Dragnix.Net

A dear friend of mine quoted this not long ago and it made me wonder if it was even really possible.

Many tales were of dragon's have been in some extremely cold climates. Given that reptiles are ectothermic (or as some prefer "cold-blooded") I find it rather impossible that dragons would be a variety of reptile.

I can imagine them regulating their own body temperature however. This would mean they'd have a higher metabolism.. so you could go on from there to ponder what their main food source would be if they were to eat so much.

You gotta love how all these questions chain off each other..

Thoughts?

This ties into the warm-blooded/cold-blooded dinosaur debate, the issue being a doubt by many in the scientific community that a cold-blooded physiology can supply sufficient energy for sustained exhertions. I personally think that dragons were warm blooded, as there is no cold-blooded creature that I know of that is capable of powered flight, not just gliding.

The Pterosaurs were flying reptiles. But, by what I am reading they may have been warm blooded.

But a couple of animals seem to "have the best of both worlds" when it comes to warm blooded and cold blooded. Like most underwater creatures, some sharks, tuna and turtles. So the dragon may be have a method of warming itself up, or a way of keeping its heat from excepting.

I really see them as cold-blooded myself. They would have to eat far less than a warm blooded creature their size, and with that they can live in harsher environments than warm-blooded creatures can.

But I do agree, cold weather areas will not be good for them.

WOW good question. hmmm... it is hard to tell if a dragons is warm or cold blooded. One that makes you think. All I could say is that it is impossible to tell couse there is no dragons that we know of alive. So all we can say is what we think not what it realy is. Tho I think a fire/ europeion dragon might be cold blooded couse it can always warm itself thrue it's fire. but like I sed it is impossable to answer. In one hand It could be a possiblility that they are Reptiles, But in the other hand they might not be reptiles. nomatter what we say we are still wrong in this subject lol

You do bring a valid point about pterosaurs, Vampirehunter.

The defining line between what is a reptile and what isn't a reptile is still rather vague to me. The main characteristics of a reptile are:

-They're vertebrates
-They're cold-blooded
-They (mostly) lay eggs
-They breathe oxygen using lungs
-They have dry scaly skin

It just sounds to me to be so undefined compared to many other classes. Things like "they mostly lay eggs" is rather "well kinda, sorta this is what makes a reptile".

Many paleontologists are even questioning if dinosaurs were cold-blooded or not. Which means they too will no longer fit into the definition of a "reptile".

Certainly it is already difficult to classify extinct animals, but it's even worse trying to classify an animal when no solid evidence is available that they even existed.