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
Archaeopteryx common uses of that term. A more thorough analysis was published soon after to test this hypothesis, and failed to arrive at the same result; it found "Archaeopteryx" in its traditional position at the base of Avialae, while "Xiaotingia" was recovered as a basal dromaeosaurid or troodontid. The authors of the follow-up study noted that uncertainties still exist, and that it may not be possible to state confidently whether or not "Archaeopteryx" is a member of Avialae or not, barring new and better specimens of relevant species. Phylogenetic studies conducted by Senter, "et al." (2012) and Turner, Makovicky, and Norell