#like for example reptiles are a completely arbitrary group

[neofelis----nebulosa]

Maybe a bad take but I think it’s ok to arbitrarily categorize animals as long as you acknowledge that’s what it is. Like it’s ok to group a bunch of species with similar appearances together under an umbrella term, even if their morphological similarity has no genetic or taxonomic significance.

[f-nodragonart]

What Defines a Dragon (for worldbuilding purposes)?

alright, I think this is gonna be the final FINAL draft of this nonsense (or at least, the version I’ll be able to go back and edit p easily when needed). idk WHY I thought it would be a good idea to jam a ton of info in the flowchart itself rather than delegate it to the text of the post, but we learn from our mistakes I guess

disclaimer that I’m much more familiar w/ biological classification, so the sociocultural route is a bit sparse. if anyone has further suggestions/fixes for that route, I’m all ears

anyways, for anyone who came here for a straight answer concerning what “counts” as a dragon in terms of real-life culture/history, or even just popular media... I have to laugh

y’all, “dragon” in real life is a cultural term, and as I will discuss in this very guide, sociocultural constructs can be... difficult. dragon definitions vary wildly by culture, and serve very different purposes across different cultural narratives. and that’s if the term “dragon” even exists in that culture’s language in the first place, and/or if that culture wants their creature to even be associated w/ the (often Western) baggage that accompanies the word “dragon”

point is, there’s literally no solid “yes/no” answer to the question, “is this creature a dragon?” you can ONLY answer that question with context. the purpose of this post is to help guide you through that context in terms of worldbuilding (under the assumption that dragons actually exist in a given world)

that said, while the criteria for dragons outlined here may appear loose at times, trust me when I say even the loosest definitions require some boundaries. not to stifle creativity here, but having no clear definition of “dragon” can be more than a little frustrating for our audience. if we label everything from a beetle, to a snake, to a winged wolf a “dragon”, our audience won’t take the term seriously; it won’t hold weight as a realistic part of our world’s lexicon that actually MEANS something. guidelines of some sort are essential, even if they're somewhat arbitrary, depending on context

also keep in mind that some of these approaches can occur simultaneously. a culture could have a taxonomic term that is applied in a systematic way to describe a certain lineage of organisms, while also using the same term in a slightly different functional/colloquial context. for example, “plant” is a valid taxonomic descriptor, but it is often colloquially used to encompass fungi as well, as a means of differentiating “plant-like” organisms from animals

that all out of the way, let’s start:

What defines a dragon?

Well first, are you grouping creatures based on biological or sociocultural lexicon?

Biological: go to 1

Sociocultural: go to 6

1: Biological

Is this classification based on evolutionary relation (cladistic taxonomy) or adaptive similarity (morphology, ecology)?

Evolutionary relation: go to 2

Adaptive similarity: go to 3

2: Evolutionary relation

Biological taxonomy (specifically cladistics) is tricky, but can work out pretty well if you're familiar with evolutionary theory and can nail down specific constraints. This post provides a more in-depth overview of taxonomy (specifically the Taxonomy/Classification section), but I’ll briefly talk abt it here as well.

Cladistics traces direct descendance/genetic history, and as these relations are mapped, certain groups will naturally "nest" within other groups, thus building a "tree" of lineages that connects all life to one another.

This is classic monophyletic grouping-- where a group consists of all descendants of a common ancestor, as defined by their shared apomorphies (the derived traits that are unique to a particular clade). There are other types of grouping that will be more useful in other sections (see 4), but you just need to worry about monophyly on this route.

This grouping is based on homology-- the assumption that certain organisms have similar traits because they descended from the same ancestor who passed on those traits to their descendants, thus making these descendants closely related.

Now, we have a lot of characteristics to consider when drawing out evolutionary relationships. Just, tons and tons. And it really all depends on how your dragons originated. Are they descended from ancestral mammals, reptiles, fish, or even invertebrates such as insects? Are they even more distinctly separated from other organisms-- perhaps they diverged as far back as a wormy ancestor, or they might have had a completely separate life-creation event? All of these different origins would result in wildly different sets of dragons, and distinct sets of traits used to classify the dragons of these various settings.

And this doesn’t even get into the unique constraints of the world your dragons may live in. See the Universal Biology section of that evolution post for more information on this front, but basically there are many ways to make a world, and not all of them have to be Earth-centric. (However, the first step to understanding fantasy biology is to understand our Earth's biology; this makes it a lot easier to warp and bend fantasy bio to your whims)

Either way, there are so many traits that could possibly define dragons, you really need to think long and hard about your dragons’ evolutionary origins, how these origins are reflected in their structures, and how this all relates back to the world they live in. I can't cover every possible divergence in bauplan/behavior that could reasonably be used to define a clade of animals, so I'd suggest reading up on basic animal taxonomy-- specifically what apomorphies define certain clades.

