Heralded as the “missing evolutionary link” that proved modern-day birds evolved from feathered dinosaurs nearly three decades ago, the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis fossil was a discovery thought to change how the world saw evolution.
The fossil, so-named in its unveiling, appeared to be a combination of a bird and theropod, or two-footed dinosaur. On publication, the turkey-sized fossil was described as "a missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds” that captured “the paleontological 'moment' when dinosaurs were becoming birds." The article, written by Chris Sloan, was published with a photograph of the fossil slab. In the photo's caption, a name was put to it for the first time.
Except, it was all a fake.
After a public outcry by scientific community members, National Geographic conducted an investigation that revealed the Archaeoraptor fossil was essentially two separate fossils glued together.
In 2001, paleontologist Timothy Rowe published research in Nature that further confirmed through computed tomography (CT) that “sadly, parts of at least two significant new specimens were combined in favor of the higher commercial value of the forgery, and both were nearly lost to science.”
In effect, the newly dubbed Archaeoraptor name appeared scientifically legitimate, “yet it referred to a fake,” Rowe told IFLScience. The “intentional forgery,” as it was later found to be, was smuggled out of China and into the US, where it sold on the commercial market for $80,000 at the time, roughly $150,000 in 2024.
“New, persuasive evidence of the link between dinosaurs and birds”
Rowe describes the 1990s as a time when the scientific community reexamined whether birds had derived their ancestry from dinosaurs. Following suit, the National Geographic Society announced on Oct. 15, 1999, the discovery and interpretation of Archaeoraptor.
IFLScience found an archived version of the press release announcing the fossil’s discovery that reported the fossil, alongside the discovery of two other birdlike dinosaurs, provided “new, persuasive evidence of the link between dinosaurs and birds and of the belief that feathers were widespread among meat-eating dinosaurs, maybe even Tyrannosaurus rex.”
National Geographic published without peer-reviewed evidence what they believed to be the ‘missing link ‘between birds and dinosaurs.
Dr Jingmai O'Connor
IFLScience contacted National Geographic for a copy of the article, but our request went unanswered. Rowe, however, sent our newsroom a copy of a part of the article, which read, in part:
With arms of a primitive bird and the tail of a dinosaur, this creature found in Liaoning Province, China is a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds. Scientists funded by National Geographic studied the animal, named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, under ultraviolet light above) and used CT scans to view parts of the animal obscured by rock…
Stephen Czerkas, who led the study of the specimen, reconstructed the new animal… “This fossil is perhaps the best evidence since Archaeopteryx that bids did, in fact, evolve from certain types of carnivorous dinosaurs,” said Czerkas.
A so-called “bird-dinosaur controversy to the detriment of other research”
Paleontologist Jingmai O'Connor, who also serves as the associate curator of fossil reptiles at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History, told IFLScience that at the core of this issue is that “National Geographic published without peer-reviewed evidence what they believed to be the ‘missing link ‘between birds and dinosaurs.”
National Geographic had presented for the first time a scientific name for a supposed new species before publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
Storrs Olson, renowned ornithologist and former curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History, wrote a letter to National Geographic calling the article an “all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.” (Smithsonian confirmed to IFLScience that Olson died in 2021).
In an April 2000 issue of the Smithsonian newsletter Backbone, Olson called the Archaeoraptor a “bird-dinosaur controversy to the detriment of other research.”
Archaeorapter is not located in the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, which ensures that each described animal has a “unique and universally accepted scientific name.” Nor had the name previously been published and was only known in the scientific nomenclature by the National Geographic article “with Sloan as its author”. Olson wrote that the article did not inform its readers that “contrary viewpoints exist.”
A fossilized slab shattered to resemble “an Oreo cookie pulled apart”
In October 2000, National Geographic published the results of an investigation by American journalist Lewis Simons, who concluded the fossil was a composite.
According to Simons, an unnamed farmer “hacked out a thin, buff-colored slab measuring roughly a foot square” in Juily 1997 while digging in a shale pit in Xiasanjiazi, China's northeastern Liaoning Province. For the record, Simons never met the supposed farmer and based his report on witness statements made by fellow villagers.
