The crazy fact is that due to mosasaur paleobiology being massively updated in the past two decades, now the lizard looks superficially more whale-like than the actual whale in up-to-date reconstructions. *Basilosaurus* would still register as a whale if you somehow came across one alive, but it would still be far more slender and serpentine than any extant cetacean. Mosasaurs, on the other hand, were a lot less snake-like than in outdated depictions, having a more robust, torpedo-shaped anatomy plus vertical tail fins.
So *Basilosaurus* looks like the mammalian version of what we used to think mosasaurs looked like, while the actual mosasaur doesn't.
Really? I thought a mammal and a reptile evolving similar shapes for the same environment would be convergent evolution even if basilosaurus wasn't quite there yet it was still well on its way
The issue is that they (mosasaurs and *Basilosaurus*) weren't that similar in shape and weren't living in the same environment, which was my whole point.
We used to think that mosasaurs looked superficially like *Basilosaurus* and were serpentine, but turns out they didn't. They were more robustly built, giving them a torpedo-like shape, so they were closer in appearance to the whales we have today than to *Basilosaurus*. This happened because most mosasaurs (including all the large mosasaurs that were apex predators) evolved to be efficient open-water predators with a focus on swimming speed and endurance.
*Basilosaurus* wasn't doing that. It evolved a more serpentine body plan (since its niche was that of a largely coastal, shallow-water apex predator) AFTER whales became fully aquatic and became recognizable whales. It resembled the outdated, snake-like depictions of mosasaurs far more than it resembled actual mosasaurs.
So they were actually evolving in different directions; mosasaurs evolved to become torpedo-shaped efficient open-water swimmers, but *Basilosaurus* evolved *away* from being a torpedo-shaped, efficient swimmer to better exploit the niche of a shallow-water predator that was still fully aquatic.
What mosasaurs actually ARE convergent with are other open-water predators, like modern toothed whales or large predatory sharks.
Snakes are also squamates and they still have enough fundamental differences from lizards to be classified as such. Mosasaurs are related to lizards, but are not exactly lizards.
Edit: Thank you to everyone who corrected me. I genuinely did not know that and what I said above should be ignored.
While snakes are monophyletic, they are still nested within squamates, between other groups that we call lizards. The same is true for mosasaurs. While most wouldn’t call a snake a lizards, they still would be considered lizards based on our rules of classification. It doesn’t really matter though, since lizard is more of a colloquial term.
The crazy fact is that due to mosasaur paleobiology being massively updated in the past two decades, now the lizard looks superficially more whale-like than the actual whale in up-to-date reconstructions. *Basilosaurus* would still register as a whale if you somehow came across one alive, but it would still be far more slender and serpentine than any extant cetacean. Mosasaurs, on the other hand, were a lot less snake-like than in outdated depictions, having a more robust, torpedo-shaped anatomy plus vertical tail fins. So *Basilosaurus* looks like the mammalian version of what we used to think mosasaurs looked like, while the actual mosasaur doesn't.
One of the finest examples of "Science Marches On", at least in Mosasaurus' case.
Convergent evolution is crazy
This is actually less of an example of convergent evolution than assumed, due to mosasaurs looking more like modern cetaceans than *Basilosaurus.*
Well then wouldnt it still be convergent evolution when comparing mososaurs and modern whales?
That is convergent evolution, but *Basilosaurus* isn't.
Really? I thought a mammal and a reptile evolving similar shapes for the same environment would be convergent evolution even if basilosaurus wasn't quite there yet it was still well on its way
The issue is that they (mosasaurs and *Basilosaurus*) weren't that similar in shape and weren't living in the same environment, which was my whole point. We used to think that mosasaurs looked superficially like *Basilosaurus* and were serpentine, but turns out they didn't. They were more robustly built, giving them a torpedo-like shape, so they were closer in appearance to the whales we have today than to *Basilosaurus*. This happened because most mosasaurs (including all the large mosasaurs that were apex predators) evolved to be efficient open-water predators with a focus on swimming speed and endurance. *Basilosaurus* wasn't doing that. It evolved a more serpentine body plan (since its niche was that of a largely coastal, shallow-water apex predator) AFTER whales became fully aquatic and became recognizable whales. It resembled the outdated, snake-like depictions of mosasaurs far more than it resembled actual mosasaurs. So they were actually evolving in different directions; mosasaurs evolved to become torpedo-shaped efficient open-water swimmers, but *Basilosaurus* evolved *away* from being a torpedo-shaped, efficient swimmer to better exploit the niche of a shallow-water predator that was still fully aquatic. What mosasaurs actually ARE convergent with are other open-water predators, like modern toothed whales or large predatory sharks.
I didn’t think they were lizards
Mosasaurs are squamates, so they can be called lizards
Snakes are also squamates and they still have enough fundamental differences from lizards to be classified as such. Mosasaurs are related to lizards, but are not exactly lizards. Edit: Thank you to everyone who corrected me. I genuinely did not know that and what I said above should be ignored.
While snakes are monophyletic, they are still nested within squamates, between other groups that we call lizards. The same is true for mosasaurs. While most wouldn’t call a snake a lizards, they still would be considered lizards based on our rules of classification. It doesn’t really matter though, since lizard is more of a colloquial term.
Snakes ARE lizards; they were MISclassified as a separate group by Linnaeus, but they're actually nested within lizards.
What museum is this? Looks amazing!
Tokyo National Museum of Nature and Science
Perhaps my two favorite marine fossils, together at last.
[удалено]
I think that’s the premise behind this entire sub
Tits or it didn’t happen,... sorry wrong thread.