Again do you even read the articles you cite?
"This led to popular reports that "Archaeopteryx is no longer a bird",[2] though Xu et al. noted that there are several competing definitions of the clade Aves currently in use, pointing out that their definitions are compatible with a traditional Aves with Archaeopteryx as a specifier.[1]"
Not that it really matters, since your claim that there are no transitional fossils is wrong.
"This led to popular reports that "Archaeopteryx is no longer a bird",[2] though Xu et al. noted that there are several competing definitions of the clade Aves currently in use, pointing out that their definitions are compatible with a traditional Aves with Archaeopteryx as a specifier.[1]"
Not that it really matters, since your claim that there are no transitional fossils is wrong.