How the snake body plan — an elongated limbless body combined with a compact, highly kinetic skull — arose ecologically and developmentally remains a classic unresolved question in vertebrate evolution. A landmark geometric-morphometric and heterochrony study (Da Silva et al. 2018, Nature Communications 9:376) reconstructed a small fossorial-adapted skull for the ancestor of crown snakes but a surface-terrestrial ancestor for snakes plus their sister group, and showed that modern alethinophidian snake skulls evolved by peramorphosis through global acceleration of craniofacial development. The study itself identified what remains open: whether skull and postcranial (axial) evolution were coordinated by the same systemic developmental acceleration, a hypothesis requiring morphometric and ontogenetic analyses of vertebral anatomy; the molecular, cellular and regulatory basis of the accelerated cranial development (including the roles of pleiotropic developmental genes such as Dlx and Hox); the ancestral ecology and habitat-transition sequence of early snakes, which newer fossil and neuroanatomical evidence has placed back into active contention; and the phylogenetic anchoring of key fossils (Dinilysia, mosasauroids, and other putative stem snakes) that calibrate these reconstructions. Later work (2019–2026) has delivered new three-dimensionally preserved stem-snake fossils, genomic candidates for body-plan traits, and refined skull-ontogeny analyses, but the joint heterochrony test, the developmental-genetic mechanism, and a consensus on ancestral ecology remain open.

Background

Snakes (Serpentes) together with lizards form Squamata, the clade of scaly reptiles comprising roughly a third of terrestrial vertebrate species. Living snakes divide into Scolecophidia (blind snakes: small, burrowing, reduced-eyed species) and Alethinophidia (all other snakes, from boas and pythons to vipers and cobras). Throughout, 'stem snakes' denotes extinct species that branched off the snake lineage before the most recent common ancestor of all living species (the 'crown group'); whether particular Cretaceous fossils — the terrestrial Najash and Dinilysia, the marine simoliophiids, the hindlimbed madtsoiids — are stem snakes is itself part of the problem. Mosasauroids are large extinct marine lizards whose position relative to snakes is debated and matters, because their aquatic specializations would alter reconstructions of the ancestral snake if they were placed near the snake stem.

The ecological origin of snakes has been debated for a century under three competing hypotheses: fossorial (evolution from burrowing ancestors, the skull shaped by underground life), marine (from aquatic, mosasauroid-like forms), or terrestrial (from surface-dwelling lizards). Da Silva et al. (2018) approached this with geometric morphometrics — quantitative shape comparison via coordinates of anatomical landmarks — applied to 408 skulls from 326 squamate species, including 26 fossil skulls and 84 embryonic skulls, within phylogenetic comparative models. They reconstructed the crown-snake ancestor as having a small skull with a shape adapted for fossoriality, but the ancestor of all snakes plus their sister group as a surface-terrestrial form, proposing a surface-terrestrial-to-fossorial scenario for snake origins.

Their heterochrony analysis is central to the developmental side of the problem. Heterochrony is evolutionary change in the timing, duration or rate of developmental events; peramorphosis is the class of heterochronic changes that exaggerates descendant adult morphology, for instance through an increased developmental rate (acceleration), while paedomorphosis truncates it. Regressing skull-shape change on centroid size (a proxy for ontogenetic time), they found that the distinctive skulls of modern alethinophidian snakes evolved by peramorphosis through global acceleration of craniofacial development during embryogenesis. This parallels the faster somitogenesis — the rhythmic formation of embryonic body segments (somites) governed by an oscillating gene-expression 'segmentation clock' — that produces the high vertebral counts and body elongation of snakes. The authors therefore suggested that skull and body may have evolved jointly through systemic acceleration, while stating explicitly that comparable morphometric and ontogenetic analyses of axial (vertebral) anatomy would be needed to confirm this hypothesis, and that local or dissociated (bone-specific) heterochronic changes might also contribute to particular cranial novelties.

Three limitations frame the open questions. First, the sampling covered about 3% of extant squamate species, so ancestral reconstructions rest on a sparse backbone. Second, the molecular and cellular basis of the acceleration was left untested: Dlx genes (a family of transcription factors patterning vertebrate jaws and teeth) and Hox genes (transcription factors patterning the head-to-tail body axis) were named as candidate pleiotropic regulators, and relaxed structural constraints in conserved development-related gene-containing regions of snake genomes were proposed as a possible enabler, but no functional evidence existed. Third, the phylogenetic placement of key fossils such as Dinilysia and the mosasauroids remained uncertain, and the authors tested alternative composite phylogenetic hypotheses precisely because those placements change the reconstructed ancestral morphologies and ecology. The problem thus unites an ecological question (what habitat sequence produced snakes), a developmental question (was skull and body evolution coupled by systemic heterochronic acceleration, and what mechanism implements it), and a phylogenetic question (where do the anchoring fossils sit), each of which constrains the others.

