What is Godzilla? His species?

[Olzh26]

why is their life cycle like that of arthropods? or is such a life cycle possible in vertebrates?

Why are you trying to apply real world logic to crazy made-up monsters?

The answer is always- they just do.

because it's interesting

[gottatalktothefake]

>Ben doesn’t like facts or logic being applied to kaiju

Hmmmmmm

[Ben Shapiro]

>Ben doesn’t like facts or logic being applied to kaiju

Hmmmmmm

>gottatalktothefake doesn’t understand the term “fact” evidently.

[Maritonic]

Neither of you understand the concept of "not-flame baiting".

[Dv-218]

Hmmm...you know, I just remembered that in G14 they showed a detailed scheme/chart of Dagon's skeleton. Granted the chart is pretty rough, but one of the most interesting details is the fact that the skull has some features that vaguely resemble those of mammals- specifically the placement of the eyes and the structure of the nasal fenestrae. Here's the pic btw:



The jugals that attach the jaws look pretty damn quasi-mammalian too if you ask me.
I wonder if this could give some merit to the idea that Titanus gojira is some sort of a derived Synapsid, that convergently evolved Diapsid features due to it's unique biology and lifestyle.

[Olzh26]

Hmmm...you know, I just remembered that in G14 they showed a detailed scheme/chart of Dagon's skeleton. Granted the chart is pretty rough, but one of the most interesting details is the fact that the skull has some features that vaguely resemble those of mammals- specifically the placement of the eyes and the structure of the nasal fenestrae. Here's the pic btw:



The jugals that attach the jaws look pretty damn quasi-mammalian too if you ask me.
I wonder if this could give some merit to the idea that Titanus gojira is some sort of a derived Synapsid, that convergently evolved Diapsid features due to it's unique biology and lifestyle.

God please no

[Dv-218]

Hmmm...you know, I just remembered that in G14 they showed a detailed scheme/chart of Dagon's skeleton. Granted the chart is pretty rough, but one of the most interesting details is the fact that the skull has some features that vaguely resemble those of mammals- specifically the placement of the eyes and the structure of the nasal fenestrae. Here's the pic btw:



The jugals that attach the jaws look pretty damn quasi-mammalian too if you ask me.
I wonder if this could give some merit to the idea that Titanus gojira is some sort of a derived Synapsid, that convergently evolved Diapsid features due to it's unique biology and lifestyle.

God please no

Hey relax, it's just an idea lol. That skeletal chart looks pretty rough anyway, and probably isn't even that accurate.
Tbh my personal headcanon is that he's a basal Archosaurian offshot of sorts, mostly because of the shape of his scales and the way his gait and limbs are structured.

[Maverick Centigrade]

What about muto? they have a structure like that of vertebrates, but a life cycle like that of arthropods. the question "who are they " remains open

I don't think we'll ever get an answer on that one.

Sooner or later, producers must disclose the classification of titans. And in GvK, judging by the synopsis, they should reveal the origin of the kaiju, then maybe we will be told about their classification and evolution.

Added in 9 minutes 57 seconds:

I heard an idea that they might be heavily derived, terrestrial Placoderms once. Obviously just a speculation and far from confirmed (we'll never know lol), but a pretty neat one. Might explain why they have such a unique look and biology despite being vertebrates.
Not to mention, MUTO Prime's face does look somewhat like that of a bony fish, Dunkleosteus in particular.

If they are vertebrates, why is their life cycle like that of arthropods? or is such a life cycle possible in vertebrates?

Eh, I believe the most we'll get from GvsK is where the Titans came from. Which will probably be the hollow earth thing.

[vibramrunner]

Titans used to be people but none of us can remember because Dougherty put a spell on us many eons ago. He was sloppy and forgot to put it on me though. Your welcome.

[Tyrant28]

Titans used to be people but none of us can remember because Dougherty put a spell on us many eons ago. He was sloppy and forgot to put it on me though. Your welcome.

