Photo: Cristiano Nogueira / Conservation International
Scientists from the Conservation International and Brazilian universities found 14 new species in the protected wooded grassland of Brazil's Cerrado. Amongst the new species is this legless lizard of the genus Bachia:
This species of lizard of the genus Bachia is one of the new species discovered during the expedition. Although there are other species of the genus in the Cerrado (almost all discovered and described only recently), this new species has only been recorded in the Ecological Station. The absence of legs and the sharply pointed snout help in locomotion over the surface layer of sandy soil, predominating in all the Jalapao, formed by the natural erosion of the escarpments of the Serra Geral plateaus.
Link | View the new species at CI's gallery - Thanks Lindsay Walter-Cox!
What a crazy world we live in!
There's more to distinguish the two than just legs. Eyelids and ears, for instances. Snakes don't have them.
nightmares
I hope they have good manners !
the family above that is gymnophthalmidae (say that 10 x fast)
wiki sez:
" Gymnophthalmidae is a family of lizards, sometimes known as spectacled lizards or microteiids.
They are called 'spectacled' because of their transparent lower eyelids, so they can still see with closed eyes. The eyelids are not fixed, like most geckos and all snakes. These lizards live in a wide variety of habitats, from desert to mountain to rain forest, throughout Central America and South America. Spectacled lizards are related with the Teiidae, but they look like skinks; reduced limbs and smooth scales, some species have no limbs at all. They eat mostly insects and other invertebrates, all species are oviparous."
does this explain things?
Bugs, snakes and fish... the supreme staring contest champions.
By the logic of the people posting here (scientific knowledge of the masses indeed), a bat would be a bird, not a mammal, because it has wings and can fly...
NOT a snake with ears and eyelids.
/e.g., me (biology minor)
//not that you have to believe that either. Anyway, even for those who looked it up, 'tis better to enlighten oneself than to wallow in self-righteous ignorance.
Matt!
What do you call a legless lizard that is hanging on your wall?
Art!
.
.
.
Who cares if most people would call it a snake?
This just proves the biblical story about how the snake lost his limbs in the Garden of Eden. This is obviously a descendant of that type of snake.
You just can't defy the proofs of Creationism.
If you ever happen to see a legless lizard in the wild, you will be able to tell that it is not a snake purely based on its movement:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=legless%20lizard&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv
...I have nothing new to contribute, but as a science major in college at the moment, I concur with the above pro-science statements. And even if people did wikipedia it (or, heaven forbid, a real encyclopedia, since people never used those in the pre-internet days), that's still better than just looking at it and saying "looks like a snake, so it must be, and that's that!".
""the ‘legs vs no legs’ should really be the deciding factor for the **“lizard or snake”** question.""
..not 'snake or anything else' question..
it sounds more like it proves evolution than creationism.
this lizard evolved so that it could more easily move in the sand by losing its legs. As meghan said before when you hold this lizard you can feel the vestigal leg. If the snake in the garden of eden's legs simply fell off why is there still a growth on the lizard where the legs used to be? ...Perhaps its because evolution hasnt completely gotten rid of this appendage in this lizard. I'm sure if we traced this lizard in the fossil record.....I doubt it would show that suddenly around the time the bible says adam and eve existed this animal just LOST its legs. It would be a slow evolution. The legs getting smaller and smaller over many many many years. Fossil records would show this.
"BUT THEY'RE VISUALLY TEH SAEM!!!1!!111 LOL"
Not necessarily a fish, as I suspect that cetaceans have eyelids, and if you hold them right you might detect their vestigial limbs.
SMH at not getting the concept of a legless lizard...wow...There is a lot more to being a snake than just a reptile with no legs. idiots.
lol, this comment was spot on:
"I wonder if this many people would be shouting “IT’S A FISH” if a new whale was found.
“BUT THEY’RE VISUALLY TEH SAEM!!!1!!111 LOL”
If you want to say that biologically this should be classified as a lizard, that's totally believable. If you want to say that it doesn't look exactly like a snake, you're kidding yourself.
To those who think it's the same as a snake: you'll never see one up close, so you can afford your ignorance. Be my guest. It's not a position that can be defended, though, beyond the "I have no idea what I'm talking about, I don't care who knows it, and I think it's stupid you know more about it than I do" defense.
But again, be my guest.
You are funny!
Meghan. Where were you that you got to hold one of these critters?
Ashes: I did the same thing as you did. Legless lizard?? What the heck?? Yay for quick wiki searches! ;)
Tempscire. I apologize for mistaking you for a pretend-know-it-all. You are not pretend.
I beg to differ with your interpretation about it "proving evolution". If this were a descendant of the Eden "snake", it would show stubs where the legs should be. That way, it would always be reminded of its ancestor's original sin. You indicate "I'm sure if we traced the fossil record" without any knowledge if such a fossil record exists. You are making a non-scientific statement based entirely on presumption.
If you really wish to refute my tongue-in-cheek statement, please provide factual data and not presumptions.
Wales, Great Britain. Wild, in the tall grass near the B&B I was at. It was a slow worm, not one of these, so I'm not sure how many of the traits carry over. The only thing I know is the same is the eyelids. But as a slow worm is a legless lizard, and this is a legless lizard, and it's a fairly specific taxonomic group, I'd venture there's a lot of similarities between the two.
You indicate “I’m sure if we traced the fossil record” without any knowledge if such a fossil record exists. You are making a non-scientific statement based entirely on presumption.
A hell of a lot more reasonable than this!:
"If this were a descendant of the Eden “snake”, it would show stubs where the legs should be. That way, it would always be reminded of its ancestor’s original sin."
lmao how old are you...why do you still believe in fairy tales? Talk about presumption
I guess I have to be a little less subtle. I wasn't seriously suggesting that this was proof of Intelligent Design. However, proponents of ID would jump at this "proof" in much the same way that dude jumped at the banana being nature's perfect fruit. And they would rightly respond to the "I'm sure if you looked at the fossil record" in much the same way. You can't base all of your scientific proof on a preconceived notion - that would make the "Garden of Eden snake" theory just as plausible as the "I'm sure if..." theory.
I better just stick with fart jokes.
I'm not sure what to do with this thing. The picture tells me to treat it like a snake but people say it moves like a lizard.
I think I might also be grossed out by things that look indeterminate.