Editing Archaeopteryx (section)

=== Authenticity ===
Beginning in 1985, an amateur group including astronomer [[Fred Hoyle]] and physicist [[Lee Spetner]], published a series of papers claiming that the feathers on the Berlin and London specimens of ''Archaeopteryx'' were forged.<ref name=Hoyle_85/><ref name=RSW_85a/><ref name=RSW_85b/><ref name=RSW_85c/> Their claims were repudiated by [[Alan J. Charig]] and others at the [[Natural History Museum, London|Natural History Museum in London]].<ref name=ACetal86/> Most of their supposed evidence for a forgery was based on unfamiliarity with the processes of [[lithification]]; for example, they proposed that, based on the difference in texture associated with the feathers, feather impressions were applied to a thin layer of [[cement]],<ref name=RSW_85a/> without realizing that feathers themselves would have caused a textural difference.<ref name=ACetal86/> They also misinterpreted the fossils, claiming that the tail was forged as one large feather,<ref name=RSW_85a/> when visibly this is not the case.<ref name=ACetal86/> In addition, they claimed that the other specimens of ''Archaeopteryx'' known at the time did not have feathers,<ref name=Hoyle_85/><ref name=RSW_85a/> which is incorrect; the Maxberg and Eichstätt specimens have obvious feathers.<ref name=ACetal86/>

They also expressed disbelief that slabs would split so smoothly, or that one half of a slab containing fossils would have good preservation, but not the [[counterslab]].<ref name="Hoyle_85"/><ref name="RSW_85b"/> These are common properties of Solnhofen fossils, because the dead animals would fall onto hardened surfaces, which would form a natural plane for the future slabs to split along and would leave the bulk of the fossil on one side and little on the other.<ref name="ACetal86"/>

Finally, the motives they suggested for a forgery are not strong, and are contradictory; one is that Richard Owen wanted to forge evidence in support of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is unlikely given Owen's views toward Darwin and his theory. The other is that Owen wanted to set a trap for Darwin, hoping the latter would support the fossils so Owen could discredit him with the forgery; this is unlikely because Owen wrote a detailed paper on the London specimen, so such an action would certainly backfire.<ref name="Talk_Origin_1"/>

Charig ''et al.'' pointed to the presence of hairline cracks in the slabs running through both rock and fossil impressions, and mineral growth over the slabs that had occurred before discovery and preparation, as evidence that the feathers were original.<ref name=ACetal86/> Spetner ''et al.'' then attempted to show that the cracks would have propagated naturally through their postulated cement layer,<ref name=LMS88/> but neglected to account for the fact that the cracks were old and had been filled with [[calcite]], and thus were not able to propagate.<ref name=Talk_Origin_1/> They also attempted to show the presence of cement on the London specimen through [[X-ray spectroscopy]], and did find something that was not rock;<ref name=LMS88/> it was not cement either, and is most probably a fragment of silicone rubber left behind when moulds were made of the specimen.<ref name=Talk_Origin_1/> Their suggestions have not been taken seriously by palaeontologists, as their evidence was largely based on misunderstandings of geology, and they never discussed the other feather-bearing specimens, which have increased in number since then. Charig ''et al.'' reported a discolouration: a dark band between two layers of limestone – they say it is the product of sedimentation.<ref name=ACetal86/> It is natural for limestone to take on the colour of its surroundings and most limestones are coloured (if not colour banded) to some degree, so the darkness was attributed to such impurities.<ref name=Encarta/> They also mention that a complete absence of air bubbles in the rock slabs is further proof that the specimen is authentic.<ref name=ACetal86/>