Implicating Wyvern → Dragon
Link to implication

Reason:

The wiki for Wyvern specifies that wyverns are a kind of dragon. I believe this is accurate. Therefore, all images tagged with wyvern should also be tagged with dragon.

A quick search for wyvern -dragon reveals a lot of images that seem to be missing the dragon tag.

The wyvern wiki is actually not entirely accurate, thanks to monster hunter.
That was a bit of an argument a while ago(like, more than a year ago if I remember?).

That being said the wyverns are largely dragon-ish at least, so I don't particularly object to the implication.

Halite said:
The wyvern wiki is actually not entirely accurate, thanks to monster hunter.
That was a bit of an argument a while ago(like, more than a year ago if I remember?).

That being said the wyverns are largely dragon-ish at least, so I don't particularly object to the implication.

I think I would still call it accurate to some degree, but I would also call it confusing and somewhat misleading. Wyverns never really had a consistent form and it is often indistinguishable from other types of dragons. About the only consistent form is in heraldry where it tends to be depicted more as a "snake with arms and wings", which makes sense since the word wyvern comes through Old French from Latin vipera meaning snake (note that both wyverns and vipers are known to be venomous). The word dragon ultimately comes from Greek and means serpent.

But yeah it is definitely still a dragon. +1

How anyone could think that lesser breed of beast is in any way related to the majesty of a true Dragon is beyond me, but I do suppose they share more physical similarities with Dragons than other lesser races.

Tokaido said:
How anyone could think that lesser breed of beast is in any way related to the majesty of a true Dragon is beyond me, but I do suppose they share more physical similarities with Dragons than other lesser races.

Though the nerd in me wants to say no, it's probably more accurate this way, plus fitting with TWYS. +1

If it makes you feel better, the ODE literally states:

a winged two-legged dragon with a barbed tail.

But then again, their illustration looks kind of silly compared to other wyverns I've seen.

Tokaido said:
How anyone could think that lesser breed of beast is in any way related to the majesty of a true Dragon is beyond me, but I do suppose they share more physical similarities with Dragons than other lesser races.

Though the nerd in me wants to say no, it's probably more accurate this way, plus fitting with TWYS. +1

I'm a dragon nerd myself, and I gotta say, while they should still be tagged separate from standard Dragons, implicating it is a great idea. You can always search dragon -wyvern after all.

The nerd inside me yells no, because in theory they wyverns and dragons are different beings with different qualities and stuff.
Still -1 but I don't think I can change minds lol

Dragon already gets tagged for wide variety of creatures (for example, western_dragon and chinese_dragon don't really look much alike), but I'd still say -1 for this implication.

Simply because some wyverns are tagged for creatures that just aren't dragon enough, and would fit better under reptile or lizard. Especially the wingless Monster Hunter "wyverns", that are just wyverns in name.

Genjar said:
Dragon already gets tagged for wide variety of creatures (for example, western_dragon and chinese_dragon don't really look much alike), but I'd still say -1 for this implication.

Simply because some wyverns are tagged for creatures that just aren't dragon enough, and would fit better under reptile or lizard. Especially the wingless Monster Hunter "wyverns", that are just wyverns in name.

Aren't those actually called flying_wyverns? (still a bad name tbh).

parasprite said:
Aren't those actually called flying_wyverns? (still a bad name tbh).

And brute_wyvern, and various others. Some users insist on tagging even those as wyvern. Never made much sense to me, it's like tagging red_panda as panda because of the name.

Genjar said:
Dragon already gets tagged for wide variety of creatures (for example, western_dragon and chinese_dragon don't really look much alike), but I'd still say -1 for this implication.

Simply because some wyverns are tagged for creatures that just aren't dragon enough, and would fit better under reptile or lizard. Especially the wingless Monster Hunter "wyverns", that are just wyverns in name.

