dragons from a magic realism perspective

[Cory Swanson]

Think about it, four legs and two wings hasn’t happened anywhere else in nature. The Wyvern above is the most believable body plan when you think about animals that have evolved wings. There’s also never been an animal that large that could fly. Weight and power to lift ratios require compromises.

 

[anno]

 

[The Big Peat]

Apols if someone's already said this, but why does the Dragon need to be a product of natural selection? The concept of breeding animals to achieve certain aims is known to us both from real life, and in way more OTT fashions from fantasy. If you have an animal whose lethality and dietary requirements are way overengineering for what natural selection requires, possibly even to its detriment, why not have that be the product of someone looking for a race of killers?

Also just a thought but nature is full of impractical evolutions that are used solely to get mates. A dragon's characteristics may have nothing to do with hunting or defence and everything to do with what dragons find attractive.

This is true. I believe antlers are considered by some biologists to be something that's half and half, in that they're not the best defensive measure but they do get the bachelor stags all that tail.

When I said cast iron I meant it metaphorically. It's an expression used in the western US. (Perhaps not elsewhere?) For instance, people who can eat great quantities of spicy foods and not suffer indigestion are said to have cast iron stomachs. People who are not easily upset by traumatic events are said to have cast iron nerves. And so forth. It just means something that is strong enough to resist things that would ordinarily cause discomfort or harm.

Standard British usage too.

 

[scarpelius]

Think about it, four legs and two wings hasn’t happened anywhere else in nature.

If you are referring to mammals and reptiles/birds, you are correct.
But nature also give birth to insects, where 4 legs is a minimum. A Dragonfly have 6 legs and 4 wings.

As for "never been an animal that large that could fly" you should look for Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopteryx which fall pretty easy in a dragon size category.

 

[anno]

How about bats?
Fully articulated arm with a thumb and fingers forming the wing membrane base and two legs to scoop prey, mid flight and feed?

 

[asher marquering]

thank you everyone for you comments

my thought simply was that a fire breath/spit is so effective for both offensive and defensive actions that it would effectively count as a "crippling overspecialization", reducing said creature to the point that most modern adaptations would become vestigial, regressing it to sessility from a evolutionary point of view

@scarpelius my understanding of the bombadier beetle was that the exothermic reaction merely facilitates the release of the chemical its not the purpose of the defence, the chemical is the purpose which acts as an irritant, not quite a flame spurt, also it is a mid level carnivore making it necessary to have said defence mechanism but more on that in a bit

@Ihe I agree on the size and the flight unless, this fire breathing/spitting creature was in fact aquatic, most larger creatures are partly or completely aquatic, (i.e. Saltwater Crocodile, Anacondas, Whales) which would also make sense form the sessility POV, most sessile creatures are aquatic or coastal, perhaps the wings weren't wings at all and merely looked that way from the first sailors that described these humongous creatures, perhaps the wings are in fact a filter feeding mechanism, building further on the idea of a sessile fire breather/spitter

essentially from an evolutionary point of view the European/Western Archetype breaks many rules, i.e. its extremely difficult to have a creature that is big AND carnivourous AND can fly AND has a flame breath/spit, unless the creatures existence is partially magic/constructed through supernatural means or their is some sort of equally magical, supernatural or miraculous evolutionary/predatory pressure necessitating all of those adaptation in a single organisms, which bring me to ...

a realistic competitor to a dragon in the European/Western archetype would be a take on a hyperthermophiles currently only ones described are methanogen microorganisms, effectively resistant to high temperatures from deep subterranean near molten rock but not really flames, and I'm not quite sure one can claim that because a creature lives on or around a rock that is heated to >100* C, it would survive a flame of the same temperature, I may be wrong, if you could however, these creatures would live deep underground and be plant like since the basis for energy generation is catabolic, i.e. the production of methane, and a plant like phenotype best fit catabolic cellular machinery, their presence/survival above ground would in fact make it necessary that the environment that supports them effectively change as well, a carbon dioxide and hydrogen rich atmosphere, quite a bit more difficult to do in the context of human cell biology

but Dragons vs. ? Feculant Ents of the Underdark... could work I guess

 

[Ihe]

If you are referring to mammals and reptiles/birds, you are correct.
But nature also give birth to insects, where 4 legs is a minimum. A Dragonfly have 6 legs and 4 wings.
As for "never been an animal that large that could fly" you should look for Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopteryx which fall pretty easy in a dragon size category.