Monarch would like to know your location

[Desghidorah]

Paleontology degree and a lot of zoology work here.

I'm going to have a hypothetical scenario where we discovered either a living specimen of or a very well preserved specimen of Godzilla's species, just for realism scaled down. Now strictly speaking Godzilla is a chimera. He's got gills like certain amphibians and fish, a mammalian-like head, crcodilian scutes, and limbs somewhere between a mammal and squamate (lizards and kin). For instance he couldn't be a dinosaur because

1. He's from the Permian which predates the dinosaurs
2. He's got claws on all of his digits, whereas all Archosaurs like dinosaurs lack claws on the 4th and 5th digits outside of a few exceptions

Now allowing for some of the traits to be convergent evolution, which can pull off some truly remarkable things, I would have to look at the trait that would be the most difficult to convergently evolve. As in what trait would be the most troublesome to evolve twice? Sometimes convergent evolution can pull off big surprises. For instance a cephalopod eye and a tetrapod eye look almost identical at first glance, but they actually are evolved from very different organs; cephalopod eyes are evolved from their skin whereas tetrapod eyes are outgrowths of the brain. And the hardest trait I see Godzilla having that would be the most difficult to replicate would probably be his gills. Amphibians have gills, fish have gills, but no other tetrapod have gills. A few reptiles can do limited oxygen exchange with the water by structures on or in the skin, but they aren't able to form gills. Some genetic study also seems to indicate the amniotes that gave rise to reptiles (and by proxy birds) and synapsids (mammals) were evolved from amphibians that had already lost the gills and converted all of their swim bladders into lungs.

Casineria and some of its relatives were amphibians that superficially greatly resembled their amniotes descendants, with scutes, scales, claws, and many other traits. These animals are transitional forms that are in a very vague area where they aren't amniotes like reptiles and synapsids, but they aren't traditional amphibians either; at least not in the modern context.

However amphibian genetics show us that groups like this could easily still reacquire their gills. Amphibians are remarkably malleable in this aspect. For instance there are some species of salamander that lose their gills upon reaching maturity in the same family as other species that retain them into adulthood. All it takes is a few mutations for a species of amphibian that otherwise doesn't have gills to reacquire them; possibly to help out with oxygen exchange upon growing to a bigger size and needing more intake. Especially if they now have scaly skin.

So in my hypothetical scenario, Godzilla is descendant from a Carboniferous period proto-amniote amphibian that didn't completely lose its gills even as it became very reptile/synapsid like. Tt continued on into the Permian period until it reached the shape we are now familiar with. And then upon becoming a radiovore, it ballooned up in size just like Kong's ancestral primate species did. It's

[Olzh26]

Paleontology degree and a lot of zoology work here.

I'm going to have a hypothetical scenario where we discovered either a living specimen of or a very well preserved specimen of Godzilla's species, just for realism scaled down. Now strictly speaking Godzilla is a chimera. He's got gills like certain amphibians and fish, a mammalian-like head, crcodilian scutes, and limbs somewhere between a mammal and squamate (lizards and kin). For instance he couldn't be a dinosaur because

1. He's from the Permian which predates the dinosaurs
2. He's got claws on all of his digits, whereas all Archosaurs like dinosaurs lack claws on the 4th and 5th digits outside of a few exceptions

Now allowing for some of the traits to be convergent evolution, which can pull off some truly remarkable things, I would have to look at the train that would be the most difficult to convergently evolve. As in what trait would be the most troublesome to evolve twice? Sometimes convergent evolution can pull off big surprises. For instance a cephalopod eye and a tetrapod eye look almost identical at first glance, but they actually are evolved from very different organs; cephalopod eyes are evolved from their skin whereas tetrapod eyes are outgrowths of the brain. And the hardest trait I see Godzilla having that would be the most difficult to replicate would probably be his gills. Amphibians have gills, fish have gills, but no other tetrapod have gills. A few reptiles can do limited oxygen exchange with the water by structures on or in the skin, but they aren't able to form gills. Some genetic study also seems to indicate the amniotes that gave rise to reptiles (and by proxy birds) and synapsids (mammals) were evolved from amphibians that had already lost the gills and converted all of their swim bladders into lungs.

