Replace "breed" with "species"

[cyradis4]

tl;dr: DC dragons obviously do not conform to Earth's biology, so to treat them as if they do is misguided. Also they are sprites.

 

PS - Really you'd just be replacing one meaningless word with another meaningless word, because neither "breed" nor "species" is accurate. DC dragons are too different to all be the same breed but interbreed too easily (and with completely nonsensical results) to be separate species. You might as well call them flerpity-floops. It would mean as much.

This. And in truth... While the species are well defined for most of the big mammals of the earth, they are much less clear for fish and other smaller life. For example, there are many different "species" of fish that can interbreed with fertile results... Despite the keystone definition of two creatures being the same species if they reproduce with fertile results. And yet, the scientific community has chosen to regard them as different species.

 

Then take a look at the horse + donkey = mule. Almost always, the mule is infertile. Very rarely, you'll get a fertile result. They are different species, but they are in the earlier stages of speciation, hence why they can still breed successfully, though the results are 99.9% infertile. Same with the big, wild cats, Zebras, and certain dolphins.

 

So really, given how slippery the definition of "species" can get, and how the line between color morph, sub-species, and species can blur, I think leaving it at breed is more accurate than changing it to species, though even calling them breeds is, as was noted, a stretch. Different breeds, after all, are supposed to be able to cross breed, while different *species* are *not* supposed to be able to cross breed.

 

C4.

[Guillotine]

There are several large mammal genuses capable of producing fertile hybrids, including canids, bovines (see: beefalo), and hominids (yes, really). And most infertile hybrids are male; female hybrids have been known to be quite fertile, relatively speaking. Using breeding alone to prove speciation is a fool's errand.

[olympe]

Come to think about it, there are many more animals "species" that are able to produce fertile hybrids.

 

All great cats (Panthera) can breed with each other. The female offspring are usually fertile, the male offspring infertile.

 

Various macaw species can produce fertile offspring. Like green-winged, scarlet, blue-and-gold, red-fronted, severe and buffon's macaw. They're not only known to produce 2nd gen hybrids of two different species, but also 3rd gen hybrids made up of up to 4 different species.

 

There's also the case of a "wolphin" - a female hybrid from a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale, who has had a number of cubs (each of them 3/4 dolphin).

 

So it's obvious that crossbreeding between different species happens even within mammals.

 

(Forgot to mention that some of our human ancestors seem to have had fertile children with both the Neanderthal and Denisovans.)

[rumor33]

I'm in favor of replacing "breed" with "flerpity-floops".

 

But in all seriousness, I agree with the overall sentiment.  Neither word is properly accurate, I don't think, so it doesn't super matter which one we use, so changing it seems a little pointless.

I am all in favor of flerpity-floops

 

And yes, QFT. I feel for whoever this irks but there is no term that really gets it right and I'm guessing just as many people would be irked in the other direction.

 

Mayhaps we should find/invent a more accurate fantasy term that means exactly was our dragon 'types' are, but then that would be weird in translation/to newcomers.

 

And yes, I do see that many animals CAN have viable hybrid offspring, but can anyone point to a case where 40 some odd species can all interbred and have virtually 100% fertile offspring?

Edited April 13, 2014 by rumor33

[Guillotine]

Dunno how many species are considered bovines, but they interbreed heavily and easily (note that there's apparently some debate over whether bison belong in Bos or not due to this), and there's genetic evidence to suggest humans hybridizing with a large number of Homo species, not just two. I'd include canids in this, but there are a couple of canids that do not produce hybrids with other canids. Dunno how many Bos species there are, but they certainly come close to what you're suggesting.

[grimace]

And yes, I do see that many animals CAN have viable hybrid offspring, but can anyone point to a case where 40 some odd species can all interbred and have virtually 100% fertile offspring?

Yeah, probably a few hundred cichlid species are capable of doing that. Its to the point of becoming a huge problem in the aquarium trade as it has watered down pure stock enough its almost impossible to get anything that is actual 100% of one species.

 

Actually, dragon breeding here is really comparable to cichlid breeding. You have a ton of species who can all interbreed, with a few different families that can't (the 2 heads and drakes), and then a couple hybrids that are pretty enough to be considered their own thing.

 

The only real difference is the eggs end up coming out one species or another, but thats more because of an actual hybrid system being something that isn't really possible to put in the game because of the billions of sprites you'd need.

 

Is it even officially canon in the DC universe that breeding two dragons results in one species or another? I know theres a lot of canon stuff in dragon descriptions that isn't in the game mechanics because it isn't feasable. (like all the dragons mentioned to have a unique pattern for every individual and etc)

Edited April 13, 2014 by grimace

[Fuzzbucket]

Throws large spanner - I so don't CARE - but how about type instead of either word ?

