Elves a question about bodies

[BobismyRhino]

The tendency to draw dragons sun-bathing suggests they are actually cold-blooded, because warm-blooded animals don't do that.

I do!  (I'm cold all the time... and the sun is so, so warm!)
And plus, what do you think housecats do? They're all up in that sun!

...I felt the need to be contrary. You shot down my platypus theory. 

*Points Uber to the nearest zoo*
Prove it

I think he's going to need drugs and alcohol... a LOT of drugs and alcohol.

Nah, he'll be ok...

[CountArioch]

Draconomion says that dragons are endothermic.  "Warm blooded" isn't a good word, because silver and white dragon's body temps are well below freezing, but they remain at that point regardless of outside temps.

[Squirrelloid]

Draconomion says that dragons are endothermic.  "Warm blooded" isn't a good word, because silver and white dragon's body temps are well below freezing, but they remain at that point regardless of outside temps.

How does that imply they aren't "reptiles" (Archosaurs).

[AndyJames]

One of the defining characteristics of reptiles is the fact that they have no control over their body temp (i.e., cold-blodded). If the dragons can control theirs, regardless of where that temperature happens to be, they break that rule, and so can't be considered reptiles.

Birds have evolved so far away from their roots that they are considered a separate group altogether. They are not considered reptiles by any stretch of the imagination, even though they are considered part of Archosaur. Remember the 5 basic groups of vertebrates: Mammal, Amphibian, Fish, Reptile and Bird.

[Squirrelloid]

One of the defining characteristics of reptiles is the fact that they have no control over their body temp (i.e., cold-blodded). If the dragons can control theirs, regardless of where that temperature happens to be, they break that rule, and so can't be considered reptiles.

Birds have evolved so far away from their roots that they are considered a separate group altogether. They are not considered reptiles by any stretch of the imagination, even though they are considered part of Archosaur. Remember the 5 basic groups of vertebrates: Mammal, Amphibian, Fish, Reptile and Bird.

Reptiles are not a scientific grouping, so i don't believe they have 'defining characteristics'.  Fish is also not a 'group'.  There's Chondrychthes and Osteichthes as major groups, of which Osteichthes is colloquially referred to as fish.  But that excludes ray-finned 'fish' like coelocanth.  And Chondrychthes is sometimes referred to as 'fish' (sharks, rays, etc...).

Only clades have defining characteristics.  Reptile is not a clade, unless you want to consider everything in Archosauria as part of them.  And clades include all descendants of a common ancestor, so acquisition of new characteristics can't remove you from a clade.

Even assuming you were correct that those are the appropriate groupings, which of those 5 groups would you place dinosaurs into? 

How about Pterodons?  Plesiosaurs?  Animals like Smilodon and Dimetrodon?  (No, none of those are dinosaurs). 

[Kuroimaken]

Dude, when did we stray from the conversation so much from the good scaly sex to what the heck kind of animal dragons are supposed to be?!

[Sunic_Flames]

Dude, when did we stray from the conversation so much from the good scaly sex to what the heck kind of animal dragons are supposed to be?!

Because I caused the perversion quotient to wrap around and roll over into tameness.

[Kuroimaken]

Because I caused the perversion quotient to wrap around and roll over into tameness.

*sounding like your mother* Shame on you for beating the perversion senseless, Sunic!

[Sunic_Flames]

Because I caused the perversion quotient to wrap around and roll over into tameness.

*sounding like your mother* Shame on you for beating the perversion senseless, Sunic!

*smite* I didn't beat it senseless, I overloaded it and causes a complete systems failure.

[Squirrelloid]

Dude, when did we stray from the conversation so much from the good scaly sex to what the heck kind of animal dragons are supposed to be?!

Well, I suppose I could bring it back to sex by noting that no lizard/birds/archosaurs have a penis nor are equipped to accept a penis, so sex with a dragon is going to be hard.

Also, polymorphing while pregnant should probably cause an abortion, especially if you polymorph into something far removed from your own species.  At least, my interpretation of polymorph acquired traits includes things like body chemistry, and changing that is going to be hell on a fetus.

Sorry I'm still not especially funny... ability to breed with *anything* really bugs me.

[CountArioch]

Alright, a lot of bologna getting slung around in here, you'd think a delicatessen exploded.

First off, there is in fact a scientific grouping called "reptilia", or reptiles.  Now, it's considered a paraphalytic grouping due to the fact that it specifically excludes Aves, one of their descendants, that doesn't mean it's not a group.

I can find several reasons to exclude dragons as reptiles.  First off, reptiles are tetrapodian in nature, dragons are decidedly not  (and I can't think of many creatures that show a hexapodan body shape like dragons.) And as mentioned before, the fact that dragons are endothermic DOES in fact disqualify them from being reptiles.

