Replace "breed" with "species"

[grimace]

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.

No, those are very similar animals in the scheme of things.

Those horses might be very different in terms of horses, but the variation is practically nothing when you look at animals as a whole, or the variation you see in DC dragons.

The difference in horse breeds as you said are things like different colors, slightly different builds, etc. You still don't have things where the difference between breeds are as huge as differing numbers of limbs, completely different body styles, etc.

 

Kind of like how there aren't carnivorous bipedal horses, or winged horses with a long prehensile tail, or horses with a large shell and gills.

 

I guess "its magic" is a semi viable excuse, I just thought DC didn't like that as reasoning.

Edited May 5, 2014 by grimace

[grimace]

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.

Yes, but it takes more than a few genes between most of DC's stuff. You don't just change a few genes on a huge flying animal with 6 limbs, and get a long serpentine creature with completely different everything, along with fins and gills.

 

Again, akitas and chihuahuas are incredibly similar animals when you get down to it.

Comparing dcs dragons is more like comparing a bullfrog and an elephant.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, butthe -only- thing all the dragons here share in common is they are all vertebrates.

[Fuzzbucket]

No, those are very similar animals in the scheme of things.

Those horses might be very different in terms of horses, but the variation is practically nothing when you look at animals as a whole, or the variation you see in DC dragons.

The difference in horse breeds as you said are things like different colors, slightly different builds, etc. You still don't have things where the difference between breeds are  as huge as differing numbers of limbs, completely different body styles, etc.

 

Kind of like how there aren't carnivorous bipedal horses, or winged horses with a long prehensile tail, or horses with a large shell and gills.

 

I guess "its magic" is a semi viable excuse, I just thought DC didn't like that as reasoning.

Exactly. They all look much the same to a non horsy person like me

 

What they do NOT look like, and what they cannot breed with - for instance - is cats.

 

Now Felidae are a species, I believe. All these can breed together - and look rather less alike than those horses.:

 

 

But not all Felines can breed together, although they are all so similar in so many ways (think drakes and pygmies):

 

And especially not all Felidae:

Sure, that's a bit extreme, but still....

Sorry there are rather a lot of pix. I am a CAT person....

Edited May 5, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[Guillotine]

Exactly. They all look much the same to a non horsy person like me

 

What they do NOT look like, and what they cannot breed with - for instance - is cats.

 

Now Felidae are a species, I believe. All these can breed together - and look rather less alike than those horses.:

 

[cats]

 

But not all Felines can breed together, although they are all so similar in so many ways (think drakes and pygmies): [cats again]

 

And especially not all Felidae: [more cats]

Sure, that's a bit extreme, but still....

Sorry there are rather a lot of pix. I am a CAT person....

Family, actually. The lion species name is "Panthera leo" while, say, a housecat's species name is "Felis silvestris catus". They're pretty massively distinct, genetically speaking. That said, IIRC they do breed with each other fairly easily, comparatively speaking (Liger, servical, Euro-chaus, Bengal cats, ect.).

 

And yeah, the only similarity most DC dragons share is that they're egg-laying vertebrates. It's like a platypus and a chicken having offspring.

[Fuzzbucket]

Yeah I know - the tiger was for fun - so was the jaguarundi.

 

But the principle holds - we could call our dragons a family, and members of families can often breed but not always (cf drakes and waters !) but still - why does the name matter ? It WORKS !

[cyradis4]

Yeah I know - the tiger was for fun - so was the jaguarundi.

 

But the principle holds - we could call our dragons a family, and members of families can often breed but not always (cf drakes and waters !) but still - why does the name matter ? It WORKS !

This.

 

We can debate till the cows come home (which is an odd saying, as anyone who's been on a farm knows the cows do, indeed, come home every night, if they are habituated to it).

 

I've been involved in the tropical fish husbandry industry (Cichlids, mainly) and I've done some research on genetics and the like, and species and the like, because of how.... mushy the species definitions for Cichlids can be. I imported a lot of wilds of certain species, and it was very important to be able to tell one species from another.

 

No matter what we call them, drakes will still only breed with drakes, pygmies will only breed with pygmies, and no matter what we call them, some people will disagree.

