Interesting. (I'm not a genetecist but...) I do wonder about the strength of the conclusion though.
They say that snakes are not related to the only marine lizards they know of from the right era and therefore are unlikely to have had a marine origin; and that seems a bit contingent on what fossils we happen to have discovered. Perhaps for instance there was another kind of marine lizard which happened to stick to habitats which for some reason are unlikely to preserve fossils.
A fair point... but how likely is it an entire lineage of aquatic lizards existed developing into snakes without leaving a single missing link. (A non-missing missing link, I mean. :o))
no subject
Date: 2004-02-02 06:14 am (UTC)Interesting. (I'm not a genetecist but...) I do wonder about the strength of the conclusion though.
They say that snakes are not related to the only marine lizards they know of from the right era and therefore are unlikely to have had a marine origin; and that seems a bit contingent on what fossils we happen to have discovered. Perhaps for instance there was another kind of marine lizard which happened to stick to habitats which for some reason are unlikely to preserve fossils.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 11:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-02 11:29 am (UTC)Fossilisation of protosnakes
Date: 2004-02-02 11:43 am (UTC)<considers> Quite likely, probably.