Wagner (1863)

Andreas Wagner, “On a new reptile, supposedly furnished with feathers”, from: Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 2, Heft II (1861), 146-154.

Mr. A. Wagner reports on a “new reptile, supposedly furnished with feathers” from the lithographic slate of Solenhofen.

A bird can be recognised by its feathers, as an old saying goes. The general and exclusive validity of this observation is recognised not only in popular belief, but also in zoology: an animal with feathers is a bird. This mark of disctinction, that until recently was held to be unshakeable, is called into question by one of the most unexpected discoveries. However, the situation is thus.
In the course of last summer, I had the pleasure of receiving a visit from Mr. Oberjustizrath Witte in Hannover. On this occasion, he informed me that he had seen a plate from the lithographic stone of Solenhofen, which was in the posession of the general practitioner Mr. Häberlein of Pappenheim. On it was a skeleton containing a combination of features that one could not imagine to be stranger and more exciting. Although the skull and both forearms were missing, the most important parts of the specimen appeared to be well-preserved. The most conspicuous was the observation, that both on the forelimbs and on the tail an excellent coverage of feathers could be observed. However, these feathers were so similar to proper birds’ feathers, that their recognition as such could hardly be called into question. But if the discovery of bird feathers in the lithographic slate seemed to be unique, the nature of its connection to this skeleton appeared incredible. For the tail feathers were appended to a tail that showed no similarity whatsoever to that of a bird, but much more to that of a Ramphorhynchus . Even stranger was the appendage to the forelimbs, because this showed a vane extending from the front end of the forearm.
Obstupui steteruntque comae! The announcements that my honoured friend transmitted to me, came so unexpected and unprecedented, that I could initially hardly contain myself. It didn’t matter whether I regarded this androgyne creature to be a bird with a reptile’s tail or a reptile with a bird’s feathers: the first one to me as incomprehensible as the other. On the other hand, these peculiar tidings were brought to me by a man, whose judgment as an expert I could only respect completely. Therefore, there was little else to do but to postpone my own assessment and leave it in the hands of time to bring further explanations. At any rate, a long absence from here prevented me from investigating the matter further.

The first contribution to completing my knowledge of this peculiar animal was provided by H. v. Meyer in the recently appeared fifth volume of the new year-book for mineralogy etc. (1861 p. 561), where he reports the following: “from the lithographic slate of the Solenhofen formation a s fossil has been reported to me, which clearly exhibits a feather, which cannot be distinguished from that of a feather. In the organisation of pterodactyls, of which we now know so much, there is nothing that indicates a feather coat in these animals; it therefore appears to represent the first remains of a bird from before tertiary times. The feather, which posesses a blackish appearance, was approximately 60mm in length, and the vane, which was gaping in places, was almost uniformly 11mm wide. Its fibres on the one side of the shaft are only half as long as those on the other. Also, the reel, which was quite strong, is indicated. The end of the vane has a somewhat obtuse angle. The feather probably represents a downstroke or a turning feather”.
Attached to the tail are similar feathers, with the difference that they do not reach the length of the flight feathers. More significantly, they do not radiate from a centre, but spring from the sides of the tail, and move away from it under a slight angle. The outward appearance of the tail feathers is similar in form to an elongated leaf or an egg, of which the pointed end is located at the base of the tail, whereas its back part is rounded and considerably extends beyond the last tail vertebra.