I think one of the main problems comes from monster hunter's wyverns

the way I see it, wyverns aren't related to dragons at all, just like red pandas aren't related to pandas, but they look very similar and seem like they SHOULD be related. It's really hard to come up with definite rules for mythological creatures though of course. My point is, I can see why the implication exists, even if it's not acurate.
So, should we make implications like that? I'm not sure. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but it makes sense visually and seems to fit with what's been done before.

Isn't "dragon" a determination made visually? It's not taxonomic in nature. It's a visually determined attribute. A creature either looks like a dragon or doesn't look like a dragon. Between furred dragons and scaled dragons and, yes, wyverns, there's quite a variety of creatures we recognize as being apparently draconic in nature.

31h253 said:
Isn't "dragon" a determination made visually? It's not taxonomic in nature. It's a visually determined attribute. A creature either looks like a dragon or doesn't look like a dragon. Between furred dragons and scaled dragons and, yes, wyverns, there's quite a variety of creatures we recognize as being apparently draconic in nature.

Yup, I can agree to this. Though it pains me to say it, wyverns look like dragons, and many non fantasy-oriented folk probably couldn't tell the difference between the two. In case it wasnt clear, I'm still begrudgingly giving this my +1 :P

Tokaido said:
Yup, I can agree to this. Though it pains me to say it, wyverns look like dragons, and many non fantasy-oriented folk probably couldn't tell the difference between the two. In case it wasnt clear, I'm still begrudgingly giving this my +1 :P

You can say the same about Leviathans and the use of the tag when it comes to describing the "Lagiacrus" species of Monster Hunter images.

The bottom line that I've been trying to commit to, when it comes to uploading the Monster Hunter images I can find and am able to upload, is to add the general "scalie" tag.

That should be the rough consensus when it comes to the species tags.

Dragons, wyvern, lizards, reptiles, dinosaurs, snakes... They're all "scalies" and should have that tag put in for the sake of being seen outside of their target viewers. The only exception I can think of is if the "scalie" in the image isn't actually a dragon or wyvern.

Such as if they're a Digimon or a Pokémon. But even then, the tag "scalie" can still be exercised, all because of the whole "tag what you see" rule.

GameManiac said:
Dragons, wyvern, lizards, reptiles, dinosaurs, snakes... They're all "scalies" and should have that tag put in for the sake of being seen outside of their target viewers. The only exception I can think of is if the "scalie" in the image isn't actually a dragon or wyvern.

Except for furred_dragons and many chinese_dragons.

31h253 said:
Between furred dragons and scaled dragons and, yes, wyverns, there's quite a variety of creatures we recognize as being apparently draconic in nature.

Again, that depends on how we use the wyvern tag. I still don't think that Monster Hunter wyverns such as...
post #585078 post #399778 post #164227
...should be tagged as dragon. Those look like dinosaurs to me.

But if the consensus is that those shouldn't be tagged as wyvern, then I'm okay with the implication.

Genjar said:
Again, that depends on how we use the wyvern tag. I still don't think that Monster Hunter wyverns such as...
post #585078 post #399778 post #164227
...should be tagged as dragon. Those look like dinosaurs to me.

But if the consensus is that those shouldn't be tagged as wyvern, then I'm okay with the implication.

I definitely think those don't count as Wyverns as the term is generally used. Wyverns are generally understood to have wings at the very least.

Wyverns are a species of the genus Draconis usually and are more bird like as having 4 appendages, where what we see as western-dragons usually have 6 appendages, 4 legs and a set if wings. Both are reptiles and that is the definition of wyverns as I knew it to be.

Tokaido said:
the way I see it, wyverns aren't related to dragons at all, just like red pandas aren't related to pandas, but they look very similar and seem like they SHOULD be related. It's really hard to come up with definite rules for mythological creatures though of course. My point is, I can see why the implication exists, even if it's not acurate.
So, should we make implications like that?

Yes. We should. A person who wants a Monster Hunter wyvern can just search wyvern monster_hunter. When I'm looking for "dragons," I want Monster Hunter's wyverns included.