Upon their first discovery, the farmer found a fossil specimen described as “extraordinary,” as it contained “the fossilized bones of what seemed to be a bird, including a faint aura of feathers and a beak lined with tiny teeth.” As the farmer dug with a pick and shovel, he shattered the slab to resemble “an Oreo cookie pulled apart.”
Continuing to dig, the farmer “uncovered another, smaller slab a couple of yards away” that “contained a tail, rigid and about the size of a crocheting needle, a skull, a foot, and some other parts.”
“Pleased with the day's finds, the farmer scooped up the fragments, shouldered his tools, and walked the two miles or so back across the red dirt fields to his tiny brick house,” wrote Simons.
“Using a homemade paste, he glued the slab of the tail to the lower portion of the birdlike body. With counter slab pieces from the body itself – and possibly other scraps he'd kept over time – he glued in missing legs and feet. Aware that fossil fanciers, unlike paleontologists, prefer specimens assembled and suitable for display, the farmer was following basic market economics.”
Simons added that it’s not clear whether the farmer knew he was forging a new species or if he was just “gluing pieces he thought belonged together.” Either way, Archaeoraptor was smuggled and taken to the US, selling for $80,000 at the time.
A dealer, whose name was intentionally retained, bought the fossil from the farmer in 1998. The following year, Stephen A. Czerkas, director of a nonprofit dinosaur museum in Utah, came across the fossil at a “bazaar-style gem and mineral show in Tuscon.”
Making a chimera fossil “more presentable”
Using high-resolution X-ray CT, Rowe and his team further confirmed that the Archaeoraptor specimen was composed of at least two species built in three layers and grouted together.
A single, unbroken plate of shale was used for backing. The first layer contained a heterogenous mosaic of 88 separate pieces, some containing bone, indicating an “articulated bird skeleton.” A second phase contained 26 pieces with bones along the skeleton's rear half to “complete it.”
A third phase included the placement of 39 shims not made of bone or to be naturally associated with either of the first two groups of bones, probably added to secure the chimera skeleton and make it “more presentable”
It was deemed by researchers in 2002 that Archaeoraptor was a “chimaera formed of bird and dromaeosaur parts,” which included fossils from a primitive “fish-eating bird” known as Yanornis and a small, winged raptor known as Dromaeosaur, according to their study published in Nature.
An “ever-growing toolkit” to verify the ethical collection of specimens
“In the case of Archaeoraptor, the tail and legs were added to make it more complete, and that greater completeness commanded a greater price on the commercial market” explained Rowe, adding that this monetary influence begs the question of whether fossil extractors are working for scientific or commercial value.
This presents a greater issue examining the import and export of fossils under ethical means, O’Connor notes.
Many institutions prohibit staff from accepting specimens not legally collected or sent from their country of origin. Based on Simons’ investigation into the origins of the Archaeoraptor, however, the fossil appears to have been obtained through unethical means.
[F]orgeries are not that common and usually not all that well done. With experience, they are pretty easy to identify these days. The oddities stand out.
Dr Jingmai O'Connor
“Scientists generally look down on the commercial marketplace” for these reasons, Rowe added. International protective measures are in place to protect fossils from being illegally collected in most nations and from being smuggled out of others. But these protections vary from country to country.
To combat this, Rowe refers to an “evergrowing toolkit” of ways to determine whether something is authentic or collected under ethical circumstances. There are standards for extraction, preparation, and reparation by which researchers continue to build today.
“One of the things we try to do with students and recognize on our own is that there has been this varied history of how fossils have been treated once they find their way into human hands,” said Rowe.
So, while some have argued that the Archaeoraptor forgery invalidates the scientific process, others suggest its correction strengthens peer review. Regarding the Archaeoraptor, the scientific community stepped in to correct an egregious error.
O’Connor notes that there are many tools for finding a fake, but simply being careful and using the power of observation will “usually do the trick.”
“The forgeries are not that common and usually not all that well done. With experience, they are pretty easy to identify these days. The oddities stand out, in my experience,” said O’Connor.