 

BTW, fuzz, I am a horse person (and not a cat person), and I had to laugh at your comment about not being able to tell a Fresian apart from an Arabian. When I see them, I see two horses that are worlds apart, both in historical use, breeding, characteristics, abilities, and looks. I see more difference between those two than I do with your cat example, in truth. But then, my interest in cats is limited to "oh my, these two cats need homes after their previous owners died, I might as well give them a good home, my dogs won't mind".

 

There is just as much variation in horses as there are among cats and dogs. With horses, it tends to be more along the lines of abilities than straight looks, but just like I can't see much variation in your cats, I wouldn't expect you to see much variation in my horses. And the examples of horses aren't the best. A better one would be a Quarterhorse with a Birkshire Curly with a Shire with a miniature horse with a Fjord. Trust me, even you can see the differences between them! Just like I can see the obvious differences in your cats (the no-hair, vs the floofy hair vs the long hair).

 

Its all perspective and what you know.

 

Cheers!

C4.

[dragongrrl]

There's a Wikipedia article on Lumpers and Splitters, a fair starting point if anyone wants to read more on the controversies regarding taxonomic and other group distinctions, here.

 

From the article:

A "lumper" is an individual who takes a gestalt view of a definition, and assigns examples broadly, assuming that differences are not as important as signature similarities. A "splitter" is an individual who takes precise definitions, and creates new categories to classify samples that differ in key ways.

 

I guess I'll go with lumping for our dragons. Have fun!

[Fuzzbucket]

BTW, fuzz, I am a horse person (and not a cat person), and I had to laugh at your comment about not being able to tell a Fresian apart from an Arabian. When I see them, I see two horses that are worlds apart, both in historical use, breeding, characteristics, abilities, and looks. I see more difference between those two than I do with your cat example, in truth. But then, my interest in cats is limited to "oh my, these two cats need homes after their previous owners died, I might as well give them a good home, my dogs won't mind".

 

There is just as much variation in horses as there are among cats and dogs. With horses, it tends to be more along the lines of abilities than straight looks, but just like I can't see much variation in your cats, I wouldn't expect you to see much variation in my horses. And the examples of horses aren't the best. A better one would be a Quarterhorse with a Birkshire Curly with a Shire with a miniature horse with a Fjord. Trust me, even you can see the differences between them! Just like I can see the obvious differences in your cats (the no-hair, vs the floofy hair vs the long hair).

 

Its all perspective and what you know.

 

Cheers!

C4.

Oh I can see the variations if I look carefully - and I am also aware of the Suffolk Punch with its whacking great feet and unusually big head.

 

But they do look a lot more like generic horses than some cats look like generic cats - I did post one where you can't even see its eyes, but it apparently had a dynamic host, so... But surely that furless cat, for instance... None of the horses posted look as unhorsy as that one does uncatty

[cyradis4]

Oh I can see the variations if I look carefully - and I am also aware of the Suffolk Punch with its whacking great feet and unusually big head.

 

But they do look a lot more like generic horses than some cats look like generic cats - I did post one where you can't even see its eyes, but it apparently had a dynamic host, so... But surely that furless cat, for instance... None of the horses posted look as unhorsy as that one does uncatty

All your perspective. All of those cats looked very catty to me. The differences are, with cats, its all in the looks. Cats are cats, they can't be ridden and other than mousing, they aren't working animals. They do have varying personalities, but really, looks and temperment are all that they have. Horses are almost all working animals, in origin. Even the Shetland Pony was bred to pull coal carts. As such, their defining features are ability, temperament, looks, in that order.

 

So, if you want to do an endurance race? Arabians are your thing!

If you want to jump 7ft fences? Go with a warmblood of one type or another.

If you want to race at a mile and a quarter? Go with the Thoroughbred.

If you want to race at a quarter mile? Choose a Quarterhorse.

Want a performance horse with a good disposition? Andalusian are excellent at dressage and can even do a bit of jumping with a fantastic disposition, and of course Warmbloods are good, too.

