Draconic Taxonomy

Casual observers may initially perceive dragons as reptilian in nature. While it is true that both have scales and hatch from eggs, dragons differ from reptiles in at least one important respect: they are warm-blooded. In the field, the crews of harnessed dragons may seek shelter against their dragon's sides for the warmth given off. Sir Edward Howe notes that "heavier dragons greatly prefer warm environs, where their air sacs can more easily compensate for their great weight" (Howe, 1796), and certainly all dragons enjoy basking in warm locations. However, warmth appears to be a pleasure rather than an absolute necessity for them. Young heavy-weight dragons - including a Regal Copper, one of the largest breeds - have been observed to frolic in the icy waters of Loch Laggan with great enjoyment. The basking behaviour of dragons may thus be compared more closely to that of some mammals (notably, cats) rather than the behaviour of reptiles such as iguanas.

The particular combination of scales and eggs with warm blood is the hallmark of the order Draconia, first described by Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) in his Systema Naturae. Later researchers in the field of evolutionary theory established by Charles Darwin (1809-1882) have established that both dragons and birds are descended from dinosaurs, specifically from the primarily carnivorous theropods rather than herbivorous sauropodomorphans or ornithischians.

There is a paucity of data concerning members of the order Draconia other than dragons themselves. The one notable exception are the sea-serpents or, more properly, sea-dragons (kiao in Chinese), which are known to live in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, as well as the China Sea.

The evolution of draconic flight

Sir Edward Howe notes that "the most common French breeds, the Pecheur-Couronne and the Pecheur-Raye, are more closely related to the Widowmaker breed than to the Reapers, if we may judge by wing confirmation and the structure of the breast-bone, which in both breeds is keeled and fused with the clavicle. This anatomical peculiarity renders them both more useful for breeding down into light-combat and courier breeds, rather than into heavy-combat breeds" (Howe, 1796).

Note that the keeled breast-bone and fused clavicle typical of Widowmakers and Pecheurs are known to exist among other vertebrates only in birds. It would appear from Sir Edward's description that Reapers and larger breeds have breast-bones and clavicles more similar to those of bats. However, in both birds and bats, the wings exist as modifications of the forelegs. Dragons are unique in having two wings plus four legs, suggesting that they may have evolved from land animals with six limbs.

This suggestion may at first appear to make it impossible for dragons to share, along with mammals, bird and reptiles, an evolutionary descent from the earliest Devonian members of the Superclass Tetrapoda of the Subphylum Vertebrata. However, if one chooses to postulate an entirely separate Superclass - "Hexapoda" - at least two problems arise. One is the lack of evidence, either living or fossil, for other hexapodal lifeforms which have any other notable characteristics in common with dragons. There is no obvious resemblance, for example, between dragons and insects. The other problem is that almost every characteristic demonstrated by dragons aside from the number of limbs (i.e., legs plus wings) is shared by some branch of tetrapodal fauna, either reptilian, avian or mammalian.

The sharp blade of Occam's razor leaves little choice but to postulate that dragons, like snakes, are members of Tetrapoda, even though one group has six limbs and the other none. It appears that at some point in history, the first protodraconid species developed a third pair of limbs forward of the forelegs. It may be that these "ultraforelegs" were never either used or useful for terrestrial locomotion but instead developed directly into wings.

The body structure of dragons' close relatives, the sea-serpents, may be of use in the eventual unravelling of this mystery. One sea-serpent observed in the Indian Ocean in 1806, the largest on record at 250 feet long, was noted to have had forelegs which were spindly in proportion to the rest of its body, with webbing stretched between relatively long, taloned fingers. It may be that these were in fact not true forelegs at all, but rather were expressions of the same "ultraforelegs" that later developed into wings in draconic species.

Species or breeds?

It remains unclear whether all sapient dragons are members of one species (Draco sapiens) or rather represent different species of the same genus. Sir Edward's phrasing might imply that it is simply more practical to breed Pecheurs down, but it might also imply that in fact Pecheurs (and other breeds with keeled, fused breast-bones, such as Widowmakers) are infertile with Reapers and heavier breeds. The defining trait of a species is that its members can not produce fertile offspring - if they produce any offspring at all - when interbred with members of other species. It may be that the many European breeds of dragons represent variants or perhaps subspecies of two distinct species, typified among native British breeds by Widowmakers on one hand and Reapers on the other.

It is also not clear whether European breeds are of the same species as breeds of dragons from China, Central Asia, Africa or the Americas. A Dakota dragon from Western Canada was resident for at least a while in two British breeding grounds, Newfoundland and Pen Y Fan, but there is no report of resulting eggs. The same is true for a young male Celestial resident for a period of three months at Pen Y Fan, who had also bred previously with a Yellow Reaper. Feral dragons from the Pamir Mountains in Central Asia brought to Britain in 1806 and 1807 appear to have preferred to breed with each other.

Celestials represent a particularly interesting case of the difficulties of establishing a draconic taxonomy. They are known to be able to breed with Imperials. In fact, periodically a Celestial may be born from the mating of two Imperials, Lung Tien Xian being an example. This suggests that Celestials and Imperials are variants of the same species, with the Celestial phenotype perhaps arising from the expression of recessive traits carried by Imperials. (An alternate hypothesis, that Celestials represent a spontaneous mutation among Imperials, does not explain why Celestial traits are consistent among different lineages. One would expect spontaneous mutations to have random effects.)

However, this leads to the question: are Celestials and Imperials interfertile with other Chinese breeds? We are unlikely to ever find out. The reverence with which the Chinese themselves regard these two breeds would prevent them from attempting to interbreed them with lesser Chinese dragons. Thus, the question remains unanswered: are we dealing with Draco sinensis var. caelestis and Draco sinensis var. imperialis - or Draco imperialis var. caelestis and Draco imperialis var. imperialis?

References:

Observations on the Order Draconia in Europe, with Notes on the Oriental Breeds, Sir Edward Howe, F.R.S., chapter V. Published by John Murray, Albemarle Street, London, 1796.