Problem Statement

Determine how the snake body plan originated, ecologically and developmentally. The source study (Da Silva et al. 2018) established the framework and defined the unresolved questions, which together support one coherent objective — a single, internally consistent account of the origin of the snake body plan in which each component either supports or forces revision of the others:

  1. Ancestral ecology and habitat-transition sequence: was the ancestor of all snakes plus their sister group (the node uniting the snake total group — all living snakes plus their extinct stem relatives — with its sister clade) surface-terrestrial, was the crown-snake ancestor fossorial, and did early snake evolution proceed through a surface-terrestrial-to-fossorial transition or through a more complex sequence of habitat shifts among stem snakes? The evidence bearing on this question spans skull, postcranial, brain/endocast and bone-histological data from extant and fossil taxa, and cranial morphometrics, brain-endocast models and caudal vertebral counts currently give conflicting signals about the ancestral habitat.

  2. Coupled skull-body heterochronic evolution: did the skull and the postcranial axis (body elongation via increased vertebral counts, and limb loss) evolve jointly through systemic acceleration of development (peramorphosis), or through dissociated, module- or bone-specific heterochronic shifts? Answering this requires morphometric and ontogenetic analyses of axial (vertebral) anatomy in snakes and lizards directly comparable to those performed for the skull, quantifying the relative contributions of global developmental-rate changes and local (dissociated) shifts to specific cranial and axial novelties.

  3. Developmental-genetic mechanism: which molecular, cellular and regulatory changes — including the roles of pleiotropic developmental genes such as Dlx and Hox, and changes in conserved development-related regulatory regions of snake genomes — produce the accelerated rate of cranial development in snakes relative to lizards, and, if component 2 establishes an accelerated rate of axial development, the changes producing that as well?

  4. Phylogenetic anchoring: where do the key fossil taxa that calibrate these reconstructions — Dinilysia, mosasauroids, and other putative stem snakes such as Najash, madtsoiids, simoliophiids and parviraptorids — fall relative to the snake stem, and how sensitive are the ecological and heterochrony conclusions to that placement and to the still-sparse sampling of extant squamate diversity?

A complete answer is a reasoned synthesis that, for each of the four components, states the current best-supported answer, the evidence for it, and its degree of uncertainty, and, where a component is not settled by existing data, the analyses or observations that would resolve it; the synthesis must show how the four components are mutually consistent. Resolving any one component alone, leaving the others unaddressed, does not resolve the task.