Casineria and some of its relatives were amphibians that superficially greatly resembled their amniotes descendants, with scutes, scales, claws, and many other traits. These animals are transitional forms that are in a very vague area where they aren't amniotes like reptiles and synapsids, but they aren't traditional amphibians either; at least not in the modern context.

However amphibian genetics show us that groups like this could easily still reacquire their gills. Amphibians are remarkably malleable in this aspect. For instance there are some species of salamander that lose their gills upon reaching maturity in the same family as other species that retain them into adulthood. All it takes is a few mutations for a species of amphibian that otherwise doesn't have gills to reacquire them; possibly to help out with oxygen exchange upon growing to a bigger size and needing more intake. Especially if they now have scaly skin.

So in my hypothetical scenario, Godzilla is descendant from a Carboniferous period proto-amniote amphibian that didn't completely lose its gills even as it became very reptile/synapsid like. Tt continued on into the Permian period until it reached the shape we are now familiar with. And then upon becoming a radiovore, it ballooned up in size just like Kong's ancestral primate species did. It's

Reptiles may have gills, although it will not be those gills that amphibians or fish have.

[GodzillaFan1990's]

The idea of Godzilla being an amphibian but with convergent evolutionary traits. It just feels weird but in a cool way.

I can dig that.

[Olzh26]

I don't think we'll ever get an answer on that one.

Sooner or later, producers must disclose the classification of titans. And in GvK, judging by the synopsis, they should reveal the origin of the kaiju, then maybe we will be told about their classification and evolution.

Added in 9 minutes 57 seconds:

I heard an idea that they might be heavily derived, terrestrial Placoderms once. Obviously just a speculation and far from confirmed (we'll never know lol), but a pretty neat one. Might explain why they have such a unique look and biology despite being vertebrates.
Not to mention, MUTO Prime's face does look somewhat like that of a bony fish, Dunkleosteus in particular.

If they are vertebrates, why is their life cycle like that of arthropods? or is such a life cycle possible in vertebrates?

Eh, I believe the most we'll get from GvsK is where the Titans came from. Which will probably be the hollow earth thing.

here the situation is similar to "Tremors". In the first films, no one had any idea what kind of creature it was. And in the sequels, the veil of secrecy was already opening slightly. most likely by the time GvK is released, we will already know a little bit about the classification of monsters

[Gerdzerl]

These two explanations seem plausible:

The exact relation of Jiras to other known animals is not exactly known; a speculative skeletal drawing from the 18. century depicts it with mammalian features, older accounts described it as a fish and modern scientists put it as either a dinosaur or a crocodylian. The find of the Philippines skeleton allowed a closer examination, which revealed it to be an anapsid. There are also features regarding the teeth and vertebrae that are more labyrinthodont-like, leading to debate whether Jiras are anapsids with labyrinthodont features added by the chimera virus or the other way around. What is clear is that the species dates back to at least the Permian, as has been found out by re-examining ichnofossils that have been previously thought to be anorganic geological features.

Source: Speculative Monsterverse Bullshit: Jira

Godzilla is shown to lay hard-shelled eggs, meaning that it is definitely an amniote, i.e. not an amphibian. It has hard scales, keratinous claws, and hinged ankles, suggesting that it could be a reptile, but it also has other features not shared by other amniotes. Specifically, it has gills, a very primitive trait which is completely unknown in more advanced tetrapods. This is our first clue (really it’s more like a big jumbled pile of puzzle pieces, but that’s still a start) as to Godzilla’s exact position in the tetrapod family tree.