If you want a horse to pull farm equipment, the Shire is your animal, but watch out! Those feet are bigger than dinner plates and you can probably fit a half dozen people on his back, but they can sure be fun to ride (if you don't mind the earth trembling under you as they move).

If you need a good pulling horse but need small size? Try the Shetland Pony. But be careful! They like mischief.

Want a gaited horse? The Fox Trotter and the Paso Fino are good, but make sure of which gait you want, both of their special gaits are different, and there are other horses with special gaits as well.

Want to race a horse at the trot? Try the Standardbred, but be careful! The pacers are pure murder under saddle, the pace is not a good gait to ride, and even the trotters among them aren't fun to go under saddle but are fantastic between the traces.

Want a warhorse? The Fresians excel at that, and also under saddle and at pulling carts, and they are pretty with good personalities, too!

 

So see? I see many more differences between horses than I see in your cats. Not all visible to the casual observer, but you can't judge a book by its cover.

 

Cheers!

C4.

[Verridith]

No, those are very similar animals in the scheme of things.

Those horses might be very different in terms of horses, but the variation is practically nothing when you look at animals as a whole, or the variation you see in DC dragons.

The difference in horse breeds as you said are things like different colors, slightly different builds, etc. You still don't have things where the difference between breeds are as huge as differing numbers of limbs, completely different body styles, etc.

 

Kind of like how there aren't carnivorous bipedal horses, or winged horses with a long prehensile tail, or horses with a large shell and gills.

 

I guess "its magic" is a semi viable excuse, I just thought DC didn't like that as reasoning.

But you seem to be failing to understand the point we're trying to make here. It's a fantasy world; yes, there is a fair amount of realism in play (much more than my own site, for instance, haha), but the concept of species/subspecies/breeds is sound for the world it's used in. The species is 'dragon'; the subtypes are 'wyvern', 'western', 'amphithere', etc; the breeds are 'Golden Wyvern', 'Red', 'Pebble', 'Ice', etc etc etc. The other species are DC Drake, Two-Head, Pygmy, etc.

 

(:

 

But they do look a lot more like generic horses than some cats look like generic cats - I did post one  where you can't even see its eyes, but it apparently had a dynamic host, so... But surely that furless cat, for instance... None of the horses posted look as unhorsy as that one does uncatty

This made me look up hairless horse pictures. OMG. They still look like horses, mostly, but OMG. D: It's a lethal syndrome in the Akhal Teke breed apparently. Poor baaaabies.

 

BTW, fuzz, I am a horse person (and not a cat person), and I had to laugh at your comment about not being able to tell a Fresian apart from an Arabian. When I see them, I see two horses that are worlds apart, both in historical use, breeding, characteristics, abilities, and looks. I see more difference between those two than I do with your cat example, in truth. But then, my interest in cats is limited to "oh my, these two cats need homes after their previous owners died, I might as well give them a good home, my dogs won't mind".

 

There is just as much variation in horses as there are among cats and dogs. With horses, it tends to be more along the lines of abilities than straight looks, but just like I can't see much variation in your cats, I wouldn't expect you to see much variation in my horses. And the examples of horses aren't the best. A better one would be a Quarterhorse with a Birkshire Curly with a Shire with a miniature horse with a Fjord. Trust me, even you can see the differences between them! Just like I can see the obvious differences in your cats (the no-hair, vs the floofy hair vs the long hair).

This made me giggle. Yay horse people!

 

I just grabbed a few breeds off the top of my head, but toootally what you say there. Fjords, for instance, are probably one of the most unique horse breeds I've ever met. We need a Fjord-maned dragon! (:

[olympe]

I think that the problem some people see is that all horses share certain traits: 4 legs, each having only one digit at its end that ends in a hoof, some kind of mane and hairy tail, a certain basic body type (big chest, strong neck, a certain kind of head)... (Or, alternately, for cats: 4 legs ending in 4 or five toes (usually), retractable claws on each toe/finger, a long tail, reflective eyes with a slitted pupil, whiskers, pointy teeth and a number of others.

