The Prehistoric Snake Thread

Adam Khor

http://www.livescience.com/48629-biggest-venomous-snake-fossils-found.html

Was between 3 and 4 m long and weighed 26 kgs- bigger than modern day Lachesis muta (longest viper)

Rubecula

must have been a formidable beastie

Adam Khor

No skull is known but if it was (as suggested) of a robust build like modern day Gaboon vipers and puff adders, its venom yield must have been amazing :eek:

Adam Khor

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dinosaur-eating-snake-among-worlds-oldest-species-ever-discovered-1485405

Adam Khor

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/cp-afs032416.php

Rubecula

clever stuff.

Adam Khor

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170512134423.htm

Black Swan

Wow! Zilantophis schuberti that lived 5 million years ago (Neogene period) had "uniquely broad wing-shaped projections on the sides of its vertebrae" for back muscles and nicknamed "Schubert's Winged Serpent."

Manach

Interesting in that, AFAIR, there are winged serpent deities in the Mesoamerican pantheon.

Adam Khor

The wing-like processes of the vertebrae wouldn´t have been visible in life, tho.

The Mesoamerican serpent god was variously known as Quetzalcoatl, Kukulcan or Gucumatz, depending on where you are. He's almost always depicted as feathered all over. Sometimes he's represented with somewhat feline or humanoid features to his face, or swallowing/regurgitating/embracing a human or human-like deity. Sometimes he has a crest of long plumes on his head or tail, or a rattlesnake's rattle. The one thing he doesn´t have is wings, even though he's almost always portrayed as winged in modern art, for some reason. 

Here's some original Mesoamerican art:










And here's a modern day snake that sort of looks  feathered but couldn´t have been the inspiration, being from Africa and all...

Black Swan

Ancient Egyptian tales of flying snakes as told by ancient Greek historian Herodotus. "Winged drakontes were said to live under frankincense (Boswellia) trees in the Arabian Desert."

Adam Khor

Going by the fact that the "snakes" were said to be eaten by ibis, I'd imagine they were probably some sort of large insect (with membranous wings). It wasn´t so rare for Egyptians to use "snake" for non-snake creatures. They for example refered to the Dracunculus parasite as "fire serpent" or "fire snake", due to the burning sensation it caused while burrowing under one's skin.

Adam Khor

https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/australian-fossil-snake-lived-underground

Galvasean

Just like Tremors...

Adam Khor

Here's the skull of said giant snake :B

Galvasean

:eek:

Adam Khor

This new study estimates the size of the Eocene marine snake Palaeophis and finds it was anywhere between 9 and 12.3 meters long. That is comparable to Gigantophis and only somewhat smaller than Titanoboa.
It also estimates the size of other, smaller sea snakes from the same time. 

https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app63/app004422017.pdfPalaeophis 

Palaeophiids were not related to today's sea snakes- which are elapids, that is, from the cobra family. They were probably non-venomous and may have been constrictors, although we don´t have skulls so their diet and feeding mechanism remains a mystery. Palaeophis was apparently fully or almost fully aquatic, with a slightly compressed body. Pterosphenus was more specialized and had a laterally flattened body, and probably was completely unable to slither on land. 

Adam Khor

Belonged to the same genus as today's Boa constrictor, but was much smaller.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2018.1462829

Adam Khor

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/science/amber-snake-fossil.html

Adam Khor

Najash was a primitive snake. Apparently the original remains were believed by some to be a possible chimera- instead a new skeleton seems to confirm they represent indeed a valid genus/species.

Najash is notable for having relatively well developed hind legs and hip bones which most later snakes would lose completely.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14772019.2018.1534288?journalCode=tjsp20

Adam Khor

A long, richly illustrated paper describing several marine creatures from the same deposits as Palaeophis colossaeus has been published:

https://archive.org/details/stratigraphypal00olea/page/150

It covers Palaeophis too. Here's some of the highlights:

The only palaeophiid known from Mali is Palaeophis colossaeus, one of the largest known snakes. Although palaeophiids are generally considered to be aquatic, there is a continuum of morphologies ranging from those that suggest a relatively unspecialized morphology, to those that are highly modified for aquatic life. Palaeophis colossaeus is a representative of the former group, with rather broad vertebrae, and ribs that are not set ventrally on the centrum. The presence of these characters has led to the suggestion that P. colossaeus represents the basal condition of the family, albeit as a late occuring member.

