Ever since the first mosasaur restorations were published, these extinct marine reptiles have been pictured with either notched, forked or undivided tongues. Here, we present an overview of existing iconography, a review of the previous literature, and we discuss how best to reconstruct tongue form in mosasaurs. Despite disagreement about their precise phylogenetic position, most authors consider mosasaurs members of the Varanoidea, derived anguimorphans including Helodermatidae, Varanidae, Lanthanotus and probably snakes. All anguimorphans share a diploglossan (two-part) tongue, in which the foretongue is derived and modified into a highly protrusible chemosensor, while the hindtongue is plesiomorphic, retaining well-developed papillae, mucocytes and robust posterior lobes. We suggest that mosasaurs had a diploglossan tongue that remained in a relatively underived state. The form of the tongue would probably have been most like modern Heloderma or Lanthanotus with a protrusible chemosensory foretongue and a plesiomorphic, papillose hindtongue. Such a tongue is consistent with well-developed vomeronasal chemoreception through tongue-flicking, with the retention of the ancestral function of hyolingual food transport and swallowing following jaw-prehension of prey. The presence of paired fenestrae in the palate associated with the vomers, as well as the presence of pterygoid teeth are in accordance with such a tongue form in mosasaurs.

Conventional carbohydrate histochemistry and the binding patterns of 21 lectins were analysed to characterise the glycoconjugate content in the components of the vomeronasal organ of the armadillo Chaetophractus villosus. The mucomicrovillous complex of the sensory epithelium bound most of the lectins studied. No reaction was observed with Con A, PSA, S-Con A and SBA, and the sustentacular cells were stained with UEA-I, DSL, LEL, STL and Con A. The vomeronasal receptor neurons were labelled with S-WGA, WGA, PNA, UEA-I, STL, Con A, S-Con A, ECL and RCA120. The basal cell layer reacted with S-WGA, WGA, LCA, UEA-I, DSL, LEL, STL, Con A, JAC and VVA. The nonsensory epithelium exhibited a differential staining in relation to the different components. The mucociliary complex stained with ECL, DBA, JAC, RCA120, STL, LCA, PHA-E, PHA-L, LEL, BSL-I and VVA. However, SJA and UEA-I stained the mucus complex lining a subpopulation of columnar cells. The cytoplasm and cell membranes of columnar cells was labelled with DBA, DSL and LCA. The apical region of these cells exhibited moderate reactivity with LEL and SJA. None of the lectins bound specifically to secretory granules of the nonsecretory cells. Basal cells of the nonsensory epithelium were labelled with DSL, LEL, LCA, BSL- I and STL. The vomeronasal glands showed a positive reaction with WGA, DSL, LEL, LCA, DBA, PNA, RCA120 and SBA. Subpopulations of acinar cells were observed with ECL, S-WGA, Con A, S-Con A and DBA. PNA and RCA120 stained the cells lining the glandular ducts. In comparison with previous results obtained in the olfactory mucosa of the same group of armadillos, the carbohydrate composition of the vomeronasal organ sensory epithelium differed from the olfactory sensory epithelium. This is probably related to the different nature of molecules involved in the perireceptor processes.