A rare 3-D snake fossil is spilling secrets of its unusual lifestyle 8%

By Libby Riddle29%

7/22/2026, 8:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, Post Hoc (False Cause), and False Dilemma, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 7.5% saturation with 40 hits. Analysis detected 244 faulty-reasoning hits from 532 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 19.4% and a BS Rank of 8% (24,775 of 26,881 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 92.20% of the article peer group.

Most snake fossils are two-dimensional. 
Sandwiched within rocks, the pressure of millions of years flattens them like a pancake. 
But in 2020, scientists uncovered a uniquely well-preserved snake fossil in southeastern Brazil. 
The snake’s tiny skull  only 20 millimeters in length  was 3-D, with its braincase still intact. 
The fossil’s well-preserved skull has now provided the earliest concrete evidence of a fossorial snake  a serpent that burrowed underground. 
And that suggests early snakes explored more habitats and lifestyles than previously thought, researchers report July 22 in Nature. 
The fossil belongs to a previously unknown snake species that lived 85 million to 75 million years ago. 
Researchers named it Tametara mirim, after the words for “adorned” and “small-sized” in the Tupí-Guaraní language of Brazil. 
It is one of only four snake fossils from the Age of Dinosaurs preserved this well. 
“This quality of preservation allows us to answer questions you simply cannot answer if you don’t have the right body parts preserved,” says paleobiologist Tiago Simões of Princeton University. 
The skull and braincase (inset) of a newfound ancient snake species were still intact. 
That rare find allowed scientists to reconstruct what the snake’s brain would have looked like, details that provided clues to its behavior. 
Unlike human brains, which float in fluid within our skulls, the shape of snake brains closely matches the inside of their braincase. 
Using CT scans, the researchers reconstructed T. mirim’s brain anatomy. 
Well-developed brain regions correspond to the senses the snake relied on most. 
T. mirim had a poorly developed optic lobe, so it probably couldn’t see very well. 
But its otic capsule, a bony structure that protects the inner ear, was enlarged  a feature often seen in snakes that sense vibrations. 
It also had an unusually thick skull. 
These features suggest T. mirim lived underground, digging tunnels by butting its head against the dirt. 
The environment where snakes first originated remains a mystery. 
But the earliest known snake ancestor  which lived 167 million years ago  may have been somewhat adapted for an underground lifestyle, though was not nearly as good at burrowing as T. mirim, Simões says. 
By the Cretaceous Period, snakes were swimming, slithering and, in T. mirim’s case, digging. 
Simões says the apparent increase in diversity in the Cretaceous could be because snakes evolved new sensory functions and abilities very quickly or because they were diverse all along. 
Finding new fossils with intact braincases could help resolve that debate. 
What is clear is that early snake evolution was much more complex than previously thought, says paleontologist Michael Caldwell of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, who was not involved in the research. 
The snake family tree probably included many branching lineages with their own unique anatomies and lifestyles. 
To better understand how snakes diversified into all their modern forms, scientists will need to find fossils that show the transitions between different lifestyles. 
“When organisms become highly specialized for a particular environment, they don’t become so in the blink of an eye,” Simões says. 
“What we have today are the endpoints of a very long evolutionary history.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.1%Libby Riddle: 3.4%Science News: 2.4%Confirmation Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 2.3%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Libby Riddle: 1.7%Science News: 2.1%Availability Heuristic7.5%This article: 6.8%Libby Riddle: 3.0%Science News: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic6.8%This article: 2.6%Libby Riddle: 0.7%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias2.6%This article: 3.0%Libby Riddle: 1.8%Science News: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 3.2%Science News: 3.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.5%Science News: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.3%Science News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Libby Riddle: 4.1%Science News: 3.4%Optimism Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.8%Science News: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 2.4%Science News: 3.2%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.7%Science News: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.5%Science News: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.1%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 0.9%Halo Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.8%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.1%Science News: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 3.2%Science News: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.5%Libby Riddle: 1.1%Science News: 1.0%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.7%Science News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 3.1%Science News: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 1.3%Science News: 1.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.6%Libby Riddle: 3.2%Science News: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.6%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.1%Libby Riddle: 0.8%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.1%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.7%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.4%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 1.2%Science News: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.8%Libby Riddle: 1.2%Science News: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.8%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.3%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.5%Science News: 0.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.5%Science News: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 2.0%Science News: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.2%Science News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Libby Riddle: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

532 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers30%attributed speech370writer words
Selected voice

Tiago Simões

23%flagged-word coverage
128 attributed words79% of attributed speech50% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.