Once a particular trait, like gills, is lost, it’s highly unlikely that it will appear again (though not necessarily impossible, depending on what it is). The genes for the trait aren’t actually lost, only turned off; even humans still carry the genetic information required to make gills in our DNA. That said, if you were to turn on the “gill” genes of a human, you wouldn’t get functional gills that could be used by a human to breathe water. The genes have been shut off for too long, and without any evolutionary pressures to keep them in shape and weed out harmful mutations, they will have degraded beyond functionality. Furthermore, our bodies aren’t evolved to have gills, and if they were to spontaneously appear on our necks out of nowhere, we would probably die. The same would hold true for any given reptile,. The few species of reptiles that have re-evolved the ability to take in oxygen from water (they do exist) didn’t re-evolve gills; they developed entirely new systems for aquatic respiration, absorbing oxygen directly through their skin through cutaneous respiration,, or through cloacal respiration, also known as “literally breathing water through their bungholes.” I swear I’m not making this up.

Cutaneous respiration, requires thin, soft skin to allow for oxygen to pass through it, and reptiles that utilize cloacal respiration have gaping, cavernous rectal orifices to maximize the area that can be used for gas exchange, both traits which (thankfully) Godzilla lacks. Neither cutaneous nor cloacal respiration are even all that efficient, and while reptiles that use them can remain submerged for significantly longer than other animals, they still need to breathe air with their lungs in order to get enough oxygen, while Godzilla is apparently able to remain submerged indefinitely. Godzilla’s metabolism is also significantly higher than that of those reptiles, as would be required to sustain its higher level of activity. Add to that its massive size, at over 90 million kilograms, and Godzilla is going to need a lot more oxygen than a 2kg turtle lying at the bottom of a river. Something like cloacal respiration wouldn’t do it much good anyway (thank god), and would only add to the complexity of its already ridiculously complicated body.

All of this is to say that Godzilla’s gills were almost definitely retained from its immediate ancestors, or re-emerged soon enough after they were lost that the genes for them had not begun to degrade and the anatomy of the neck still developed in such a way that they could be supported. This would require Godzilla to be a very basal amniote. As in, very, VERY basal. As in, it can’t even really be called a proper reptile, basal. Really basal.

All amphibian larvae have fully-functional gills, internal or external, and neotenous amphibians retaining their gills into adulthood is not uncommon. We even have fossils of such individuals from the same groups that amniotes are believed to have evolved from. Even advanced reptile-like amphibians still had a larval stage with fully-developed gills, and it is not inconceivable that the very earliest true amniotes may have retained gill structures during their embryonic development. These embryonic gills could potentially have been retained into adulthood if by a chance mutation the signal that tells them to stop growing and start degrading failed to go off, just as it might have in its amphibian ancestors. The probability of this happening and producing a viable adult is, of course, still pretty low, but it’s the best we’ve got to explain why an animal which otherwise seems for all intents and purposes to be a reptile has gills.

Source: "Do you think Godzilla being some kind of prehistoric crocodile relative makes sense? I could see him being a rauisuchid, tbh."

[Dv-218]

These two explanations seem plausible:

The exact relation of Jiras to other known animals is not exactly known; a speculative skeletal drawing from the 18. century depicts it with mammalian features, older accounts described it as a fish and modern scientists put it as either a dinosaur or a crocodylian. The find of the Philippines skeleton allowed a closer examination, which revealed it to be an anapsid. There are also features regarding the teeth and vertebrae that are more labyrinthodont-like, leading to debate whether Jiras are anapsids with labyrinthodont features added by the chimera virus or the other way around. What is clear is that the species dates back to at least the Permian, as has been found out by re-examining ichnofossils that have been previously thought to be anorganic geological features.

Source: Speculative Monsterverse Bullshit: Jira

Godzilla is shown to lay hard-shelled eggs, meaning that it is definitely an amniote, i.e. not an amphibian. It has hard scales, keratinous claws, and hinged ankles, suggesting that it could be a reptile, but it also has other features not shared by other amniotes. Specifically, it has gills, a very primitive trait which is completely unknown in more advanced tetrapods. This is our first clue (really it’s more like a big jumbled pile of puzzle pieces, but that’s still a start) as to Godzilla’s exact position in the tetrapod family tree.