 

However, our dragons are much more diverse: Some have no limbs whatsoever (at least some on the completed list lack all limbs), others have one set of wings and nothing but, others two or more sets of wings; some have 2 legs (wyverns) or 4 legs, some with or without wings; some have other kinds of digits than wings or arms/legs, too. Some have a single tail, others a split tail; some dragons have feathers, others possess fur, and others are simply scaled.

 

Sure, there are mutations in animals that change the number of digits. There are fruit fly (drosophila) mutations that change an antennae (partially) into a leg (antennapedia), or add a second set of wings (bithorax), or add eyes to their legs (no idea what that was called) or leave them without wings or with very small wings that are invisible to the naked eye (stumpy?) or even without eyes. Yet they're all fruit fly, which can be proven by the fact that they can still breed with each other, no matter what kind of mutation they possess. (Well, maybe not the males with the fruitless mutation...)

 

However, our dragons are all dragons, which can also be proven by the fact that they can interbreed without many restrictions - despite their immense differences. (This is probably the case because our dragons are magical creatures.) So I feel that the term "breed" for each "kind" of dragon (red dragon, nebula dragon, bluna...) describes them perfectly. A more biological term - that's often used as an equivalent to breed - is subspecies. The most important difference seems to be that subspecies happen without humans actually breeding the animals involved. So, uh, subspecies?

 

Personally, I prefer breed.

Edited May 5, 2014 by olympe

[Fuzzbucket]

Personally, I prefer breed.

To get back to the point - so do I - it has served us well for many years, so...

[cyradis4]

Hahaha, add me to the "prefers breed" category. It can be argued either way, but I think breed fits best.

 

Cheers!

C4.

[ShorahNagi]

I'm with those who feel breed is fine.

 

To me;

 

Dragon is the species of almost all creatures on this site *Leetle Tree, Chicken, and Dinos excluded*

 

Wyverns, Two-heads, DC Drakes, etc - are subspecies classifications.

 

Then the name of the Dragon itself is the Breed.

 

So to me - for a few examples:

 

Golden Wyvern

 

Species: Dragon

Subspecies: Wyvern

Breed: Golden

 

Silver Dragon

 

Species: Dragon

Subspecies: Eastern Dragon

Breed: Silver

 

Chicken

 

Species: Bird

Subspecies: Chicken

Breed: Leghorn (White) or Plymouth Rock (at least - to me the chicken looks likes one of these breeds)

[Prince_Xanthius]

I still feel that breed implies deliberate breeding by man resulting in the features seen.

 

Dogs, horses, cats are domesticated have breeds developed by humans.

 

Tigers, elephants, butterflies, fish have species or subspecies that occurred naturally.

 

Given our dragons are wild-found, I think species would be the better term.

[KageSora]

Not all of them are originating in the wild, though. I'd imagine that, while we find paper and cheese eggs in the wild, those are actually man-made since they don't breed.

 

Hybrids are also the result of breeding since they don't come from the wild.

 

And what of alts? Those would be a breed, despite all other blacks/vines being a species. You'll either have to have inconsistent using of terms alternating between breed and species if you try to argue that those that come from teh willd are a species since we do have man-created "breeds", or you'll have to label them "incorrectly".

[olympe]

I still feel that breed implies deliberate breeding by man resulting in the features seen.

 

Dogs, horses, cats are domesticated have breeds developed by humans.

 

Tigers, elephants, butterflies, fish have species or subspecies that occurred naturally.

 

Given our dragons are wild-found, I think species would be the better term.

And in most cases, different species don't interbreed. At least not in the wild. And if they do, in most cases of higher vertebrate hybrids (but not all!), the offspring are infertile.

 

See the difference to our dragons? So, uh, species really doesn't work properly. Subspecies would fit - but it's a mouthful and a very uncommon term many players who are not native speakers of English (or have some kind of degree in biology) might have a problem with the term.

[Naruhina_94]

I'm with those who feel breed is fine.

 

To me;

 

Dragon is the species of almost all creatures on this site *Leetle Tree, Chicken, and Dinos excluded*

 

Wyverns, Two-heads, DC Drakes, etc - are subspecies classifications.

 

Then the name of the Dragon itself is the Breed.