Good point, but hollow bones simply don't scream "unbeatable powerhouse" to me. Maybe the smaller dragons would be able to fly with this and the air sacks throughout their bodies and wings, but at the cost of losing out on toughness. And there should be nothing tougher than a dragon! I read on those pterosaurs and theories for their weight ranged from 75kg to over 500kg apparently. I would assume the typical fantasy dragon would be much heavier than this? Or simply make them smaller, like those pterosaurs. Scales would probably have to go though, no? Feathers are probably more efficient.

Maybe you can get creative with the dragons' life cycle. They could initially fly when small (moving out of their "home" to conquer their own territory--flying would be essential for the migration), then glide as they mature, and gradually lose out their ability to lift off at all as they grow older and heavier (and by then they shouldn't need to move long distances, as their territory would be a certainty at that point)?

PS: ah, @asher marquering, didn't see your last post in time: aquatic creatures are a whole 'nother story. You can make them huge, but them being sessile is still a hard sell. The bigger they are the more they consume. You probably need it to move in order to acquire those sorta quantities, and to reproduce, unless they do so through spores or whatnot. On your point of regression and vestigial traits, I'll maintain that being able to move / relocate is possibly the greatest evolutionary advantage any organism can ever have. Once acquired, it'll never become a vestigial trait, because it is something you will always need one way or the other. It is adaptation's Swiss Army knife. Evolution would strip dragons of their firebreath before it stripped them of their movement options, IMO.

 

[Plucky Novice]

And there should be nothing tougher than a dragon!

Ahem....Kraken.

I think I've lost sight of the point of this thread!

 

[scarpelius]

Who says they are unbeatable? I've just killed a couple of dozen last week. But then again I was Dragonborn

Any way, we are talking fantasy here, so lets keep dragons as they are, because anything else is not going to be a dragon.

 

[HareBrain]

But as for your dragon, asher, it seems to me is that first the dragons must have evolved to not self-incinerate due to such internal combustion, long before the ability to generate fire evolved.

That's true, but this ...

So the first thing to do if you want your dragons to obey natural laws, is to figure out how that would have been an advantageous mutation to pass on even before they became fire-breathing dragons.

... not quite. It would merely have to be a not-disadvantageous mutation.

I believe antlers are considered by some biologists to be something that's half and half, in that they're not the best defensive measure but they do get the bachelor stags all that tail.

The antlers of the extinct Irish Elk were impractically large as weaponry, and are held now to have been mostly for showing off. (And if you want to show off a pair, there's a set being auctioned at Bonham's, guide price £20k-£30k).

 

[Plucky Novice]

And if you want to show off a pair, there's a set being auctioned at Bonham's, guide price £20k-£30

I'm not sure my neck's strong enough.

It validates the point though. Maybe for dragons flame length equates to antler size.

 

[-K2-]

Though no expert, 'historical' accounts of dragons that I recall always seemed to make use of 'venom, a toxin or plague as their primary weaponry beyond strength and armor. I'm also not that convinced that a dragon should be static, or, quick moving (except for short bursts), or, have tremendous endurance. That said, a static predator is NOT uncommon. In fact, in the known world, I suspect it is the preferred method... Snakes, octopus, hydras, crabs, owls and so on, find a quality spot and wait only striking when it serves them. Granted, most are not permanently affixed to something, but, many are if the food source warrants it.

In any case, I'm not a fan of impractical things... So no magic, godly/demon intervention, telekinesis, etc., etc.. I like things that are reasonable possibilities without stretching/bending/or breaking natural laws. Fire is one of those things. I get it, it's kewl... but, it serves little purpose past destruction (hunting excluded as well). How'd it go in the movie Reign of Fire? Didn't the dragons burn everything to eat the ash? Personally I find that ridiculous (if that is correct). The most nutritious aspects of anything is what burns wasting the energy.

In other words... If your world contains contrary laws of nature and beasts that capitalize on them, then that is fine!

You can make the creature any way you envision it... What you then need to do, is JUSTIFY your choices in the story. I'm not speaking about some long and detailed chain of Darwinian evolution, just simply; X-circumstance + Y-situation + Z-conditions = made A1 outcome the ideal. Think of a Hydra. Narrow valley, everything must migrate through seasonally, dragon grows mid-way and waits. Fire reaches each wall (whether to kill or trap prey your choice), then it feeds, never leaving that single place.