Tokaido said:
Yup, I can agree to this. Though it pains me to say it, wyverns look like dragons, and many non fantasy-oriented folk probably couldn't tell the difference between the two. In case it wasnt clear, I'm still begrudgingly giving this my +1 :P

When it comes to artwork here on e621, I don't care about the difference. They're mythical lizard beasts and that's sexy.

GameManiac said:
You can say the same about Leviathans and the use of the tag when it comes to describing the "Lagiacrus" species of Monster Hunter images.

Oh, yes, that should be implicated too.

GameManiac said:
The bottom line that I've been trying to commit to, when it comes to uploading the Monster Hunter images I can find and am able to upload, is to add the general "scalie" tag.

That should be the rough consensus when it comes to the species tags.

Dragons, wyvern, lizards, reptiles, dinosaurs, snakes... They're all "scalies" and should have that tag put in for the sake of being seen outside of their target viewers. The only exception I can think of is if the "scalie" in the image isn't actually a dragon or wyvern.

Such as if they're a Digimon or a Pokémon. But even then, the tag "scalie" can still be exercised, all because of the whole "tag what you see" rule.

Which is why we imply a broad species, not something as specific as scalie.

Genjar said:
Again, that depends on how we use the wyvern tag. I still don't think that Monster Hunter wyverns such as...
post #585078 post #399778 post #164227
...should be tagged as dragon. Those look like dinosaurs to me.

But if the consensus is that those shouldn't be tagged as wyvern, then I'm okay with the implication.

General species Wyvern? Nah. Maybe give them their own tag, but not the umbrella tag.

S=K_log_W said:
Wyverns are a species of the genus Draconis usually and are more bird like as having 4 appendages, where what we see as western-dragons usually have 6 appendages, 4 legs and a set if wings. Both are reptiles and that is the definition of wyverns as I knew it to be.

>Scientific categorizing
>Fantasy creatures that don't exist
Guy... I already tried that limb argument, just don't. They're also not reptiles. Don't even try arguing that. They can be tagged with the umbrella scalie, but that's it.

...Say, what about tagging feathered dragons avian? Should we do that?

Furrin_Gok said:
When it comes to artwork here on e621, I don't care about the difference. They're mythical lizard beasts and that's sexy.

I am so stealing that for the wiki.

parasprite said:
I am so stealing that for the wiki.

Go for it. My list is as follows:

• Dragons: Sexy
• Avians: Cute
• Raptors: Beautiful
• Salamanders/newts: Handsome

...And that's sort of it, as far as I can wrack my brain right now. Anything else I can remember is very specific (Like Totodile and Chikorita).

parasprite said:
I am so stealing that for the wiki.

I forgot about this and came across a surprise today. This never was specifically denied or approved, though, any new opinions on it?

Furrin_Gok said:
I forgot about this and came across a surprise today. This never was specifically denied or approved, though, any new opinions on it?

Hah. I forgot all about that. Good times. :P

I still feel like they are dragon enough to be tagged dragon, especially considering how non-specific the dragon tag is to begin with.

parasprite said:
Hah. I forgot all about that. Good times. :P

I still feel like they are dragon enough to be tagged dragon, especially considering how non-specific the dragon tag is to begin with.

Well, the main difference between dragons and wyverns is that dragons have six limbs (two of which are exclusively for wings) and wyverns have four (two of which are basically their wings). Also, dragons are frequently lizard-like while wyverns are frequently avian-like. An example would be the Rathalos and Rathian monsters from Monster Hunter. They even have beaks and behave slightly like birds.

I wouldn't imply wyvern to dragon, for the same reason gryphon shouldn't be implied to lion.

GameManiac said:
Well, the main difference between dragons and wyverns is that dragons have six limbs (two of which are exclusively for wings) and wyverns have four (two of which are basically their wings). Also, dragons are frequently lizard-like while wyverns are frequently avian-like. An example would be the Rathalos and Rathian monsters from Monster Hunter. They even have beaks and behave slightly like birds.

