Flight Rising Discussion

Dragons are creatures of magic, with a specific sort of "spiritual" genetics. Like the genes of more mundane creatures, this Spirit Genome codes for what the dragon will be.

Currently, there are four known species of Dragon.

Modern Breeds all exist within one species, not unlike how different dogs are all the same species.

Ancient Breeds exist within their own species, with there currently being only two known: Banescales and Gaolers.

The fourth species is the Gods themselves, clearly dragon but also something more, something all their own.

Using this concept, you could put all species of dragons into their own clade, which I will call Draconis. Modern Breeds are in Modrakon ascendi. Ancient Breeds inhabit the Archaedrakon genus, with the two species being Archaedrakon wyverni and Archaedrakon arcticus. The Eleven are Dividrakon creare.

Draconis, however, is included in the greater clade of Drakoniformia, which includes relatives of dragons which are themselves not fully dragons, but close kin.

These Dragonkin include, but are not limited to:

1. Hydras
2. Cockatrices and Basilisks
3. Sea Serpents
4. Amphiptheres
5. Logas and Alogs
6. Goblins, Nymphs, and Sprites
7. River Flights

---

Just a headcanon I've been toying with for a while, as a solution to the "problem" of "how do I make non-dragon things related to dragons if creationism is canon in FR?" The general idea is that if dragons can all still be Dragons whether they're Modern, Ancient, Created by the Gods, or generating on their own, then there must be a Dragon Gene, which means there can be things similar to this "Dragon Gene."

As a member of the kinmunity I stan

But that's seriously really well thought out! Good job

@PearlConnor

Thank you!

That's a really interesting headcanon! I like stuff like taxonomy and natural history, so this is a cool way to look at the species of Sornieth.

@Zhukov

Thank you as well. It's fun to toy around with taxonomy when magic is involved.

this.. actually really fits, and it made me think how canonically (like in the ACH or scrying workshop) the differenent types of modern dragons are never referred to as different "species", only "breeds", same with the ancients.
would you consider making a tree of this?

@Appleturnovr

I've thought about it before, so maybe!

Huh. Interesting! The fact that dragon breeds are so morphologically disparate but can still breed, but are incapable of creating any sort of true "hybrid," is a taxonomic puzzle imo. I mean, say what you will about dog breeds, I think a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are more obviously related than a Tundra and a Wildclaw. You could probably argue that they're all separate species in the same (or related) genus, they're all subspecies of the same species, or they're literally all the same creature with wild variance in biology. Not to mention Ancients! I'd say they're all individual species, based on breeding, but to what extent are they related to each other? On that point, couldn't the deities each be an individual species?

Seeing as modern taxonomy places more pertinence on genealogy and inheritance than surface-level traits, I'd argue it could be useful to recategorize dragons as descendants of their creator deities' species; however, this would make Modern breeds- if defined by genus or species- polyphyletic. Furthermore, while Ancients would be fine, itt seems... Odd that they wouldn't be able to breed with their closest relatives. However, this could be due to heightened divergence from the master genetic "template," if you will, either by time, isolation, or the presence of unique traits uninheritable to most dragons for one reason or another (based on what we've seen already, in most it's likely all three). Under this bracketing, it still doesn't make sense if Moderns can breed without said "master template" being inherited, relatively unchanged, from a most recent commmon ancestor. This, as far as we know, is impossible, seeing as the Deities spontaneously emerged into existence.

It is most accurate to view the breeds as genetically-modified creatures, seeing as they were consciously created to fit a certain role by creatures fellow to their environment. However, this viewpoint leaves us with little taxonomic scaffolding from the real world- save for horizontal gene transfer. If this is the case, though, where did their genetics come from? To be fair, we don't even know what, if any, genes were inherited from their predecessors, beyond perhaps an affinity for/dependence on magic, and possibly an inherent quality of "dragon-ness;" the "dragon gene," as op calls it. Furthermore, while they are at least partly flesh-and-blood beings, for all we know, they could be completely unrelated to any other Sorniethian organisms. The most direct, tangible inheritance of any deity's bloodline is found in Imperials; however, their unique, uncanny side effect of biologically assimilating each other into undead "pseudo-deities" shows that most dragons aren't so closely related to their patron. The question is, were they built from scratch- truly artificial, with at most some vague inheritance from the deities- or cobbled together from existing fauna (and/or flora)?

It may be helpful to return to the concept of a "common ancestor," in terms of both dragonkind and Sorniethian biota beyond them. Some creatures are purely magical; spirits, fae, and the like most closely fit this category, as do several of the deities' servants and likely theirselves. Other creatures, such as most food items and Beastclan, are much more physical; while they may be or become capable of using magic, they are not inherently magical. I would dub the former class "elementals," based on their magical nature and the tendency- but not inevitability- of magic to split itself into distinct fields which vary in their interactions with the physical world. The latter class can be referred to as "biologicals," being creatures that live and evolve by chemical reaction. These, of course, can and do coincide, whether by hybridization of the two lines, or by advantageous evolution leading to a species's leaning further towards one or another than its ancestors. Dragons are a deliberate balance of the two, having physical bodies and being capable of (more-or-less) conventional physical reproduction, but being dependent on magic for their very existence.

The standard definition of the two terms is a sliding scale between "magical" and "physical;" however, they could be given a taxonomic definition as well. If it is taken that biological life on Sornieth began with and developed from a common ancestor, all its direct descendants could be considered "biological." Conversely, the origin of "elementals" could be considered magic itself, seeing as it is known to produce spontaneously generated beings.

I would argue that the "dragon gene" is an inherent property of magic itself. Why? For one, the ultimate expressions of magical power (as far as we know) are dragons: the deities. Furthermore, several lesser elementals possess some degree of draconic traits as well. We know magic, at least in certain forms, can be mutagenic. Several of Sornieth's wildlife have oddly draconic features. For example, river flights look suspiciously dragonlike, despite being otters- a far cry from most classical "dragon" relatives. Webwings and fanrats have unusual structures stated as having been caused by unnatural mutations. Webwings have wings not unlike a Skydancer, and fanrats' fins resemble the Lightweaver's in a way.

This thread (made by the same op, funny enough) makes for good further reading; if not magic itself, then perhaps the deities' initial forms could be seen as the ancestral "species?"

@TheLOAD What about Swiftwings? Would those be dragons, or dragonkin? How about the couriers?

I need all of these to come out as ancients :O