Once a particular trait, like gills, is lost, it’s highly unlikely that it will appear again (though not necessarily impossible, depending on what it is). The genes for the trait aren’t actually lost, only turned off; even humans still carry the genetic information required to make gills in our DNA. That said, if you were to turn on the “gill” genes of a human, you wouldn’t get functional gills that could be used by a human to breathe water. The genes have been shut off for too long, and without any evolutionary pressures to keep them in shape and weed out harmful mutations, they will have degraded beyond functionality. Furthermore, our bodies aren’t evolved to have gills, and if they were to spontaneously appear on our necks out of nowhere, we would probably die. The same would hold true for any given reptile,. The few species of reptiles that have re-evolved the ability to take in oxygen from water (they do exist) didn’t re-evolve gills; they developed entirely new systems for aquatic respiration, absorbing oxygen directly through their skin through cutaneous respiration,, or through cloacal respiration, also known as “literally breathing water through their bungholes.” I swear I’m not making this up.

Cutaneous respiration, requires thin, soft skin to allow for oxygen to pass through it, and reptiles that utilize cloacal respiration have gaping, cavernous rectal orifices to maximize the area that can be used for gas exchange, both traits which (thankfully) Godzilla lacks. Neither cutaneous nor cloacal respiration are even all that efficient, and while reptiles that use them can remain submerged for significantly longer than other animals, they still need to breathe air with their lungs in order to get enough oxygen, while Godzilla is apparently able to remain submerged indefinitely. Godzilla’s metabolism is also significantly higher than that of those reptiles, as would be required to sustain its higher level of activity. Add to that its massive size, at over 90 million kilograms, and Godzilla is going to need a lot more oxygen than a 2kg turtle lying at the bottom of a river. Something like cloacal respiration wouldn’t do it much good anyway (thank god), and would only add to the complexity of its already ridiculously complicated body.

All of this is to say that Godzilla’s gills were almost definitely retained from its immediate ancestors, or re-emerged soon enough after they were lost that the genes for them had not begun to degrade and the anatomy of the neck still developed in such a way that they could be supported. This would require Godzilla to be a very basal amniote. As in, very, VERY basal. As in, it can’t even really be called a proper reptile, basal. Really basal.

All amphibian larvae have fully-functional gills, internal or external, and neotenous amphibians retaining their gills into adulthood is not uncommon. We even have fossils of such individuals from the same groups that amniotes are believed to have evolved from. Even advanced reptile-like amphibians still had a larval stage with fully-developed gills, and it is not inconceivable that the very earliest true amniotes may have retained gill structures during their embryonic development. These embryonic gills could potentially have been retained into adulthood if by a chance mutation the signal that tells them to stop growing and start degrading failed to go off, just as it might have in its amphibian ancestors. The probability of this happening and producing a viable adult is, of course, still pretty low, but it’s the best we’ve got to explain why an animal which otherwise seems for all intents and purposes to be a reptile has gills.

Source: "Do you think Godzilla being some kind of prehistoric crocodile relative makes sense? I could see him being a rauisuchid, tbh."

Yeah, tbh these explanations make quite the amount of sense. Godzilla being an Anapsid with re-evolved gills or a basal Amphibian/Reptile intermediate seem to be the most logical explanations when you account his appearance and lifestyle.

[Olzh26]

These two explanations seem plausible:

The exact relation of Jiras to other known animals is not exactly known; a speculative skeletal drawing from the 18. century depicts it with mammalian features, older accounts described it as a fish and modern scientists put it as either a dinosaur or a crocodylian. The find of the Philippines skeleton allowed a closer examination, which revealed it to be an anapsid. There are also features regarding the teeth and vertebrae that are more labyrinthodont-like, leading to debate whether Jiras are anapsids with labyrinthodont features added by the chimera virus or the other way around. What is clear is that the species dates back to at least the Permian, as has been found out by re-examining ichnofossils that have been previously thought to be anorganic geological features.