References

  1. Da Silva, F. O., Fabre, A.-C., Savriama, Y., Ollonen, J., Mahlow, K., Herrel, A., Müller, J., Di-Poï, N. (2018). The ecological origins of snakes as revealed by skull evolution. Nature Communications, 9, 376. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02788-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02788-3
  2. Watanabe, A., Fabre, A.-C., Felice, R. N., Maisano, J. A., Müller, J., Herrel, A., Goswami, A. (2019). Ecomorphological diversification in squamates from conserved pattern of cranial integration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 116(29), 14688-14697. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1820967116. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820967116
  3. Garberoglio, F. F., Apesteguía, S., Simões, T. R., Palci, A., Gómez, R. O., Nydam, R. L., Larsson, H. C. E., Lee, M. S. Y., Caldwell, M. W. (2019). New skulls and skeletons of the Cretaceous legged snake Najash, and the evolution of the modern snake body plan. Science Advances, 5(11), eaax5833. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax5833. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax5833
  4. Garberoglio, F. F., Gómez, R. O., Simões, T. R., Caldwell, M. W., Apesteguía, S. (2019). The evolution of the axial skeleton intercentrum system in snakes revealed by new data from the Cretaceous snakes Dinilysia and Najash. Scientific Reports, 9, 1276. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-36979-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36979-9
  5. Strong, C. R. C., Simões, T. R., Caldwell, M. W., Doschak, M. R. (2019). Cranial ontogeny of Thamnophis radix (Serpentes: Colubroidea) with a re-evaluation of current paradigms of snake skull evolution. Royal Society Open Science, 6(8), 182228. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.182228. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.182228
  6. Fachini, T. S., Onary, S., Palci, A., Lee, M. S. Y., Bronzati, M., Hsiou, A. S. (2020). Cretaceous blind snake from Brazil fills major gap in snake evolution. iScience, 23(12), 101834. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101834
  7. Macrì, S., Aalto, I.-M., Allemand, R., Di-Poï, N. (2023). Reconstructing the origin and early evolution of the snake brain. Science Advances, 9(39), eadi6888. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adi6888. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adi6888
  8. Peng, C., Wu, D.-D., Ren, J.-L., Peng, Z.-L., Ma, Z., Wu, W., Lv, Y., Wang, Z., Deng, C., Jiang, K., Parkinson, C. L., Qi, Y., Zhang, Z.-Y., Li, J.-T. (2023). Large-scale snake genome analyses provide insights into vertebrate development. Cell, 186(14), 2959-2976. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2023.05.030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.05.030
  9. Sato, H., Adachi, N., Kondo, S., Kitayama, C., Tokita, M. (2023). Turtle skull development unveils a molecular basis for amniote cranial diversity. Science Advances, 9(46), eadi6765. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adi6765. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adi6765
  10. Ollonen, J., Khannoon, E. R., Macrì, S., Vergilov, V., Kuurne, J., Saarikivi, J., Soukainen, A., Aalto, I.-M., Werneburg, I., Diaz, R. E., Di-Poï, N. (2024). Dynamic evolutionary interplay between ontogenetic skull patterning and whole-head integration. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 8(3), 536-551. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-023-02295-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02295-3
  11. Title, P. O., Singhal, S., Grundler, M. C., Costa, G. C., Pyron, R. A., Colston, T. J., Grundler, M. R., Prates, I., Stepanova, N., Jones, M. E. H., Cavalcanti, L. B. Q., Colli, G. R., Di-Poï, N., Donnellan, S. C., Moritz, C., Mesquita, D. O., Pianka, E. R., Smith, S. A., Vitt, L. J., Rabosky, D. L. (2024). The macroevolutionary singularity of snakes. Science, 383(6685), 918-923. DOI: 10.1126/science.adh2449. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2449
  12. Hillan, E. J., Roberts, L. E., Criswell, K. E., Head, J. J. (2024). Conservation of rib skeleton regionalization in the homoplastic evolution of the snake-like body form in squamates. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 291(2032), 20241160. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2024.1160. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.1160
  13. Zhu, C., Li, S., Zhang, D., Zhang, J., Wang, G., Zhou, B., Zheng, J., Xu, W., Wang, Z., Gao, X., Liu, Q., Xue, T., Zhang, H., Li, C., Ge, B., Liu, Y., Qiu, Q., Zhang, H., Huang, J., Tang, B., Wang, K. (2024). Convergent degenerated regulatory elements associated with limb loss in limbless amphibians and reptiles. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 41(11). DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msae239. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msae239
  14. Olson, M. T., Bergmann, P. J. (2025). Different drivers of diversification for body elongation and limb reduction in convergently snake-like lizards. Evolution, 79(8), 1555-1567. DOI: 10.1093/evolut/qpaf095. https://doi.org/10.1093/evolut/qpaf095
  15. Benson, R. B. J., Walsh, S. A., Griffiths, E. F., Kulik, Z. T., Botha, J., Fernandez, V., Head, J. J., Evans, S. E. (2025). Mosaic anatomy in an early fossil squamate. Nature, 647(8090), 673-679. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-09566-y. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09566-y
  16. Simões, T. R., Brum, A. S., Pierce, S. E. (2025). Evolutionary rate incongruences in squamates reveal contrasting patterns of evolutionary novelties and innovation. Systematic Biology, 75(3), 427-444. DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syaf067. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaf067
  17. Binfield, O., Camaiti, M., Roberts, L. (2026). Drivers of tail evolution in squamates and their implications for the fossorial origin of snakes. The Anatomical Record. DOI: 10.1002/ar.70222. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.70222
  18. Simões, T. R., Sobral, G., Macrì, S., Ebel, R., Fachini, T. S., Martinelli, A. G., Nava, W. R., Paixão, G. M. X., Chiappe, L. M., Di-Poï, N., Hsiou, A. S. (2026). Exceptional brain and ecological diversity in the earliest snakes. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-026-10809-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10809-9
  19. Wang, Z., Wu, W., Shen, F., Ren, J. L., Yan, C., Tang, C. Y., Zhang, X., Li, J. T. (2026). Genomic adaptations for tail-length evolution in arboreal snakes. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 43(2). DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msag029. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msag029
  20. Roberts, L. E., Head, J. J. (2026). Evolution of the reptile spine reveals independent trajectories to axial skeletal complexity in amniotes. Nature Communications, 17. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-72071-x. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-72071-x