Wyverns are a type of Dragon

I've seen the term "wyvern" applied to creatures which have virtually nothing in common with dragons.

I've seen this dumb meme on Veeky Forums enough to the point I'm curious. Who came up with this particular distinction between wyverns and dragons, and why should we take his interpretation as gospel?

Medieval heraldry
And I guess D&D

In folklore and art, dragons could look like anything vaguely repitilian

>True or false.
True

>Why?
Historically the distinction between dragon and wyvern didn't exist until the inception of D&D; why having only a dragon monster when you can have a shit ton of them? Dragon, drakon, wyrm, wurm, wyvern, vivre, lindwurm and other draconic creatures are in fact names for the same thing; a dragon. Different places, different names for the same thing.

As pointed out, only autistic purists still go for the "2 legs and 2 wings are wyveerns REEEEEEEE" meme.
But also, as , when talking about RPGs it all depends on the setting.

To those of you scrolling deciding whether or not to join, so far the consensus has been TLDR Depends on the Setting

Yes

In historical myth/heraldry a dragon was basically any big reptilian monster, typically winged. With any lumber of legs.
Wyverns are dragons, but specifically with only 2 legs and a stinger or barb on its tail. Sea-wyverns have a fish tail.

...

not bad

I really like fantasy taxanomy and biology studied like a science. I also think people should take more time to do species like 30 species of griffon, and only like 5 are rideable. You have small snow griffons and large, golden desert griffons, and flightless chubby griffons.

Thats a wyrm

>From top: a common shreep. Note the forward-placed eyes and vacant gawk typical of its breed.

>Fancy Southland Shreep. The combined weight of its pronounced jaw and crown make this shreep unsuitable for heavy fieldwork.

>Baggy-cheeked Full Shreep. The 'full' in this case refers to its high, thick rump. This breed is prized for its amount of meat. Nomadic herders often make a delicious stew from the well-portioned cuts.

>Spring-tailed Rock Shreepa. Rarely seen, as its preferred habitat is inhospitable mountain crags at extremely high altitudes. Folklore says it hoards treasure, but it's probably just a dumb animal.

>Working Southland Shreep. A large, sturdy beast popular in regions where buckows are unsuitable.

>Black-tufted Mountain Shreep. Unlike the more commonly known Mountain Shreep, the Black-tufted Mountain Shreep's horns have grown far past the edges of its skull in an impressive display that causes a ton of problems if they get stuck in a wooded area.

>Bristle-backed Shreemp. Originally bred to miniature size during a short-lived fad among a vanished caste of nobility, it has proven a tenacious survivor due to its ability to digest even more than the common shreep and its ability to reproduce three months after birth. The heavy tusks are anchored to a thick set of shoulder muscles, allowing it to dig its way through most obstacles on its incessant quest for food.

>Short-statured Sharphorn Shreep. A relatively recent breed, its lineage can be traced to the original crossing of a mountain shreep with a dwarf shreep. It fares poorly in the wild.

...

That's some cute ass shit user. I like it.

There's already a base, so why not?

...

After only reading the first two, I almost posted a comment on the Wyvern example being called a dragon. And then I read the rest. 10/10 taxonomy.

Steve master-race.

>Dragon subspecies
>called "dragon"
I know it happens in real life, but I don't like it.
What's wrong with "winged drake"?

>Lung
>not Loooooong

It's the perk of being first named. It was the first dragon in the language used, and therefore they get ownership of the word "dragon", even once they realise it's not necessarily appropriate any more.

"Winged drake" works if you wish to be descriptive to people. But most people will think of that particular dragon when you say "dragon". They won't normally assume you meant a wyvern, drake, or wyrm when you say dragon.

Because you don't call crocodiles "grumpy gators."

youtube.com/watch?v=ZjJLLvfeYi8

I like to think wyverns are to dragons what chimps are to humans. Close but not enough to be the same species. Same thing with the other draconic creature, like drakes.
Taxonomically, they'd be in the same family or at least the same infraorder.

>All wyverns are dragons
What about the Northeastern Wyvern Squirrel?

>most people will think of that particular dragon when you say "dragon"
I don't know if that's strictly true. Especially in a world were dragon variety is established and catalogued.

Unless they're asian

all dragons are ultimately based on snakes. the less wings and legs it has, the more pure a dragon it is.

True.

People like to do this with Pokémon.

False, dragon literally means "big snake" and snakes don't have legs or wings

Yeah, chink dragons are like that

Common Dragon would be a better name and explain why it's often called just dragon.

True!

Wyrms are dragons as well.

Hounds are dogs.
True or false.

...

this and
this

jesus fuck that thing is terrifying

Dragon Family Trees are always fun, here's how my friend does it for his setting

and how they fit into his larger Serpent family tree(or at least my interpretation, as he was intentionally vague about how they all relate to each other outside of being descended from Monitor Lizards, so I whipped this up real quick to illustrate it better)

also articles on his site where he goes into more detail about all this;

horrorflora.com/2017/06/25/the-midgaheim-bestiary-serpents-overview/

horrorflora.com/2017/07/11/the-midgaheim-bestiary-dragons-overview/

literally kill yourself.

False. All wyverns are draco, but not all draco are wyverns.

Everyone knows that laziness and poor translations are what caused all even vaguely reptilian beasts from around the world to be labelled as "dragon". Same with when people try to group all undead/demonic creatures that feed on humans as "vampire", when they're clearly different enough to just keep the original name to describe the creature.

This entire argument is on par with "The bible refers to bats as birds but bats are mammals, checkmate Christians!", except it's dealing with creatures that don't even exist. Your obsession with post-Linnaeus classification of animals didn't exist for pre-modern man (hence the "a bat flies, ergo it's a bird" reasoning), let alone when dealing with creatures that don't even exist.