Yet another of those non-transitional forms that creationists keep talking about. A feathered lizard is always 'too lizard' or 'too birdlike' to be 'truly transitional' if you're batshit crazy.
I wonder if this one is either too much like a bird or too much like a sauropod? I wonder if confusion between sauropods and tetrapods will cause another one of those 'little misunderstandings' that passes for an answer from creationists?
I wonder if the fact that it has feathers but no wings will be seen as significant?
I wonder if the fact that it has both a beak and teeth will be seen as significant?
I wonder if the fact that it demonstrates sexually-selected characteristics in it's exaggerated tailfeathers (so very common in modern birds) will be seen as significant?
I wonder if the fact that it has the tree-climbing claws, as you would expect from the arboreal precursors to creatures with powered flight, will be seen as significant?
I suspect that, just as before, anyone capable of rational thought will see this as a wondrous example of the many splendid things evolution has thrown at our feet. And I suspect that there will be a small fringe element in flyover country flinging out their usual crap as to what constitutes a transitional species. I'm sure there are more than enough people who will claim to be 'experts', and weigh in.
Furthermore, I am certain that these people have enough money and enough followers to drag this out for years. But all that provides them is an opportunity to spend their money on nothing whatsoever, and anyone with half a brain the persistent joy in knowing that these people take such fierce pride in being demonstrably, totally and utterly wrong.