A new study conducted by Chinese experts pointed to the likelihood that Archaeopteryx, long regarded as one of birds' probable ancestors, would lose its more than a hundred year reputation and be re-classified as one of the many flying dinosaurs.

Findings published on Thursday by science journal Nature and presented by a team of Chinese scientists headed by Xing Xu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing indicated that Archaeopteryx falls under the deinonychosaurs group, which Xing said were two-legged winged predators distantly related to birds.

While the research showed that Archaeopteryx could have been the likely source of some early birds that roamed Earth's skies, the Chinese scientists maintained that the pre-historic creature, which was discovered in Bavaria, Germany on 1861, could not be strictly labelled as a bird despite having bird-like features such as wings and feathers.

The Chinese researchers argued that Archaeopteryx, which was estimated to have existed some 150 million years ago, appeared to have teeth and bony tail too, and following careful anatomical comparisons to other 89 species, its being a bird at this time should be reviewed by experts.

Such contention though would hardly make any difference, according to American bird evolution expert Lawrence Witmer of Ohio University, who asserted that it would be next to impossible to separate dinosaur-like birds and bird-like dinosaurs just by re-evaluating available fossil discoveries.

"Birds have been so embedded within this group of small dinosaurs ... it's very difficult to tell who is who," Witmer told The Associated Press.

Xing's team admitted that their findings are solely based on the analytical comparison of Archaeopteryx to Xiaotingia Zhengi, a chicken-like creature that approximately lived some 160 million years ago in the Liaoning province of China, leaving their proposed re-classification anchored on weak data.

Also, Luis Chiappe of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County viewed the Chinese findings as generally wanting in rock-solid evidence, which "needs to be reassessed by other people," and once new discoveries emerged, he added that such claims could easily be brushed aside.