Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaian-a-coel]

I am OK with the "green ridgeback drake". Everything else doesn't deserve "drake" in its name. The merchants' pack animal looks more like a giant bear who took a stone in the face, while the tusked things looks like some mammalian reptile from Earth's late-Permian era, whose name I cant remember.

[forsaken1111]

Proposal:

Hats are now known as Fluffy Wambledrakes.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Nice try, but you won't trick me into walking over the bottomless pit. The fact is that a name is only as good as its consistency, and if you include everything that has ever been referred to as a dragon(This would likely include a few abstract concepts and methodologies) then the word doesn't really mean anything at all. We have basically seen the equivalent of a shark, tuna, squid, and whale. There is no real reason to believe that they are particularly closely related, and none of them show the least signs of being any more draconic than an average lizard.

Putting aside how tunas and whales actually aren't that distantly related, and how squids look nothing like the others, there actually are morphological traits linking the Brown Tusked and Green Ridgebacked drakes.
And while we're at it, how about I point out the number of animals grouped together under one name despite being a nonmonophyletic group, or even being paraphyletic?

Proposal:

Hats are now known as Fluffy Wambledrakes.

That's just silly and it seems to be strawmanning my position.

[kaian-a-coel]

Namely fishes, yes. But may I point out that whales are more closely related to us humans than to tuna?
Besides, naming a furry bear-like thing "drake" is kinda stretching the thing... Maaaybe the tusked things, but not the stoneface.

[forsaken1111]

Proposal:

Hats are now known as Fluffy Wambledrakes.

That's just silly and it seems to be strawmanning my position.

No more silly than calling everything a drake just because it has one or two features which may or may not show some similarity to a mythical animal.

[RAM]

Noooooo! Not my hats! First they fail to use "hats" as both the plural and singular term, but now they threaten them with being draked!

[GreatWyrmGold]

Namely fishes, yes. But may I point out that whales are more closely related to us humans than to tuna?

Point being?

Besides, naming a furry bear-like thing "drake" is kinda stretching the thing... Maaaybe the tusked things, but not the stoneface.

It's furry?
And the tusked ones show clear similarities, for instance in the morphologies of their limbs and dorsal surfaces.

Proposal:

Hats are now known as Fluffy Wambledrakes.

That's just silly and it seems to be strawmanning my position.

No more silly than calling everything a drake just because it has one or two features which may or may not show some similarity to a mythical animal.

Actually, it is and I was correct that you were strawmanning me.

[forsaken1111]

I was just expressing that I feel its silly to name everything after drakes.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I was just expressing that I feel its silly to name everything after drakes.

I'm not. Just creatures that seem similar to an extant species of drake, as the Tusked and Stonefaced ones seem to be to me.

[RAM]

Namely fishes, yes. But may I point out that whales are more closely related to us humans than to tuna?

Point being?

The actual point is that in most environments, the various roles are inhabited by quite different, and very differently named, creatures. Given that we are working from a consistent and, somewhat, simplified art-style, it seems that the various creatures should have differing identifiers. Not that I have anything against a world where all wildlife is a form of dragon, I just don't believe that this is such a world...

[GreatWyrmGold]

Namely fishes, yes. But may I point out that whales are more closely related to us humans than to tuna?

Point being?

The actual point is that in most environments, the various roles are inhabited by quite different, and very differently named, creatures. Given that we are working from a consistent and, somewhat, simplified art-style, it seems that the various creatures should have differing identifiers. Not that I have anything against a world where all wildlife is a form of dragon, I just don't believe that this is such a world...

You're strawmanning my point. Three, count 'em, three, creatures have had the name "drake" suggested by me. There have been close to a dozen creatures encountered. What's more, two of the species have such similar characteristics that we may assume relation until autopsies prove otherwise, especially as their lifestyles appear to be sufficiently different as to bring into question why both would have ridged backs, while the third is so vaguely drawn that it could come from nearly any tetrapod lineage. (I'm not even quite ready to rule out avian).
You turn this into me saying "EVRYTHING'S A DRAKE!"
See why I don't like the argument you're making?

[Angle]

I'm gonna have to side with GWG on this one. Also that discussion is eating up way more thread space than it needs to.

Can we make any headway on lighting up the mine? It'd be cool to breach that first cavern sometime soon.

[RAM]

Even a white slab has enough reflective properties to help...

[kaian-a-coel]

maybe we should try a honey metal mirror?

[10ebbor10]

Or, you know, just use torches. They don't use that much oxygen, after all. If the mine is sloped even a little, the air should circulate enough for it to work.