Skip to main content

Blue Archaeopteryx

This is another rendering of Archaeopteryx, one I'd done before I'd done my red Archaeopteryx. Just like my red Archaeopteryx, I made this guy's head and neck quite fluffy. The colouring is loosely based on a blue jay because I really like blue jays. But also corvids in general; corvids are cool!

...but then in hind sight, it looks a bit too much like a corvid than an Archaeopteryx, I must admit, but this is all in an attempt to make Archaeopteryx look more birdlike rather than a feathered reptile; I think most of the artistic reconstructions out there are too reptilian. I wrote in my red Archaeopteryx post as well but I kind of like the idea that Archaeopteryx and other early birds had more fuzziness about them than widely depicted.

Before anyone says, "How is this an Archaeopteryx, it just looks like a bird?", look at the fluff on the tarsals. And look at the external nares at the tip of the premaxilla. Also, do look at the claws poking out from under the wing (maybe not so obvious but they are there). On the other hand, I didn't particularly make the claw on the second pedal digit noticeably bigger but it is just ever so slightly bigger.

I drew his picture with a mechanical pencil (B, 0.5) and coloured it using a cheap set of colouring pencils that I got at WH Smith about eight years ago.

Comments

Traumador said…
Very nice.

I do agree to many Archys look like Compies that have been tarred and feathered.

Though I think I kind of agree with your take. He is almost too much blue jay (having just watching some at a bird feeder yesterday their fresh in my memory... ah I love spring. Hopefully the Kingfishers will return soon :P). I think just a tinge of reptile in his snout would fix that though.

Cool to see the old stuff.

Hope all is well with you!

Cheers
Albertonykus said…
Reptilian Archaeopteryx is certainly a widespread common. Most reconstructions of deinonychosaurs and oviraptorosaurs are overly reptilian as well. (I remember reading on Theropoda that most people don't draw "feathered dinosaurs", but "dinosaurs with feathers".)

Popular posts from this blog

R for beginners and intermediate users 3: plotting with colours

For my third post on my R tutorials for beginners and intermediate users, I shall finally touch on the subject matter that prompted me to start these tutorials - plotting with group structures in colour.

If you are familiar with R, then you may have noticed that assigning group structure is not all that straightforward. You can have a dataset that may have a column specifically for group structure such as this:

B0 B1 B2 Family
Acrocanthosaurus 0.308 -0.00329 3.28E-05 Allosauroidea
Allosaurus 0.302 -0.00285 2.04E-05 Allosauroidea
Archaeopteryx 0.142 -0.000871 2.98E-06 Aves
Bambiraptor 0.182 -0.00161 1.10E-05 Dromaeosauridae
Baryonychid 0.189 -0.00238 2.20E-05 Basal_Tetanurae
Carcharodontosaurus 0.369 -0.00502 5.82E-05 Allosauroidea
Carnotaurus 0.312 -0.00324 2.94E-05 Neoceratosauria
Ceratosaurus 0.377 -0.00522 6.07E-05 Neoceratosauria
Citipati 0.278 -0.00119 5.08E-06 Oviraptorosauria
Coelophysi…

The difference between Lion and Tiger skulls

A quick divergence from my usual dinosaurs, and I shall talk about big cats today. This is because to my greatest delight, I had discovered today a wonderful book. It is called The Felidæ of Rancho La Brea (Merriam and Stock 1932, Carnegie Institution of Washington publication, no. 422). As the title suggests it goes into details of felids from the Rancho La Brea, in particular Smilodon californicus (probably synonymous with S. fatalis), but also the American Cave Lion, Panthera atrox. The book is full of detailed descriptions, numerous measurements and beautiful figures. However, what really got me excited was, in their description and comparative anatomy of P. atrox, Merriam and Stock (1932) provide identification criteria for the Lion and Tiger, a translation of the one devised by the French palaeontologist Marcelin Boule in 1906. I have forever been looking for a set of rules for identifying lions and tigers and ultimately had to come up with a set of my own with a lot of help fro…

Top 10 scientifically important theropod dinosaurs of all time (off the top of my head)

I thought I'd do a fun post for once. And since list based articles are the norm for fun on the internet, I thought I'd do one on dinosaurs, but given that I know most about theropods, I've decided to restrict my list to theropods (...maybe in a future post, I'll do other clades).

My ranking is based mostly on scientific importance so it may not reflect awesomeness, and it is obviously subjective as to how I rank importance to science. For instance, interesting discoveries or unique palaeobiology are ranked relatively low compared to wealth of information and data or completely revolutionising our understanding of the evolution of theropods.

So here are my top 10 scientifically important theropod dinosaurs of all time (off the top of my head)

10. Megalosaurus

Being the first dinosaur to be named, Megalosaurus automatically deserves a spot on this list, but given the fragmentary nature of known fossil specimens, and being mostly useless as a meaningful source for biologi…