I wouldn't imply wyvern to dragon, for the same reason gryphon shouldn't be implied to lion.

I see pictures of dragons in both of those.

Furrin_Gok said:
When it comes to artwork here on e621, I don't care about the difference. They're mythical lizard beasts and that's sexy.

Dragons themselves are very varied. You can have feathered dragons, furry dragons, scaled dragons, even pink fleshy dragons if you really wanted. Wings can be feathered, batlike, membraneous otherwise, or even jet engines. What's to say their mouth variety can't include beaks?

It still gets tagged for creatures that don't look like dragons.
Or would you tag all of these as a dragon, instead of dinosaur, reptile, etc.?

post #809249 post #786696 post #782960 post #765022 post #724743 post #548095 post #426052

The problem comes about because dragon is like canine -- it refers to two different levels of specific-ness.

Just as "canine" is both a specific term for dogs/wolves (Caninae) and a term for its parent Canidae, "dragon" is both a catchall term for all sufficietly dragon-like creatures and a term for a more specific kind of dragon.

I consider a "true dragon" to be quadrupedal, distinctly not long or snake-like, and usually with additional wings, but I will always consider a wyvern to be a flavor of dragon in its wider sense.

The optimal solution would be to add a second tag that is either more or less specific than dragon, such as

More specific: true dragon
Less specific: draconic, dragonkin

etc.

FibS said:
I consider a "true dragon" to be quadrupedal, distinctly not long or snake-like, and usually with additional wings, but I will always consider a wyvern to be a flavor of dragon in its wider sense.

We actually have a tag for that: western_dragon.
Unfortunately, it's badly undertagged. ^{_{But what isn't...}}

Genjar said:
We actually have a tag for that: western_dragon.
Unfortunately, it's badly undertagged. ^{_{But what isn't...}}

That's moving the problem somewhere else. "Western dragons" include absolutely every flavor of dragon that is not a Chinese dancing parade dragon from lindwyrms to scultones to quetzlcoatls.

Genjar said:
It still gets tagged for creatures that don't look like dragons.
Or would you tag all of these as a dragon, instead of dinosaur, reptile, etc.?

post #809249 post #786696 post #782960 post #765022 post #724743 post #548095 post #426052

They all fit the loose definition of dragon, although that fourth one I have to wonder who decided to tag it wyvern? That's not a wyvern, there's no wings. This is why I wanted Monster Hunter wyverns to get their own tag.

FibS said:
That's moving the problem somewhere else. "Western dragons" include absolutely every flavor of dragon that is not a Chinese dancing parade dragon from lindwyrms to scultones to quetzlcoatls.

Western Dragon is only supposed to be tagged for what you define as a "true" dragon.

Western dragons look similar to lizards. They often have leathery wings, horns, and sometimes breathe fire.

If they aren't quadrupedal (Or anthro-fied version of quadrupedal) they shouldn't be tagged.

Furrin_Gok said:
Western Dragon is only supposed to be tagged for what you define as a "true" dragon.
If they aren't quadrupedal (Or anthro-fied version of quadrupedal) they shouldn't be tagged.

Oh, I forgot there was a built-in wiki. Jeez, this site is pretty indepth!

I'm sorry if I sound condescending using the phrase "true dragon", but I'm taking this from scientific convention for things such as "bugs" (spiders etc.) vs. true bugs (Hemiptera).

+1. I was about to suggest this implication before looking it up.

Reason:

I feel like I'm opening a can of worms, but it makes sense to me. Wyverns are a type of dragon right? And the characters of these two species are largely indistinguishable.

iirc aren't wyverns from...norwegian(? i'm really just guessing here.) mythology? i'd also say +1 towards wyrms as well but i really don't know where in mythology those originate.

