According to new research, the “four-legged serpent” was not really a snake. It’s actually a long-bodied marine Lizard that was discovered for the first time in 2015.
Initially found in Brazil as a fossilized animal, the creature was believed to be the missing piece between lizards and snakes.
Instead, the 110-million-year-old reptile, Tetrapodophis amplectus, is nothing more than a lizard, paleontologists from the University of Alberta now note.
Scientists initially classified the creature because of its lengthened body and snake-like teeth.
However, it was later determined that those were mischaracterizations, study’s led author, University of Alberta paleontologist Michael Caldwell said.
The four-legged serpent discovered in 2015 was not a snake. It is a long-bodied marine Lizard.
Tetrapodophisamplectus was first discovered in Brazil. It is believed to be the missing link between snakes, lizards and Tetrapodophis.
Caldwell stated in a statement that he believes there are many evolutionary issues that can be solved by the discovery of a fossil four-legged snake. However, only if this is true,
“The main conclusion reached by our team was that Tetrapodophisamplectus isn’t actually a snake, and had been misclassified.
“Rather, its anatomy is consistent with that of extinct marine-lizards of the Cretaceous period called dolichosaurs.
Initially, scientists thought Tetrapodophis amplectus had traits that were closely aligned with snakes, including similar anatomy and morphology, but this is now a misclassification.
The creature’s long body, serpent-like teeth, and hint of a row on its fossil that contained a series of stomach scales led scientists to first classify it.
This conclusion was drawn from the rocks from which Tetrapodophis amlectus is derived.
Caldwell stated that the skull and skeleton were discovered on different sides of the stone containing the specimen. A natural mold preserved the shapes of both of them on one side.
‘The original study only described the skull and overlooked the natural mould, which preserved several features that make it clear that Tetrapodophis did not have the skull of a snake — not even of a primitive one.’
Tetrapodophis was found several years back. It had bones from its last meal, and some bone fragments that were believed to have been taken from a salamander.
DailyMail.com reported that it likely lived near a salt-lake bank, in an environment surrounded by succulents. It would have probably been fed small amphibians or lizards.
Experts measured the specimen from head to tip 20 cm when it was found. However, it did not seem to be larger than that.
Its head measures about the same size as an adult fingernail. The tail bone is less than a quarter inch long.
Front legs are about 1cm in length. However, the elbows, wrists, and hands are small at just 5 mm.
It could be used to grab its prey with the back legs being slightly longer than the feet.
It measured approximately 20cm from head to tip, and it could have grown in size as it age.
Later, however, it was determined that these traits were not indicative of an elusive piece between snakes and reptiles.
This conclusion was drawn from the rocks from which Tetrapodophis amlectus is derived.
Although Tetrapodophis does not have the four-legged snake that is missing the missing piece of the Tetrapodophis, it provides many insights about how lizards lived in the Age of Dinosaurs.
‘One of the greatest challenges of studying Tetrapodophis is that it is one of the smallest fossil squamates ever found,’ study coauthor Tiago Simões added.
It is similar to the smallest living squamates, who also have shorter limbs.
Caldwell indicated that Paleontologists continue to hope for the discovery of the missing link in snakes and vertebrates.
“It’s long known that snakes are a member of the four-legged lineage of vertebrates. They have, over time, had their limbs removed by evolutionary specializations.”
“An ancestral snake with four legs is found in the fossil records.” Since then, it has been expected that an ancient snake with four legs will be preserved as a fossil.
This study was published recently in Journal of Systematic Palaeontology.