Source: Speculative Monsterverse Bullshit: Jira

Godzilla is shown to lay hard-shelled eggs, meaning that it is definitely an amniote, i.e. not an amphibian. It has hard scales, keratinous claws, and hinged ankles, suggesting that it could be a reptile, but it also has other features not shared by other amniotes. Specifically, it has gills, a very primitive trait which is completely unknown in more advanced tetrapods. This is our first clue (really it’s more like a big jumbled pile of puzzle pieces, but that’s still a start) as to Godzilla’s exact position in the tetrapod family tree.

Once a particular trait, like gills, is lost, it’s highly unlikely that it will appear again (though not necessarily impossible, depending on what it is). The genes for the trait aren’t actually lost, only turned off; even humans still carry the genetic information required to make gills in our DNA. That said, if you were to turn on the “gill” genes of a human, you wouldn’t get functional gills that could be used by a human to breathe water. The genes have been shut off for too long, and without any evolutionary pressures to keep them in shape and weed out harmful mutations, they will have degraded beyond functionality. Furthermore, our bodies aren’t evolved to have gills, and if they were to spontaneously appear on our necks out of nowhere, we would probably die. The same would hold true for any given reptile,. The few species of reptiles that have re-evolved the ability to take in oxygen from water (they do exist) didn’t re-evolve gills; they developed entirely new systems for aquatic respiration, absorbing oxygen directly through their skin through cutaneous respiration,, or through cloacal respiration, also known as “literally breathing water through their bungholes.” I swear I’m not making this up.

Cutaneous respiration, requires thin, soft skin to allow for oxygen to pass through it, and reptiles that utilize cloacal respiration have gaping, cavernous rectal orifices to maximize the area that can be used for gas exchange, both traits which (thankfully) Godzilla lacks. Neither cutaneous nor cloacal respiration are even all that efficient, and while reptiles that use them can remain submerged for significantly longer than other animals, they still need to breathe air with their lungs in order to get enough oxygen, while Godzilla is apparently able to remain submerged indefinitely. Godzilla’s metabolism is also significantly higher than that of those reptiles, as would be required to sustain its higher level of activity. Add to that its massive size, at over 90 million kilograms, and Godzilla is going to need a lot more oxygen than a 2kg turtle lying at the bottom of a river. Something like cloacal respiration wouldn’t do it much good anyway (thank god), and would only add to the complexity of its already ridiculously complicated body.

All of this is to say that Godzilla’s gills were almost definitely retained from its immediate ancestors, or re-emerged soon enough after they were lost that the genes for them had not begun to degrade and the anatomy of the neck still developed in such a way that they could be supported. This would require Godzilla to be a very basal amniote. As in, very, VERY basal. As in, it can’t even really be called a proper reptile, basal. Really basal.

All amphibian larvae have fully-functional gills, internal or external, and neotenous amphibians retaining their gills into adulthood is not uncommon. We even have fossils of such individuals from the same groups that amniotes are believed to have evolved from. Even advanced reptile-like amphibians still had a larval stage with fully-developed gills, and it is not inconceivable that the very earliest true amniotes may have retained gill structures during their embryonic development. These embryonic gills could potentially have been retained into adulthood if by a chance mutation the signal that tells them to stop growing and start degrading failed to go off, just as it might have in its amphibian ancestors. The probability of this happening and producing a viable adult is, of course, still pretty low, but it’s the best we’ve got to explain why an animal which otherwise seems for all intents and purposes to be a reptile has gills.

Source: "Do you think Godzilla being some kind of prehistoric crocodile relative makes sense? I could see him being a rauisuchid, tbh."

