The Great Debate

File: 8b6f3da6cd1c669e351b0de0f04ca5b2-d467bpt.jpg (273KB, 1000x707px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1000x707px

>>54881570
I've always liked drake style dragons, like Glaurung.

>>54881570
Amphiptere
because they're the only ones that consistently give a damn about the people around them instead of wanting to be left alone or just mindless beasts.

>>54881570
All of the above.

File: glaurung_by_eoghankerrigan-dadgpz2.jpg (221KB, 900x1279px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 900x1279px

>>54881620

>>54881570
Your picture is shit. Not only are lindwurm and wyrm misspelled, but anyone who knows an iota of Norse mythology could tell you that a lindwurm or linnorm looks like what the picture calls a wyrm.

You shouldn't get your classifications from fourth-tier fantasy series.

>>54881570

It needs a barb or stinger on its tail to be a wyvern.

Slime dragon!

>>54881819
Get out of here, slugfucker.

File: 3422af93f70ee5881ca527330ff308e3.jpg (2MB, 850x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 850x1200px

>>54881842
Perhaps I could change your mind, little girl?

File: 1502645667818.jpg (102KB, 500x628px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 500x628px

>>54881699

>>54881570
All of those are arbitrary, meaningless categories, because until a handful of fantasy writers convinced their autistic fanbase to enforce purity in dragon classifications, all of those terms were used interchangably to refer to all forms of dragons.

Wyverns are stupid

That drake looks more like a dog than a lizard. I hate people who draw mammals instead of lizards.

>>54881931
>>54881959
I agree, brute wyvern > fanged beast.

>>54881985
pssst...so do all of them

>>54881570
The one that doesn't want to eat you or use you as a pawn in their games of power.

>>54881959
Agreed. Though the "Wyvern" is my favorite if the dragon is just a savage beast.

File: windserpent.jpg (215KB, 794x599px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 794x599px

>>54881570
Amphiptere. Flying snakes are dope as hell.

File: 1502381153919.jpg (155KB, 2048x1500px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 2048x1500px

>>54881699
Daenerys picks wyverns so I pick wyverns

File: Klagenfurt_Lindwurmbrunnen_2009.jpg (1MB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x850px

>>54881699
But anon this is a lindwurm

Dragons!

>>54881570
Dragons and Wyrms are cool. Drakes are normally cool, but not in that picture.

>>54883642
The thing is, that guy is wrong, as pedants usually are. Linnorms in Scandinavian mythology weren't consistently imagined as the same thing. Sometimes they had no legs and no wings, sometimes they had two legs and no wings, sometimes they had no legs and wings, and sometimes they had two legs and wings.

>>54881570
That lindwurm is wrong.
Why even try to diverse dragons from other dragons?

I love plague of gripes, but this is the one thing where he's being am absolute faggot about.

>>54881570
>tfw cant take dragons too seriously because in my native language they are calledd "Salmon snakes"

>>54884349
Oh man, imagine the posibilties for salmon steaks, if you had 3 meter long salmon snakes..

File: Klagenfurt-Innenstadt-21-Lindwurm05.jpg (96KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x600px

>>54881699
>Lindwurm is misspelled

No its not. Its german so yes this is the correct spelling.
Also a Lindwurm can look like pretty much whatever, pic related he looks like a normal dragon in that depiction.

What you are referign to with the piture titled "Wyrm" is a Tatzelwurm which isnt even a dragon per se but only a related creature from the Alps

>>54884449
>>Lindwurm is misspelled
>No its not.
I wouldn't call it misspelled. I'd say "lindwrum" is an entirely different fucking word

>>54884410
Fuck, that'd be pretty amazing.

Gotta watch out for dire bears though, I bet they'd prey on salmon snakes - at least the juveniles

>>54884349
Actually it's supposed to be crag/rock/mountain snake, but linguistic mutation fucked that up at some point.

>>54884560
>Lohi, Louhi, Louhikko
Yeah i can see where this is coming from. Still, will always make me think of a giant snake like fire breathing salmon.

>>54884572
I imagine giant salmon-headed snake that constantly oozes venom off its slimy body, and that's pretty metal.

File: 295003308.jpg (188KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 600x800px

I unironically go with monster hunter's identifications
>Wyvern -> 4 limbs, winged
>Brute wyvern -> 4 limbs, punches and charges, flightless
>Elder dragon -> 6 limbs, rare af, latent power kept them alive for so long, often only one still survives

That series got so many things right
Like gore magala (zombie dragon, later revealed to be an older dragon) being unable to die and rather just reanimating and running away after the fight

That and the fact the weapons made from the half evolved specimen suck until you contract and beat the zombie virus

>>54881570

The three on the left are all dragons. None of them is a wyvern as a Wyvern has a venomous stinger.

>>54884349
>>54884560
>>54884572

Holy shit this explains SO MUCH. There was a card called 'Loki' in the old ccg Wyvern, and it was literally just a flying, giant fucking salmon-snake. I can't find a picture of it anywhere, but oh my god. I was so confused as a kid.

>>54884767
lol

>>54881959
>because until a handful of fantasy writers convinced their autistic fanbase
Not that it is a big difference, but some of these distinctions have much deeper historical roots. The infamous Wyvern vs Dragon thing, in particular, is a heraldry classification invention from England dating back to 16th century or so.

It is still completely arbitrary and there is no reason to take it seriously UNLESS you are actually a heraldrist yourself. But it does have a bit more root to it.

>>54881620
>Drake styled dragons.

Mein negger.

>>54881570
Reminder that the non-dragons are an abomination that should be cleansed on sight and part of why our race was considered unintelligent brutes for centuries because some fuckers couldn't keep it in their pants when they saw a snake or a crocodile or a lizard.

>>54884829
Fucking dragon posters.

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-15 at 4.44.05 AM.png (592KB, 511x684px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 511x684px

>>54884850

>>54881570
Where Eastern dragon and mulit head like hydra
or Tiamat fit into?

File: 2017-08-15 19.33.16.png (306KB, 333x1075px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 333x1075px

Wyrm is best, because of their immense size

File: H7_gold_dragon_artwork.png (559KB, 920x615px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 920x615px

>>54881570
Feathered dragons make more since birds are just Dinosaurs

>>54881959
>>54884188
FUCK OFF autist. I guess it's wrong to give different names to lions/tigers/and jaguars because they are all panthera. Go fuck yourselves

>>54881570
I just realized. Tons of people sexualize dragons and I never got it (aside from the obvious reasons) because I own reptiles. There's one thing every portrayal leaves out: reptiles are all flabby squshy-bodied dorks, not toned hard-scaled bad-asses.

>>54884156
That was my point anon

>>54882540
But Daenarys is shit. She will even lose a dragon for her idiocy.

>>54881570
Using your pic terminology:
> Wyvern and drakes for straightforward powerful beasts
> Wyrm for when I need his passing to cleanse the world. Also gorilla warfare
> Dragon and Lindwrum for powerful cleverly twisted monsters
> Amphiptere for more mystical draconic beasts

>>54884631
Shaggy Maggy is my favorite punching bag

>>54886471
Mine's the raths
As long as you can count to 6 you can bully them with hammer

Copypasta from /v/ because somehow it was the more reasonable board for a change:

>Daily reminder that the "strict" distinction between Dragon and Wyvern comes from 16th century English HERALDIC NOMENCLATURE, is purely arbitrary and exists specifically and exclusively for the purpose of clarity in verbal descriptions of noble house crests. Heraldic nomenclature, as anyone who ever studied historiography will know, is legendary for it's complex and extremely arbitrary nomenclature laws.

>Historically and mythologically, it has very little or no funding. Wyvern comes most likely from Old French Guivre and further from latin Vipera (snake), while the word Dragon comes through latin from greek: drák?n meaning (a giant) snake. So really, etymologically they are just two different historical paths to the same semiotic class. As for their visual attributes and qualities... anyone who EVER looked into history of depiction of either will know that there is absolutely NO unity between various depictions of dragons and related creatures across the entire European history and space: they vary in numbers of legs, wings (actually presence of wings is not in any way conditional), size, even fucking number of heads: the only thing they all share together is a snake-like qualities.

>So really: debating whenever wyverns are type of dragon or not, or if they are defined by a number of appendages is fucking retarded. They are semiotically nearly identical concepts of great mythological snake-like creatures usually representing chaos, evil, vices, but occasionally (especially among non-christian societies) also nobility and power.

