Yeah, I just found another article on nat geos website that has a bit more info in it.
Thanks!
Phil Hore
National Dinosaur Museum
Canberra, Australia
ph (02) 62302655
A child was brought into this world. A child of light and innocence. A beautiful child of with talent, grace and integrity. A child to lead us into a glorious future....his name...John Wayne.
I've seen all his movies!
>From: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com> >Reply-To: Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com >To: <dinosaur@usc.edu> >Subject: Re: snake evolution >Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 21:45:17 -0700 > >Phil Hore wrote- > > > The article is all about how they have done DNA tests on all lizard >species and then compared them to snakes to find out which group they are >related to. The article goes on and on about how they were thought to be >mosasaurs, and that the tests show snakes are not closely related to >mosasaurs (or at least their close relatives, the monitors). >I have no problem with this as such, as I'm on the fence when it comes to >snake ancestory, Ive read or heard nothing that swings me either way. My >problem is they never mention what they are closely related too. They just >say they haven't worked that out yet. But then how can!
t!
!
hey know that >monitors aern't the closest relative? I mean if they found even one species >of lizard that is closer, why didn't they say it? > >The point was not that they found another lizard was closer to snakes, but >rather that other lizards were closer to varanids than snakes are. Anguids, >helodermatids and xenosaurids all grouped with varanids to the exclusion of >snakes with high confidence levels. > >Mickey Mortimer