If you need a place to start, then in terms of dragons and their wildly diverse bauplans, one of the biggest differences to keep in mind is limb number, imo. I get into the complexities of hexapodal evolution here, if this is the direction you want to take.

3: Adaptive similarity

While evolutionary classification relies on "nested" direct descendance, adaptive similarity (at least as I define it here) groups organisms by certain adaptive morphology, behaviors, ecological functions, etc. whether the organisms are closely related or not.

This type of definition isn’t necessarily useful to taxonomic classification, but it’s essential to ecological observations and adaptive evolutionary theory. If you don't feel like planning out a rough evolutionary history for your dragons, this may be your next best bet for labeling.

I personally feel that there are two main ways to approach this, both of which often bleed into one another: morphology and ecology. I’ll be using magical ability as an example for both of these paths depending on context, but there are plenty of other traits you could choose from for this route.

Morphology: go to 4

Ecology: go to 5

4: Morphology

Here we'll be grouping dragons by their morphological/physiological traits. Yes, the taxonomic route technically uses the same approach since we can't do in-depth fantasy phylogenetics. However, rather than using homology, we’ll be utilizing analogy-- the assumption that similar characteristics are a result of the organisms in question facing similar environmental stressors that would require similar traits to survive and thrive.

For example, the "sabre-tooth suite" is a group of extinct animals that are part of different taxonomic groups (felidae, marsupials, etc.), yet evolved traits and bauplans that are uncannily similar (giant canines, a bulky feliform frame, etc.). Thus, grouping these animals together provides researchers an accessible label and a springboard to study how/why this convergence came about.

For a more fantastical example: perhaps similar environmental stressors in several distinct habitats push certain species' spiritual abilities to the brink. Eventually, a lucky critter or two from each habitat was born with a higher ability for spiritual/magical manipulation. Viola-- the beginnings of a new physiological ability, as determined by a specific set of environmental circumstances.

It may also be useful to utilize polyphyletic grouping here if you want to compromise taxonomic and adaptive classification.

As you can see, paraphyletic grouping cuts certain nested clades out of a broader clade for the purpose of defining a group based on a larger range of similar traits. Here, mammalia and aves are cut out of the clade amniota in order to define the group “reptilia” which shares traits such as hard scales and egg-laying. In this instance, these traits are ARE passed down from a common ancestor, but the whole clade isn’t included in the definition due to morphological divergence, so it isn’t strictly descendance-based taxonomics either.

5: Ecology

Functional ecology refers to the 'roles' certain species/populations play in an ecosystem. This is heavily dependent on what niches these organisms fill, which could be based on diet, migration patterns, or just about any other behavior or physiological trait that could affect an ecosystem.

For example, riparian macroinvertebrates are often split into functional feeding groups (typically shredders, predators, grazers, and collectors) depending on what they eat and how they physically eat their food. These are important labels because the way they eat has distinct impacts on the river ecosystem.

However, most of these creatures aren't closely related, and many are only in these groups during the larval stages of their lives.

“Guilds” can also be a useful way of grouping certain populations/species together in order to better understand their interactions. A guild is a group of species that utilize the same resource, often in a similar way, and is defined according to the attributes, locations, and activities of the species involved. Guilds aren’t strictly defined, and can vary depending on exactly what sort of interactions you’re looking at, what organisms are being included within the community, and the boundaries of the community being studied. Thus, a guild could be as broad as, “Seed-eating animals of the Amazon rainforest,” or as narrow as, “Birds of a central 20x20 acre plot of the Amazon rainforest who eat seeds no larger than 2 cm in length.”

For a more fantastical example: magical abilities would likely have unique effects on a given species' surrounding environment and communities. Thus, any species with magical abilities may deserve ecological distinction for impacting their environments in very specific ways.

While this classification is similar to the morphological route, the distinction here is that ecological groups are defined by their impact on their environment, whereas morphological groups are defined by how the environment has impacted them. These two routes obviously bleed into each other quite a bit, but it can still help to figure out what direction you’re approaching the definition from.

6: Sociocultural

On this route, we’ll start unraveling the labels of your world's dragons by approaching from the perspective of those making the labels in the first place.

This is NOT to assume that the alternate biological route ISN’T affected by the perspective of, say, theoretical researchers-- science is as much about perspective and decision-making as anything else. However, in that route, the perspective is really just you-- the creator OUTSIDE the world-- defining ecological/evolutionary relationships in a world you have full control over. Here, we are undertaking the perspective of the characters/cultures INSIDE your world who are making labels for things in a world they don’t necessarily have control over.

For ease of writing, I’ll be constructing this route under the assumption that your world’s ‘labelers’ are human, but that doesn’t HAVE to be the case. Your labelers could be literally ANY creature that you are assuming as your narrative perspective-- hell, it could even be the dragons themselves! If your labelers aren’t human, then you’ll prolly want to do some deeper worldbuilding into these creatures’ psychology and/or sociocultural understanding of the world before you try to figure out their relation to dragons in particular. Otherwise, you may not have enough of a narrative base to jump off from!