 

Because I rather doubt TJ will allow flerpity-floops, which might in any case totally confuse new players.

[KageSora]

"Type" sounds good to me--it's not restrictive in any sense like breed or species, and it's simply enough to understand.

[olympe]

Type, kind, variety - whichever. I'm also fine with either breed or species - as long as the action "Breed" doesn't get changed. That would be just too weird.

[purplehaze]

I have to cast my vote with the "I don't care" crowd.

 

But I really don't see a need to change anything. This is a game. As such it doesn't have to stick to biological accuracy. We have been using the term breed for so long that it is pretty well ingrained in our culture as a user base. I (and many others) would probably continue to refer to them as breeds, no matter what the official designation is.

[edwardelricfreak]

"Type" sounds good to me--it's not restrictive in any sense like breed or species, and it's simply enough to understand.

"Type" (or sub-type, usually) is generally associated with stuff like wyvern, amphiptere, etc. Though that could probably be changed to "Class" (or make it officially Sub-type) and then the different breeds/species/flerpity-floops would be called Types. I'd like that

[XiziX]

It's never personally bothered me. I have no strong opinion one way or the other.

Going with Sock here on this one.

[Ribombee]

I'm an evolutionary entomologist in real life. I can attest to the fact that "species" is a relative term. The organism I study (Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly) has two different host races (one feeds on apple, the other on hawthorn). There is also a species that feeds on flowering dogwood. All three can interbreed and produce offspring, though there is a fitness cost (they can't easily find any of the host plants in order to mate and lay their eggs). So why is one pair a species and the other only host races? That's a very good question without a good answer. In black flies, there are species that look physically identical in every way, yet they don't interbreed. The species can only be identified via genetic analysis. In asexually reproducing organisms, species has a different definition (since you can't use whether or not two populations breed with one another). For that matter, since plants can easily gain extra chromosomes in a single generation, a new species can arise in one generation, if you use the typical "can't interbreed" definition. Bacteria are a whole other story altogether. Taxonomy is far from an exact science.

 

So my point is that the term species can vary greatly. However, in real life, you really wouldn't see such greatly differing animals breeding with one another at all. So not only is the term loose, but the animal we are trying to apply it to also doesn't fit normal "rules" of biology, as we know it. Therefore, no current terms would really fit accurately.

 

That being said, I do usually call them "types" because that holds less of a specific meaning to me than "breeds" or "species". "Kind" would also work. If we want to use "species", it would probably best be applied to drakes, pygmies, etc.

[Cinnamin Draconna]

Personally, I don't think 'reality' should be the constant in a 'magical' setting. Any time magic is involved you can usually throw physics and natural laws out the window.

 

That said, I agree that breed is not the right word... but neither is species. Type comes closest, but doesn't cover everything either.

 

We have..

Dragons

Wyverns

Amphitheres

Drakes

2 Heads

Pygmies

.. that's all I can remember at the moment.

 

BUT... Drakes can only breed with other Drakes, 2 Heads can only breed with other 2 Heads, and Pygmies can only breed with other Pygmies. While Dragons, Wyverns and Ampitheres can all breed together. So why can a 2 legged dragon breed with a 4 legged dragon or a no legged dragon... or winged with no wings?

 

Simple answer; MAGIC. So why bring real world specifics into it. Just take the game as it is and go along with the flow.

 

*Personally, I think that Drakes should NOT be a restricted subset.. they should be able to breed with the regular dragons too.*

[Dimar]

This has never really bothered me personally. I totally understand being annoyed with word usage, whether relative or not, but it doesn't seem like a huge enough problem to need an overhaul on. Changing all the times "breed" is said in the webpages, canon descriptions, title of the BSA system itself, etc. seems a bit excessive.

 

So I wouldn't throw a fit if it changed, but I'd be surprised and I'd rather it just stay the set terminology that DC (as RL-illogical as it is) has been using.

 

But I really don't see a need to change anything. This is a game. As such it doesn't have to stick to biological accuracy. We have been using the term breed for so long that it is pretty well ingrained in our culture as a user base. I (and many others) would probably continue to refer to them as breeds, no matter what the official designation is.

I'd have to agree with this, and PH said it better than I attempted to.

[Verridith]

I tend to look at it from a horse perspective. In horses, all of them are classified as a 'horse'. But there are Arabians, Thoroughbreds, Quarter Horses, Paints, Fresians, Knabs, Appies, and tons of others. Some can look incredibly different - others can look pretty similar. But they're all still horses.

 

Likewise, we have dragons. Dragons are their own species. And there are various breeds of dragons - we have Golds, Silvers, Magmas, Frills, Sweetlings, Golden Wyverns, etc. And each of these is further split into various 'types' (eastern, western, wyvern, amphithere, etc). Then we have other species, such as the DC Drakes and Two-Heads.

