Typical PC science from New Scientist.
From Wiki:
Archaeopteryx, sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel ("original bird" or "first bird"), is the earliest and most primitive bird known. The name is from the Ancient Greek ἀρχαῖος archaios meaning 'ancient' and πτέρυξ pteryx meaning 'feather' or 'wing'; (pronounced /ˌɑrkiːˈɒptərɨks/ "AR-kee-OP-ter-iks").
Archaeopteryx lived in the late Jurassic Period around 155–150 million years ago, in what is now southern Germany during a time when Europe was an archipelago of islands in a shallow warm tropical sea, much closer to the equator than it is now.
Similar in size and shape to a European Magpie, Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.
The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.[1][2] Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs.
Have to disagree.
Archaeopteryx means “ancient wing” not “first bird”. It is not a decendent of aves. Birds did not derive from archaeopteryx. And it did not fly, although some recent renderings have it perched on tree limbs and flying all over the place.
We think that it was probably cold-blooded and that the feathers were used for temperature regulation and catching prey, as well as flapping and jumping.
Did birds descend from dinosaurs? Maybe. But not from archaeopteryx.
It is a controversial dinosaur.
I don’t recommend Wiki or New Scientist as technical sources: too PC.
Regards,