|
|
Post by theoscribe on Jan 2, 2024 6:44:39 GMT 5
Sea snakes are ubiquiteous and fish in the shape of sea snakes are ubiquiteous, so why aren't there upscaled versions of these creatures? Titanoboa existed at some point so why wasn't there an aquatic version? It doesn't make sense to me. Especially since from what I've heard, sea serpents were literally just big serpents without any particular supernatural powers.
I'm not counting the oarfish, because they aren't serpent-like. They just stick in one space and swim vertically and filter feed, I think they're cool but I wouldn't call them sea serpents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Exalt on Jan 2, 2024 6:59:45 GMT 5
Well, my guess would be that the by the time snakes moved into water, they weren't able to claim giant niches, perhaps due to those being filled.
Alternatively, some sea snakes are quite venomous, and large size and venom tend to not correlate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jan 2, 2024 7:41:16 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 2, 2024 20:04:20 GMT 5
Would you be willing to count Basilosaurus as one? Obviously it was a mammal and not a snake, but with its super-elongated body it certainly has the appearance of a "sea serpent" (which I don't think necessarily have to be reptiles).  (Reconstruction by Connor Ashbridge) |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 7, 2024 18:01:27 GMT 5
Generally speaking, large creatures tend to be rarer than larger ones. Trophic webs form a sort of power law where animals in the higher niches (read: the large ones) are rarer than those below.
Now, as Supercommie explained, large sea serpents did exist, so the only question is why there weren't more such critters. I think it simply has to do with ecosystems having a limited "huge monster" carrying capacity that didn't leave much room for Midgard serpents to evolve.
The exaggerated mythological sea serpents you see are probably as much inspired by vaguely snake-shaped natural phenomena (e.g. rivers, rainbows, the Milky Way) as by actual snakes anyway.
|
|
