"Samos Dragon", a new fossil monitor lizard

Yes, many living species of Varanus do grow larger than Varaneades... So does Megalania (Varanus priscus). This is not only pointed out in the paper, but also illustrated in a couple of tables and in two figures.

The claim by the authors is that this is the oldest, giant, terrestrial lizard. They define giant as having a pre-tail length of more than 60cm. Before this animal, there is no evidence for a non-snake squamate of this size on land. The authors point out that some other squamates (snakes and the aquatic lizard/mosasaurs) grow bigger.

They also point out that Varaneades is larger than 99% of lizards ever. Would you agree that this qualifies the animal as a giant?

Thanks for the comments!

"If you look at it that way then yes, its a giant, just like we humans are giants in a world where most animals are insects."

I see your point... However, we're not comparing things so disparately related as derived arthropod protostomes with derived chordate deuterostomes. We're looking within Squamata. This is a clade of comparable diversity to Mammalia or Aves. It is more akin to saying that a hippo is a giant mammal or that an Emperor Penguin is a giant bird. Are there bigger mammals on land than hippos? Yes. Are there bigger birds than Emperor Penguins? Yes. Are they still giants among their respective kinds? I think most people would say, "Yes." I would even argue that humans are giant primates.

"But since we have several lizards quite a bit larger than the Samos Dragon, and we know of others- like Megalania and Varanus sivalensis- that were even larger, it just feels kinda dumb calling it a giant, to me anyways..."

Yes there are several lizards quite a bit larger than the Samos Dragon... Approximately 0.8% of lizards.


"PS- I'm pretty sure I've read about Komodo dragon-sized monitors or monitor-like lizards from the Cretaceous, which would then qualify as larger and older land dwelling non-snake squamates than the Samos dragon..."

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. I know, because there are none known. Indeed, all Cretaceous varanids were especially small. Known Cretaceous varanids include Cherminotus, Ovoo, Aiolosaurus, and (questionably) Saniwides, and Telmasaurus. All of these critters are pretty diminutive. Paravaranus and Proplatynotia are related to varanids, but not varanids themselves. They're small. Dolichosaurids and 'adriosaurids' are related to mosasaurs... And they're smaller than Varaneades. Mosasaurs got much, much, much bigger, but were not at all terrestrial.

I won't presume to tell you what to think, but when I see an animal is larger than 99% of its closest relatives (a subset of reptiles), I would consider it a giant among that group (in this case, lizards).

Again, I appreciate your time and comments.

Adam Khor wrote: »

Kind of a pointless discussion, really. It all depends on how you define "giant". To me, a lizard like Varaneades is a large lizard, but not a giant.

Hey Adam, this discussion reminds me of the giant cheetah thread. Change of heart? :pac:

PS: Welcome to the forum Varaneades and congratulations on the discovery. Please do stick around and feel free to throw your input into any other threads that take your fancy.