 

So to me - for a few examples:

 

Golden Wyvern

 

Species: Dragon

Subspecies: Wyvern

Breed: Golden

 

Silver Dragon

 

Species: Dragon

Subspecies: Eastern Dragon

Breed: Silver

 

Chicken

 

Species: Bird

Subspecies: Chicken

Breed: Leghorn (White) or Plymouth Rock (at least - to me the chicken looks likes one of these breeds)

this is really nice as classification, but what about Two Headed Lindwurm? It's both two head and Lindwurm.

I think that their breed limits should be the first way to classify them.

 

Golden Wyvern

 

Species: Dragon

Subspecies: Wyvern

Breed: Golden

 

Silver Dragon

 

Species: Dragon

Subspecies: Eastern Dragon

Breed: Silver

 

Blusang

 

Species: Dragon

Subspecies: Lindwurm

Breed: Blusang

 

Two Head

 

Species: Two Head Dragon

Subtype: PURE Two Head Dragon

Breed: Two Head

 

Two Head Lindwurm

 

Species: Two Head Dragon

Subspecies: Lindwurm

Breed: Two Head Lindwurm

 

 

In this way we could differentiate even between pigmy and two head pigmy or Drakes and Linduwurm Drakes if they will ever be proposed.

[Guillotine]

Landraces or strains are what breeds are called when natural (the former has more diversity than artificial breeds). Subspecies is a different thing altogether (dogs are a subspecies of grey wolf and domestic horses are a subspecies of Equus ferus, for instance). That said, they may not be clear to ESL users. And we've already discussed how many (not just some) species hybridize very easily in the wild.

 

Species works fine, but if you dislike it that much consider "variety"; it's effectively the same as subspecies.

[Pikabubba]

I'm fine with the word breed as well. It's worked fine for years here.

[Ha-Ki]

*snip* but thinking about all that would have to be changed ("Breed" Specific Action would no longer be called that, etc etc) I wonder if enough people care for it to be messed with.

Species Specific Action sounds weird

 

Reading the OP, I thought it was a good idea, but the other posts have convinced me that "species" is not a better term. Since both are not accurate, I prefer to leave it as it is.

[Emerald01]

DC dragons are obviously not from selective breeding, and are absolutely different species. You don't get "breeds" of an animal with such huge differences. I mean we are defining a group that is so varied as one species.

Um. Have you ever seen dogs? Tons of different breeds with varying characteristics. The current dragon system fits this setup. There are different species in the form of two-headed dragons, wyverns, pygmies, etc. But those that an be bred with each other do fall under the category of breeds. Just sayin'

[Guillotine]

Dogs really aren't that different-looking from each other when you get down to it. They vary widely in size due to deliberate selection and intense inbreeding, but the basic body plan is identical; you don't have breeds of dogs that are hexapods and others that are bipedal and anything in between, much less all breeding freely.

[Lagie]

Keep breed. It's been working fine, and we all know what we mean!

 

Canines are a species. Chihuahuas are different from Great Danes as mints are different from duotones. Granted most dogs don't have two heads, or no front legs, but the basic premise is the same.

[edwardelricfreak]

I assume that a the whole genus is "Dragon", or maybe the subfamily or something. From there, you have 4 species: regular dragons, pygmies, drakes, and two-heads. From there is the different breeds. Drakes actually might be separated more from the rest of the dragons. IIRC they are actually "dragons" in a way but are more primitive.

 

I also assume that dragons as a whole just, strangely, have a wider array of variation between them. Actually maybe the different variations are the species, and then it gets into breeds? o3o

 

And actually, it's also possible that maybe the family is "Dragon", and from there it splits into dragons and drakes in the subfamily. Then you have the genus Drakes (or Ochredrakes or something) under the Drake subfamily, and the genera pygmies, two-heads, and regular dragons for the Dragon subfamily. Species is the kind they are (winged, two legs, four legs, no legs, sea serpent, etc), and then finally breeds are, well, the different breeds.

 

Anyway, biological classification aside, I still think breed is fine and it would be too much effort put into changing anything with a marginal not-worth-it outcome.