Re: archie reference questions

[Tom Holtz <tholtz@geochange.er.usgs.gov>]

>     I've been researching archies for a painting I'm doing, and I've
>been wondering why all restorations of archies have them with very heavily
>scaled faces.  Is this a known thing, or is it something that's conjectural,
>or is it just artist' fancy?

It is not a known thing, since the only well-preserved impressions of the
integument of Archaeopteryx are the big flight feathers.  There aren't any
good impressions in the skull region.

>I know they are supposedly very similar
>skeletally to Compsygnathus which presumably had some reptilian
>characteristics,

Actually, Archaeopteryx and Compsognathus are not as similar as all the
textbooks would indicate.  Archaeopteryx is skeletally MUCH more like
dromaeosaurids and other derived "maniraptoraform" coelurosaurs -
Compsognathus is either the most primitive known coelurosaur or it may even
lie outside the allosauroid-coelurosaur clade.

The comparisons between Archie and Compy are made because a) they are both
small, b) the occur in the same sediments, and c) Compsognathus is one of
the best known Jurassic coelurosaurs.  However, if you want a better
Jurassic model for Archaeopteryx, look at Ornitholestes.

>but BIRDS have very small face-scales if any are actually
>distinguishable, so I'm wondering why archies aren't represented like birds
>more often?
>
>-Where can I find out info on archies physiognomy?  (I have the
>Dinosauria)

Damned if I know!  The Dinosauria doesn't cover too much on integument,
since there isn't a lot to talk about yet.

>-Why aren't archies represented with birds' smaller face-scales?

Artist's preferences...

>-(here's a tricky one) If archie is sort of a transitional type, would he
>have scales or feathers around the eyes (meaning eyelashes)?  Any guesses?

I'd go for the eyelashes, but that's just me.  The "hard" evidence isn't
there, one way or the other.

>-What plants have actually found at the same site as archie?  (so far I've
>got info on 'scrubby pinetrees' and that it was a semi-arid island.  More
>info would be nice or I'll start making things up)

If you can find it, look up the book _Solnhofen: A Study in Mesozoic
Paleontology_ by K.W. Barthel, N.H.W. Swinburne, and S. Conway Morris
(1990, Cambridge U. Press, 236 pp.).  This book gives a good overview of
the flora and fauna of the Solnhofen region at the time Archaeopteryx
lithographica lived (a tropical archepelago).

However, with verified rumors of Asian archeopterygid specimens, it would
be legitimate to show Archaeopteryx (or at least a close relative) in a
more continental setting

                                
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.                                   
tholtz@geochange.er.usgs.gov
Vertebrate Paleontologist in Exile                  Phone:      703-648-5280
U.S. Geological Survey                                FAX:      703-648-5420
Branch of Paleontology & Stratigraphy
MS 970 National Center
Reston, VA  22092
U.S.A.