>Are griffons mammals or birds? >Are the different fantasy

>>50627142
Depends. Does a griffon have mammary glands of some kind?

Depends on whether or not they can breed sexually viable offspring. I assume this would have the "without the use of magic" caveat added on for things like half-dragons or tieflings.

I'm sure that magical rules involving this can be incorporated based on the in-setting reason why this is possible. For example, half-dragon/half-human characters tend to exist because their draconic parent was in human form at the time of conception, which could affect the resulting child.

There's only one way to discover that answer.

>>50627142
Griffons are actually descended from a branch of ornithiscian dinosaurs that diverged from a common ancestor with true avians around 150 million years ago. Griffons are differentiated into two main groups: The Reliquodonts (toothed griffons), of which the hippogriff is the most well-known example but which also contains many forms of terrestrial "quadruped birds", and the Edentulagriffs (toothless griffons) which encompasses the "true griffons" and also, interestingly enough, the cockatrice.

I'd imagine things like manticore, gryphon, and centaur all fall into the same Class. Named "mixed"

>>50627142
They're griffons. They can't sustainably procreate outside of their species, and unless you plan to use them as the central aspects of a plot revolving around taxonomy I see little to no reason to desperately want to make sense of it. It gets extra difficult too since birds are descended from dinosaurs and mammals are extremely far removed from both.

>>50627142

I always thought that Griffons were marsupials.

>>50627142
I always interpreted them as a semi feathered Monotreme.

>>50627142
>Implying a world with vastly different biology and fauna would share the same classifications as ours

To do this in fantasy, you need to start from scratch. For example, we don't have a need, in our world. to divide creatures between 'magical' and 'non-magical'. But even someone born within the confines of a fantasy setting would notices there's a difference between a dog and a hell-hound that's more than just a few genes. And that a dragon isn't a lizard.

>>50627188
>Does a griffon have mammary glands of some kind?
Like pigeons, flamingos, and some penguins? If you really hit hard on that "of some kind".

>>50627142
>Are the different fantasy "races" actually races or more like species?
Primate species can usually interbreed as long as their last common ancestor was within 2 million years. Homo sapiens interbred with pretty much every other human species who was alive at the same time, and a couple different species of baboon can interbreed, too.

>Do enlarged or awakened animals pass on their traits? Would the result be a new species?
I think now you're getting into epigenetics.

>>50627142
It'd probably be easier if you tried to think like an actual fantasy taxonomist rather than a 21st-century real-world taxonomist trying to force his methods to fit a world they weren't made for.

Hell, even just thinking like an early modern (eg, ~18th century) real-world taxonomist would be better.