Archaeopteryx for flightless birds. In 2010, Robert L. Nudds and Gareth J. Dyke in the journal "Science" published a paper in which they analysed the rachises of the primary feathers of "Confuciusornis" and "Archaeopteryx". The analysis suggested that the rachises on these two genera were thinner and weaker than those of modern birds relative to body mass. The authors determined that "Archaeopteryx" and "Confuciusornis", were unable to use flapping flight. This study was criticized by Philip J. Currie and Luis Chiappe. Chiappe suggested that it is difficult to measure the rachises of fossilized feathers, and Currie speculated that "Archaeopteryx" and "Confuciusornis"
Specimens of Archaeopteryx its aerodynamic function as a flight feather. As the feather bears little resemblance to the retrices of the other full "Archaeopteryx" skeletons, it is generally thought to be a wing feather: Griffiths and others have concluded it was a remex, while Carney in 2012 interpreted it to be a covert feather. The feather has a relatively low degree of asymmetry, which Speakman and Thompson in 1994 concluded to indicate it as a secondary remex. If this is the case, then it would have originated from an animal smaller than even the Eichstätt specimen, which is the smallest "Archaeopteryx" specimen known