>In modern fantasy, the arbitrary distinction based on number of limbs from english heraldry has been copied into some popular fantasy table-top rulesets, and that is where it got popular among the wide public. But it really is just an arbitrary adoption of an already arbitrary distinction to begin with, and it really plays no semiotic relevance.

>>54886786
I'd also like to add that "drake" comes from the same source as "dragon" and that "wyrm" likewise means "snake". Meanwhile "lindworm" and "amphiptere" are also originally heraldic distinctions.

They're all dragons. Really, the only thing that's actually lacking here is a specific term for four-legged winged dragons.

File: Guivre écailleuse.jpg (19KB, 232x320px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 232x320px

>>54886786
>Old French Guivre
To illustrate your point: in French, mtg wyrm cards are translated "guivre". Despite "guivre" being a variant of "Vouivre" also called wyverne.

>>54884449
>No its not. Its german so yes this is the correct spelling.
>being this retarded
Anon, the pic says "lindwrum". Wrum.

File: vasilisa.jpg (336KB, 1072x1354px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1072x1354px

>>54886786
Hey, that is my fucking post. This kinda makes my day.

>>54886890
Well, just to be completely specific, "dragon", "drake" etc... come from greek drákōn which we never see used in reference to real snakes, but rather seems to have always meant "mythological snake like creature". There is a theory that it comes from the greek words dérkomai: "to see with clarity".
Wyvern comes from latin Vipera, which comes from vivi-pera: "to give live birth", refering to the fact that most poisonous snakes don't lay eggs, but rather birth live small younglings. It's reasonable to assume that originally it was vivipera anguem/serpens, "live-birthing snake", where the second half was eventually dropped to save time.

At the same time, wurm and lindworm come from old german and from old proto-indian wrmi (worm or wiggling, swirling creature - seemed to include snakes too).
So the etymological history is pretty widely disparate. It's actually pretty curious that the three end up refering to so similar set of symbolic attributes and general associations.

>>54881570
There is no best, just different flavours of awesome. Favourites differ from person to person.

File: 1500194210528.jpg (62KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 680x680px

>>54886786
>>54887024
>>54886916
>>54887014
>I-Its stupid to differentiate pythons from cobras because they are all snakes!

>>54886786
>Daily reminder that the "strict" distinction between Dragon and Wyvern comes from 16th century English HERALDIC NOMENCLATURE, is purely arbitrary and exists specifically and exclusively for the purpose of clarity in verbal descriptions of noble house crests.
This. The fact that a hand and a fist are two different things in heraldry doesn't mean they're separate and unrelated in real life.

>>54886890
>Meanwhile "lindworm" and "amphiptere" are also originally heraldic distinctions.
I don't think this is true actually, the linnorm appears in Norse mythology before heraldry appears on the continent AFAIK.

>>54887055
You really aren't very smart, are you?
Here is a pro-tip: snakes and pythons are biological categories for empirical differences between creatures that can be empirically studied.

Dragons and Wyverns are symbolic categories for abstract concepts that can't be studied in en empirical fashion and to which biological laws have no fucking relevance.

>>54887055
Pay attention, that's not what they're saying.
They're saying it's stupid to not call a wyvern a dragon, simply because it doesn't have the "required number of limbs" which isn't really a thing in medieval folklore.
So to compare it to your analogy it'd be like saying
>Pythons aren't snakes because they're not Cobras!

>>54887055
It's more like trying to differentiate snakes from serpents, under the belief that serpents possess a specific kind of scale that makes them different

>>54887078
That's a good point, actually. If we really want to get to the bottom of this we'd have to see what kind of creature was originally described as a linnorm and if it was the same as what was later codified as a lindworm in heraldry. I suspect the original meaning may have been less specific, similar to "wyrm," but I must admit I don't know.

>>54887103
In my setting dragonkind can be studied empirically faggot.
>>54887140
Nobody who distinguishes between wyverns and dragons give a single shit about medieval heraldry you fucking nerd

>>54887168
>Nobody who distinguishes between wyverns and dragons give a single shit about medieval heraldry you fucking nerd
And none of them are right

>>54887168
I'd say the only people who have any objective basis for distinguishing between wyverns and dragons are people who give a shit about medieval heraldry.

>>54887168
>In my setting dragonkind can be studied empirically faggot.
Nobody gives two flying fucks about your faggy settings, kid. Seriously, nobody. I can assure you that not even the few poor souls you roped in to suffer within it.

>>54887168
>my setting
We're not talking about your specific fantasy setting you dumb goof.
Also
>you fucking nerd
Where do you think we are?

File: 1351077624862.png (763KB, 1312x1014px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 1312x1014px

>>54887146
>Differing number of limbs is the same thing as different scales

>>54887185
>>54887193
>>54887208
>>54887219
>Why are you guys distinguishing between vampires and zombies they are all undead!

>>54887227
That's not the point, the point is that you can't just claim that a wyvern isn't a dragon simply because it lacks features this other dragon has.
In this case, have a different number of limbs doesn't stop a wyvern from being a dragon. In the same sense that having different shaped scales doesn't stop a python from being a snake.

>>54887260
Again man, that's not what's going on here.

>>54881570
Only dragons with 2 wings and 4 limbs could be considered true dragons. Others are lesser beings, unworthy of this title.
They are still related to dragons, so are automatically infinitely higher than any non-dragons.

>>54887303
Why can't you? So by your rules you can't claim that a vampire and a zombie are different since they are both undead. Nor can you differentiate between a gryphon and a hippogryph
>>54887326
I don't believe you nerd

>>54887303
Different shaped scales is nowhere near the same thing as number of limbs. Are you fucking retarded?

>>54887423
Can you tell me what a wyvern and a dragon both are?

>>54886409
I hope all three dragons and her life.

>>54887494
Maybe she gets eaten by them.

>>54887482
They don't exist but in most pop culture dragons a 4 legged and wyverns are 2 legged with wings just like in most pop culture vampires are blood sucking creatures that die to sunlight regardless of the original myth.

File: gob2.png (21KB, 158x175px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 158x175px

>>54886252
Those are also real animals. That exist. In real life.

>>54887514
That doesn't answer my question. Vampires and zombies are both undead. Dragons and wyverns are both what?

>>54887531
Reptilian monsters

>>54887560
Do we have a word for those?

>>54887514
Except in the ones where they don't

>>54887423
We had an entire discussion about this, you know why you can't just claim that. These aren't real animals, you can't make statements based on emprirical evidense that doesn't exist.
Also, you not believing me about what I'm trying to say is your problem, not mine.
>again with the nerd flinging
Why are you so upset by the idea of wyverns still being dragons?

>>54887531
Draconids.

>>54887664
Does anything besides The Witchr use this?

File: 1502320582741.jpg (72KB, 600x719px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x719px

>>54887653
You are right they aren't a real. So I don't want to hear you complaining when dwarfs are slender, beautiful 7 foot tall magically adept beings and elves are 2 foot tall bearded beings that live underground and love gold and beer.

>>54887694
Google tells me it's also the name of a cyclical meteor shower near the Draco constellation, and a race dragon type pokemon trainers who live in a meteor shower prone region.

>>54887698
Technically speaking, dwarves are rooted in norse elf mythology. They weren't very short and were indeed extremely good with magic.

File: hollywood dragon design.jpg (358KB, 1327x698px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1327x698px

Stop dragon genocide, the wyvern uprising is real!

>>54887819
Yeah, weren't they synonymous with "dark elves" originally?

>>54881570
so dragons can have 0-4 legs and 2+ wings but all dragons with two legs are wyverns got it. I wish people had never learned the word wyvern

>>54887826
Still mad about The Hobbit. Tolkien explicitly distinguished between dragons and wyverns. You had one job, Peter.

On the other hand Tolkien used dragon, wyrm, and drake interchangeably.

File: 116734c0923d3a648734f857031b7866--clipart-images-seahorses.jpg (16KB, 236x263px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 236x263px

>>54887826
What is wrong with the heraldic version of a seahorse? It's obviously not supposed to be the fish that exists in real life.

File: Drogon.gif (1018KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1018KB, 500x281px

>>54881570
I used to love classic dragons the most, but lately, I've fallen in love with wyverns. The limb structure makes a little more sense to me, they're like big nasty pterosaurs. It's really the way that they walk that I love. Dragons stride regally or gallop, wyverns have a monstrous waddling crawl. It's much more intimidating in my opinion. Dragons are more majestic and impressive with heads held high, but wyverns have that snake like neck whipping around at human level which is much scarier.

File: Dragon-fron-Bogleech-dot-com.jpg (274KB, 700x462px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 700x462px

What do you call dragons with eight legs, two heads, two crowns and eleven eyes?

>>54889826
Faggons

>>54889826
The Aristocrats!

File: PterosaurWalk.png (196KB, 864x898px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 864x898px

>>54889436
>pterosaur limb structure is weird as fuck. Wyverns are much more like bats

>>54889826
Final Form Basilisk

>>54881570
Drakes, Lindwrums and Wyverns are anathomically plausible.

File: 220px-Liber_Floridus_page_scan_A,_ca._1460.jpg (14KB, 220x217px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x217px

Something I don't think I've ever seen are dragons with combined legs and wings. The same goes for griffins. It was reasonable common in the art but very rare in modern fantasy.

>>54881570
Wyrm is my favorite. I think it conjures more the the serpent of Eden, covetous demonic angle in my mind.

>>54890018
Technically that applies to any dragon that walks on it's wings.

>>54887507
maybe she gets burnedby them

>>54888680
My family's crest has a dolphin on it.

There are some pretty fantastic fucked up looking dolphin things, from people who'd never seen a dolphin.

>>54890008
Really, actual snakes aren't anatomically plausible?

>>54890551
What kind of animal has no limbs? Everyone knows the only viable body-shape is humanoid, possible with forehead ridges. Evolution would weed out anything else.

>>54881570
Wyvern for biological sensibility

Wyrm because giant sneks

Lindwurm is the most retarded thing I've ever seen And yes I do look into the mirror every morning

Hugo de Folieto [c. 1110-72 CE]: The scripture teaches us that the greatest of the serpents is the dragon and that it deals death by its poisonous breath and by the blow of its tail. This creature is lifted by the strength of its venom into the air as if it were flying, and the air is set in motion by it... The poison of the dragon boils with exceeding great heat...
Reminder that dragons are hot air balloons.

>>54887601
>>54887531
>Here's the (you) you so badly desire.

Uhh.... Reptiles? Your end goal makes no sense whatsoever. Their category is reptiles. Giant reptiles. Dinosaurs with wings. If certain people want to classify "dragons" by different features, then let them. Having a set of easily distinguishable rules for each "species" of giant reptile.

I'll use Dark Souls as an example: Drakes are "Wyverns " With two legs and two wings, and Dragons are standard 4 legged 2+ winged. It's nice to have a comparison to show power levels and physical attributes with a simple word.

I kinda get that you're super baiting, but maybe you legit are one of those people who complains about the term BBEG or any of the other things like that, so you might now actually know about simplification for the sake of clearly the air of misunderstanding.

>>54889436
Both are awesome in their own way, tbf. There are situations where an animalistic Wyvern would be way more scary than a fully grown, hyper intelligent Dragon. At least you can talk to the Dragon, the Wyvern is in it for food, or better yet, the sadistic thrill of killing weaklings. There are birds of prey in real life that enjoy killing for fun, so I would think the biggest thing, aside from "true" dragons would get a kick, too.

>>54893270
But within the category of reptiles, what do we categorise dragons and wyverns as? Or is "reptile" the lowest shared connection on their family tree?

Look, my goal here was for him to say "dragons". Wyverns are dragons and so are dragons with four legs. The problem is we don't have a separate word for the latter.

>>54893390
If it comes into that context I normally go with "Pureblood Dragon" or "True Dragon."

>>54889936
Underrated.

File: Asami Sato 01.jpg (2MB, 1275x1650px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1275x1650px

Wyrm. It would fit up my ass more easily.

Seriously though, amphiptere would be best because flying snakes are fucking scary.

>>54889937
>say that to my face and not on the ground, mammalfucker, and see what happens
>my beak through your skull, that's what

>>54893390
Drake is their shared family tree which splits into draconis vulgaris, the common wyvern, and draconis horriblis, the true dragon

>>54894837
I like this post

>>54893270
>Dinosaurs with wings
Hey asshole , birds are taxonomically categorized as Dinosaurs.

File: St.George.jpg (296KB, 900x1194px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 900x1194px

>>54891339
snakes, worms, i assume snails and slugs don't, and probably some more i don't know of.
>>54893426
that's horrendous kys

Wyvernposting has to be one of the most underappreciated trolling shticks on this site. I've seen it trigger hundreds of pages of autism on /v/, /tv/, /tg/ and others.

>>54881570
My setting just has Wyverns, Drakes, and Wyrms, no six or two limbed reptiles for me.

File: Slay dragons and don't fuck bitches because you're christian and adultery is a sin.jpg (89KB, 506x512px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 506x512px

>>54881724
>>54884728
>>54881570
but the wyvern in the ops picture does have a stinger at the end of it's tail

File: Rathalos.png (259KB, 1161x927px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1161x927px

>>54887826
yeah, a Wyvern uprising I can see...

>>54881570
Which type stands about 4-4.5 feet tall on two legs, sidefanged, smooth skin, flatchested, skimpy outfit, lives thousands of years without aging, etc?

File: tumblr_mxv33ebYVR1r6w4h8o9_400.gif (895KB, 300x120px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 300x120px

I think all dragon styles a valid, but I do like Wyverns

File: dragonfly.jpg (92KB, 1200x736px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1200x736px

>>54887826
>no beast in nature has four legs AND wings
>This time around we gave them a more muted, natural color scheme; this helped fit in with the environment
God forbid we look at a real creature with DRAGON in its name to imagine how some of the most varied and fantastic beasts of human imagination might appear

File: 99a14c4b2999.png (2MB, 1920x820px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x820px

>>54896907

>>54896915
>no beast in nature has four legs AND wings
no beast in nature is the size of a house and flies or breathes fire
additionally, no reptile has the body structure of a dragon, theirs is more like a cat or a bat, if you want a realistic dragon you need to give it squat played out legs
hmm I think we just cut the dragon down to an alligator

>>54881570
Using the naming in the image, dragons are the most classic, drakes are the most tamable, wyverns are the most biologically plausible as far as the larger and more destructive ones go, lindwurms make the best every-day predators that the average person could hope to slay and gain some positive reputation for it, amphiptere seem the most alien, and wyrms are the most biologically plausible overall, since its just a thicc snek.

>>54896952
While we're at it they should probably have feathers and model them after an Albatross.

This is perhaps the silliest and least-productive thread I've seen in quite some time. And that's saying something.

I do love that there's some guy in this thread screeching at other people about *their* autism while simultaneously getting upset that people don't care to classify different versions of an imaginary creature.

File: Alpha_Toothless.gif (913KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 500x200px

>>54881570
On an unrelated note, which ones make the best pets?

Alright, alright! How about this: all of these creature belong to the superset of "Dragons" with each of them being a subset with different features. Those terms seem to be rather commonly accepted descriptions of limbs structure and are useful.

>>54886786
>Implying precision in language has no value

I mean, you don't necessarily have to slavishly adhere to the precise nomenclature in OP's pic, but if you're using all 6 of those terms interchangeably you need to be taken out back and beaten with a dictionary until you understand the value of words.

>>54884631
I thought Gore was just like a giant draconic cicada.
Filled with dragon-rabies.

>>54886890
>They're all dragons. Really, the only thing that's actually lacking here is a specific term for four-legged winged dragons.
This, really. There's value to assigning specific names to each particular permutation, but it's clear that there's a broader overarching category to which they all belong, and "dragon" is pretty clearly the best word for that category.

That said, it's not as though there isn't precedent for using colloquially a term that is "properly" only applicable to a small subset. For instance, most people will use "bug" to refer to any arthropod, whereas entomologists would say "true" bugs are only those insects belonging to order Hemiptera (such as cicadas, aphids, and shield bugs). So, in that respect it could just as well be that in scholarly circles the overall category has a particular technical name that is rarely used among laypeople (perhaps "Dracoformes" or something similarly scientifical), considering only that subset which has 4 legs + wings to be "true" dragons, whereas the average Joe would use "dragon" informally to refer to the whole lot.

>>54881570
What if intelligence among draconic creatures was inversely proportional to number of limbs? "Dragons" (the 4 legged, winged sort) are the dumb, brute animals, while wyrms are the wisest, shrewdest, and most learned of all. Perhaps they are all in fact the same creatures at different stages of development, dragons losing legs and wings as they become older and wiser. Or maybe it's just some sort of cosmic balancing act, the gods imposing tradeoffs on this most magnificent of their creations.

(The question then would be whether a pair of wings counts the same as a pair of legs or not...)

>>54896907
Wyvern-style dragons seem to have gotten the most play in modern TV and films, which I think has a lot to do with the greater ease of CGI modeling by dint of easier reference to real animals. With wyverns, you can look to bats and birds and even motion capture of human actors to give a very realistic style of movement. Dragons, having one more set of limbs than any terrestrial vertebrate found in nature, are a bit harder to model with the same degree of realism. Even though most in the audience don't really have the training or inclination to analyze the movements of such creatures in detail, people have a very keen instinct for detecting unnaturalness in the movements of living things, so that extra degree of verisimilitude really helps in a visual medium.

File: smaug_by_einen.png (1MB, 830x700px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 830x700px

>>54896952
Only because shitty modern fantasy artists like to draw them as mammals.

File: dragon lounge.jpg (126KB, 700x546px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 700x546px

>>54897802

File: ice mountain dragon.jpg (195KB, 900x1080px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 900x1080px

>>54897832

File: nienor_and_glaurung_by_donatoarts-d5x3nyu.jpg (134KB, 902x1200px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 902x1200px

>>54897857

File: red dragon sleeping.jpg (538KB, 600x844px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 600x844px

>>54897874

File: the_barrow_wyrm_by_ashere-d71adca.jpg (156KB, 900x693px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 900x693px

>>54897911

File: St George.jpg (80KB, 410x410px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 410x410px

>>54897941

File: B640x600-3.jpg (88KB, 640x452px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 640x452px

>>54896907
Same, I like them all, but the wyvern design of the Prehistoric Dragon really made me fall in love with them when I was younger.
https://youtu.be/8FIDeOOL52Q?t=1m32s

>>54881570
DEPENDS ON THE FUCKING SETTING.

GOD DAMNED

File: godzilla_the_video_game__king_ghidorah_by_sonichedgehog2-d7yozma.png (816KB, 1024x828px) Image search: [Google]

816KB, 1024x828px

Posting best Dragon.

File: Yi_qi_restoration.jpg (1009KB, 900x1535px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 900x1535px

>wyvern's existed but they were the size of small birds

would have been adorable to see

File: 1417012747967.jpg (177KB, 900x642px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 900x642px

GAME OVER, MAN !!!

>>54881985
>dragons have to be 100% reptilian

I always found this viewpoint limiting and boring. I mean shit, people like that luckdragon from neverending story.

Also, OP's classification system is dumb as some have pointed out, the only time you shouldn't call whatever kind of dragon whatever you want is if you're talking medieval heraldry where a wyvern has 2 legs and 2 wings. Otherwise it doesn't fucking matter.

>>54886916
Drakes have the creature type 'Sceada' in German. I speak German fluently, but have no clue what a Secada is or what roots the word might be.

>>54891471
Say that to Shenron's face and not online and see what happens

But that brings up a point, what about asiatic dragons? I think i'd call them "longs" maybe, even though anatomically they're not much different than a "wyrm" or sometimes a "lindwyrm". They usually float around instead of crawling, I feel like this gives an entirely different feel.

Also what differentiates a dragon from a sea serpent anyway? What about a hydra, that's still a dragon and it doesn't fit into any of those molds from OP's picture

>>54899897
Tried some googling..found nothing.
But when I type in sceada in google translate german -> english it spits out drake.

>>54896915
>Dragonflies
>4 legs

learn to count dude, they have 6 legs.

>>54894837
Drakanis is the shared family tree

Vulgaris being the serpentine tree with two species: Chiropterix and Serpentis; Chiropterix being Wyverns and Serpentis being broken down into the subspecies of Terratis (Wurms) and Aurantis (Ampheters)

Horriblis is the tree of the "dragons" with two species: Plantar and Nobilis; Nobilis is the species of True Dragons and Plantar being broken down into two subspecies of Quadrus (Drakes) and Doublani (Lindwurms)

>>54900369
Anon, fucking please don't try to taxonomy when you clearly don't know how.
>Phylum: Chordata
>Subphylum: Vertebrata (I think we can all agree that dragons have backbones)
>Class: Reptilia (I feel like dragons should have their own class, but a lot of people insist they're reptiles so fuck it)
>Order:
There should be separate families for dragons with different numbers of limbs probably.
>limbless (much like snakes, probably once had limbs but evolved them away; this is assuming no convergent evolution, ie all no-leggers evolved from 4-leggers, not some evolving from 2-leggers and some from 4 leggers over millions of years)
>4 limbs (including 4 legs, 2 wings 4 legs. 4 wings?)
>2 limbs
>6 limbs
Number of limbs matters more than the adaptations of those limbs- structurally a wing is just a stretched-out thin leg if we're going the "muh realism" route. Genera and then Species would all be more similar to each other than not, obviously.

>>54900471
>Linnean taxonomy
The guy you're replying to is closer to reality than your top-down phylum-first approach. He's knocking on the door of cladistics, which make more sense, especially for a hypothetical creature like this.

>>54884349
In my language the word for dragon also means snake.

Prior to the chimeras of Jewish and Christian myths, dragons were uniformely depicted as giant snakes.

>>54900575
It's how I still prefer them.

>>54898111
Thats a Wyvern friend.

I like a stockier wyvern. A shorter, stronger neck, a shorter, thicker tail with a mace, and bigger wings. It's the size of a horse, can't fly without rest for more than 10 minutes, and preys on literally everything by just picking them up in their claws or mouths and carrying them to mountain caves.

File: chinese_dragon.jpg (68KB, 491x265px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 491x265px

>>54897333

It's not precision if the words don't actually mean those things. Creating fake categories gets in the way of clarity, it doesn't engender it. Running around telling people the dragons in Skyrim aren't dragons isn't helpful, it's confusing--and wrong, to boot.

The word "dragon" does not denote a certain number of limbs. It would be ridiculous of someone to try to argue that it does. Doing so isn't championing the cause of precise and descriptive language, it's actively trying to strip away an accurate definition and apply one that is less accurate. Consider how many historic or agreed-upon dragons would be disqualified as fucking dragons if OP's image was taken as an actual attempt at taxonomy.

For the record, OP's use of the terms is fine. It's clearly him applying an arbitrary label so that the posters in the thread can indicate which of his images they're talking about. It's people (like the Skyrim example above) who argue that many of those terms have a definite, agreed-upon body plan exclusive of the others and somehow independent from the culture/setting that they appear is that are the retards.

Like, consider someone arguing that a chinese dragon like pic related isn't a dragon--it's a "Wrym". That person is not being "precise". He is being wrong, and an idiot.

>>54897333
>beaten with a dictionary until you understand the value of words.
You need to learn a thing or two about the study of languages. But to state is simply: Word meaning is often ambigious, and single words often have several different meanings, and wildly different words share the same meaning, and people seem to be able to communicate just fine regardless.

>>54900876
It's a lóng, a creature lumped in with dragons by inaccurate taxonomy but in reality has little mythological or physical resemblance to the true dragon

>>54900929

Are you willing to argue the thing in that image you quoted is a "Wrym", and that in being one it is not (and cannot be) a "Dragon"?

You're going to say that that thing is unarguably a Wrym, and that the term Wrym describes the mythical creature in that image and no other creatures unless they have the same body plan, and that anyone who attributes either "Wrym" or "Dragon" to a creature not fitting their respective body plans as listed in the OP is incorrect, regardless of what media or myth that creature appears in? Because what you're saying--while totally cool--is irrelevant to my post or the argument, and I'd love to get your opinion on that stuff.

>>54900929
>but in reality has little mythological or physical resemblance to the true dragon
And what defines a true dragon in your opinion?
I'm not asking about the qualities the creature has to display according to you, I'm asking on what authority can you make such distinction. Who, and on what grounds, gets to call what dragon is a true dragon and what is a faux one?

File: anguilla-9.jpg (195KB, 800x598px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 800x598px

>>54900979
What kind of weird fish is this?

>>54900979
>>54901006
mine, because if you honestly think a creature that resembles a sea serpent and culturally descended from the chinese crocodile instead of a lizard that can't breathe fire and is associated with water is a dragon, you simply are not a good source on what is a dragon

>>54901069
So you are completely talking out of your ass, about shit you know fuck all about. At least you do admit it.
It's still baffling that you somehow deluded yourself into thinking your personal opinion has any worth or value though.

>>54901082
>It's still baffling that you somehow deluded yourself into thinking your personal opinion has any worth or value though.
pot meet kettle

>>54901117
Except I'm not talking about about my own opinion on this matter. Most anthropologists and religionists agree that both western and eastern dragons are - in fact - deeply related concepts with deeply related symbolics. I'm actually arguing that what one person thinks is generally irrevalnt you retard, which is why I asked you about what would constitute an authority on the subject matter in the first place.

I'm not making broad fucking judgements like you are. I'm just pointing out that you have grounds for your claim.

>>54901151
that's, like, your opinion man, you can back it up with logical fallacies all day long but it's still your opinion that things unrelated to dragons are dragons
btw pigs are humans

>>54901173
How old are you?

>>54901183
Old enough to remember Bakshi's Smaug
I don't see why you're having so much trouble with the idea that pigs are humans. They're genetically related, have even more physically in common with humans than a wyvern and a true dragon have. They're used all the time in allegories for each other. Most scienticians agree they're the same thing.

>>54901211
>They're genetically related, have even more physically in common with humans than a wyvern and a true dragon have.
You do realize that dragons don't exist. Therefor, applying biology rules and arguments is absolutely, utterly retarded. Also, what the fuck are we talking about? Weren't we discussing relationship between eastern and western dragons? Are you fucking high? Or is this just cheap shitposting?

>>54901232
Oh I agree, categorising fictional creatures based entirely on major physical differences is completely irrelevant.
btw elves are also a kind of dragon

>>54901241
>Oh I agree, categorising fictional creatures based entirely on major physical differences is completely irrelevant.
Yes, actually, because those things are symbolic entities. Physiology matters only as far as it relates to their symbolic value and specific cultural relevance.

>btw elves are also a kind of dragon
Funny you should say this, because elves across just western mythologies vary from invisible but otherwise perfectly identical to humans, past beings of pure light or darkness, past tiny being with insect wings to ugly, goblin-like creatures that steal children and sit on your chest when you sleep causing shortness of breath and nightmares.

You really know FUCK all about mythology. Which is again why I'm absolutely baffled how could you ever think that your opinions on the matter have any value at all. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? What made you ever think that you are right on anything?

>>54901211
Severe autism at work.

>>54901275
>Funny you should say this, because elves across just western mythologies vary from invisible but otherwise perfectly identical to humans, past beings of pure light or darkness, past tiny being with insect wings to ugly, goblin-like creatures that steal children and sit on your chest when you sleep causing shortness of breath and nightmares.
you're right, I totally forgot that the only thing that matters is classifications derived from ancient mythologies and not modern takes on them
but by all means, do find me a myth that says elves are dragons

>You really know FUCK all about mythology. Which is again why I'm absolutely baffled how could you ever think that your opinions on the matter have any value at all. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? What made you ever think that you are right on anything?
pot meeting kettle again

>>54901333
>you're right, I totally forgot that the only thing that matters is classifications derived from ancient mythologies and not modern takes on them
Well, they are the only systems that have some relevance in real world. Any other system is purely arbitrary and there is no reason to assume that it should hold any exceptional relevance - except for that which reflects real world.
Actually, there is no modern take. Just a bunch of tropes that exist purely because people have no imagination. And morons like you who not only don't have imagination, neither do they know where these very ideas came from and what made them relevant in the first place, but who insist that their completely arbitrary decisions about made-up stuff are more valid than other people's ones.

>but by all means, do find me a myth that says elves are dragons
What the fuck? Again: are you high or actually mentally retarded? What kind of argument is this?

>pot meeting kettle again
Dude, how is this supposed to be argument too? I just fucking explained how I'm reflecting stances of modern anthropology and religionistics as well as psychology of religion and mythology. I just made an argument about how what I'm stating is rooted in real-world mythology.
How the fuck are our stances even remotely similar?

>>54897525
Pretty much
You just need to add that there's only ever one gore and one shaggy alive at the same time
All the gores you fight are actually the same guy, same for shagaru, or rather, a mother and her child because continuity

>>54901384
>Well, they are the only systems that have some relevance in real world. Any other system is purely arbitrary and there is no reason to assume that it should hold any exceptional relevance - except for that which reflects real world.
in the real world, beavers were fish and could be eaten on Lent
is a beaver a fish? after all it's what old people agreed on

>What the fuck? Again: are you high or actually mentally retarded? What kind of argument is this?
is there in fact an objective fact that exists outside of mythology? we'll never answer this elves are dragons question

>Dude, how is this supposed to be argument too? I just fucking explained how I'm reflecting stances of modern anthropology and religionistics as well as psychology of religion and mythology. I just made an argument about how what I'm stating is rooted in real-world mythology.
>How the fuck are our stances even remotely similar?
wow slow down there gentlesir sorry I didn't know I was dealing with a true intellectual able to cut through mythology like a thousand folded katana

>>54886409
You can't lose a dragon if you only fly wyverns.

>>54901402
>in the real world, beavers were fish and could be eaten on Lent
Sure. And in Japan rabbits were considered birds by the buddhist nomenclature, which still translates into Japanese grammar rules. Those are neat little historical facts, but how is this an argument?

>is a beaver a fish? after all it's what old people agreed on
Modern biological nomenclature is based on categorizing by empirically measurable qualities.
Mythological nomenclature, dealing with concepts that are purely imaginary, does not subscribe to the same principles. We actually have already been over this already.

>we'll never answer this elves are dragons question
Nobody but you is asking this question. It has nothing to do with anything else - it's you being lol-so-randumb and presumably poorly attempting a strawman.
There is no historical or symbolical relationship between mythological concept of a dragon, and that of an elf. That solves the issue.

>I didn't know I was dealing with a true intellectual able to cut through mythology like a thousand folded katana
Once again: how fucking old are you? You can't be more than twelve. I don't know if this is your idea of hillarious trolling, or if you are sincere with this shit and actually thought this would be some kind of worth-while retort, but either way for anyone above the age of 12, this is completely inexcusable behavior. Get your shit together, kid.

>>54901451
>Modern biological nomenclature is based on categorizing by empirically measurable qualities.
Mythological nomenclature, dealing with concepts that are purely imaginary, does not subscribe to the same principles. We actually have already been over this already.
wow it's almost like modern ideas trump age-old mythologies and assign basic categorical differences to different creatures for observable reasons

>Nobody but you is asking this question. It has nothing to do with anything else - it's you being lol-so-randumb and presumably poorly attempting a strawman.
>There is no historical or symbolical relationship between mythological concept of a dragon, and that of an elf. That solves the issue.
morons like you not only don't have imagination, neither do they know where these very ideas came from and what made them relevant in the first place, but who insist that their completely arbitrary decisions about made-up stuff are more valid than other people's ones.

>>54901464
>wow it's almost like modern ideas trump age-old mythologies and assign basic categorical differences to different creatures for observable reasons
Except when modern ideas study mythologies. Then they don't trump them. They actually examine and explore them.
Also, what modern day ideas? Where do these modern day ideas come from and why should we consider them relevant.
Categorizing mythological creatures based on physical traits that are NOT observable because mythological creatures are imaginary, is not useful. In fact it's COMPLETELY retarded because in reality, there is such an UNBELIVABLY divergence in the actual visual descriptions of dragons across the spectrum that NO set of physiological rules is actually going to suffice.
Also, if you'd actually read the thread, you'd also know that the "modern" idea you are using here is actually from 16th century.
See >>54886786
It's a heraldic rule. Made PURELY for the purpose of clarity of heraldic descriptions. In 16th century. That is the modern idea you are relying on here. Exclusively.

>morons like you not only don't have imagination
Why are you just reposting what I already posted? Are you having some kind of fit? Are the drugs kicking in too much? What is going on? Should we be worried? Call someone?

>>54901518
okay, well I hope you don't mind, but dragons are now short smelly peasants with rabies who drink blood and if you disagree you're too prescriptivist when it comes to fictional monsters

>>54901547
Where's the mythological precedence?

>>54901568
oh I'm sorry there's a WIDE range of art and UNBELIEVABLE divergence in interpretations of dragons so my interpretation is equally valid

>>54901547
You do realize that you are not actually making an argument. You are doing the same thing - basic, nonsensical strawman - over and over and over.

Is there a semiotic or historical connection between the concept of a dragon and a concept of rabies-ridden peasant?
No, there isn't. Therefor, your example is in no way similar to the case of... what are we even discussing? Because this started with the claim that Asian dragons are not dragons (which explains, totally, why we call them "dragons"...) but I have a suspicion that since then you actually forgot that completely and started talking about wyverns and dragons?
Not that it matters, it's still the same problem of semiotically related categories.

Asian dragons, western dragons, wyrms and wyverns are all still variation of the same iconic image: a representation of natural chaos through a chimeric being mainly based on a snake.
That is why we actually consider them all to be different variations of the same image.

Can you actually make the same point for peasants and dragons? Can you identify the moment where they were intentionally defined as different for some kind of arbitrary functional reason (like the heraldic distinction I've pointed out)?
Can you name a single author that would support your hypothesis?

No?
Then you example is worthless and not in any way analogical to my claim.

>>54897802
>>54896952
>>54881985

It's almost like dragons are a mythical creature that doesn't exist who's only consistent feature is looking reptilian to untrained glances....

>>54901579
>oh I'm sorry there's a WIDE range of art and UNBELIEVABLE divergence in interpretations of dragons so my interpretation is equally valid
No it isn't. See >>54901580

>>54901580
vampires are also depictions of a natural chaos through a chimeric creature, in this case the natural chaos that rabies causes through a half-alive half-dead creature, therefore they're dragons

>>54881570
I have a fondness for tetrapod dragons.

>>54901616
That is just one more clearly disfunctional strawman. First of all vampires being representations of chaos will fucking need some actual evidence, second they aren't even chimeric, and fourth you are making a jump from rabies to vampirism, and finally, you seem to have forgotten the snake part, which is kinda important when it comes to dragons.

This is like fifth time you instead of argument just made more stupid strawmen. I realize by this point you are just shitposting but come on - do you have literally NO dignity what so ever? Even you have to realize - this is kinda fucking sad, isn't it?

>>54901579
No. Listen, the only thing you're managing to prove is that any sane country would define you as legally retarded.

File: 118.jpg (64KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 312x445px

Wurm is best

>>54901634
if you actually knew your mythology as you so claim, you'd know that classical vampire myths drew heavily on allegory towards rabies

>>54901666
It's one of the theories of the origin of the myth, but only one, and completely irrelevant to this discussion. Can you actually produce an argument or not?

>>54901685
Nice backpedaling m8 but it doesn't change anything

>>54901695
>Nice backpedaling m8 but it doesn't change anything
It really does not. I've asked you to provide arguments. Even quite precisely listed what kind of arguments would you have to make to turn that strawman you made into an actual relevant allegory. Even that has been massively welcoming from me, as normally an allegory and reduction ad absurdum aren't actually treated as sufficient tools to prove your claim on their own.

Since you can't do that, or produce any other kind of actual rational argument, you lost the argument. If you continue to insist that you are right after this, you are certifiably deluded, mentally ill person. And since I have no doubt that you will - well then may god have mercy on you, and even more on the poor fucking souls that have to live with you.

>>54901722
if you have to tell someone you won an argument, you haven't
do you tell dates you're a nice guy too?

File: glossary and guide by a field expert.png (1MB, 1200x1099px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1099px

>>54881570
I've solved it

>>54901748
>if you have to tell someone you won an argument, you haven't
If that someone as insanely thick as you are, then it's really necessary to spell everything out word-for-word.

Seeing as how you present nothing more than an insult, I take this as an admission of defeat from your side.
Why do you keep posting, really?

>>54901820
wow once again we're watching the pot meet the kettle, claiming insults disqualify you from an argument might have weight if you hadn't posted anything else in this thread

>>54901829
>claiming insults disqualify you from an argument might have weight if you hadn't posted anything else in this thre
Can you quote back to me the line in which I say that insults disqualify from an argument?

>>54901748
He's telling you that you've lost because it's obvious that you have. You don't win an argument by convincing your opponent, you win by convincing the people watching the argument unfold that your position is correct. I'd be amazed if anyone read through the shitposts you provided and came to the conclussion that you seemed more reasonable than him.

You lost. Move along.

>>54901873
>Seeing as how you present nothing more than an insult, I take this as an admission of defeat from your side.
you should stop implicitly arguing for something and then pretending you never did

>>54901875
wow, anonymous bystander, you seem like a completely unbiased source

>>54901896
>you should stop implicitly arguing for something and then pretending you never did
Except I made it absolutely clear that it's your lack of anything other than the insult that serves as an admission of defeat.
I have no issue with insults if they are accompanied by actual arguments and reasoning. But you do not provide that. Insult isn't an argument.
You don't have arguments. That is what disqualifies you from the discussion.

>>54901907
>If that someone as insanely thick as you are, then it's really necessary to spell everything out word-for-word.
>Seeing as how you present nothing more than an insult, I take this as an admission of defeat from your side.
so you admitted defeat?

>>54900004
Eastern dragons are technically drakes if you're going by the limb definition, though they're more wyrm-like than the typical drake. I call them Great Wyrms for my own setting

Sea serpents and hydras just aren't called dragons, that's it. I guess they could be, but not many settings actually relate them

>>54901896
>you seem like a completely unbiased source
Considering that I don't know either of you, yes. You're acting like a complete shit eater, though.

File: 1442604672373.png (136KB, 520x810px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 520x810px

>>54901875
>>54901873
>>54901829
>>54901820
you know, if you don't have anything to say you should really just stop posting

>>54881570
can't believe this image hasn't been posted yet

>>54901913
And we reached the point where you don't even make sense anymore...

>>54901956
>posting nothing but insults admits defeat!!!
>posts nothing but an insult
glad you think I won

>>54881570
>wyvern, from 'vipera' (latin)
>dragon, from 'draco' (greek)

really activates my almonds

>>54901973
Because I've already made my arguments here:
>>54901580
>>54901518
>>54901451
>>54901384
>>54901275
You had not presented a counter-point to any of them.

>>54902077
Suddenly moving the goalpoasts when you were beaten? How unsurprising

>>54902094
And now you are just boring. When you shitpost, make sure you don't actually bore your opponents. You have to make them mad, but you can't just make them bored out of their skulls. Do better, or this is the last reply I'm gratiously giving you.

>>54902108
lol we're right back to the gentlesir graciously divulging his generous intellect to the peasant masses

>>54884449
I am German and I can tell you that it's "Wurm" and that "Wrum" doesn't make any sense.

>>54884156

Yeah, but, only sometimes.

>>54902217
>"Wrum"
Not sure if this works in other languages, but in my language, "wrum" is the onomatopoic description of a sound of engine being revved.

Little boys often run around playgrounds making "wrum, wrrrruuum!" sound pretending to be riding a motorbike or something.

>>54900575
In Mine the word for dragon is now used for crocodiles.

File: angelius.jpg (163KB, 564x634px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 564x634px

>>54881570
I've always liked the 2 legs / 2 wings version (basically what you have labeled "wyvern", preferably with a less-stupid head). It has the advantage of being somewhat biologically plausible, unlike the 4 leg / 2 wing version, where the front legs are usually located such that there's nowhere to put the wing muscles. I also prefer that they be on the relatively-smaller (but still insanely dangerous) side, if they are going to be actual creatures bound by physical laws.

Not that realism is the be-all and end-all, of course, but I've always found if you start from reasonably-realistic and internally consistent base principles, it makes it easier to stay out of trouble later.

Now, of course, if your dragons are psychic pan-dimensional entities that do not merely ignore, but are anethema to, the very laws of nature (pic related) - go nuts. You're in Great Old One territory anyway, might as well make the most of it.

>>54902273
In Germany, this sound would be "brumm" but wrum comes closer to a real engine, I guess.

>>54881699
>your fiction is WRONG

ya, na

>>54902364
Ha! Our language wins of your language! For three centuries we have been trying to prove that like crazy, and now we finally have the proof!
Sorry.

File: 1492917462642.jpg (268KB, 2500x3000px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 2500x3000px

>>54882027
the fuck you say

>>54902273
>>54902364
vroom master race here

Hey guys.
Guys. Really though.
Asking seriously here.
WHY-vern or WEE-vern?

>>54902549
>WHY-vern or WEE-vern?
Well, considering that the word comes from french and before that from latin, and is derived from the word "viper", I'd personally go for the second option.

>>54902549
Whüfern

>>54902549
/ˈwʌJv(ə)n/

>>54902549
WHIV-urn

>>54887168
>>54887185
>>54887193
>>54887208
>>54887219
What has happened to this board? I don't understand why people are trying to troll trolls. It isn't possible to not recognize the troll, he's calling people on /tg/ nerds like we care. This is blunt, thoughtless, low quality shitposting and people are responding with shitposting as if they can win. Either that or they're arguing just for the sake of arguing. And this is happening in damn near every thread in great volume. I've lurked this board since 2010 and while I remember an equal number of attempts to troll, they met with more indifference. Why are people trying to troll the trolls?

>>54902549
waifurn

>>54902844
People are bored and retorting to morons can be sometimes fun. Nobody is trolling the trolls, people are just killing times and amusing themselves.

>>54902885
Jesus Christ but this makes reading through threads more tedious.

>>54902600
You are correct in so far as your preferred promounciation being the most common one in Standard British English, but etymological argument isn't sound.

>>54902844
/tg/ has always engaged trolls. Sometimes to amusing ends, sometimes to...this end. But we have always engaged trolls. I've always been uncertain if we're just easily baited or if we just enjoy it.

>>54902913
>but etymological argument isn't sound.
That is why I said "I'd personally", rather than "the correct way to pronounce is". I frankly suck at phonetics.

>>54902916
I think it's the autism. Can't let someone be WRONG about their fantasy setting right?

>>54902916
/tg/ has a higher number of Augusta than the average board. I dare say that it's just really easy to bait (YOU)s here.

>>54902958
/co/ is as of late much worse. You can get a flood of (You)'s with a textless image

>>54902600
dictionary.com
Why-vern

Google dictionary
why-vern

Wikipedia
why-vern

Wiktionary
why-vern

merriam-webster.com
why-vern

Im sure that enough dictionaries to resolve this problem. They all basically pronounce it the same.

>>54902972
You used to be able to do the same on /tg/ with a simple picture of Matt Ward.

>>54889826
Best dragons right here, folks.

>>54881570

Why does it only say "Dragon" next to one of those six dragons?

>>54904308
Because five of them are not dragons

>>54904464
>Because five of them are not dragons

I'm sorry what?

Why aren't the dragons dragons? Don't tell me you fell for the 4-legs-and-wings meme?

>>54889936
>>54893415
Double underrated

>>54897832
So does that headrest have holes for the tusks, or...?

>>54889936
>>54893415
>>54904723
Overrated

>>54893390
Within reptiles, I categorize dragons as dragons and wyverns as wyverns. They are different enough to warrant that, as different as newts to frogs.

Really, I'd put dragons on their own entire branch, not under reptiles. No other reptile has 6 limbs, so dragons clearly evolved from insects.

>>54905313
>No other reptile has 6 limbs, so dragons clearly evolved from insects
Clearly there was some major mutation early on that replicated their legs. By some miracle they survived and went on to be the ancestor of all dragons. Griffins later evolved from dragons.

>>54897333
See >>54887868
If it's good enough for Tolkien, it's good enough for you and me. Or would you suggest Tolkien needed to be beaten with a dictionary to learn the value of words?

>>54902600
So then you also say VEE-per?

File: Saint_George_and_the_Dragon_by_Paolo_Uccello_Paris_01.jpg (153KB, 1250x705px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1250x705px

>>54904464
Wyverns are dragons, and always have been.

File: chinese-dragon.png (74KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 2000x1333px

>>54881570

Chinese dragon best dragon

>>54907807
>Griffins later evolved from dragons.
This makes too much sense if we consider it's a similar relationship of dinosaurs to birds

File: confused-man-looking-salad-burger-picture-overweight-person-hamburger-looks-to-choose-70007235.jpg (103KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1300x957px

>>54907807
>dinosaur half evolves into a bird
>reptile half evolves into a lion
The story checks out.

Now we just need an explanation for pegasus.

>>54907898
>So then you also say VEE-per?
Not him, but all people that aren't English (or Japanse) and actually respect latin pronounciation instead of forcing Englis one onto it will read "vipera" as /ˈwiː.pe.ra/
http://www.pronouncekiwi.com/ViperA
You can listen to how it's pronounced in by people of different nationalities. You'll find that only english speakers DON'T pronounce the it as "vee-pera"

>>54908709
That picture doesn't make sense, real fatty would eat both.

>>54908719
But we're talking about the English word "viper". Really, if we're going for the etymological argument then why shouldn't "wyvern" have undergone the same vowel shift as "viper"?

>>54896952
Well dinosaurs had their limbs situated underneath them, unlike lizards.

>>54889936
yes

Smart ones and ones that can fuck humans

>>54909903
I think you'll find that's all of them.
Whether or not you survive the experience is a separate matter.

>>54907807
I've already figured that one out a long time ago for my own setting.
Dragons evolved from small arboreal reptiles closely related to animals like euparkeria, and had huge bony spikes on their shoulders covered in skin they could puff up to make it hard for large predators to swallow them. They subesquently evolved skinflaps to glide from treebranch to treebranch. And after millions of years these spikes arranged themselves in different ways, grew new muscle attachements, warped in shape, untill they grew big and strong enough to create lift and became a new set of limbs on their own right.
Griphons and their land-based cousins (Owlbears and demigriphs) are a family that split off from dragons before they had evolved true flight, but already had shoulder spikes used for gliding, and initialy evolved protofeather-like fillaments to protect them from extreme weather and climate conditions. And eventualy became the most amazing case of convergent evolution with both birds of prey AND cats, the true griphons that kept to the air (instead of the demigriphs that crawled back down to land) evolving wings strikingly similar to those of birds, their own fillaments even taking on the same shape, function, and arangement. While on their lower-halves the fillaments stayed much more hair like, which combined with thier back, hip, and leg structure came to resemble that of a lion or tiger.
Both dragons and griphons have both beaks and teeth, though in dragons the beak has receded to the tip of the snout, and blends in seamlesly with the scales, sometimes being so small it can hardly be used like a traditional beak, while in griphons the teeth receded to the far back of the jaw, often not even visible and mainly using them to crack bones to get to the marrow within, while their beaks grew huge and hooked so they were able to reach into carcasses and pick it clean, again much like actual birds of prey.

>>54907964
Chinese dragons have a hierarchy as well. Based on number of toes. Five toed dragons best dragons.

>>54910587
Now we just need different names for each and declare five toed dragons the only actual dragons

File: IMG_1267.png (480KB, 640x644px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 640x644px

>>54887826
The only one that really makes me mad is Smaug. If GRRM wants his dragons as large beasts that's fine, but with smaug they got my hopes up with a four legged design in the first movie that actually looked quite cool, then swapped it out, edited subsequent copies of the first movie, and had him skittering around on wing forelegs in the sequel like a retarded pterodatctyl.

>>54910696
Five toed dragons do have a different name. They're imperial dragons.

>>54889436

I loved this exact body plan long before Game of Thrones popularized it. It's the only one that makes any anatomical sense.

I also prefer my dragons too small to carry human riders. Say 200 to 450 lbs (90 to 200 kg). They're still fucking huge compared to a person, especially if it extends its wings. Something hard science plausible that I can stick into a sci fi game.

So from reptiles you had three lineages. Dinosaurs (and through them, birds) and mammals can thermoregulate themselves and their legs are underneath them. Reptiles can't thermoregulate as we do and have their legs splayed out to the side.

Draconids are a fourth lineage, with features of all three and some unique to themselves. Their metabolism has "gears". They don't thermoregulate by default (low gear), leading to very slow metabolisms. Perfect for restind and waiting and even gliding when airborne. Wings are used for solar thermoregulation. But when necessary, they release a superoxidizer and a superfuel into their blood (called a Heat gland). It raises their body temperature and metabolic rate drastically. It's perfect for burst needs like fighting, taking off... And in some species, it can be mixed, spat/sprayed, and ignited with a catalyst, and then it burns like napalm. Heat regenerates slowly via eating and rest. Dragons have very efficient dinosaur-like respiratory systems, but don't need to breathe when Heat is spent because it has its own oxidizer. A vent hidden behind the scales at the base of the neck is used for inhalation.

The wings and legs are better designed to reach takeoff speed, but are otherwise similar to dragons on GoT, because their wing design is borrowed from pterosaurs. The torsos and head are similar to a Komodo dragon's; the whole body has weight-saving features like a bird. But no feathers or hair: a side effect of their heat glands is that skin and scales are it. The scales are thin but each and very strong. The waxy stuff is a flame retardant.

>>54910587
There's a similar belief regarding cats' toes. Dragons are just big kitties.

I don't care how many limbs you give; give them feathers and I am onfuckingboard

File: yi_qi_by_thedragonofdoom-d9n4568.jpg (151KB, 1024x585px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1024x585px

>>54911408
> give them feathers and I am onfuckingboard
my dude

>>54911063
>It's the only one that makes any anatomical sense.
do you also object to them breathing fire or flying when they're far too big to run?

>>54881620
Basically just a Komodo dragon desu.

>>54887868
No. Tolkien only stated that a proper dragon in Germanic mythology would have four legs, and if it had wings that they would be separate from the front legs. He didn't make a sweeping statement about dragons in all the world's mythologies. He was speaking directly about Germanic myth and, by extension, his own stories where Wyverns don't ever really make an appearance.

>>54887777
Nice quads

>>54881570
sea serpent

>>54896734
Huh, you're right

>>54881570
which one is the best fuck

>>54902114
As a third party: yes, it does seem so
>>54902077
Have you forgotten to avoid feeding the trolls?

Pointless distinctions that serve only to suck the soul out of a setting.

File: drakens in flight2.jpg (435KB, 1232x1840px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1232x1840px

>>54881570
The Draken is clearly the best style of dragon.

>>54881570
Those are all dragons though, just like how T rex, Triceratops, and Brontosaurus are all Dinosaurs

>>54881570
Classic dragon is classic, but I really dig the plausible look of the wingless one with leg.

>>54881957
lmfao

>>54913013

>B-b-but we wanna categorize them!
>We wanna suck the coolness out of a setting!
>Standardize the mythical!

>>54912035

I'm guessing you didn't read the rest of my post? Because I gave a biochemically plausible explanation for both, and the dragons themselves are comparatively small, making flight physiokinetically plausible as well.

Your objection to them running is based I'm guessing on the multi-ton T-Rex? Hence why my dragons are 200-450 lbs. The front wings fold up and are used as forelegs, capable of running and taking off via a pole-vault move just like a pteranodon. The biggest were only a little smaller than my dragon idea.

For a T-Rex sized dragon, yes, flying is implausible for a variety of reasons, most notably square-cube scaling. But at the size I use, it's still ok. The limit there is oxygen consumption requirements... hence the heat gland supplying it's open oxidizer.

And with a slight adaptation, the same gland plus a catalyst allows a napalm-like breath.

So yeah, the running, flying, and fire-breathing are all accounted for. You should try reading the posts you bitch about.

>>54902549
WAY-vern is another option.

Can we stop assuming xyeir genders you bigots ? #blackdragonlifematters #notallwyrms #checkyourdragonprivileges

>>54915030
I'm pretty sure you mean exactly the same thing as >>54902549 did with WHY-vern as English doesn't have the phoneme /y/. Unless you mean that you could pronounce it like the actual word 'way' which might make sense if 'way' is pronounced differently than I'm familiar with in your dialect.

Either way this is a great example of why these psuedo-phonetic spellings don't actually work as intended and, if anything, only create more confusion.

File: cooking with dragons.jpg (2MB, 1811x1597px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1811x1597px

Everything's good in the dragon.
>Saliva is a great potion ingredient
>Tongue contains violent venoms
>Blood can grant invulnerability and soften diamonds
>Scales can make an armour that fears neither weapons nor flames
>Skin can make leather or tights that will never get worn out
>Eyes, when made into powder, can cure nightmares
>Teeth can grow into soldiers when planted in the ground

So what can the parts of the others be used for?

File: dragon 8 limbs.jpg (147KB, 968x1508px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 968x1508px

>>54885008
From Poppy O'Possum, in which dragons are born with 8 limbs they can change at will and experiment in combinations until they have to settle on a definite form as an adult. At least one head is required, and limbs can be sacrificed for a longer body.

File: 1474152517713.png (320KB, 867x418px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 867x418px

>>54917076

>>54913232
So you're saying dragons are biologically plausible? That's cool. Why don't they exist then? Evolution leads to the most adaptable form and they would be the apex predators for sure. No-one could fight a fuckin' DRAGON!

>>54918837
Not him but, just because something is biologically possible (which I'm unconvinced dragons are) doesn't mean that it's evolutionarily advantageous. Being the biggest baddest apex predator is useless if the tools that make you it demand far too much energy, for example. Nature doesn't reward excess, rather it rewards creatures who are just enough.

>>54918916
It's a strategy that worked out for us humans though. We're an evolutionary high risk/high reward species just like dragons would be and boy did it pay off big time. Sorry dragons, I guess you can't exist because we beat you to the punch!

>>54912185
So, in other words, Tolkien explicitly distinguished between wyverns and "proper" dragons and Peter Jackson fucked up.

>>54916540
I suspect that if "wyvern" sounds like "way-vern" in your dialect then "why" sounds like "way" so it seems like a moot point though.

File: OcEZ8W7.jpg (47KB, 635x221px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 635x221px

>>54919417
He never mentions wyverns.

>>54919483
I could swear he did. Note that your quote has some omissions. He specifically said that a dragon with two legs is not properly called a dragon but a wyvern.

>>54899447
Ah, finally I found them Moon Dragons again.
Do you know how hard it is to hatch one?

>>54918837
>>54918916

Beat me to it, but exactly right. Evolution selects for better-adapted progeny.

What it won't do is jump to a radically different body plan or metabolism just because it's better overall. Evolution can't see ahead. It's path-dependent. It only will produce a new capability if each step on the way to that capability is also advantageous.

It won't even maintain an advantage that isn't in regular use (that's why fish living in abyssal depths or underground rivers lose their sight, even though there's no real advantage to having that unused capability atrophy away).

Finally, it's very sensitive to random accidents of luck and circumstance. The adaptations to their breathing that enabled dinosaurs to grow very large ended up being retained in species that grew smaller again, but that turned out to be fortunate, because when birds branched off, the efficient oxygen collecting system ended up being useful helping to enable flight. So why don't humans have that system? It would give us a lot of advantages and the metabolic cost would be about the same. Because mammals evolved from reptiles, who didn't have that adaptation, and there was no strong selective pressure to develop it at the time, and now there's no path from here to there that gives an advantage at every step. Evolutionarily, we missed that opportunity.

Also, no adaptation will appear except via random luck, and sometimes the necessary mutation just doesn't happen. Sometimes it's needed badly enough that the failure of a mutation to show up in a crisis dooms the whole species.

Anyway, I'd put it instead that I didn't say that dragons are plausible. I created a dragon-like creature that IS plausible (at least enough so to satisfy my suspension of disbelief) and in my setting those are called dragons.

>>54921900
A lot of deep sea fish can see, just not the whole spectrum. Many can and do swim to higher levels at night. It's cave fish that go blind.

>>54911063
that's preety good anon, cool worldbuilding

>>54912941
Agreed.

>>54918916

On another note, IMO the "gears" in the metabolism are the dragon's real advantage. It's an ectothermic creature most of the time, but can become briefly endothermic via its heat gland. So when food is scarce, its metabolism can be almost as parsimonious as a reptile's. Excess energy is converted (via a very slow process) into high-energy-density Heat along with stored oxygen to be burned later.

During times of stress (combat/hunting), it can use that Heat (really an oxidizer and some kind of very high energy density hydrocarbon) to supercharge its metabolism for a few minutes of intense activity.

I'd imagine that early dragons used this for bursts of speed/strength/aggressiveness in hunting. Naturally, the ones that developed flight were able to benefit because that burst of energy is just what you need to take off, which is by far the most metabolically and biomechanically taxing part of flight.

In response to climate change, some or most draconids developed an ability to use Heat to warm up directly, useful in very cold conditions where going subterranean and hibernating isn't an option.

So you have a Heat gland that produces a high energy-density hydrocarbon along with an oxidizer. No doubt stored separately because the mix would be highly flammable and a risk to the dragon. Then a draconid appears that can spit a little of the mix directly; it would make sense that such a substance might be toxic to non-draconids. Sprayed on a fleeing herbivore from above, it might burn or blind the creature, which would be helpful in hunting. From there you get to evolving protections against getting sprayed back (perhaps competing over mating or territory, or predation from other draconids). Then eventually one evolves the catalyst and it actually ignites like napalm, to be spat or sprayed.

Paleontology is filled with strange chances. I'm not aiming for likelihood, just plausibility enough to satisfy myself and my players.

>>54921980

My understanding is that some deep sea species are also blind, but either way the core point I'm making is I believe valid.

>>54922041

Thanks!

Actually in my fantasy setting, dragons were created via magic. But I still wanted a creature that could sustain itself and didn't need magic just to exist. Gradually I realized that if you assume the Heat gland, many dragon tropes start to have justifications. Only typing in this thread did I realize that there's a not-impossible evolutionary pathway that might have lead to the draconids as an offshoot of reptiles and close cousin of dinosaurs, but distinct to themselves.

The good news is that in GURPS Infinite Worlds, you could have one visit a no-mana parallel and survive indefinitely. Or I could have them genetically engineered by some fringe group in a setting like Transhuman Space. But I haven't actually done either of those things in my games yet.