Yeah, tbh these explanations make quite the amount of sense. Godzilla being an Anapsid with re-evolved gills or a basal Amphibian/Reptile intermediate seem to be the most logical explanations when you account his appearance and lifestyle.

his appearance is a natural archosaurus.

[Desghidorah]

Paleontology degree and a lot of zoology work here.

I'm going to have a hypothetical scenario where we discovered either a living specimen of or a very well preserved specimen of Godzilla's species, just for realism scaled down. Now strictly speaking Godzilla is a chimera. He's got gills like certain amphibians and fish, a mammalian-like head, crcodilian scutes, and limbs somewhere between a mammal and squamate (lizards and kin). For instance he couldn't be a dinosaur because

1. He's from the Permian which predates the dinosaurs
2. He's got claws on all of his digits, whereas all Archosaurs like dinosaurs lack claws on the 4th and 5th digits outside of a few exceptions

Now allowing for some of the traits to be convergent evolution, which can pull off some truly remarkable things, I would have to look at the train that would be the most difficult to convergently evolve. As in what trait would be the most troublesome to evolve twice? Sometimes convergent evolution can pull off big surprises. For instance a cephalopod eye and a tetrapod eye look almost identical at first glance, but they actually are evolved from very different organs; cephalopod eyes are evolved from their skin whereas tetrapod eyes are outgrowths of the brain. And the hardest trait I see Godzilla having that would be the most difficult to replicate would probably be his gills. Amphibians have gills, fish have gills, but no other tetrapod have gills. A few reptiles can do limited oxygen exchange with the water by structures on or in the skin, but they aren't able to form gills. Some genetic study also seems to indicate the amniotes that gave rise to reptiles (and by proxy birds) and synapsids (mammals) were evolved from amphibians that had already lost the gills and converted all of their swim bladders into lungs.

Casineria and some of its relatives were amphibians that superficially greatly resembled their amniotes descendants, with scutes, scales, claws, and many other traits. These animals are transitional forms that are in a very vague area where they aren't amniotes like reptiles and synapsids, but they aren't traditional amphibians either; at least not in the modern context.

However amphibian genetics show us that groups like this could easily still reacquire their gills. Amphibians are remarkably malleable in this aspect. For instance there are some species of salamander that lose their gills upon reaching maturity in the same family as other species that retain them into adulthood. All it takes is a few mutations for a species of amphibian that otherwise doesn't have gills to reacquire them; possibly to help out with oxygen exchange upon growing to a bigger size and needing more intake. Especially if they now have scaly skin.

So in my hypothetical scenario, Godzilla is descendant from a Carboniferous period proto-amniote amphibian that didn't completely lose its gills even as it became very reptile/synapsid like. It continued on into the Permian period until it reached the shape we are now familiar with. And then upon becoming a radiovore, it ballooned up in size just like Kong's ancestral primate species did. It's

Reptiles may have gills, although it will not be those gills that amphibians or fish have.

1. Give me an example.
2. While it's not impossible for a reptile to evolve gills, it be extremely difficult. All amniote tetrapods that have returned to living in the water remained air breathers strictly. Snakes, numerous lizards, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, nothosaurs, several crocodylomorphs, pinnipedes, desmostylians, cetaceans, and sirenians.

I'm dealing with likelihoods on what trait would be the most difficult to convergently evolve and the rule with gills is, "Once you lose them, you don't get them back."
Genetics also shows true amniotes like reptiles and synapsids came from an amphibian ancestor that didn't have gills anymore. In my scenario, LP Godzilla is an offshoot of the amniote line that hadn't lost it's gills yet, retaining them. Not quite a true amphibian, but not quite a reptile either. So something like this



We have amphibians and proto-amniotes with claws, scales, scutes, and they are from the right time period. A reptile wouldn't fit as well for Legendary Godzilla. Again, I am talking strictly about the Legendary Pictures version of Godzilla, so none of your lovely (and I mean that honestly) Toho pieces apply.

[Olzh26]

Paleontology degree and a lot of zoology work here.

