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 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