All I am saying is that I can understand why people might be annoyed, and find "generalization" to be a poor justification for removing the existing Draconians.

Nothing about the existing Draconians was Dragonlance-specific, save the concept itself. If you're expanding it to be a monster type available everywhere, you don't need to remove anything to generalize it to other settings, because nothing in them was rooted in mechanics or concepts that also only exist/make sense in Dragonlance.

The rule for generalizing something is to remove only that which makes it impossible to use elsewhere. Adding the otehr dragon kinds in is as easy as expanding the list of what dragons make what sort of draconian, or adding new draconian types. But pulling the original draconians' progenitor dragons to new draconian types is needless. And isn't "generalizing." It's "changing for the sake of change."

Now, this specific thing? Doesn't bother me because I didn't even notice. But the general kind? Annoys the heck out of me. If you're going to make up your own stuff, why do you need to take the names and concepts of something else and overwrite it? You don't make "new classics" by taking literally the original Mona Lisa and painting over it, claiming that what you've made is still the Mona Lisa. And yet, that's what a lot of modern remakes seem to seek to do: steal the name and legacy of old, beloved things, and then make up something new - often of lower quality - and slap on the name of the thing being overwritten.

Sure, "But the originals are still out there," is a valid point. But that doesn't change that, if you're going to make something new, make something new. Your medieval fantasy series about a young wizard hiding his wizardry from an anti-wizard king even as he befriends the young heir to the throne doesn't need to pretend it's a retelling of the Arthurian myth by having literally the only thing that is still the same be the names of the characters, who may or may not have similar relationships to what their legacy characters had. (Sorry, that one bugs me enough to be a good example of what I'm getting at, so I'm using it here.)