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 Justice in Karlsruhe, which upheld the Superior District Court's decision in 2003, bringing a 14-year lawsuit to a close and earning the sixth "Archaeopteryx" specimen its name of Solnhofen. The Solnhofen specimen represents the largest "Archaeopteryx" individual known. It is represented by a nearly-complete skeleton on a plate sized 39 x 52 cm. There is no counterslab associated with this specimen. The skeleton shows a death posture typical of theropods and especially similar to that of the Eichstätt specimen. The animal's carcass was likely deposited and buried completely articulated. Despite the specimen's skeletal completion, plumage traces are very faint and