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"
Archaeopteryx be given preference over "lithographica" in instances where scientists considered them to represent the same species. It has been noted that the feather, the first specimen of "Archaeopteryx" described, does not correspond well with the flight-related feathers of "Archaeopteryx". It certainly is a flight feather of a contemporary species, but its size and proportions indicate that it may belong to another, smaller species of feathered theropod, of which only this feather is known so far. As the feather had been designated the type specimen, the name "Archaeopteryx" should then no longer be applied to the skeletons, thus creating significant nomenclatorial