HOME | DD
Osmatar β Archaeopteryx sp.
Published: 2011-10-22 12:04:53 +0000 UTC; Views: 10081; Favourites: 241; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
An Archaeopteryx pencil illustration I did for the same paper as the Deinonychus. I can't assign it to a particular species because I can't remember which fossils I used as reference, but I do remember counting the number of primaries and secondaries several times! Even with that I made some glaring errors with the wings, but such is life.I hate it when people do scaly-headed restorations of Archaeopteryx. I'm not aware of any feathered maniraptorans with bare heads so far, and from what I've read, the iconic Solnhofen Archaeopteryx had feather impressions around the skull that were destryoed in preparation.
I find it amusing that so many years later Anchiornis turned out to have feathers patterned very close to my Archaeopteryx. Just goes to show my idea wasn't that far off.
Related content
Comments: 19
Uhm it's lithographica in the species name
Awesome nontheless
π: 0 β©: 1
I thought there were at least two species of Archaeopteryx. Oh well.
π: 0 β©: 1
YOU'RE BACK! THIS IS A DAY TO BE CELEBRATED!
π: 0 β©: 0
Doesn't the Thermopolis Specimen show Archaeopteryx lacks a reversed toe, and wasn't there a recent study indicating it at least had black covert feathers? Either way it looks amazing, so if you don't mind, I'm faving it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Actually there are plenty of birds with bald heads today (such as the turkey vulture). However their heads are covered in elephant like skin rather than scales. I assume any bald headed raptors would have elephant skin their as well
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course, but that is besides the point, which is the annoying tendency of artists to plant a scaly lizard head on a fully feathered Archaeopteryx. Not only does it go against all evidence, it's also nonsensical. It reminds me of those creationists who think evolution is supposed to produce forms that are mish-mashes of parts from two completely different animals.
π: 0 β©: 1
late reply, but I totally agree! gotta love the archie though! this really is a splendid rendition!
π: 0 β©: 0
the way the secondary/tertiary feathers are separated from the body kinda throws me off, but daaaamn the rest is awesome. I specially like the feathery head.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you.
I know it looks weird, but if you look at the fossils themselves, the glaring lack of tertials is obvious. In fact I'm not aware of any non-pygostylians having remiges beyond the elbow joint. Tertials seem to have evolved long after true flight.
π: 0 β©: 0
So refreshing to see an example thatΒ΄s not red or blue - oh, hang on itΒ΄s b/w. >;~} >
Lovely, Mette. I especially like the head. The second pedal digit may not have been hyper-extended after all, if claw curvature and unexpanded flexor-tubercules are anything to go by, but it is still a reasonable assumption and could be clarified either way in the future.
Spike.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hehe, I know. I grew up with those sparkleraptor Archies too. 
I'm actually tempted to redo my Archaeopteryx, but your comment on the second toes makes me wary. I don't want it to end up being outdated in a year or two.
π: 0 β©: 1
CanΒ΄t avoid that in paleoart, Mette.
Like I said, hyper-extended 2nd pedal digit is feasible, but less so than in some (other) theropods.
Spike.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know, I know. I was just thinking that if somebody believes they have the definite answer, now would be a good time to let me know.
π: 0 β©: 0
Excellent rendition of Archaeopteryx. 
π: 0 β©: 1
While I'd like to be able to take credit for that, the Thermopolis specimen hadn't even been published yet when I drew this! Back then it was a reasonable hypothesis that luckily turned out to be right.
π: 0 β©: 1
That makes it all the more impressive, then.
π: 0 β©: 0