Sofar this summary notice, which fully endorses the statements made by mr. Oberjustizrath Witte, but also provides further important starting-points for the interpretation of these most enigmatic remains, at which I will now make an attempt. The important part is now to establish whether this animal, showing traits of bird and reptile, can be referred to the birds or to the reptiles. Firstly, we will consider the features that connect it to the birds, and subsequently those that connect it to the reptiles.
The most evident similarity to birds is in the possession of feathers on the forelimbs and tail. A feather coat is only known in birds. Another characteristic similarity with birds can be observed in the middle of the foot, which consists of a single bone but one with three joints at the lower end that connect to the three toes. This feature is present in all birds, and has thusfar not been observed in any reptile.
The features that do not match the bird type are the following. One such anomaly lies in the attachment of the feathers themselves. The flying feathers of a bird are inserted along the entire hand and forearm; in the fossil specimen discussed here, which unfortunately lacks the hand, the forearm bears no feathers. Furthermore, the entire wing is attached to a small bone which is placed before the forearm and presumably belongs to the hand, from which it radiates in the shape of a fan. Just as perplexing is the attachment of feathers to the tail, running in symmetric fashion along its entire length. In modern birds, the steering feathers are only attached to the last vertebrae. Because such an attachment of the feathers of the wing and tail is something quite peculiar for a bird, the question is raised whether these fossil feathers are really identical to real birds’ feathers or merely have the same appearance. A microscopical investigation of this matter would certainly settle these doubts.
The structure of the vertebral column, however, is totally different from that of birds, but shows close similarity to that of the long-tailed flying saurians (Ramphorhynchus). In birds, the vertebrae of the pelvic and lumbar region, and the adjoining vertebrae, are not only fused solidly, but also covered on the outside, in a roof-like fashion, by the long ilium . But in the fossil specimen the pelvic and lumbar vertebrae are separate, and the lateral bones only a reduced development. Just as remarkable is the dissimilarity in construction of the tail. Without exception, all birds possess a short, powerful tail, which is composed of 5 to 8, and in exceptional cases of 9 or 10, vertebrae. The last of these is virtually always peculiarly shaped, and bigger than the others. The tail of the fossil specimen shows the exact opposite in all respects. Its tail is extraordinarily long and consists of approximately 20 vertebrae, that are all elongated, slender and without extensions, and of which the last one is also the smallest. Such a structure is in total contrast with the bird type, but remains consistent with that of Ramphorhynchus, which also shows radiating structures on its tail vertebrae. These do not look like feathers, but much more like simple nervous fibres.

I have presented the information that has been made available to me, and will now attempt to answer the question: should this fossil specimen be placed in the class of the birds, or that of the reptiles. The certainty an answer to this question is greatly complicated by the fact that several important parts of the skeleton, most notably the skull and the hand, are missing; noneheless, an attempt to clarify the situation should be made. First, allow me to look at the exceptional uniformity which is displayed by the bird type, especially in the construction of the skeleton, and which allows for only minor anomalies when compared to other vertebrate classes. In reptiles, on the other hand – and in the case at hand we can only consider the reptiles – the most remarkable differences can be observed within the limits of the order. This applies to the living, but most certainly to the extinct saurians. For this reason, a reptile with a single middle foot bone and with skin structures which look deceptively like feathers, appears to me much more likely than a bird with the pelvis and vertebral column (particularly with the long and slender tail vertebrae) of a long-tailed flying lizard, and with a totally different type of attachment of the feathers. Additionally, the the identity of these epidermal stuctures as feathers has not been proven; they could also represent peculiar decorations. Special structures reminiscent of feathers are known from insects; then, why not, and in an advanced stage of development, in reptiles? And even though the latter class has thusfar not shown anything of this kind, palaeontology is used to finding previously unknown peculiarities in new discoveries. As long as I am not convinced of the contrary due to the discovery of the missing parts of the specimen under investigation, I have no hesitation in declaring it to be a reptile from the order of the saurians. I therefore give it the name Griphosaurus, derived from grifon, enigma .
This peculiarly-formed saurian could also give us the answer of a still unsolved riddle. As is generally known, certain layers of the triassic formation often yield impressions considered to be bird tracks, although no bird bones were found in any formations older than the cretaceous. If these impressions, whose explanation has always seemed doubtful to me , would really be animal tracks, we would at least find in the Griphosaurus a reptile with birds’ feet, or more correctly, with birds’ middle feet, whose tracks would look like those of a bird. I do not want to say that all alleged bird tracks stem from our new species , but I just want to offer some factual support to the assumption that these tracks were not produced by birds, but by extinct reptiles. In this way, the order of occurrence of the vertebrates which arises from skeletal remains found in mountainous layers would be in harmony with the observation of tracks – insofar as they really are what they are supposed to be. The alleged bird tracks from the triassic were not made by birds, but by reptiles; they were therefore reptile tracks.

Finally, allow me to add a few words to ward off Darwinian misinterpretation of our new saurian. The first impression of Griphosaurus might well lead to the impression that we had before us an intermediate creature, engaged in the transition from the saurian to the bird. Darwin and his followers will probably employ the new discovery as an extremely welcome occurrence for the justification of their adventurous opinions about the change of animals. However, they do not have any right to do so. When I say of a frog that it was originally a fish, I can at least justify such an assertion by the factual demonstration of a row of intermediates from a fishlike tadpole to an amphibian. However, I can hardly demand that Darwin were to show me similar intermediate steps in the case of the Griphosaurus, because only one incomplete specimen is known from this species. Nonetheless, I am qualified to ask from the Darwinians, insofar as they wish to promulgate the Griphosaurus as a creature in transition, to show me the intermediate stages that mediated the transition of any living or fossil animal from one class to another. If they cannot – and they can’t – their views should be rejected as fantastic delusions, that have nothing to do with exact science.