I'm going to have a hypothetical scenario where we discovered either a living specimen of or a very well preserved specimen of Godzilla's species, just for realism scaled down. Now strictly speaking Godzilla is a chimera. He's got gills like certain amphibians and fish, a mammalian-like head, crcodilian scutes, and limbs somewhere between a mammal and squamate (lizards and kin). For instance he couldn't be a dinosaur because

1. He's from the Permian which predates the dinosaurs
2. He's got claws on all of his digits, whereas all Archosaurs like dinosaurs lack claws on the 4th and 5th digits outside of a few exceptions

Now allowing for some of the traits to be convergent evolution, which can pull off some truly remarkable things, I would have to look at the train that would be the most difficult to convergently evolve. As in what trait would be the most troublesome to evolve twice? Sometimes convergent evolution can pull off big surprises. For instance a cephalopod eye and a tetrapod eye look almost identical at first glance, but they actually are evolved from very different organs; cephalopod eyes are evolved from their skin whereas tetrapod eyes are outgrowths of the brain. And the hardest trait I see Godzilla having that would be the most difficult to replicate would probably be his gills. Amphibians have gills, fish have gills, but no other tetrapod have gills. A few reptiles can do limited oxygen exchange with the water by structures on or in the skin, but they aren't able to form gills. Some genetic study also seems to indicate the amniotes that gave rise to reptiles (and by proxy birds) and synapsids (mammals) were evolved from amphibians that had already lost the gills and converted all of their swim bladders into lungs.

Casineria and some of its relatives were amphibians that superficially greatly resembled their amniotes descendants, with scutes, scales, claws, and many other traits. These animals are transitional forms that are in a very vague area where they aren't amniotes like reptiles and synapsids, but they aren't traditional amphibians either; at least not in the modern context.

However amphibian genetics show us that groups like this could easily still reacquire their gills. Amphibians are remarkably malleable in this aspect. For instance there are some species of salamander that lose their gills upon reaching maturity in the same family as other species that retain them into adulthood. All it takes is a few mutations for a species of amphibian that otherwise doesn't have gills to reacquire them; possibly to help out with oxygen exchange upon growing to a bigger size and needing more intake. Especially if they now have scaly skin.

So in my hypothetical scenario, Godzilla is descendant from a Carboniferous period proto-amniote amphibian that didn't completely lose its gills even as it became very reptile/synapsid like. It continued on into the Permian period until it reached the shape we are now familiar with. And then upon becoming a radiovore, it ballooned up in size just like Kong's ancestral primate species did. It's

Reptiles may have gills, although it will not be those gills that amphibians or fish have.

1. Give me an example.
2. While it's not impossible for a reptile to evolve gills, it be extremely difficult. All amniote tetrapods that have returned to living in the water remained air breathers strictly. Snakes, numerous lizards, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, nothosaurs, several crocodylomorphs, pinnipedes, desmostylians, cetaceans, and sirenians.

I'm dealing with likelihoods on what trait would be the most difficult to convergently evolve and the rule with gills is, "Once you lose them, you don't get them back."
Genetics also shows true amniotes like reptiles and synapsids came from an amphibian ancestor that didn't have gills anymore. In my scenario, LP Godzilla is an offshoot of the amniote line that hadn't lost it's gills yet, retaining them. Not quite a true amphibian, but not quite a reptile either. So something like this



We have amphibians and proto-amniotes with claws, scales, scutes, and they are from the right time period. A reptile wouldn't fit as well for Legendary Godzilla. Again, I am talking strictly about the Legendary Pictures version of Godzilla, so none of your lovely (and I mean that honestly) Toho pieces apply.

no examples. since real reptiles were simply not needed gills, while Godzilla was needed. Amniot has gill genes left so that you can mutate to get them again. but since evolution is not a reversible process, it will clearly be not the gills that amphibians and fish had

[BrazilianKaiju]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObjinIyf7M0