"Dragon" is an umbrella term, which is something a lot of "dragon nerds" tend to forget. The Wyvern has indeed been considered a dragon for several thousand years. It doesn't suddenly become not a dragon just because some folks in the 21st Century suddenly say it isn't cool.

Dragon needs a specific definition. Otherwise we just end up with a tag that's broader than even scalie.

Dinosaurs aren't dragons. Neither are lizards, birds, or amphibians. Those have their own tags.

And since wyvern tends to get tagged for creatures that don't fit under the dragon tag, the implication simply cannot work.

Genjar said:
Dragon needs a specific definition. Otherwise we just end up with a tag that's broader than even scalie.

Dinosaurs aren't dragons. Neither are lizards, birds, or amphibians. Those have their own tags.

And since wyvern tends to get tagged for creatures that don't fit under the dragon tag, the implication simply cannot work.

also doesn't help that there are countless variations of "dragon" throughout all of video game history ranging from feral to anthro in appearance. then theres that kobold thing but i'm pretty certain those aren't dragons. part dragon depending on the sub-species, sure, but not just dragon.

i think i once read in a fanfic somewhere that dragons are like living primordial ooze in that they can mate with just about anything (and i mean anything) and poof different types of dragons.

o_O between the countless variations seen in video games AND on this site alone... i'm inclined to believe that to be true.

I know too. I think the wyvern vs dragon is just a joke. It's like to say that pinguin are not bird because they can't fly.

Genjar said:
Dragon needs a specific definition. Otherwise we just end up with a tag that's broader than even scalie.

Dinosaurs aren't dragons. Neither are lizards, birds, or amphibians. Those have their own tags.

And since wyvern tends to get tagged for creatures that don't fit under the dragon tag, the implication simply cannot work.

A wyvern is a type of dragon, just like a T-Rex is a type of dinosaur.

Other types of dragon include, but are not limited to:

1. Hydra - a multi-headed dragon.
2. Ampiphtere - a snake-like dragon with two wings and no other limbs. Quetzalcoatl was an example of an ampiphtere.
3. Lindworm - a dragon with two legs and no other limbs.
4. Lung - a snakelike dragon with four legs and either four or six stick-like "wings" that is revered to this day in China.

So the implication of Wyvern -> Dragon *does* work. A "Western Dragon" (the proper name for which is "Firedrake," by the way) is also a type of dragon, but it is by no means the only creature of myth that qualifies as one.

InannaEloah said:
So the implication of Wyvern -> Dragon *does* work.

As I've explained, it doesn't. Wyvern keeps getting tagged for creatures that look like dinosaurs or generic reptiles. Because that's what 'wyverns' are in some franchises. The implication would result in those getting incorrectly tagged as dragon.

These are all currently tagged as wyvern:
post #1024633 post #643772 post #610735 post #894597 post #589033 post #563139

Genjar said:
As I've explained, it doesn't. Wyvern keeps getting tagged for creatures that look like dinosaurs or generic reptiles. Because that's what 'wyverns' are in some franchises. The implication would result in those getting incorrectly tagged as dragon.

These are all currently tagged as wyvern:
post #1024633 post #643772 post #610735 post #894597 post #589033 post #563139

All of those, with the possible exception of the Nightfaux one, are incorrectly tagged because they are *not* wyverns.

The defintion of "Wyvern" is "a dragon with two legs and two wings." Not a kitty-cat, a whale, a pine cone like creature, a flammie-bird hybrid, or an alligator in a box. Those are not wyverns, they are incorrectly tagged.

EDIT: and the only reason I don't know about the Nightfaux one is that there's not enough in the picture for me to tell what exactly it is. If the way we tag here is "tag what you see, not what you know," then that is the only picture out of the entire group you linked to that even remotely resembles a wyvern.

InannaEloah said:
All of those, with the possible exception of the Nightfaux one, are incorrectly tagged because they are *not* wyverns.

That's just a small fraction of what's been tagged as wyvern. It's been cleaned up several times in the past.