 

That's just the way I look at things. No need for change, I don't think. (: It's a fantasy world with its own unique set of rules - and those rules exist apart from Earth's meager biology.

[grimace]

I tend to look at it from a horse perspective. In horses, all of them are classified as a 'horse'. But there are Arabians, Thoroughbreds, Quarter Horses, Paints, Fresians, Knabs, Appies, and tons of others. Some can look incredibly different - others can look pretty similar. But they're all still horses.

 

Likewise, we have dragons. Dragons are their own species. And there are various breeds of dragons - we have Golds, Silvers, Magmas, Frills, Sweetlings, Golden Wyverns, etc. And each of these is further split into various 'types' (eastern, western, wyvern, amphithere, etc). Then we have other species, such as the DC Drakes and Two-Heads.

 

That's just the way I look at things. No need for change, I don't think. (: It's a fantasy world with its own unique set of rules - and those rules exist apart from Earth's meager biology.

Thats what I keep saying. All the horses you listed all are extremely similar, aside from color.

By DC standards, a "horse breed" would be composed of a few horse breeds, donkeys, camels, pigs, giraffes, antelope, cows, hippos, and a few weird things thrown in like a snapping turtle and maybe an ostrich.

[CNR4806]

It's a fantasy world with its own unique set of rules - and those rules exist apart from Earth's meager biology.

This. Also considering that some other people have stated that there are no terms that would fit perfectly with the DC dragons, or like you who thinks that breed is appropriate, perhaps it is better to leave it alone.

 

That said, I don't have real thoughts over this either way, and would not mind if the terminology is changed.

[dragongrrl]

Thats what I keep saying. All the horses you listed all are extremely similar, aside from color.

By DC standards, a "horse breed" would be composed of a few horse breeds, donkeys, camels, pigs, giraffes, antelope, cows, hippos, and a few weird things thrown in like a snapping turtle and maybe an ostrich.

Maybe dog breeds provide more range than horses, although Shires and minis certainly provide the size ranges.

 

Compare a Yorkie, a Dachshund, a Chihuahua, a Bull Terrier, an Irish Wolfhound, a Great Pyrenees, a Labrador, a German Shepherd, a Bloodhound, a Basenji and a Collie. These dogs are distinct breeds, with a wide size range, quite varied body types and temperaments, yet can all breed together, to create more dogs. Even wolves and coyotes can breed with them, and still produce compatibly breeding dogs.

 

I have no problem with the term "breeds" when discussing our different dragon types.

[Verridith]

Thats what I keep saying. All the horses you listed all are extremely similar, aside from color.

By DC standards, a "horse breed" would be composed of a few horse breeds, donkeys, camels, pigs, giraffes, antelope, cows, hippos, and a few weird things thrown in like a snapping turtle and maybe an ostrich.

Whoa wait hold on. Those horse breeds are exceptionally different. O__o I'll grab four pics to show the differences.

 

Arabian:

- refined, more delicate, dished head, elevated tail, slender arched neck, etc

 

Fresian:

- strong, chiseled features, muscular, large, has 'feathers' on the pasterns

 

Quarter Horse:

- stocky, muscular, thick, generally straight-profiled, did I mention muscular

 

Knabstrupper:

- long-legged, more refined, always has a radical spotted pattern (also very rare)

 

 

In regards to dogs, horses don't have nearly as much variation; but they don't just differ in coat patterns and colors, haha. Every horse breed is fundamentally different from another, in looks, genetics, and type. Not many are 'extremely similar' at all.

[ashycat]

Whoa wait hold on. Those horse breeds are exceptionally different. O__o I'll grab four pics to show the differences.

 

Arabian:

- refined, more delicate, dished head, elevated tail, slender arched neck, etc

 

Fresian:

- strong, chiseled features, muscular, large, has 'feathers' on the pasterns

 

Quarter Horse:

- stocky, muscular, thick, generally straight-profiled, did I mention muscular

 

Knabstrupper:

- long-legged, more refined, always has a radical spotted pattern (also very rare)

 

 

In regards to dogs, horses don't have nearly as much variation; but they don't just differ in coat patterns and colors, haha. Every horse breed is fundamentally different from another, in looks, genetics, and type. Not many are 'extremely similar' at all.

 

 

but really - the breed / species is kind of silly. Dragons are all - DRAGONS, which the specifies are Wyverns, Pygmies, Drakes etc etc. Because - it's been found that they can't interbreed with one another - at least most. Which makes them - a different species of one another IE a CAT & A TIGER [which could almost be categorized similarly like pygmies vs - all the other "types" of species of dragon.]. Despite having INCREDIBLE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THEM. so technically the dragon "type" is already the species.

