Protoavis are well preserved, and they are astonishingly non-avian. The distal carpals, while long, are in no way similar to those observed in the urvogel or other archaic birds. There is no semilunate element, and the structure of the radiale and ulnare would have limited the flexibility of the wrist joint. The manus is not tridactyl, and metacarpal V is present. In even the most basal avialian, "Archaeopteryx", there is no vestige of the fifth metacarpal and its presence in "Protoavis" seems incongruous with the claim that it is a bird, let alone one more derived than "Archaeopteryx". Chatterjee claims that
Specimens of Archaeopteryx a fish. Fragments of the braincase and upper jaw were later identified and published by other researchers. While Owen's 1863 monograph on the specimen is historically considered to be the first real description of "Archaeopteryx", Henry Woodward, assistant of the Geological Department of the British Museum, had published a shorter article on the specimen in December 1862. Here he provided a detailed description as well as the first published illustration of the specimen, sketched from the original. Rather than an attempt to steal Owen's glory, Woodward gave him due credit in this article as its official describer. Woodward's article nevertheless