin to make CAT scans. These indicated that the bottom fragments were not part of the larger fossil. This was confirmed through a close study by Currie's preparator, Kevin Aulenback. Currie did not inform National Geographic of these problems.

The fossil was unveiled in a press conference on October 15 1999, and the November 1999 National Geographic Magazine contained an article by Christopher P. Sloan (National Geographic's art editor). Sloan described it as a missing link that would connect dinosaurs and birds. The original fossil was put on display at the National Geographic Society in Washington, DC, pending return to China. In the article Sloan used the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis but with a disclaimer (so that it would not count as a nomenclatural act for the purposes of scientific classification) in anticipation of being able to publish a peer-reviewed description simultaneously in Nature. However, Nature rejected the paper. Czerkas then sent the manuscript to Science, which sent it out for peer review. Two reviewers informed Science that; “the specimen was smuggled out of China and illegally purchased” and that the fossil had been "doctored" in China "to enhance its value".Science then rejected the paper. According to Sloan, Czerkas did not inform National Geographic about the details of the two rejections.

National Geographic went ahead and published without peer review.After the November National Geographic came out, Storrs L. Olson, curator of birds in the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution published an open letter on 1 November 1999, pointing out that "the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported"; protesting the "prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs", and complaining that Sloan, a journalist, had usurped the process of scientific nomenclature by publishing a name first in the popular press: "This is the worst nightmare of many zoologiststheir chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist." (This last claim turned out to be wrong because of the disclaimer.)

In 2000 Xu, among others, determined that the fossil was a forgery (see "Uncovering the fake" below).

In 2001 Stephen and Sylvia Czerkas compiled a traveling exhibit containing 34 other Chinese fossils. The San Diego Natural History Museum paid the Dinosaur Museum to display this show in 2004. Dr. Ji Qiang insisted that some of the fossils in this show also left China illegally. Stephen Czerkas denied that the fossils were smuggled, and pointed out that they were to be repatriated in 2007..

In 2002 the Czerkases published a book through their Dinosaur Museum titled "Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight". In it they attempted to describe several new species and give their controversial views on the origin of birds. They described the upper portion of their Archeoraptor fossil as a new genus, Archaeovolans, but this taxon was later found to be synonymous with the previously-named genus Yanornis. Also included in this book were three other genera of dubious validity (i.e. Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Omnivoropteryx, all of which may be synonymous with previously named genera).

Uncovering the fake

According to Xu Xing, the Czerkases wanted to keep the "Archaeoraptor" specimen for five years, or exchange it for other valuable Chinese fossils, but Xu negotiated with them and National Geographic to return it immediately, and they did return it to China in the spring of 2000.

Xu Xing, a member of Beijing's Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology had already noticed in October (after having been informed by Currie of the problems during a visit to the USA) that the tail of "Archaeoraptor" strongly resembled an unnamed Maniraptoran dinosaur that Xu was studying — later to be named Microraptor zhaoianus. He returned to China and traveled to Liaoning Province where he inspected the fossil site. His confirmed his suspicions that the dinosaur-like tail and bird - like upper body in the fossil did not belong to the same species. In December he contacted a number of fossil dealers and eventually found the fossilized body that corresponded to the tail on the "Archaeoraptor" fossil. He informed the National Geographic Society, and CT scans funded by the society confirmed his suspicions. The society still believed the fossil to be important, however.

By January 2000 the fossil had proven to be fraudulent and National Geographic retracted their article and promised an investigation. In the October 2000 issue, the magazine published a retraction and an article about the case. A Chinese farmer had created the "Archaeoraptor" fossil by gluing two fossils together, one of which was a Microraptor, the other one was a fossil bird later named Archaeovolans. On November 21, 2002, a paper in Nature found that Archaeovolans was the the same species as the previously-named avialan species Yanornis martini, so the front end of the fossil now bears this name.

Taxonomic history

Meanwhile, in April 2000 Olson published an article in Backbone, the newsletter of the National Museum of Natural History. In this article he justified his views on the evolution of birds, but also named and described the species Archaeoraptor liaoningensis by designating the tail of the original fraudulent specimen as the type specimen. This action prevented the tainted name "Archaeoraptor" from entering the paleornithological literature by attaching it to the part of the chimeric specimen which was unlikely to be classified under Aves, rather than the portion which was later shown to represent a true bird species. Olson's paper was published several months before Xu, Zhou and Wang published their description of Microraptor zhaoianus in Nature.

So to review the taxonomic history:

• November 1999: Sloan uses Archaeoraptor liaoningensis for the chimera, but because of the disclaimer the name has no standing in taxonomy and can be used in a valid description.
• April 2000: Olson publishes Archaeoraptor liaoningensis with description and reference to a type specimen. On a straightforward interpretation, this name is valid. However, there is some doubt. Olson seems to have believed that A. liaoningensis Sloan, 1999 was valid (as his 1 November 1999 open letter makes clear) and that he was merely acting as first reviser and selecting a lectotype from among the syntypes described by Sloan. On this interpretation, Olson failed to name a new species.
• December 2000: Xu et al. publish Microraptor zhaoianus designating the same type specimen as Olson — the tail from the fake together with the body of the counterslab. If A. liaoningensis Olson, 2000 is valid then this makes their name a junior objective synonym.

Most paleontologists are unwilling to use the name "Archaeoraptor" regardless of the precise legal status of the name, first, because that name is strongly associated with the fraud and the National Geographic scandal; and second, because they view Olson's use of the name as attempted nomenclatural sabotage. Thus, the name Microraptor zhaoianus Xu et al., 2000 has almost universal currency for the species that supplied the tail to the "Archaeoraptor" fake.

External links

• Helen Briggs, 'Piltdown' bird fake explained, from March 29, 2001, BBC News Online.
• Hillary Mayell, Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says, from the November 20, 2002 National Geographic News.
• Simons, Lewis M., 2000. Archaeoraptor fossil trail. National Geographic 198(4) (October): 128–132.
• Reed, Christina. "Fossil Faux Pas" Geotimes, March 2000.