Archaeopteryx (if not colour banded) to some degree, so the darkness was attributed to such impurities. They also mention that a complete absence of air bubbles in the rock slabs is further proof that the specimen is authentic. Modern paleontology has often classified "Archaeopteryx" as the most primitive bird. It is not thought to be a true ancestor of modern birds, but rather, a close relative of that ancestor. Nonetheless, "Archaeopteryx" was often used as a model of the true ancestral bird. Several authors have done so. Lowe (1935) and Thulborn (1984) questioned whether "Archaeopteryx" truly was the first bird. They
Specimens of Archaeopteryx Tischlinger & Unwin (2004), who reclassified it as part of the sternum, albeit minimally ossified (mostly cartilagenous). This supports the idea that the Berlin "Archaeopteryx" was not a full-grown individual at the time of its death, and instead represents an immature animal. The pelvis of the Berlin specimen was considered by Dames to be markedly different from that of the London specimen, which was a major point in favor of his assigning a new species to the Berlin "Archaeopteryx", "siemensii", after its generous donor. Other researchers, however, disputed this difference, claiming it could be entirely accounted for by deformation of