Specimens of Archaeopteryx resembling a flying squirrel. After conducting an embryological comparison with modern birds, he noticed a similarity between "Archaeopteryx" and the embryonic stage of birds, concluding that the former was likely an "archetype", or created kind, of the bird lineage. Owen's monograph presented a description of the osteology and the plumage, though he missed a number of elements. Owing to its overall similarity to the structure of modern birds, Owen postulated a toothless, horny beak-like instrument "fitted for preening", and misinterpreted the fragment of an upper jaw with teeth, located next to the pelvis on the specimen, as the remains of
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