 

While breed is the name, golden wyvern or a sweetling - similar to say dog breeds or horse breeds or cat breeds or whatever you can think of that can possibly have a similar characteristic, their all classified by DRAGON, BUT THEIR SPECIES OF DRAGON ARE DIFFERENT SO THEIR BREED IS ALSO DIFFERENT BASED.

 

 

[Verridith]

 

 

but really - the breed / species is kind of silly. Dragons are all - DRAGONS, which the specifies are Wyverns, Pygmies, Drakes etc etc. Because - it's been found that they can't interbreed with one another - at least most. Which makes them - a different species of one another IE a CAT & A TIGER [which could almost be categorized similarly like pygmies vs - all the other "types" of species of dragon.]. Despite having INCREDIBLE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THEM. so technically the dragon "type" is already the species.

 

While breed is the name, golden wyvern or a sweetling - similar to say dog breeds or horse breeds or cat breeds or whatever you can think of that can possibly have a similar characteristic, their all classified by DRAGON, BUT THEIR SPECIES OF DRAGON ARE DIFFERENT SO THEIR BREED IS ALSO DIFFERENT BASED.

OMGAI IS THAT A ZONKEY EEEEEEEEEEEE -fangirl hugging moment-

I LOVE ZONKEYS

 

Uh. Ahem. Anyways.

 

Yeah. The species = dragon, the subtypes = breed.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Verridith

[Ribombee]

As I mentioned, I am really not too bothered by the terms we have because real scientific terms are already so loose. Applying them to fantastical creatures is bound to not quite work.

 

However, even from a scientific perspective, I see no reason that the different types of dragons that breed together could not be considered the same species. As long as you are not changing fundamental genetic compatibility (especially via a change in the chromosome number) or causing differences in mate recognition, just adding mutations in a few genes can cause drastic effects in morphology while still maintaining the ability for the two types to interbreed. Yes, it's possible that a deep sea dragon and a magma would never meet in the wild, but that doesn't automatically define a different species, either. Go back a few centuries, and an Akita (Japanese breed) would never have met up with a chihuahua (South American breed), but the two are still considered to be the same species now and can interbreed.

 

Even in wild populations of animals, this is true. My own research organism, the apple maggot fly, has two host races that very rarely have overlapping populations. There are few areas that have both hawthorn trees and apple trees close enough to one another for any interbreeding to occur. Even then, there are temporal differences in that the two different trees fruit at different times of the year. So they metamorphose into adults and mate at different times of the year. Yet they are still considered, by most people, to be the same species.

 

Tails and limbs can be removed or added while still remaining the same species. Drosophila flies have a mutation that causes their antennae to be replaced by legs (cool, right?). They have extra legs but are still the same species. A mutation in genes related to embryonic development can cause really drastic changes in the way the animal comes out, but it's still the same species.

 

For these reasons, I personally think that breed is a perfectly acceptable term to use.

[Prince_Xanthius]

Although I am mostly in the camp of 'I really couldn't care less,' I have to just put my two cents in that I think species is a better term than breed.

 

Everyone seems to have concentrated on the definition of species (which is complicated and inconsistent at the best of times) but my main reason for preferring 'species' is that the word 'breed' is used almost exclusively to described varieties of an animal that has been deliberately bred for - all those dogs/horses etc exist because at some point in history HUMANS DECIDED TO BREED THEM LIKE THAT. They are not therefore wild animals; the variation did not occur naturally. DC presents its dragons as being wild animals that have been caught and raised from the egg - the variety seen was not created by humans, and therefore they are not breeds.

 

Of course I may be wrong about my definition of breed, but off the top of my head I cannot think of any exceptions. Breeds are domestic, man-made varieties and species/subspecies/etc etc are naturally occurring wild varietied.

[KageSora]

DRAGONS, which the specifies are Wyverns, Pygmies, Drakes etc etc. Because - it's been found that they can't interbreed with one another - at least most.

MOST of them can actually interbreed.

 

There are a grand total of three exceptions to this--drakes (which, from what I understand isn't actually so much a "they physically cannot bred" thing as "dragons are more intelligent/sentient than drakes and don't want to breed with them" sort of thing), pygmies (which is probably size-related more than anything else), and two-heads (which could be genetic incompatibility as mates or I suppose could be a "two-heads don't want to breed with one-heads like dragons don't want to breed with drakes" sort of thing--since number and type of body parts being drastically different hasn't been an issue so far).

 

Sea-serpents, Wyverns, Easterns, Westerns, and Lindwurms are, to date, all capable of inter-breeding and producing viable, fertile offspring in the game, with certain crosses producing hybrids.

 

There are 5 that can interbreed, 3 that can't, so out of the 8 varieties we currently have, more than half are capable of interbreeding