Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
December 25, 2012
Image Size
1.3 MB
Resolution
1265×796
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
2,548
Favourites
108 (who?)
Comments
20
Downloads
79
×
100--ARCHAEOPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICA by Green-Mamba 100--ARCHAEOPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICA by Green-Mamba
project: DINOSAURIA
specimen 100

ARCHAEOPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICA
"Lithographic Ancient Feather"
Meyer, 1861
Length: 40cm (1.3 ft)
Weight: 1kg (2.2 lbs.)
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Era: Tithonian age, upper Jurassic (150 million years ago)

Classification:
Dinosauria
Saurischia
Theropoda
Tetanurae
Avetheropoda
Coelurosauria
Maniraptoriformes
Maniraptora
Aviremigia
Paraves
Avialae
Archaeopterygidae

Notes:
In 2011 a study was done on the original Archaeopteryx feather (likely a covert feather, one which covers the primary wing feathers), showing that it was almost certainly black in color.

Synonyms:
Griphosaurus Wagner, 1862
Griphornis Woodward, 1862
Archaeornis Petronievics, 1917
Jurapteryx Howgate, 1984
Wellnhoferia Elżanowski, 2001
Add a Comment:
 
:icontrefrex:
TrefRex Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2014
Nice work! :)
Do you know that Archaeopteryx was discovered two years after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species: by Means of Natural Selection" (1859) and provided a strong support for the Theory of Evolution! :)
Reply
:iconlollipop3455555555:
lollipop3455555555 Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2014
AHA, I knew Archaeopteryx would be #100 ;3
Reply
:icondarklord86:
darklord86 Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2014
Cool!
Reply
:iconzero-alto:
Zero-Alto Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013
Isn't Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird though?
Reply
:icongreen-mamba:
Green-Mamba Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013
a bird is a dinosaur, is it not?

as it stands, archaeopteryx is more or less right about at the line where non-avialan dinosaur becomes avialan dinosaur. some paleontologists classify it as one of the most basal avialans, others categorize it as a really primitive deinonychosaur, and honestly, the distinction is pretty arbitrary.
Reply
:iconzero-alto:
Zero-Alto Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013
They still fall into two groups avian (aves) birds or and non-avain (dinosauria) dinosuars, Currently Archaeopteryx is classified under Aves, not Dinosauria.


For a short period when Xiaotingia zhengi was found and was examined the findings where thought to have changed the outlook of Achaeopterx, in that was no longer considered a bird and instead in the deinonychosuar group, but that didn't last long as a follow up study showed Acheopterx was not a deinychosuar.
[link]

Maybe as more fossils are found it may change again, but for now Achaeopterx is not in the Dinosauria class, and still remains a bird.
Reply
:icongreen-mamba:
Green-Mamba Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013
i don't follow linnean taxonomy all that closely. i find it outdated and pointless. dinosauria is not a class either, in linnean terms it is unranked, though that's just semantics.

under cladistics, archaeopteryx falls entirely within dinosauria, regardless of whether it falls within avialae or outside of it. all birds do, just as all primates are mammals and all mammals are vertebrates. a dinosaurian line doesn't stop being a dinosaurian and start being avian at some arbitrary point. dinosauria, as it is modernly defined, is the most recent common ancestor of megalosaurus and iguanodon and all of its descendants (alternatively you could use passer and triceratops and come to the same definition). this definition includes all birds, living and deceased. a flamingo is just as much a dinosaur as a tyrannosaurus and any definition of dinosauria that you want to include saurischian dinosaurs within is required to include birds as well.

this is an argument of semantics--a bird is a dinosaur, end of story.

and i still feel the distinction between a basal avialan and a basal deinonychosaur to be pretty arbitrary and the insistance of archaeopteryx being a bird to be fervent holdover from its old days as the urvogel. why is archaeopterys so much more a bird than microraptor, for instance?

here's a question--what makes a bird a bird?

--feathers? plenty of non-avialan dinosaurs have those.
--eggs with hard shells? endemic of all dinosauria so far as we know.
--brooding? oviraptorosaurs are known to have partaken.
--warm blooded? outside of the fact that mesozoic dinosaurs were likely warm blooded, could you actually definitively prove archaeopteryx is warm blooded?
--flight? would you like to leave out ostriches and penguins?
--toothless beaks? well that would certainly leave out archaeopteryx.
--short tails ending in pygostyles? see above.

in the end its an argument of semantics. it's an arbitrary line cut in the soil so ornithologists don't have to deal with dinosaurs and traditional dinosaur fanboys don't have to bother with birds. what difference does it make?
Reply
:iconyoult:
yoult Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013  Professional General Artist
"in the end its an argument of semantics. it's an arbitrary line cut in the soil so ornithologists don't have to deal with dinosaurs and traditional dinosaur fanboys don't have to bother with birds. what difference does it make?"

Couldn't say that better.
Reply
:iconnovablue:
novablue Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Very nice work! I like that the leg feathers go so far down the legs - I've heard something about how it's believed the original finding did show feathers down the legs but that the evidence was destroyed during restoration work or something like that? I could be wrong....
Reply
:icongreen-mamba:
Green-Mamba Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2013
no, you're quite right.
Reply
Add a Comment: