| :) |
It's not a snake, it's a Basilisk.
Pls Scopie, don't discriminate.
#AllReptilesAreBeautiful <33
Still, not a snake, as you are not a gorilla (right?).
Don't mind me saying this, but the comparison you are making is kind of wrong. We are clearly not the same species as Gorillas, but we are still part of the same sub family, Homininae, which later splits into the tribes Hominini and Gorillini.
Serpentes (snakes) is actually a suborder that a Basilisk could very well be a part of. It really depends on what characteristics the Basilisk you are talking about has. Depending on what version of the Basilisk myths you are using, it may not even really be a reptile. Ironically enough, the one Basilisk in that image up there would most certainly not be part of the Basiliscus genus. I will start by assuming the Basilisk in the image is a tetrapod vertebrate, does not have an aquatic larval stage and is amniotic, as well as being an ectotherm, therefore classifying it as a part of the Reptilia class. I can also safely assume it is part of the Lepidosauria superorder due to its overlapping scales. Based on looks alone, I'd wager it possesses quadrate bones, so we can move it to the Squamata order. I don't see any legs, eyelids or external ears in that image, and the Basilisk depicted there certainly looks like a carnivore too. That makes it part of the Serpentes suborder, and thus calling it a snake is scientifically correct, if a bit underwhelming. Now, what kind of snake it is is an entirely different matter, and it'd probably be put into one of the already extinct ones.  that moment when you start doing stuff you are supposed to do at work, only outside of work <33
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Logo
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |