Furry Dragons

[Prak]

ok, no actual fur, this is more about changing the classification of dragons than changing their appearance.

There are mammals that fly.
There are mammals that lay eggs.
There are mammals that look scaly.

There are no warm blooded reptiles (as far as I know)
There are no reptiles that have the classic dragon body design (reptile hips generally don't work that way [dinosaurs not withstanding]) let alone the frequent almost catlike body.
There is virtually no way for a reptile to ever live in the arctic, I don't care what it's standard body temp is.

Dragons, in some ways, make more sense as inexplicably scaly and huge monotremes than reptiles.
Is it a legacy thing? Why not have dragons be mammals rather than reptiles?

Edit: for that matter they could also be avians with very tough feathers....

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Actually, what you're sounding like is dinosaurs, though there were no flying dinosaurs.

[Sinfire Titan]

...They are. They're explicitly warm-blooded (Draconomicon), despite any seemingly reptilian features.


Actually, what you're sounding like is dinosaurs, though there were no flying dinosaurs. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SomewhereAPalaeontologistIsCrying?from=Main.Somewh ereAPaleontologistIsCrying)

[Prak]

this is true.

I can't remember why pterosaurs aren't considered dinosaurs.

There's also the fact that if dragons are mammals, people can shut up about Dragonborn and half dragon anatomy.


...They are. They're explicitly warm-blooded (Draconomicon), despite any seemingly reptilian features.

did Draconomicon explicitly state that Dragons are mammals?

[Solaris]

... Yes, but there aren't any reptiles, mammals, or dinosaurs with six limbs or a breath weapon.

[Sinfire Titan]

did Draconomicon explicitly state that Dragons are mammals?


Implied, not outright stated. It did say that they are not reptilian by any definition of the word.

[nightwyrm]

Biologically speaking, reptiles are a rather poor classification since they're a paraphyletic group that basically consists of amniotes except mammals and birds. (translation: they're a catch all category for anything with a terrestially adapted egg that aren't not mammal or birds).

Of course, since dragons don't actually exist, it doesn't really matter what you classify them as.

[nightwyrm]

I can't remember why pterosaurs aren't considered dinosaurs.


They stand differently.

[Prak]

... Yes, but there aren't any reptiles, mammals, or dinosaurs with six limbs or a breath weapon.

well, no, but there isn't magic either. Note the board we're in.
Well, and I didn't mention the other possibility either, mostly because I'm not sure where I stand on it, dragons could be considered arthropods, but it would require a huge redesign, as far as I'm concerned.


Implied, not outright stated. It did say that they are not reptilian by any definition of the word.
Interesting. Wish they'd said one way or the other...


Biologically speaking, reptiles are a rather poor classification since they're a paraphyletic group that basically consists of amniotes except mammals and birds. (translation: they're a catch all category for anything with a terrestially adapted egg that aren't not mammal or birds).
I did not know that... interesting...

[Prak]

They stand differently.

interesting, I don't think I ever heard an actual expanation... and I was a dinosaur kid...

[nightwyrm]

Forcing dragons into the reptiles group would be like forcing birds into the reptiles because birds evolved from dinosaurs which evolved from reptiles.

[Prak]

Forcing dragons into the reptiles group would be like forcing birds into the reptiles because birds evolved from dinosaurs which evolved from reptiles.

it's the classic assumption, though. I sure as hell don't support it, at most I go with it out of inertia...

[hamishspence]

Pterosaurs and dinosaurs are closer related than almost anything else-

they are members of the clade Ornithodira- which basically is them, dinosaurs, and a very few "not quite dinosaurs" creatures like Lagosuchus.

Dinosaurs are monophyletic- everything that is a dinosaur, is descended from a "last common ancestor" which has all their traits- but not those of pterosaurs, Lagosuchus, etc.

Of course, any "group name" is something for the convenience of classification, but the:

"most recent common ancestor of Triceratops and the House Sparrow, and all it's descendants"

definition is at least handy.

[Zaydos]

I always define dragons as dragons. Sometimes note that like birds and mammals they evolved from reptilian creatures, have some carry over traits, but are not in fact reptiles. More often I go dragons did not evolve from anything other than the raw churning power of the cosmos and are not petty animals as you know it but beings greater than man only surpassed by gods and possibly the strongest wizards/sorcerers/outsiders/aberrations/phoenixes; or else they are magic given flesh.

[hamishspence]

The fact that they are hexapods rather than tetrapods (except for those that have secondarily lost their extra limbs) makes them a bit different.

(the Faerun Brown Dragon is an example of the wings reduced to vestigial size).

So- they are mammals, or reptiles, or even Tetrapods. They are Hexapod Vertebrates- something unique.

(alternatively, they could be altered diapsids which have sprouted extra limbs.)

[nightwyrm]

By Earth definitions, dragons wouldn't even be tetrapods at all. The most recent common ancestor between a dragon and a dog would've been somewhere near the fishes.

[Solaris]

By Earth definitions, dragons wouldn't even be tetrapods at all. The most recent common ancestor between a dragon and a dog would've been somewhere near the fishes.

That was something akin to my point. You really can't shoehorn dragons into dinosaurs, mammals, reptiles, or any of the other classifications because they don't fit.

[hamishspence]

Not without invoking magic, anyway.

If six-limbed dragons evolved from four limbed landwyrms in D&D (and I'm not sure if that is true) magic needs to have mutated them at some point.

On the other hand, if everything with the Dragon type (not just true dragons) shares a common, six-limbed ancestor (and many have lost the extra limbs- drakes, wyverns, landwyrms, linnorms),

then the MMIII Dragon Eel looks like the "basal dragon"

Since it has six limbs, which are all similar size (tiny) and no supernatural powers.

It even looks a lot like the giant placoderm Dunkleosteus.

While evolution, even at high speed with magic boosts, might not in fact take place in the D&D-verse, I like the notion anyway.

[Solaris]

Me too. Dragon Eel as the living fossil ancestor of all dragon-kind is kinda cool.

[hamishspence]

well, least derived, anyway.

Though having Dragonkind evolve from a family of Dragon Eels, and (because evolution works faster in D&D) the original family from which the line split being still there- works as well.

Hmm- Cladistic Analysis of Dragonkind- might be a fun exercise :smallamused:

Probably the most dramatic split within true dragons, looks like Fan-wings vs Bat-wings.

Fan-wings have reduced digits, and long spines all down the sides-
(Gold, Copper, Brass, Incarnum, Sand)

Bat-wings vary, but all have wings supported by multiple elongated digits
(Chromatics, Silver, Bronze, Fang, Deep, Shadow)

Doing this, the Silver and the Deep Dragon would actually be assumed to be close relatives- two fingers instead of one separate from the wing.

[Solaris]

... I blame you for the hours I'm about to lose to studying my books like I know what I'm doing.

Wyvern is a solid fan-wing, but it's a four-limbed critter. I imagine there'd be two major branches (four- and six-limbed) descending from the dragon eel. The six-limbs break up into the two major groups of fan-wing and bat-wing, with deep and silver dragons possibly their own sub-group within the bat-wings. The four-limbed dragons, methinks, split into wyverns, drakes, and linnorms.

[Bayar]

Lets add a bit more to the madness.

The legends say that kobolds spawned from dragon blood when the dragons did that ceremony a long time ago. They are dragonblooded. Sometimes, a dragonwrought kobold hatches and suddently the whole thing goes haywire. He is considered a dragon (arguably a true dragon), can grow his very own dragon wings with a feat...

How does evolution explain this ?

[hamishspence]

I thought Linnorms might be a third clade that lost their hindlimbs instead of their forelimbs.

the Landwyrms lost their wings, but kept their four legs.

the Sea Serpents (Dragon 345) closely resemble aquatic Landwyrms, but advance from Wyrmling to Great Wyrm.

Though I agree with putting wyverns and drakes together.

Hmm- pseudodragon- stings like a wyvern, four legs like a dragon- maybe it could be the base of the dragon/drake clade?

EDIT:
I figure a lot of magic and a little evolution are needed for any explanation.

Maybe kobolds were "genetically engineered" so to speak, by a dragon, from dragon genes.

Those for wings, breath, etc, are suppressed.

When they revert- that's a dragonblooded kobold?

[Grumman]

... Yes, but there aren't any reptiles, mammals, or dinosaurs with six limbs or a breath weapon.
Does halitosis count?

[Bayar]

Well, D&D fluff usually contains gods that do stuff, create a race here, blow up something there...unlike RL.

So you could always say that Io created the dragons (like it says in the Draconomicon).

[hamishspence]

I like the notion of it being more "altering" than creating- especially given the hints that the gods may be telling whoppers about creating a lot of things, in Lords of Madness.

And Elder Evils- where it stressed they helped shape the world, rather than created it- and life- the aboleths- existed on the Material Plane before they started fiddling around.

Having Io "supercharge" the evolution of a single race of relatively unassuming vertebrates is one way of doing it.

[Bayar]

I like the notion of it being more "altering" than creating- especially given the hints that the gods may be telling whoppers about creating a lot of things, in Lords of Madness.

And Elder Evils- where it stressed they helped shape the world, rather than created it- and life- the aboleths- existed on the Material Plane before they started fiddling around.

Having Io "supercharge" the evolution of a single race of relatively unassuming vertebrates is one way of doing it.

I am now imagining Pelor as a Goa'uld.

[hamishspence]

Besides the aforementioned Deep Dragon/Silver Dragon pairing, I'd probably split the Copper Dragon off from the rest of the Fan-wing clade.

Since (unlike the others) it has several spines projecting off its main wing-limb, whereas the Gold, Brass, Sand, and Incarnum dragons all lack these.


I am now imagining Pelor as a Goa'uld.

Interesting thought :smallamused:

Fiendish Codex 2 showed how the gods created life on many worlds- and on a lot of these, the life they created "opened the gates, letting the demons in to overrun the world"- very Stargate-esque.

Which is why Asmodeus wrote the Pact Primeval in the first place.

Maybe dwarves, elves, humans, halflings, orcs, goblins, etc, could all be the same species which each of the gods have customized to their own preferences?

[Moriato]

First thing I thought of:

http://coredmonthly.com/Archives/luck/images/falkor_smiling.gif

[Kris Strife]

I think there's more to the difference between pterosaurs and dinosaurs than how they stand. I believe the number of holes in their skull is another key difference, and I think its one of the things that's used to separate things like dimetrodon and mammal-like reptiles, as well as sea goers like mosasaurs, plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs from true dinosaurs as well.

Probably something similar seperating True Dragons from creatures like dragon-turtles, wyverns and so on.

[Rappy]

I think there's more to the difference between pterosaurs and dinosaurs than how they stand. I believe the number of holes in their skull is another key difference, and I think its one of the things that's used to separate things like dimetrodon and mammal-like reptiles, as well as sea goers like mosasaurs, plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs from true dinosaurs as well.

Probably something similar seperating True Dragons from creatures like dragon-turtles, wyverns and so on.
While there are other differences (like the obvious presence of wings created from finger extensions and the presence of pycnofibrous coats, the main differentiation between a pterosaur and a dinosaur is indeed its stance. Dinosaurs are rather unique in their standing position, whether you are referring to baseline dinosaurs or avialan dinosaurs (AKA birds).

On the main topic: mammalian dragons? It's not impossible, but it takes a reworking of the hexapedal appearance. The closest thing in nature you have to six wings would be extended, flexible rib cages, such as those sported by the draco lizard, and I cannot think of any mammal with such a structure off the top of my head.

[nightwyrm]

On the main topic: mammalian dragons? It's not impossible, but it takes a reworking of the hexapedal appearance. The closest thing in nature you have to six wings would be extended, flexible rib cages, such as those sported by the draco lizard, and I cannot think of any mammal with such a structure off the top of my head.

That's pretty cool. I remember certain dragons' wings aren't the "bat arm with skin" type but more a bunch of long spines connected by skin type. That's a bit more plausible for a mammal.

[Tiki Snakes]

Going by fourth-ed dragons, they are infact a seperate creature type/genus/whateverthehell from both mammals and reptiles. Dragons are not reptiles. They are, additionally, neither warm nor cold blooded, instead deriving their body-temperature-regulation from somehow syphoning pure elemental energies through their body, (linked also to their breath weapons).

Fun Facts; There are various Draconic creatures that ARE reptilian, and some that look reptilian but that are explicitly Dragon.

The Dragonborn is neither, being instead, by dint of neither having reptile nor dragon keywords, actually a Mammal. (Hence Mammaries.)
I think Kobolds are more Lizard than Dragon, (having Reptile keyword, much like Drakes and similar 'Lesser Dragons' such as the Wyvern.)

So, going by their own dragon-related fluff, and building on what we know of 4th ed dragons, it's likely that Reptile is the closest approximation to Dragon, but that Dragon is explicitly seperate. Mammal farthest, frankly.

Interestingly, the more Bahamut flavoured Dragon-Like Race, the Dragonborn have neither tag, whereas Tiamat's Dragonspawn are all true Reptiles at least.

[Prak]

Going by fourth-ed dragons, they are infact a seperate creature type/genus/whateverthehell from both mammals and reptiles. Dragons are not reptiles. They are, additionally, neither warm nor cold blooded, instead deriving their body-temperature-regulation from somehow syphoning pure elemental energies through their body, (linked also to their breath weapons).

Fun Facts; There are various Draconic creatures that ARE reptilian, and some that look reptilian but that are explicitly Dragon.

The Dragonborn is neither, being instead, by dint of neither having reptile nor dragon keywords, actually a Mammal. (Hence Mammaries.)
I think Kobolds are more Lizard than Dragon, (having Reptile keyword, much like Drakes and similar 'Lesser Dragons' such as the Wyvern.)

So, going by their own dragon-related fluff, and building on what we know of 4th ed dragons, it's likely that Reptile is the closest approximation to Dragon, but that Dragon is explicitly seperate. Mammal farthest, frankly.

Interestingly, the more Bahamut flavoured Dragon-Like Race, the Dragonborn have neither tag, whereas Tiamat's Dragonspawn are all true Reptiles at least.

actually, the only thing that makes sense for 4e's dragon stuff is that dragon is a kingdom, which mirrors the animal kingdom in classes and such.

[Tiki Snakes]

actually, the only thing that makes sense for 4e's dragon stuff is that dragon is a kingdom, which mirrors the animal kingdom in classes and such.

Eeeeh, from what little of such science-terms that I understand, matched with my basic knowledge of 4e keywords, that would not be an unlikely thing. :)

[Volkov]

Dinosaurs are warm blooded. Birds are technically under the umbrella of the Reptiles, and they're warm blooded. The Ancestor of crocodiles used to be warm blooded, but they didn't need it for their life style, as it was burning unnecessary amounts of decidedly necessary calories, that feature was dropped by evolution.

I would classify Dragons as Crurotarsan Archosaurs. They have more in common with Crocodillians, Raisuchids, Aetosaurs and their ilk than they Do Avian Dinosaurs (Birds), Pterosaurs and Dinosaurs.

[dragonfan6490]

My first thought was flying cats. 1 silver piece to whoever knows what I'm talking about.

[Volkov]

My first thought was flying cats. 1 silver piece to whoever knows what I'm talking about.

I have a rather "shocking" answer to give you.

The hobbit I'm Guessing.

please don't kill me for the terrible tesla trooper pun

[paddyfool]

Does anyone have a link to an image of a Dragon Eel? I don't have MM III, and my google fu has proved inadequate to the task. Also, what size is it?

@Moriato: Me too

[dragonfan6490]

I have a rather "shocking" answer to give you.

The hobbit I'm Guessing.

please don't kill me for the terrible tesla trooper pun

Sorry, but no. I'll give the first hint: It's from a JRPG series that was originally made for Sega CD and then Remade for Playstation.

[Volkov]

Does anyone have a link to an image of a Dragon Eel? I don't have MM III, and my google fu has proved inadequate to the task. Also, what size is it?

@Moriato: Me too

I still say they are crurotarsan archosaurs. Sea-snakes can breath underwater after all. No seriously, sea snakes can do that.

[Kris Strife]

Sorry, but no. I'll give the first hint: It's from a JRPG series that was originally made for Sega CD and then Remade for Playstation.

Lunar. :smalltongue:

[Volkov]

Why does everyone disregard prehistoric reptiles? Pterosaurs can fly and were warm blooded.

[dragonfan6490]

Lunar. :smalltongue:

Hurray! 1 silver piece for you! Do you have change for a platinum piece? Did you know what my thought was before the hint?

[hamishspence]

Does anyone have a link to an image of a Dragon Eel? I don't have MM III, and my google fu has proved inadequate to the task. Also, what size is it?

@Moriato: Me too


Size Large. I'm not sure if Wizards released the art for it though.

concerning plesiosaurs, ichthysosaurs, etc, there was a group Euryapsida- but it turned out not to be a valid grouping.

They are now considered Lepidosaurs- closely related to lizards and tuataras rather than archosaurs.

[taltamir]

all birds are descendant from cold blooded flying reptiles... aka, flying dinosaurs.
Birds developed warm blood and a four chambered heart separately but concurrently with mammals (their most common ancestors did not have those features).

And chickens are descendants of the mini raptors (a tiny velociraptor cousin). They developed wings, warm blood, replaced teeth with a beak (beak is superior) and replaced scales with feathers (feathers are superior)

[Starbuck_II]

all birds are descendant from cold blooded flying reptiles... aka, flying dinosaurs.
Birds developed warm blood and a four chambered heart separately but concurrently with mammals (their most common ancestors did not have those features).

Dinosaurs are warm blooded reportily though.

[nightwyrm]

all birds are descendant from cold blooded flying reptiles... aka, flying dinosaurs.
Birds developed warm blood and a four chambered heart separately but concurrently with mammals (their most common ancestors did not have those features).

And chickens are descendants of the mini raptors (a tiny velociraptor cousin). They developed wings, warm blood, replaced teeth with a beak (beak is superior) and replaced scales with feathers (feathers are superior)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_evolution

[hamishspence]

the important features being- feathers evolved earlier, and warm blood may have evolved even earlier.

Its not clear when it evolved, but what is known, is that a lot of the interesting bird traits, are believed to go a long way back.

Avian-type breathing system- believed to be the only way sauropods could properly replenish their lungs- neither reptilian nor mammalian breathing works well for something that size.

Feathers- go right back to the therizinosaurs or earlier.

There is some evidence of feathers on really distantly related dinosaurs (from birds)- Tianyalong, Psittacosaurus.

And there is a theory that the covering on pterosaurs may be related in some way to feathers.

What is more interesting, is the therory that crocodiles are descended from warm-blooded archosaurs- their three-chambered heart starts out as a four chambered one in embroyed development- and there were long-legged, highly active prehistoric crocodilians.

If warm-bloodedness goes right back past Ornithodira into Archosauromorpha- it would suggest that all the dinosaurs evolved from warm-blooded ancestors.

[Paulus]

You talk like you've never seen a scaled mammal before. :3 I could have linked an armadillo but really, why do the easy thing?
http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i213/s04/projects/Manis/images/pangolin.jpg

[taltamir]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_evolution

did you actually have a point? I already knew birds evolved from dinosaurs, I said so actually.
Also, I recommend biology textbooks over wikipedia articles.

[nightwyrm]

did you actually have a point? I already knew birds evolved from dinosaurs, I said so actually.
Also, I recommend biology textbooks over wikipedia articles.

*shrug* I was just quoting the latest post and adding a link.

As for linking to wikipedia, it's kinda hard to link to a biology textbook online. Wikipedia actually isn't too bad if all you want is a layman's understanding of a subject. Of course, if you want the really cutting edge and indepth stuff, you'd want to read peer reviewed scientific papers. Even textbooks are about 5-10 years out of date.

[Tiki Snakes]

Note, given that Dragonborn are Infact, scaled mammals, it should come as little suprise that a friend of mine and myself have long since taken to calling them Armadilloborn.

[Volkov]

Note, given that Dragonborn are Infact, scaled mammals, it should come as little suprise that a friend of mine and myself have long since taken to calling them Armadilloborn.

No, Dragonborn are Archosaur reptiles. Not Mammals. Archosaurs get to defy many rules that define lizards and turtles.

[Prak]

No, Dragonborn are Archosaur reptiles. Not Mammals. Archosaurs get to defy many rules that define lizards and turtles.

like boobs?

[Starbuck_II]

They could have evolved due to its hypnotic effect on human males. Humans are large in numbers in most settings.

[Bagelz]

Its pretty much already been said, but dragons are "Dragon"s not "animals". they don't fit into any of the animal kingdoms any more than aberrations or most magical beasts do. standard breeding rules don't apply.

[Tiki Snakes]

No, Dragonborn are Archosaur reptiles. Not Mammals. Archosaurs get to defy many rules that define lizards and turtles.

No, seriously. By Keyword, or rather, by lack of keyword.
If they were Reptiles of any sort, they would have (Reptile) or some such. They don't. Not even in the Monster Manual. Dragonspawn do. Kobolds do. Dragonborn don't.

By inference, they are exactly the same as any other keyword-lacking natural humanoid (especially those with Mammaries). Ie; Mammals.

[Myrmex]

I imagine the chromatics & metallics were the original ones, and all other dragon-types are derivative, having lost appendages.

[Volkov]

No, seriously. By Keyword, or rather, by lack of keyword.
If they were Reptiles of any sort, they would have (Reptile) or some such. They don't. Not even in the Monster Manual. Dragonspawn do. Kobolds do. Dragonborn don't.

By inference, they are exactly the same as any other keyword-lacking natural humanoid (especially those with Mammaries). Ie; Mammals.

First off, no true mammal has prominent scales. Pangolins do not possess scales, they instead possess hardened hair.

[AshDesert]

First off, no true mammal has prominent scales. Pangolins do not possess scales, they instead possess hardened hair.

Considering that he's referencing WotC's keywords and rules, not real world biology, I'm gonna go ahead and guess that most of the people at WotC don't have a very good understanding evolutionary biology.

I personally tend to think that Dragon's evolved from birds and developed hardened hair. Either that, or the possibility of all dragonoids(?) evolving from a common ancestor similar to the Dragon Eel.So many dead catgirls.

[Volkov]

Considering that he's referencing WotC's keywords and rules, not real world biology, I'm gonna go ahead and guess that most of the people at WotC don't have a very good understanding evolutionary biology.

I personally tend to think that Dragon's evolved from birds and developed hardened hair. Either that, or the possibility of all dragonoids(?) evolving from a common ancestor similar to the Dragon Eel.So many dead catgirls.
If I'm not wrong, before 4e, D&D tried to maintain some scientific plausibility. 4e threw that out the window and thus ruined itself in my eyes.

[Tiktakkat]

How about just some kind of mid-level evolutionary line synapsid?
Address the hexapodal element separately.

[Myrmex]

If I'm not wrong, before 4e, D&D tried to maintain some scientific plausibility. 4e threw that out the window and thus ruined itself in my eyes.

Buahahahaha!

[Ravens_cry]

Buahahahaha!
Yeah, I agree there. I am not really fond of 4.0 (and you know it will be) but 3.5 was hardly 'scientifically plausible'. The older editions were even less so, if my back issues of Dragon are any indication.

[nightwyrm]

If I'm not wrong, before 4e, D&D tried to maintain some scientific plausibility. 4e threw that out the window and thus ruined itself in my eyes.

This is just so, so wrong. There may be lots of reasons to not like 4e, not being scientific is not one of them.

For more entertainment from D&D history:
Stupid D&D Monsters (http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article73.htm)

[Kris Strife]

Well, hair is only very small, soft scales arranged in a cylinder... So whats the difference between scales and hardened hair again?

[hiryuu]

Well, hair is only very small, soft scales arranged in a cylinder... So whats the difference between scales and hardened hair again?

Actually, no, hair is more closely related to keratin production in the claws and talons rather than the keratinized epidermal layers possessing osteoderms professed by scales. However! I will give you that the primary mechanism that allowed mammalian lineages to turn claw keratin into hair is still largely unknown. Feathers, on the other hand, are soft scales arranged in a cylinder.

Pangolin scales are unrelated to reptile scales by virtue of their particular anatomy, being that they are modified hairs.

[Book Wyrm]

While I normally consider myself a fan of the hexapodal dragon (4 legs and 2 wings) After looking through a large amount of historical depictions of dragons, the most common kind of ancient to medieval dragon appears to be tetrapodal, either 4 legged like most eastern dragons or 2 legged 2 winged. The depiction of hexapodal dragons seems to be a more recent trend. Another observation I made was the commonality of no legged dragons in ancient depictions (Greek and Egyptian) reflecting the link to serpents and snakes.

So ignoring biological evolution, dragons have inconographically evolved to include more and more limbs, from zero legged serpents, to 2 and 4 limbed, to the more modern 6 limbed version.

[hamishspence]

Doesn't the term "wyvern" in heraldry, refer to a two-legged, winged dragon?

And how far back do four legged, winged dragons go? I know the Welsh flag has one- but I'm not sure how far back four-legged winged dragons have been depicted.

[Serpentine]

Hmm- Cladistic Analysis of Dragonkind- might be a fun exercise :smallamused:Would you believe that I was seriously considering doing this (with real-world dragons) as part of an honours thesis? Had the program picked out, too...
The legends say that kobolds spawned from dragon blood when the dragons did that ceremony a long time ago. They are dragonblooded. Sometimes, a dragonwrought kobold hatches and suddently the whole thing goes haywire. He is considered a dragon (arguably a true dragon), can grow his very own dragon wings with a feat...

How does evolution explain this ?Easy-peasy. I can't remember the proper term for it, but sometimes a feature from a past point in an organisms evolution reappears. For example, sometimes a peach seed will grow into a furless nectarine tree (or is it vice-versa?), or a human will grow a tail. So, a dragonwrought kobold is a throwback to their draconic ancestry. An extreme example of this, but legitimate.

I like the idea of dragons being a completely separate class (maybe related to dinosaurs) and being descended from the dragon eel or something similar.
By the way, evolution doesn't have to be especially "quick" for an ancestral creature to still be alive. It might not be exactly the same species as the ancestral creature, but it could be similar. For (a poor) example, modern dogs evolved from wolves, but wolves are still around. Whales probably evolved from something like a hippopotamus, but hippos are still around. Snakes probably evolved from lizards. And so on. Depends how far back you'll go, really...

Book Wyrm: If you remind me, I'll let you know what my thesis research into the ancient African, Babylonian and Mediteranean dragons reveals. Although I can already tell you that the Ishtar Dragon had 4 legs and no wings and a relatively... non-serpentine, I guess, shape, and many ancient Asian dragons had 4 legs and vestigal-looking (but still useful) wings, with a very sinuous form.

[Zaydos]

Doesn't the term "wyvern" in heraldry, refer to a two-legged, winged dragon?

And how far back do four legged, winged dragons go? I know the Welsh flag has one- but I'm not sure how far back four-legged winged dragons have been depicted.

Nor am I. Most that you read about in books are not specified to have wings, but now have pictures with them having wings (example Fafnir of Norse myth who specifically crawled on the ground in the legend but is depicted with wings now). I don't think the dragon George slew was said to have wings, or even Beowulf's firedrake, although the "dragon" from Hrolf Kralki's Saga (excuse me for using the translation of the name since I can't remember the old Norse right now) did fly and I believe have four legs but was also written in different style than the rest of the book and expected to have been a later addition/change from a more traditional Grendel-esque troll (the character who killed it might have also been inspired from the same source as Beowulf). Actually that's the only winged dragon I know of off the top of my mind in myth, I really think the wings have to do with the fact that it makes them scarier.

Also linnorms or lindworms (linnormr = land worm) had two legs and no wings possibly an intermediate step from the legless snake dragons and the wyverns?

Edit: Ninja'd and outdone.

[Kris Strife]

Whales probably evolved from something like a hippopotamus, but hippos are still around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#The_earliest_cetaceans:_Pak icetids_or_Indohyus.3F

actually, the earliest cetaceans were either hoofed, thick tailed dogs, or cat sized deer. Nature is weird huh?

[Book Wyrm]

I think the Welsh Dragon (Y Ddraig Goch) was one of the first 4 legged 2 winged dragons I could find a record of. The Welsh dragon also happens to be a bit of an anomaly for European dragons as it is considered good rather than evil.

Otherwise, the first literary Greek dragons, going back to the Iliad, don't really mention limbs, more often focusing on the number of heads. But the pictorial depictions pretty uniformly have limbless serpent monsters. The constellation Draco is usually a limbless serpent for instance.

Draco (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/Dracourania.jpg)
Ladon (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Herakles_Ladon_Staatliche_Antikensammlungen_SL89.j pg)

Most other ancient and medieval dragons look vaguely like wyverns, lindworms, and other such 2 legged dragons with and without wings. I drew this conclusion from Norse mythology, French heraldry, and paintings like those of Saint George and the Dragon.

Nidhogg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Nidhogg.png)
Wyvern (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Wyvern_Liber_Floridus.jpg)
Lindwurm (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Lindwurm.jpg)
Saint George and the Dragon (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Stgeorge-dragon.jpg)


Eastern or Oriental dragons are quite uniformly four legged without wings.

Chinese dragon (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Japanese_dragon,_Chinese_school,_19th_Century.jpg)

That is to say that there aren't anomalies like this 1515 woodcut of Saint George and the Dragon (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/St_GeorgeEnglish.JPG).

[hamishspence]

By the way, evolution doesn't have to be especially "quick" for an ancestral creature to still be alive. It might not be exactly the same species as the ancestral creature, but it could be similar. For (a poor) example, modern dogs evolved from wolves, but wolves are still around. Whales probably evolved from something like a hippopotamus, but hippos are still around. Snakes probably evolved from lizards. And so on. Depends how far back you'll go, really...

Usually though such a creature is assumed not to be the "true anscestor" but its closest relative.

For an example- lizards did not evolve from tuataras- but tuataras are much closer to that hypothetical "common ancestor" than lizards are.

Hence I referred to the Dragon Eel as the "basal dragon" rather than the ancestor of all dragonkind.

(hypothetical- but I still like the notion)

[Volkov]

To me Dragons are the descendants of Raisuchids, such as postosuchus. Who were forced to develop flight to evade extinction via giant meteor. Yes, the rise of the dinosaurs was caused by a meteor impacting in the triassic. Irony is bitterly painful in that way. As their dinosaur peers grew larger and spread across the world, Dragons were confined to refugiums of Triassic fauna, where they grew larger and could eventually leave their safe-houses of isolation.

[Volkov]

Also, whales and hippos descended from Ambulocetus or something like it. Ambulocetus could best be described as a cross between a giant otter and a crocodile.

[Serpentine]

Usually though such a creature is assumed not to be the "true anscestor" but its closest relative.

For an example- lizards did not evolve from tuataras- but tuataras are much closer to that hypothetical "common ancestor" than lizards are.

Hence I referred to the Dragon Eel as the "basal dragon" rather than the ancestor of all dragonkind.

(hypothetical- but I still like the notion)No, but the "present" dragon eel doesn't have to necessarily be the exact same species as the ancestor creature (similar to Coelacanth, lizard -> snake, etc), making my point still valid: Just because the dragon eel, the hypothetical "basal dragon" or ancestral creature is still around "today", doesn't mean D&D dragon evolution has to be especially swift, nor specifically with magical assistance.
To put it another way, in response to your point: snakes evolved from lizards. The specific lizard (or lizards) species may or may not be present today, but lizards of some type are. Dragons (hypothetically) evolved from dragon eels, of which there may or may not have been multiple species, and of which the present lone species may or may not be the same. Does that make sense?

Also, my specific examples probably aren't terribly accurate, they're just to get the point across...

This is fun! :smallbiggrin:

[Starbuck_II]

A better example is Acheabacteria group (Ancient bacteria) are not older than eu-bacteria group.
Yes, achea evolved off the bacteria even though it was once that acheabacteria were older (hence ancient name).

[Volkov]

A better example is Acheabacteria group (Ancient bacteria) are not older than eu-bacteria group.
Yes, achea evolved off the bacteria even though it was once that acheabacteria were older (hence ancient name).

Archea are their own domain. They are seperated from prokaryotes by a vast gulf.

[ericgrau]

... Yes, but there aren't any reptiles, mammals, or dinosaurs with six limbs or a breath weapon.

How do you know? Organs don't fossilize well, dinosaurs could have a breath weapon :smallbiggrin:.

Contrary to popular belief, dinosaurs weren't discovered in the 1800's-ish. People didn't bother classifying all the strange things they dug up, and called them all dragons. Even the non-dino stuff IIRC.


That's pretty cool. I remember certain dragons' wings aren't the "bat arm with skin" type but more a bunch of long spines connected by skin type. That's a bit more plausible for a mammal.

Bats are mammals. :smallconfused:

[Starbuck_II]

Archea are their own domain. They are seperated from prokaryotes by a vast gulf.

But if you follow the evolutionary chart: Archea bacteria branched off from Eubacteria.

[Volkov]

But if you follow the evolutionary chart: Archea bacteria branched off from Eubacteria.

They are just called Archea, not Archeabacteria.

[nightwyrm]

Bats are mammals. :smallconfused:

But mammals don't have 6 limbs. If the wings were not an extra set of arms but a flap of skin stretched over a series of spines, it's something more plausible for a mammal to evolve into.

[Volkov]

Dragons really have two potential ancestors, Pterosaurs or Raisuchids.

[Book Wyrm]

So if Dragons are descended from the same creature that Dragon Eels are descended from (ie: they share the same last common ancestor, the Dragon Eel just being a better physiological analogy to that creature) where do Dragon Turtles fit into the Dragon kingdom? They only have 4 limbs and have a shell. They do however retain a rather long tail that is uncommon to real sea turtles but common to dragons and possess a breath attack. Maybe the shell is actually an aquatically adapted form of the limbs that in dragons evolved into wings, or maybe like snakes are to lizards they just lost the extra limbs, but that doesn't really account for the shell.

[Serpentine]

Tangenitally related to the classification of D&D dragons, this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_m4-tGPB8i40/SowS0LXZX1I/AAAAAAAAAnk/BKSKcf2VE54/s400/quetzalcoatlus_everything_d.jpg

is but a dragon without all the fluff :smallbiggrin:

^ Hypothesis: dragon eel -> basic land dragons -> "true" land dragons -> degeneration? to Tarasque -> return to water -> dragon turtle.

[Xenogears]

Easy-peasy. I can't remember the proper term for it, but sometimes a feature from a past point in an organisms evolution reappears. For example, sometimes a peach seed will grow into a furless nectarine tree (or is it vice-versa?), or a human will grow a tail. So, a dragonwrought kobold is a throwback to their draconic ancestry. An extreme example of this, but legitimate.

The word you are looking for is Atavism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism

Ironically I knew the word from watching Yu Yu Hakasho and only had to look it up to confirm that the show wasn't lying to me...

[Myrmex]

But if you follow the evolutionary chart: Archea bacteria branched off from Eubacteria.

What evolutionary chart are you following?
Both the archaea and bacteria evolved from a common ancestor around 3 billion years ago.

[hamishspence]

Tangenitally related to the classification of D&D dragons, this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_m4-tGPB8i40/SowS0LXZX1I/AAAAAAAAAnk/BKSKcf2VE54/s400/quetzalcoatlus_everything_d.jpg

is but a dragon without all the fluff :smallbiggrin:

^ Hypothesis: dragon eel -> basic land dragons -> "true" land dragons -> degeneration? to Tarasque -> return to water -> dragon turtle.

Do Dragon Magazine creatures of the dragon type count?

If so, sea serpents (four limbed, cannot fly, breath weapon) and possibly sea drakes (Fiend Folio- number of limbs unknown) might be the dragon turtle's cousins- it doesn't have to have gone back into the water- though that is an option.

Limb reduction seems to occur in dragons lots of times (assuming the limb-reduction from basal 6 limbs hypothesis is correct)

Sea Serpents- appear to have lost one set of limbs- possibly wings.
Landwyrms and felldrakes- appear to have lost wings.
Drakes and wyverns- appear to have lost forelimbs
Linnorms- appear to have lost hindlimbs and wings- oddly enough, not flight though.

Dragon turtles could be aquatic, breath-weapon equipped kin to the landwyrms, or a heavily armoured cousin of the sea serpents.

[Kaiyanwang]

* carrying away a injured but not died catgirl behind a solid cover *

OP, take a look in Oriental Adventures. Lung Dragons have furry and sometimes feathered wings (Li Lungs both).

They are even less reptilian than other dragons..

[hamishspence]

Alright, so science and D&D do not mix. Still fun to think about though :smallamused:

The Tome Dragon in Dragon magazine had a mane (scales everywhere else though). And, like the Hex dragon in the same article, advanced spellcasting faster than other dragons- faster even than the Gold dragon.

[Kaiyanwang]

Alright, so science and D&D do not mix. Still fun to think about though :smallamused:

True. I just saved the catgirl to avoid full extincion :smallbiggrin:

BTW, a discussion like the above could be very inspiring for a D&D campaing more "modern", steampunk or not.

Something for a "dragon student" professor Challenger.. (I mean the one of A.C. Doyle).

[Serpentine]

The word you are looking for is Atavism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtavismI did find that term, but I thought that was more in whole later species rather than individual throw-backs.

I wanna track down this cladistics program to plot out D&D and/or real-world dragon relationships again, dagnabbit! :smallsigh: :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

or just look at the individual dragons- and try and identify which features are restricted to only a few.

The double-finger on the Deep and Silver dragons, the forward-swept wing and extra spines on the wing-limbs of the Copper dragon compared to the other fan-winged ones, etc.

Then there is big ear frills (Blue, Red) compared to earless (White, Black, Green)

Then draw your cladogram- and try and narrow features down further.

[Serpentine]

This cladistics program... Think it's "Cladistix", actually (can't find it online, though. I'll try to track it down if you're interested). You come up with a whoooole lot of categories, either qualitative ("wings present/reduced/absent", "breath weapon/no breath weapon"), or quantitative ("0/2/4/6 legs", "<1m long/1-5m/5-10m/10-25m/25-100m"). You go through each species, applying the categoristics. Then you put it all together, and it comes up with several different "best" phylogenic trees showing most likely relative relatedness.
So, it basically does what you're talking about, except it does it much bigger, much easier and with much more comprehensive and reliable results.
'twas fun <.<

[hamishspence]

Sounds it.

still, without the program, sometimes you're stuck checking the traits yourself.

[Clementx]

The problem with single-weight cladistics is that it assumes all features are equally significant indicators of relation.

The assumption most people are making about the hexapod->various tetrapods is that it is a significant evolutionary cost. Certain features are incredibly unlikely to occur successfully, and others require only small mutations to produce a completely viable yet drastically different appearances.

It shouldn't take much change to get a different number of cervical vertebrae in a mammals, right? Oops, you also have to completely and simultaneously rewrite its entire metabolism, since anything more active than a sloth is going to riddled with tumors in utero. Turns out that if you find a population of humans with 8 neck vertebrae, that is an incredibly significant indicator of shared history.

Insect phylogeny was a complete mess until someone realized insects lose and regain sets of wings all the time. They have been independently lost and regained numerous times, particularly in the stick insects. Why do dragon wings have to be significant or costly features to mutate?

[Kaiyanwang]

So?

Rank knowledge (arcana) to epic levels and invent Polymerase Chain Reaction.

Then start to create a library of dragon genomes, compare the genomes among dragons, and than with species related (or you guess you are related).

It could took years, but at last you are sure of what dragons are, or at least of who are their most related creatures.

[nightwyrm]

Insect phylogeny was a complete mess until someone realized insects lose and regain sets of wings all the time. They have been independently lost and regained numerous times, particularly in the stick insects. Why do dragon wings have to be significant or costly features to mutate?

Insect wings aren't "limbs". They're basically just an extension or an outgrowth of the carapace. They don't have bones and muscles running through those wings. Anatomically, wings that evolved from limbs such as bat or bird wings are much more complicated than insect wings.

[Volkov]

If Dragons descended from pterosaurs and not Raisuchids or Ornithosuchids, then they could have evolved as birds began forcing Pterosaurs out of their niches as an adaptation. Think about it, Dragons and Pterosaurs both have membranous wings and tend to be flying creatures, they both have scales, and like many dragons, pterosaurs have hair like proto-feathers.

[Clementx]

Anatomically, wings that evolved from limbs such as bat or bird wings are much more complicated than insect wings.
Says someone who never studied insect flight. They in fact do have muscles and joints; they are all located inside the thorax. Insects, and all truly segmented animals, are simply more modular in design than vertebrates. That does not mean they are less spectacular. Their ontogeny is just more adaptable.

Your statements just demonstrate a layman's value judgments of evolutionary difficulty or biological complexity (and we are all laymen when it comes to imaginary dragons) are often wrong. There is no reason to assume wings are the most complex feature of a creature who tames elementary energy forces with its stomach and doesn't need to obey lift-to-weight ratios in flight.

[Tiki Snakes]

If Dragons descended from pterosaurs and not Raisuchids or Ornithosuchids, then they could have evolved as birds began forcing Pterosaurs out of their niches as an adaptation. Think about it, Dragons and Pterosaurs both have membranous wings and tend to be flying creatures, they both have scales, and like many dragons, pterosaurs have hair like proto-feathers.

Did Pterosaurs also syphon pure elemental energy via their heart, for use in digesting food?

Cause, you know. That strikes me as significant. :P

[Drakyn]

Did Pterosaurs also syphon pure elemental energy via their heart, for use in digesting food?

Cause, you know. That strikes me as significant. :P

Maybe D&D pterosaurs should. It always struck me as weird that with all the dinosaur adaptations into D&D, no one made a tyrannosaurus with supernaturally keen teeth that can haste itself or a sauropod that causes earthquakes in self defense.

[Eldan]

Why did I never see this thread before? It contains two of my favourite things, dragons and phylogeny!

Anyway, I think I have a few phylogeny and tree-creating programs still around buried on my computer. If someone makes a nice characteristics matrix for me, I can draw a tree. Or at least a list of species.

[Zeful]

Maybe D&D pterosaurs should. It always struck me as weird that with all the dinosaur adaptations into D&D, no one made a tyrannosaurus with supernaturally keen teeth that can haste itself or a sauropod that causes earthquakes in self defense.

All dinosaurs are animals. Animals don't have magic powers, Magical Beasts do.

As for the topic over all: I believe LoM was lying to you. The gods created the setting and everything in it.

[Drakyn]

All dinosaurs are animals. Animals don't have magic powers, Magical Beasts do.

As for the topic over all: I believe LoM was lying to you. The gods created the setting and everything in it.

So? Lions are animals, and we got werelions and lioncentaurs and such. Crocodiles are animals and we get mudmaws. Whales are animals and we got the leviathan and the oceanstrider. Wolves are animals and we've got.....woah, what haven't we got? Eighty-five different kinds of magical/bizarre dogs and wolves? Why aren't there any supercharged dinosaurs out there?

[Zeful]

So? Lions are animals, and we got werelions and lioncentaurs and such. Crocodiles are animals and we get mudmaws. Whales are animals and we got the leviathan and the oceanstrider. Wolves are animals and we've got.....woah, what haven't we got? Eighty-five different kinds of magical/bizarre dogs and wolves? Why aren't there any supercharged dinosaurs out there?

Dinosaurs hold a certain place in human culture, one which emphasizes their name of "terrible lizards".

Dinosaurs shouldn't need magical powers to be awesome and/or dangerous. They are by benefit of existing.

I do agree that super-powered dinosaurs would be awesome.

[Eldan]

Well, the Tarrasque is kinda like a supercharged dinosaur.

[Drakyn]

Dinosaurs hold a certain place in human culture, one which emphasizes their name of "terrible lizards".

Dinosaurs shouldn't need magical powers to be awesome and/or dangerous. They are by benefit of existing.

I do agree that super-powered dinosaurs would be awesome.

Exactly. We can have mudmaws while having crocodiles, let's have tyrannosaurs and flambesaurs - tyrannosaurs with giant balls of fire for heads. And let's have both apatosaurus AND brontosaurus, because now we have a sauropod that can produce thunderclaps by stamping its feet. Or pterosaurs that can blink. Or dinoliches. Having any of those things AND dinosaurs seems perfectly fine to me. A winter wolf does not a wolf unmake.

[Myrmex]

There are a bunch of dinosaur-like monsters out there that are magical. There's even an epic one; the prismatisaurous.


The problem with single-weight cladistics is that it assumes all features are equally significant indicators of relation.

The assumption most people are making about the hexapod->various tetrapods is that it is a significant evolutionary cost. Certain features are incredibly unlikely to occur successfully, and others require only small mutations to produce a completely viable yet drastically different appearances.

It shouldn't take much change to get a different number of cervical vertebrae in a mammals, right? Oops, you also have to completely and simultaneously rewrite its entire metabolism, since anything more active than a sloth is going to riddled with tumors in utero. Turns out that if you find a population of humans with 8 neck vertebrae, that is an incredibly significant indicator of shared history.

Insect phylogeny was a complete mess until someone realized insects lose and regain sets of wings all the time. They have been independently lost and regained numerous times, particularly in the stick insects. Why do dragon wings have to be significant or costly features to mutate?

Seeing as we can't really know either way, why bother making assumptions either way? Until evidence presents itself, it'd be best to just assume single-weights, no?


Says someone who never studied insect flight. They in fact do have muscles and joints; they are all located inside the thorax. Insects, and all truly segmented animals, are simply more modular in design than vertebrates. That does not mean they are less spectacular. Their ontogeny is just more adaptable.

Your statements just demonstrate a layman's value judgments of evolutionary difficulty or biological complexity (and we are all laymen when it comes to imaginary dragons) are often wrong. There is no reason to assume wings are the most complex feature of a creature who tames elementary energy forces with its stomach and doesn't need to obey lift-to-weight ratios in flight.

Reynolds numbers. Their ratios are different than ours of the middle world.

[Drakyn]

There are a bunch of dinosaur-like monsters out there that are magical. There's even an epic one; the prismatisaurous.


Thanks - and the prismatisaurus's name actually rings a bell. What are the others?

[Coidzor]

What do Reynolds' numbers have to do with evolutionary analysis and cladistics of Dragons?

...All I can find is that they have to do with pipe-flow... :smallconfused:

[Myrmex]

Thanks - and the prismatisaurus's name actually rings a bell. What are the others?

Oh man. That's a good question. There are a bunch of dumb, hungry ones with the dragon-type. This is a list based on just what the pictures look like. If it has sort of a 1890s to 1990s dinosaur look, or a post 90s bird look but without a dragon's intellect/obvious hexapod heritage, it made it. There are some hexapods on there, but really, I just went for a dinosaur "feel".

MM1: Digester, Basilisk, Bulette, Destrachan, Dragon Turtle, Tarrasque, Yrthak
MM2: Felldrakes, Frost Salamander, Linnorms
MM3: Ambush Drake, Dracotaur, Dragon Eel, Rage Drake, Zezir
MM4: Tiamat Spawn (there are about 10 different kinds, from spellcaster humanoid looking things to flaming lizard cows)

[Myrmex]

What do Reynolds' numbers have to do with evolutionary analysis and cladistics of Dragons?

...All I can find is that they have to do with pipe-flow... :smallconfused:

Think about the implications of having a low mass (and thus little inertia) trying to move through a fluid.

[Coidzor]

Think about the implications of having a low mass (and thus little inertia) trying to move through a fluid.

I am trying to... Are you saying that the way dragonflight works doesn't add up due to the scales of the various age categories and how they are at flight relative to one another and their size/mass?

It's just a bit murky as to what you were getting at there.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Dinosaurs have been (at least by some scientists) placed in their own class, along with birds. Similarly, dragons are in their own class, the defining feature being the dragon type. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

In fact, perhaps dinosaurs and dragons are in the same class, but different orders. This would explain why, in the real world, with no "real" dragons, dinosaur bones were thought to be the source of dragon legends (and, in the case of Protoceratops, griffin legends).

[Rappy]

The late Gary Gygax seemed very deadset on leaving dragons scientifically mysterious and not having them be related to dinosaurs. He set his snark barrels at full force on both ideas in the opening to The Slayer's Guide to Dragons.

Amusingly, however, it has the opposite effect on me. It feels like a challenge, a button that is labelled "Do not Touch".

What does this have to do with the current discussion, beyond being tangentially related?

Well, it asks "why are there no magic dinosaurs if they and dragons are related?"

That's easy enough to fix, I'd say...

[Myrmex]

I am trying to... Are you saying that the way dragonflight works doesn't add up due to the scales of the various age categories and how they are at flight relative to one another and their size/mass?

It's just a bit murky as to what you were getting at there.

No; I was replying to the claim that "bees don't follow the ratios", they do, they just worry about a different ratio.

[Myrmex]

That's easy enough to fix, I'd say...

Like templating!

[Book Wyrm]

So now dragons are just dinosaurs with the elemental breath template and spell like abilities.

The brown dragon does kinda look like an ankylosaurus, and dragon turtles are very similar to achelons...

[Draxar]

There are no warm blooded reptiles (as far as I know)

IIRC believe reptilian creatures developed self-maintained before they developed the rest of the mamillian characteristics.

Also, I've read in several places that once a Reptile reaches a certain size (bigger than an Aligator/Crocodile, but many of the Larger dinosaurs would be large enough, as would Dragons after a certain age), reptiles become effectively warm blooded, as their body mass allows them to maintain a different body heat to that of the world outside them. That doesn't mean they can totally ignore the heat, but they are far more able to act when it isn't hot.

[Eloel]

There are mammals that lay eggs.

Something doesn't feel right...

[Drakyn]

Something doesn't feel right...

Yeah. By any standards, the platypus is an eldritch abomination, a nightmarish chimera of implausible features and non-euclidean venomous spurs, a duck-mawed, beaver-furred, watery-eye'd abomination whose ludicrous bill-clapping is the haunting scream of madness eddying through a lunatic's brain. As such, it should strictly belong in the phylum Lovecraftia.

[Volkov]

Dragons probably didn't descend from dinosaurs. But instead, Raisuchids, Ornithosuchids, or Pterosaurs are the best bets.