And as far as what groups dinosaurs and other archeosaurs go into, ask an archeologist.  Even better, ask several at once and watch them get into fights as they argue their conflicting theories.  Although I'm about 90% sure Smilodon is properly classified in Mammalia with the other members of Felidae.

Don't mess with me kid, I'm a biology major!   

[BowenSilverclaw]

Well, I suppose I could bring it back to sex by noting that no lizard/birds/archosaurs have a penis nor are equipped to accept a penis, so sex with a dragon is going to be hard.

Crocodiles and the like have a sort of penis, right?

[Squirrelloid]

Alright, a lot of bologna getting slung around in here, you'd think a delicatessen exploded.

First off, there is in fact a scientific grouping called "reptilia", or reptiles.  Now, it's considered a paraphalytic grouping due to the fact that it specifically excludes Aves, one of their descendants, that doesn't mean it's not a group.

Reptilia is an old name that never gets used anymore by scientists, because no one believes paraphyletic or polyphyletic groups are actually groups.  Only monophyletic groups are considered groups, because monophyly actually means something.  Any attempt to portray Reptilia as a taxonomically valid group is patently ridiculous - no one has seriously believed it is for about 50 years. 

Even if one were to insist on Reptilia as a group, the best modern definition is 'non-avian, non-mammalian amniotes', which certainly covers dragons (as they are clearly neither birds nor mammals, and are also clearly amniotes - they lay eggs with a hard shell).

I can find several reasons to exclude dragons as reptiles.  First off, reptiles are tetrapodian in nature, dragons are decidedly not  (and I can't think of many creatures that show a hexapodan body shape like dragons.) And as mentioned before, the fact that dragons are endothermic DOES in fact disqualify them from being reptiles.

Reptilia, as its not a monophyletic group, has no defining characters.  Further, defining characters must be synapomorphies.  A newly derived condition cannot remove something from a group (eg, endothermy).  Similarly, a hexapod state is also clearly derived.  On the other hand, they share a remarkable number of characters with Archosaurs, I remain confident that, if dragons were real, that is exactly where they would be placed.  (You certainly aren't going to propose that they get placed with the insectidae because they have 6 limbs, are you?  I mean, they share a large number of synapomorphies with amniotes and virtually no others with insectidae; its hexapodic condition is clearly independently derived, possibly via hox-gene duplication, or perhaps just unspecified 'magic'.)  We even have evidence of a wingless dragon ancestor in D+D, the Linnorm from MM2. 

Surely we'll all agree that Couatl are magical snakes, yes?

And as far as what groups dinosaurs and other archeosaurs go into, ask an archeologist.  Even better, ask several at once and watch them get into fights as they argue their conflicting theories.  Although I'm about 90% sure Smilodon is properly classified in Mammalia with the other members of Felidae.

First, not everything I mentioned is an archosaur, I'm just trying to figure out what people believe a 'reptile' is.

Smilodon is in fact a mammal, but its also as much a reptile as any other amniote by any sane definition of Reptilia.  Unless by Reptilia you mean to say Squamata or Lepidosauromorpha.  I actually meant to toss out one of the non-cat sabretooth 'cats' (like Thylacosmilus), which is still definitely a mammal, but quite a bit farther removed from the modern species set.  Have to throw something out there that I know you'll reject to help bound the set.

Dimetrodon belongs to Synapsida, whose common-name is 'mammal-like reptiles'.  Note that the clade Mammalia belongs to the clade Synapsida, and Synapsida weren't considered part of Reptilia when last Reptilia was an accepted group (despite being referred to as 'mammal-like reptiles' - Synapsida is apparently too hard for most non-scientists to remember, so I suppose they needed to call them something so everyone didn't call them dinosaurs).  Dimetrodon was clearly not an endotherm (it has a big fricking solar sail).

Plesiosaurs belong to Sauropterygia, which is plausibly sister to either Archosauromorpha (includes dinosaurs and birds) or Lepidosauromorpha (includes lizards).

Pterosaurs are in Pterosauria, which seems to be sister to Dinosauria (Dinosauria includes Aves).  (Both of them are in Archosauria).

Don't mess with me kid, I'm a biology major!   

As I've already stated, I'm almost finished with a PhD on evolutionary biology, so throwing around biology major isn't going to cut it as authoritative credentials.  But don't trust my 'authority' on what I say, go actually read what taxonomists and systematists are doing.  (And read more than one - there are some crazies who don't think birds are descended from dinosaurs; crank is the appropriate term for them, but they still manage to get published occasionally.  The evidence and consensus is against them, especially as more and more dinosaurs with feathers get discovered in China and belong to exactly the groups they should belong to.  And even the cranks accept that birds come from somewhere in Archosauromorpha, its just a question of where.  On the other hand, the big debate isn't *if* birds come from dinosaurs, its exactly where in Dinosauria they come from - with the dominant belief and the most evidence favoring Theropods).