Anyways, sociocultural lexicon can be a bit tricky when you’re first figuring it out. It may feel so loose and undefined, how can any boundaries be set for definition? It may help to first figure out the functional role of dragons in your labelers’ culture, then perhaps fine-tune it with some psychological organization.

Functional roles: go to 7

Psychological: go to 8

7: Functional roles

This route is very similar to the ecological route, but in this instance we’re focusing on the function/role a group of creatures plays which directly affects the “labeling” culture in question, not necessarily the overall role a group of creatures plays in their ecosystem (though these routes may still overlap).

So, before we define the function of dragons to your culture, what is the function of the role the culture is defining in the first place?

is the role critical to the culture’s survival (source of food/other resources, dangerous predator/resource competition, keystone species in the culture’s immediate environment, etc.) or more of a casual observation (a source of rare but nonessential resources, a strange creature that is interesting/beautiful to observe, a creature you can commune with to gain arcane knowledge, etc.)?

figuring out the role the dragons’ role itself plays in a culture will often reveal what criteria is used to define dragons. If dragons are important for the resources they provide, then they may be defined by the “materials” they’re composed of (shiny scales, tender/tasty meat, healing/magical blood, etc.). If dragons pose a direct threat to the culture, they may be defined by their temperament (vicious, territorial, bloodthirsty), and/or the physical threat they impose (hooked claws, speed, large size, stealth, fire breath, etc.). If dragons play a critical role in a culture’s home environment, then the dragons may be defined by their skills (any kind of magical proficiency, elemental breath/control, etc.), and/or their temperament yet again (benevolent, mysterious, etc.). If dragons are valued for their appearance (and perhaps associated behavior), then they’d prolly be defined by that appearance (color/iridescence, display features, melodic voice, etc.).

Labeling of this sort is not always cut-and-dry, as oftentimes these roles will overlap, or individual dragons may not hit every checkmark of a culture’s definition of “dragon”. “Bloodthirsty” and “benevolent” are both rather subjective descriptions, after all, and if your dragons are multi-faceted individuals like real-life organisms (which I certainly hope they are..), then their individual interests will shift in time with their environment, and these interests may pit them against OR bring them in line with humans in turn.

It’s worth noting that many indigenous cultures recognize this fluidity/flexibility in the temperaments and roles of various species in their environment, whereas stricter binaries are the result of modern Western trends. Labels are important for communication, but real-life is hardly so accommodating to the boundaries we attempt to draw.

It’s also important to think about what sensory organs are critical to your labeling species/culture. Humans are a HIGHLY visual species, followed by (in my opinion) tactile, so we tend towards descriptions of shape, size, and color. This doesn’t HAVE to be the case for your labeling species, however-- perhaps they focus much more on sound, or scent? Or maybe behavior is more important than morphology?

8: Psychological

Approaching from a psychological angle doesn’t necessarily answer WHAT defines a dragon-- you’ll still need to visit #7 for that, if you haven’t already. However, a psychological base may help better organize your thoughts on your culture’s criteria for dragons.

There are tons of theories about how we group/label things, but the two theories I'm going to focus on here are exemplar and prototype theory. These theories could very well occur in tandem, but it's easier to talk about them separately.

Exemplar: go to 9

Prototype: go to 10

9: Exemplar

Exemplar theory states that the more we encounter different examples of a Thing, the more representations (exemplars) of that Thing we have stored up in our memories. This builds up a subconscious list of traits that all these exemplars share which categorize them as that Thing, despite any unique/differing characteristics they may also display. Thus, as we learn and encounter more examples of the Thing, we can slot these new examples into the pre-established mental category of the Thing rather than trying to define them as completely new, unique things.

For example, when we learn about birds in our youth, we encounter all sorts of species of bird that we're told are birds, despite unique characteristics.

Thus, we ever so gradually learn to pick out their shared traits (feathers, beaks, wings, etc.), and recognize those traits in newly-encountered species of bird.

When it comes to dragons, the culture in question may encounter many different species over time, and eventually come to recognize defining/critical traits shared among all these species. This subconscious list of traits ultimately defines these species as what this culture labels "dragon", despite any other unique differences that may set certain species apart.

10: Prototype

Prototype theory states that we initially develop an ideal prototype of a Thing which has all the characteristics/traits we'd expect any example of that Thing to have. With that prototype at the center, we categorize and grade the membership of other examples of the Thing around it, with more central examples being "more perfect" and outer examples being "less perfect".

For example, we may have a mental image that pops up when we think "bird"-- this may very well be our bird prototype.

Then we grade birds on their "birdyness" compared to that bird prototype, with some birds being more "birdy" than others.

When it comes to dragons, the culture in question may have a dragon prototype of a specific species that they subconsciously compare to other creatures. This “ideal” species has all the traits that the culture considers essential to the broader definition of “dragon”, and is used to grade all other species’ “dragon-ness”.

-Mod Spiral