Everybody knows boids evolved from dinosaurs.
You’re shittin’ me. Those frickin’ huge mosasaurs were squamates? Like as in actual lizards?
I’m a Christian, and in MY eyes the “snake” mentioned in Genesis wasn’t even an actual snake. In my view, it’s simply symbolic of satan. I’ve always looked at it as it being Satan himself tempting Adam and Eve, not some mere snake with the devil speaking through it.
The same word that is used for Serpent in Genesis is the same one that is used later on when directly speaking of Satan. Even the “punnishment” that many claim to be a punnishment to snakes as we know it, that being that they to be on their bellies and eat dust for the rest of their days doesn’t add up to me, as the exact same thing is later mentioned when talking directly about Satan.
Well, according to some folks 
:
- Tamerlane
Traditionally, mosasaurs have actually been linked to varanid lizards (making, e.g., Komodo Dragons among their closest living relatives), though some (including Edward Drinker Cope) have postulated a derivation from early Pythonomorphs (making snakes their closest living relatives). The latter hypothesis doesn’t seem to have caught on much, though. Either way, they were defintiely squamates.
The Mosasaur connection might be gathering some steam. See this discussion:
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit260/260.100.html
Of particular note re: the above discussion:
It is very uncertain where the ancestral pythonomorph derived from. However, somewhere in the early Cretaceous, a medium-large, low-slung, long-bodied, probably terrestrial predacious lizard developed a unique hinge in the middle of its lower jaw, loss of the symphysis joining the two halves of the lower jaw, and a unique way of stabilizing the spinal column (the zygosphene-zygantra articulation). These features (all of which were among those noted by Cope in 1869!) seem to have been a major evolutionary success in a number of quite different environments and may have driven the successive radiations of aigialosaurs, mosasaurs, and snakes, the last of which continues today.
Emphasis added ;).
- Tamerlane
Man, those are some big lizards. :eek:
You learn some fascinating things by accident on these boards.
And to tie all this stuff about snakes and lizards and mosasaurs together, I give you Haasiophis terrasanctus (along with Pachyrachis problematicus), an early limbed snake! Pachyrachis was a key specimen which Lee used (see Tamerlane’s link) to re-establish the snake-mosasaur link. Though Haasiophis may stir the pot a bit more, just to keep things interesting:
Oh…and it ties this whole “side” discussion into the OP: if early snakes (as in, they were snakes before they became legless) had limbs, then, yes, it can well and truly be said “snakes once had feet”.
Serpentes/Sauria in a Linnaean sense.
Excellent.
I heard that humans actually evolved from these single celled amoebas!!!
Cladistics does intrigue me. It groups the Crocodylia and Aves together in Archosauromorpha, which is very accurate. Linnaean taxonomy does have its drawbacks. I’m an evolutionary ecologist anyway, so I should be using cladistics. :o
I have anecdotal support for it, however.
My pet snake (a Red Ratsnake, Elaphe Guttata Guttata) managed to escape from his terrarium once. I was fairly certain he must still be in the room, but couldn’t find him for a number of days. Eventually I found him again, and the next day there was a rather large ball of dust lying in the terrarium. It appeared to consist mostly of wool from the carpet and dust from the walls. He had probably been “licking” things in order to collect moisture.
I’m a scientist (Ph.D. in avian ecology, 1980) based at the Smithsonian Institution, as well as chief curator for Panama’s new Museum of Biodiversity, now under construction. More importantly, I am the Straight Dope Curator of All that Walks, Crawls, or Flaps, by special appointment of Cecil himself. (Besides crocodile tears, Cecil has also quoted me on the subjects of caterpillar sex, butt-breathing turtles, and pink flamingos.)
Given that the sister-group of the Scleroglossans consists of animals popularly described as “lizards,” and that the sister group of the “Serpentes” within the Scleroglossa also consists of animals popularly known is as “lizards,” it is perfectly correct to refer to the four-legged ancestor of snakes as a lizard, “lizard” being a popular term with no modern taxonomic validity beyond “member of the Sauria (in a cladistic sense) that is not a member of the Serpentes clade.” (In these terms, I would also say that it is also correct to say that birds are descended from “reptiles,” using reptiles in the informal sense of “non-mammalian non-avian amniotes.” Of course in the modern formal sense, birds are simply members of the clade “Reptilia.”)
Not to be too blunt, but I think you are being a bit pedantic to quibble over the use of a non-technical term like “lizard.” 
By the way, I am also a bit astonished that you can get away with doing a Ph.D. in evolutionary ecology without taking a cladistic approach these days, at least if you are doing any kind of phylogenetic analyses.
Did anybody mention that the Bible says “serpent”, not “snake”?
“Serpent” has historically been used as a synonym for “dragon”.
Dragons are usually portrayed in literature as being very old, and very wise and clever. Clever enough, even, to trick a woman into doing what she’s not supposed to do.
Dragons are usually portrayed as being really big. Modern lizards are usually really small. Couldn’t being shrunk from “gigantic” to “diminutive” be described by using the phrase “You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life”?
Lizard-like ancestor.
As for birds, I call them “reptiles gone to seed.” 
I should be a little bit more specific. I haven’t been using cladistics. I start my PhD soon, and although my project won’t be too heavily into taxonomy, the program does use cladistics.
It was not merely lizard-like, it was actually a lizard.
Nine out of ten experts do seem to agree ( no not me, though I do agree - but I’m just an unranked amateur 
).
Are you suuuuurrrre it isn’t maybe Lucky Starr and the Oceans of Venus?
- Tamerlane
I can’t recall if I ever read it that one, but if I did I don’t remember it well enough to know why it might be “my story.” Care to explicate, O Lame One?
Just bein’ silly.
I’m in one of those moods :).
- Tamerlane
A lame joke, in other words.
A Timur-i Lang joke :p.
- Tamerlane