Editing Archaeoraptor (section)

===Chronology===
[[File:Archeoraptor NG article.jpg|thumb|This article from the November 1999 issue of ''National Geographic'' was retracted after the fossil "''Archaeoraptor liaoningensis''" was shown to be fraudulent.]]
According to ''National Geographic'''s report, the story of "Archaeoraptor" begins in July 1997 in Xiasanjiazi, China, where farmers routinely dug in the shale pits with picks and sold fossils to dealers for a few dollars. This was an illegal practice, but it was common then. In this case, one farmer found a rare fossil of a toothed bird, complete with feather impressions. The fossil broke into pieces during collection. Nearby, in the same pit, he found pieces including a feathered tail and legs. He cemented several of these pieces together in a manner that he believed was correct. He knew that it would make a more complete-looking and, thus, more expensive fossil. It was sold in June 1998 to an anonymous dealer and smuggled to the United States. According to authorities in Beijing, no fossils may leave China legally.<ref name="Simonsoct2000"/>

By the fall 1998 annual meeting of the [[Society of Vertebrate Paleontology]], held in [[Utah]], United States, rumors were circulating about a striking fossil of a primitive bird that was in private hands. This fossil was presented by an anonymous dealer at a gem show in [[Tucson, Arizona]]. [[The Dinosaur Museum (Utah)|The Dinosaur Museum]] in [[Blanding, Utah]], purchased it in February 1999. The museum was run by the late [[Stephen A. Czerkas]] (d. 2015) and his wife, Sylvia Czerkas. Mr. Czerkas did not hold a university degree, but he was a dinosaur enthusiast and artist. He arranged for patrons of his museum, including trustee Dale Slade, to provide $80,000 for the purchase of the fossil, to study it scientifically, and prevent it from disappearing into an anonymous private collection.<ref name="Dalton403" />

The Czerkases contacted paleontologist [[Phil Currie]], who contacted the [[National Geographic Society]]. Currie agreed to study the fossil on condition that it was eventually returned to China. The National Geographic Society intended to get the fossil formally published in the peer-reviewed science journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', and then follow up immediately with a press conference and an issue of ''National Geographic''.<ref name="Dalton403" /> Editor Bill Allen asked that all members of the project keep the fossil secret so that the magazine would have a scoop on the story.

Slade and the Czerkases intended the fossil to be the "crown jewel" of the Dinosaur Museum and planned to keep it on display there for five years. Sloan says that he flew to Utah in the spring of 1999 to convince Stephen Czerkas to return the fossil to China immediately after publication, or he would not write about it for ''National Geographic'' and Currie would not work on it. Czerkas then agreed. Currie then contacted the [[Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology]] in Beijing, and ''National Geographic'' flew the IVPP's Xu Xing to Utah to be part of the "Archaeoraptor" team.<ref name="Simonsoct2000"/>

During the initial examination of the fossil on March 6, 1999, it had already become clear to Currie that the left and right feet mirrored each other perfectly and that the fossil had been completed by using both slab and counter slab. He also noticed no connection could be seen between the tail and the body. In July 1999, Currie and the Czerkases brought the fossil to the High-Resolution X-ray CT Facility of the University of Texas (Austin) founded and operated by Dr. Timothy Rowe to make [[CT scan]]s. Rowe, having made the scans on July 29, determined that they indicated that the bottom fragments, showing the tail and the lower legs, were not part of the larger fossil. He informed the Czerkases on August 2 that there was a chance of the whole being a fraud. During a subsequent discussion, Rowe and Currie were pressured by the Czerkases to keep their reservations private.<ref name="Simonsoct2000"/>

Currie in the first week of September sent his preparator, Kevin Aulenback, to the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding to prepare the fossil for better study. Aulenback concluded that the fossil was "a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens...with a maximum...of five...separate specimens", but the Czerkases angrily denied this and Aulenbeck only reported this to Currie. Currie did not inform ''National Geographic'' of these problems.<ref name="Simonsoct2000"/>

On August 13, 1999, the team submitted a manuscript titled "A New Toothed Bird With a Dromaeosaur-like Tail" under the names of Stephen Czerkas, Currie, Rowe, and Xu, to the journal ''Nature'' in London. The paper mentions two places{{clarify|date=December 2022}} and includes a figure illustrating the point that one of the legs and the tail are counterparts that were composited into the main slab.<ref name="Simonsoct2000"/>

On August 20 ''Nature'' rejected the paper, indicating to the Czerkases that ''National Geographic'' had refused to delay publication, leaving too little time for peer review. The authors then submitted the paper to ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', which sent it out for peer review. Two reviewers informed ''Science'' that "the specimen was smuggled out of China and illegally purchased" and that the fossil had been "doctored" in China "to enhance its value." ''Science'' then rejected the paper. According to Sloan, the Czerkases did not inform ''National Geographic'' about the details of the two rejections.<ref name="Dalton403" />

By that time the November issue of ''National Geographic'' was already in preparation for printing, but "Archaeoraptor" was never formally published in any peer-reviewed journal.