Lessons we can learn here: (1) Ideas about taxonomy change over time.  (2) Some groups become unacceptable as groups (eg, Reptilia). 

[Squirrelloid]

Well, I suppose I could bring it back to sex by noting that no lizard/birds/archosaurs have a penis nor are equipped to accept a penis, so sex with a dragon is going to be hard.

Crocodiles and the like have a sort of penis, right?

They have a cloaca, which is a combined intestinal, urinary, and genital tract.  There is generally no projecting organ, although some birds have a separate genital tract.  (And a few birds - some species of swans and ducks - have a projecting genital tract that is only vaguely analogous to the mammalian penis, and is formed during development from cells in the cloacal wall).

Edit: To highlight just how little a penis as possessed by some ducks has to do with the mammalian organ, also consider that most male insects have a structure which is referred to as a penis.  Penis is the generally used term for a projecting organ whose purpose is to house a genital duct.  So when I used penis above, I meant the mammalian organ.

[CountArioch]

Alright, squirreloid, I read you post, and stand corrected on many points. 

I only have one question (And this is an honest question, I'm not trying to one-up you here)  If there are no group called "reptiles", doesn't that mean that NOTHING is a reptile, and therefore dragons aren't reptiles?

Really, I'm not trying to "win", I'm curious on why you can reject the notion of "reptiles" and still consider things to be reptiles.

Edit:  Although, technically, you have the credentials of "Some dude on the internet" to me.  I'm only backing down because a quick search shows a lot of what you are saying is pretty spot-on, and it would be foolish to continue. Regardless of your honesty about your education, you know your shit better than I do. 

[Squirrelloid]

Alright, squirreloid, I read you post, and stand corrected on many points. 

I only have one question (And this is an honest question, I'm not trying to one-up you here)  If there are no group called "reptiles", doesn't that mean that NOTHING is a reptile, and therefore dragons aren't reptiles?

Really, I'm not trying to "win", I'm curious on why you can reject the notion of "reptiles" and still consider things to be reptiles.

Well, I did conceed I was using "reptile" in a loose sense.  My real point was that dragons don't have mammaries/penes.  You'll note I tightened up my language when we started talking about character states and a dragon's placement into clade.  So I suppose my current position is 'Dragons are Archosaurs', and my initial statement that they were reptiles was to save having to make a technical explanation if I didn't need to (everyone has some concept of reptile - not everyone has a concept of Archosaur - in fact, I bet most people don't have a concept of Archosaur).

Edit:  Although, technically, you have the credentials of "Some dude on the internet" to me.  I'm only backing down because a quick search shows a lot of what you are saying is pretty spot-on, and it would be foolish to continue. Regardless of your honesty about your education, you know your shit better than I do. 

Which is why I said "go look it up, don't take my word for it" in my last post.  Because yeah, as far as anyone knows, I'm just some schmuck who can use Wikipaedia.  Heck, I actually checked - some schmuck using Wikipaedia can do about as well as I am (in fact, I had to check the location of Pterodons on it myself... vertebrates are not my area of expertise) - I suppose I know the right terms to search for to find the right answers quickly... 

If you're willing to believe I'm not just some schmuck on the internet, I should probably note that I've gotten kind of used to using non-technical imprecise language when talking to non-scientists because my work is both taxonomically and mathematically technical - let me tell you I'm a blast at parties when people start asking what I do. 

[CountArioch]

Go ahead and be as technical as you like when talking to me, whenever I see a term I don't know, I look it up.  Unless I don't like you.   

[BobismyRhino]

The reptile debate really makes me giggle since we're talking about classifying creatures with similiar genetic structure...

I mean, the debate starts to dissipate for me when I start thinking about the fact that human DNA only slightly differs in some base pairs (I forget the exact number, but I believe it was smaller than 10...) from that of a fruit fly.

But this has nothing to do with dragons.

I'm gonna stand by my belief that dragons are some kind of magical combination of birds (which can lay eggs, regulate their temperature, and fly) and scaly things that I won't call reptiles since the people wearing smarty pants in this thread will shoot me with logic.
Shhh! My simplistic theory on dragons is flawless!

[CountArioch]

I mean, the debate starts to dissipate for me when I start thinking about the fact that human DNA only slightly differs in some base pairs (I forget the exact number, but I believe it was smaller than 10...) from that of a fruit fly.

That's a misconception.  It depends on the fruit fly, but the typical laboratory Drosophila malanogaster has about 13,000 gene pairs to the human's 70,000 or so.  That's actually a fairly large difference.

[Banor]

Soooo .... Dragons are reptiles or not ?



(kidding )



(Still I haven't understood anything from what Squirelloid said )