(So perhaps Palaeophis colossaeus- the big one- could move on land after all? Sort of like today's anaconda?)

However, it should be noted that the body type of snakes in general is particularly suited for swimming, and among living snakes, even those that show few of the recognized anatomical aquatic adaptations are capable swimmers. Palaeophis africanus is often included in the group of palaeophiids that are morphologically unspecialized, but the vertebrae show greater mediolateral compression than in other species of that assemblage, suggesting some specialization for an aquatic lifestyle.

Estimates of body size of Palaeophis colossaeus have been reported to exceed 9 m. Using a regression of cotylar width on body length, the total body length of P. colossaeus is estimated to be 12.3 m. Thus, P. colossaeus was larger than any other known palaeophiid, was the largest known sea snake, and exceded the size of any living snake species. It is exceeded in size only by the Paleocene boid Titanoboa from Colombia.

Complicating efforts to estimate its size is the fact that it is known only from isolated vertebrae. In fact, no palaeophiine snake is known from a complete specimen, and very few are known from articulated material at all. The closest possible relative known from a nearly complete skeleton is the small species Archaeophis proavus, from Monte Bolca in Italy, that has more than 500 vertebrae in total, a number that exceeds the vertebral count reported for living snakes (up to 440). This discrepancy means that any estimates of lentgh for palaeophiids based on comparisons with modern snakes may underestimate the actual size of the snake.

:eek:

All living snakes are predatory carnivores, and no evidence exists that suggests palaeophiids were any exception. More difficult to determine is whether palaeophiids were macrophagous, that is, had the ability to consume prey of larger diameter than themselves. To settle this question, cranial material is necessary. The closest putative relatives of Palaeophis with skulls, A. proavus and “Archaeophis turkmenicus”, provide contradictory evidence as to the kinetic capabilities of the skull. Archaeophis proavus has been hypothesized to have a kinetic skull similar to that of many living snakes, whereas A. turkmenicus is reported to have less mobile cranial joints. If the skull of P. colossaeus was closer to that of A. proavus, the upper limit for the size of consumable food would have been quite large. Contemporaneous species that could have been part of the diet of a large, macrophagous snake include sharks, lungfish, pycnodonts and other large fishes, dyrosaurid crocodyliforms and turtles. It is also not certain whether palaeophiids were constrictors. If palaeophiids were macrophagous it is likely they would have killed large prey before attempting to consume them to prevent serious damage to their heads in the process.

We have reconstructed the palaeophiids as living in nearshore environments, where their fossils are often found, associated with mangroves and estuaries. They are known, for example, from similar deposits in El Fayum, and are comparatively rare in sediments interpreted as pelagic or open ocean. Our data is consistent with the hypothesis that genus Palaeophis known from Mali was probably not pelagic

Also lots of interesting data on contemporaneous fish and reptiles, including other smaller sea snakes.

Adam Khor

Cretaceous snake Najash anatomy sheds light on transition from lizards to snakes:

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-fossils-snakes-lost-legs.html

Adam Khor

Constrictor snakes from Eocene Europe (the famous Messel Pits of Germany) re-described:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwi74tbX753oAhVNLKwKHbmRDMgQFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F1424-2818%2F12%2F3%2F100%2Fpdf&usg=AOvVaw286MZMxf5_OSe8zU6ZGSsL

The paper is mostly about Eoconstrictor, a new genus for the snake previously known as "Palaeopython fischeri". The snake was around 2 m long.

Adam Khor

Rare skeleton of pygmy rattlesnake (Crotalus triseriatus), a species that still exists today, found inside the skull of an American mastodon from Puebla, Mexico. Apparently, the snake would've used the dead mastodon's skull as shelter before dying.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618220307035

This is the first time a fossil of Crotalus triseriatus is found anywhere in North America. The find is also interesting because the reptile species at the site- not just the rattlesnake but also another snake and some lizards- allowed to reconstruct the environment during the Pleistocene as a cool, humid oak-pine forest.

Adam Khor

Boipeba, a giant blindsnake found in Brazil, extends the fossil record of the group to the Cretaceous.

Today's blindsnakes are the smallest living snakes, but this Cretaceous one was 1 m long, a true giant.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004220310312

Out of the blindsnake species today only the largest Afrotyphlops approach Boipeba's size.