K2

P.S.: Here's a thought to show what I meant... X-dragon is an herbivore (perhaps even a plant itself). It sets down roots where a particular rapid-growing moss/grass/etc. is thriving which it feeds upon. Once the nutritious parts of the food source are eaten leaving only the stem, nothing more grows... However, if what remains is burned, the plant grows again. As a bonus, animals that trample/eat the plants, killing them, causes the dragon to lash out protecting its crop... Naturally, it soon plays out where the fallen animals fertilize the plants and they become more lush. So there is now a perpetuating cycle that improves due to fire.

 

[Cory Swanson]

I stand corrected. But let’s face it, dragons are lizards.

 

[chrispenycate]

The fire doesn't need to be 'elemental' - indeed, if it is, it's at least alchemical

I had been planning to use a lifting gas/combustion gas analysis, but tinkerdan got in first, fortunately. Lots of gut bacteria produce lighter than air waste gasses, including in me - humans produce either methane or hydrogen - and I think you can consider as straight loss any that leaves tailward - nobody, even amateurs of hot vindaloo, enjoys flame there. For ignition the most biologically likely is phosphorous - it is used in energy transfers in all terrestrial organisms - and will combust

A pterosaur could have a wingspan of ten or eleven metres - not, admittedly, big as a house, but comparing nicely with a horse, if not a great big one ton beast. Taking off from a level surface must have been a massive effort - probably they, and dragons, nested on clifftops and flung themselves over the edge for launching, relying on thermals and soaring to gain altitude, like a condor (or even an albatross), with a minimum of flapping (at least, if I were a dragon, that's how I'd do it). With some form of bladder full of lifting gas, they'd look a lot bigger, but using the gas as incendiary would make their flying ever more energy-sapping, if increasing their reaction speed. Still, for swooping and gliding it wouldn't be so bad, using the extra lift really only for take offs.

One thing I am convinced about - no thick, heavy armour. Smaug would never have got off the ground with his jewelled scales, capable of resisting arrows and swords. And the elongated form isn't very aerodynamically stable.

Of course, with a few laws of physics, like, say removing the square/cube law. Or just making everyone, dragons, warriors and mounts somewhat smaller - say, hobbit sized…?

 

[Toby Frost]

I'm not sure how a dragon (or other large heraldic beasts capable of true flight - not just gliding) can be made to succeed scientifically, even without factoring in human beings and their skill in hunting things. (A flying monster could have real problems against an army with pikes and half-decent muskets, even if it could breathe fire.) I think you've got to accept that there is some kind of magical element to them, especially if they are to be the kind of bulky flying diplodocus/allosaurus hybrid that is usually depicted.

Peat's comment about breeding is interesting, especially since many heraldic animals are obvious crossbreeds anyhow. However, that does suggest that they're not the top of the food chain, if someone else is creating them. Perhaps there's some magical equivalent of radiation that causes it, and the dragon shape is one of the more stable and successful variations (this might be where the wonky little creatures in Bosch paintings come from!). Were the dragons in Temeraire specifically bred?

More interesting, I think, is how humans in this setting would regard the magic that enables creatures like this to exist. There's a bit in Up To The Throne where a scholar talks about the way that griffons stay in the air. It's largely nonsense, but hopefully it's the sort of nonsense that it sounds right for a Renaissance man like him to say. I suspect a medieval scholar would somehow get religion in there - some of the early bestiaries used their descriptions as allegories of Bible teaching.

 

[Mirannan]

One possible way a dragon could work: Glands in the cheeks (as in salivary glands) or somewhere else in the head produce a highly inflammable, volatile chemical - perhaps pentane or diethyl ether, for example - which is stored ready for use. Another gland produces a small quantity of an enzyme whose main function is to make oxidation of the fuel easier, or perhaps the creature grows crystals of something like pyrite which easily makes sparks. The fire breath is basically a jet of boiling liquid, on fire. Note that there doesn't have to be any fire inside the beast; it could start at, or slightly outside, the opening of the mouth.

As for making such chemicals - well, living organisms produce far more complex and unlikely compounds all the time. Shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Cathbad]

Dragons. Fly.

Why this concept bothers so many baffles me.

 

[Vertigo]

Your theory has a weak point. The gases in the intestinal tract are usually release through rectum. I've yet to see a dragon shooting fire from his ass )

Not quite true almost all of the methane produced by cows is released through their mouths - burping essentially - and almost none out of their rear ends.

 

[Cathbad]

Not quite true almost all of the methane produced by cows is released through their mouths - burping essentially - and almost none out of their rear ends.

Seriously. I could've went the rest of my life not having this knowledge!

 

[Plucky Novice]

Seriously. I could've went the rest of my life not having this knowledge!

But now you are the richer for it.