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,
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.
You have me confused. The following is from the Univesity of California Museum of Paleontology:
A particulary important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx lithographica, found in the Jurassic Solnhofen Limestone of southern Germany, which is marked by rare but exceptionally well preserved fossils. Archaeopteryx is considered by many to be the first bird, being of about 150 million years of age. It is actually intermediate between the birds that we see flying around in our backyards and the predatory dinosaurs like Deinonychus. In fact, one skeleton of Archaeopteryx that had poorly preserved feathers was originally described as a skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, Compsognathus. A total of seven specimens of the bird are known at this time.It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered.
But you say "We think that it was probably..." If you have some other sources I would appreciate links. If you are actually working in the field, you are ahead of me and I will gladly accept correction. I did a lot of human osteology and fossil man courses in grad school, but have not studied the fossils in any real depth since them.
Like Coyoteman said, it is called the urvogel sometimes, and that means "first bird".
It is not a decendent of aves.
Some classify it in Avialae, a group containing some other basal birds and feathered dinosaurs and also containing Aves. Others place it as the most basal member of Aves.
And it did not fly, although some recent renderings have it perched on tree limbs and flying all over the place.
Archaeopteryx was capable of powered flight, although more clumsily than modern birds. It probably chiefly used its wings for wing-assisted incline running.
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.
Who is "we"?
Did birds descend from dinosaurs? Maybe. But not from archaeopteryx.
Transitional fossils are not species that were direct ancestors of living species, but occurring along the line of descent. Pretty much everyone places Archaeopteryx on the line to Aves, either basally in Aves or preceeding Aves in Avialae. This does not mean that modern birds are descended from Archaeopteryx specifically, but that Archaeopteryx typifies a stage in the transition from dinosaur to bird.
It is a controversial dinosaur.
Not really.