''National Geographic'' went ahead and published without peer review.<ref name="Sloan 98–107"/> The fossil was unveiled in a press conference on October 15, 1999, and in November 1999 ''National Geographic'' contained an article by Christopher P. Sloan&mdash;a ''National Geographic'' art editor. Sloan described it as a missing link that helped elucidate the connection between dinosaurs and birds. The original fossil was put on display at the National Geographic Society in [[Washington, D.C.]], pending return to China. In the article Sloan used the name "''Archaeoraptor liaoningensis''" but with a disclaimer (so that it would not count as a nomenclatural act for scientific classification<ref>Rule 8b of the [http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp International Code of Zoological Nomenclature] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090524144249/http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp |date=2009-05-24 }}, 3rd edition.</ref>) in anticipation of Czerkas<ref name="Sloan 98–107"/>  being able to publish a peer-reviewed description at some point in the future.

After the November ''National Geographic'' came out, Storrs L. Olson, curator of birds in the National Museum of Natural History of the [[Smithsonian Institution]] published an [[open letter]] on 1 November 1999, pointing out that "the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported" and protesting the "prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs." Olson complained that Sloan, a journalist, had usurped the process of scientific nomenclature by publishing a name first in the popular press: "This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists&mdash;that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist."<ref>Storrs L. Olson, 1999. [http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Nov/msg00263.html Two open letters from Storrs Olson (LONG)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111022001029/http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Nov/msg00263.html |date=2011-10-22 }}</ref>

In October 1999, after having been informed by Currie of the problems and seeing the specimen for the first time, Xu noticed that the tail of "Archaeoraptor" strongly resembled an unnamed [[maniraptora]]n dinosaur that he was studying&mdash;later to be named ''[[Microraptor zhaoianus]]''.<ref name="Dalton404"/> He returned to China and traveled to Liaoning Province where he inspected the fossil site and contacted several [[fossil dealer]]s. He eventually found a fairly complete fossil of a tiny dromaeosaur, and the tail of this new fossil corresponded so exactly to the tail on the "Archaeoraptor" fossil that it had to be the counter slab&mdash; it even had two matching yellow oxide stains.<ref name="Simonsoct2000"/> On December 20, 1999, Xu Xing sent e-mails to the authors and Sloan, announcing that the fossil was a fake.<ref name="Dalton404">Dalton, Rex. "Fake bird fossil highlights the problem of illegal trading" ''Nature'' Vol 404, 13 April 2000. pp.696</ref>

On February 3, 2000, ''The National Geographic News'' issued a press release stating that the "Archaeoraptor" fossil might be a composite and that an internal investigation had begun. In the March issue of ''National Geographic'' Xu's letter ran in the Forum section of the magazine, and Bill Allen had Xu change the word "fake" to "composite".<ref name= "Xu2000">Xu, Xing (2000) "Response to "Feathers for ''T.rex''?" "''National Geographic Magazine''" 197(3) March 2000, Forum Section (pp. unnumbered)</ref>

On April 4, 2000, Stephen Czerkas told a group of paleontologists in Washington that he and Sylvia had made "an idiot, bone-stupid mistake". Currie, Allen, and Sloan all expressed regret. Rowe felt vindicated, claiming the affair as evidence that his scans were correct. Rowe published a Brief Communication in ''Nature'' in 2001 describing his findings. He concluded that, apart from the top part, several specimens had been used to complete the fossil: a first for the left femur, a second for the tibiae, a third for both feet, and at least one more for the tail, which alone consisted of five separate parts.<ref name="Simonsoct2000"/><ref name=Rowe2001>Rowe, T., Ketcham, R.A., Denison, C., Colbert, M., Xu, X., Currie, P.J. ''Nature'' vol. 410 29 March 2001 pp.539-540.</ref>

In June 2000 the fossil was returned to China.<ref name="Dalton, Rex 2004. pp. 5">Dalton, Rex. "Feathered fossils cause a flap in museums" ''Nature'' Vol 429. 6 May 2004. pp. 5.</ref> In the October 2000 issue, ''National Geographic'' published the results of their investigation.