As long as it keeps getting mistagged so much, implicating it to anything is not a good idea.

Genjar said:
As I've explained, it doesn't. Wyvern keeps getting tagged for creatures that look like dinosaurs or generic reptiles. Because that's what 'wyverns' are in some franchises. The implication would result in those getting incorrectly tagged as dragon.

These are all currently tagged as wyvern:
post #1024633 post #643772 post #610735 post #894597 post #589033 post #563139

Problem here is that the Monster_hunter wyverns aren't being given a custom tag.

The ones which have wings on their forelimbs (Basically all but the first two) do qualify as wyvern, though.

I suggest the following:

• Create wyvern_(dragon)
• Create whatever wyvern_(franchise) that we need
• Clean up wyvern to its respective disambiguated tags.
• Implicate wyvern_(dragon) -> dragon
• Implicate wyvern_(franchise) tags to their respective franchises.
• Disambiguate wyvern

That way, people can then add whatever other wyvern_(franchise) they want. It would also force people to learn that, by default, wyvern is a type of dragon.

Delian said:
I suggest the following:

• Create wyvern_(dragon)
• Create whatever wyvern_(franchise) that we need
• Clean up wyvern to its respective disambiguated tags.
• Implicate wyvern_(dragon) -> dragon
• Implicate wyvern_(franchise) tags to their respective franchises.
• Disambiguate wyvern

That way, people can then add whatever other wyvern_(franchise) they want. It would also force people to learn that, by default, wyvern is a type of dragon.

Yes, that works! I was stumped trying to figure out what to use as the suffix for the basic one.

Delian said:
I suggest the following:

• Create wyvern_(dragon)
• Create whatever wyvern_(franchise) that we need
• Clean up wyvern to its respective disambiguated tags.
• Implicate wyvern_(dragon) -> dragon
• Implicate wyvern_(franchise) tags to their respective franchises.
• Disambiguate wyvern

That way, people can then add whatever other wyvern_(franchise) they want. It would also force people to learn that, by default, wyvern is a type of dragon.

That sounds like a good idea to me. When I search for wyvern, I expect to see dragons, not a whole bunch of other things. Other people might be searching for something else. Better to have the stuff in parentheses like that than to have to wade through things you're not looking for.

Genjar said:
post #643772

is...is that a pine cone dragon? o_O is there anything dragons can't mate with?

treos said:
is...is that a pine cone dragon? o_O is there anything dragons can't mate with?

Gho--
Wait, seriously?
post #1027175
Skele--
You're kidding?!
post #61550

Can't even say ant or moth, Fenoxo took care of that. So, uh... Beverages!

Furrin_Gok said:
Gho--
Wait, seriously?
post #1027175
Skele--
You're kidding?!
post #61550

Can't even say ant or moth, Fenoxo took care of that. So, uh... Beverages!

lol crystals too. saw red crystal dragons in the old might & magic Heroes Chronicles game series. o.O and speaking of the dead or undead, let's not forget zombie dragons. yuck!

hmmm...do blood dragons exist in some form? if so then may as well count various body fluids too.

Furrin_Gok said:
Gho--
Wait, seriously?
post #1027175
Skele--
You're kidding?!
post #61550

Can't even say ant or moth, Fenoxo took care of that. So, uh... Beverages!

Wait, maybe they haven't touched fruit yet!
post #818076

... never mind.

Siral_Exan said:
Wait, maybe they haven't touched fruit yet!
post #818076

... never mind.

nah, that's just a small eastern dragon eating some fruit.

post #534928 meet the Pie Dragon, a form of food dragon (see artist tag for more yummy looking creatures).

treos said:
nah, that's just a small eastern dragon eating some fruit.

post #534928 meet the Pie Dragon, a form of food dragon (see artist tag for more yummy looking creatures).

You may call it an eastern dragon, but I want to call it a smol cherry fruit dragon, one of the many types of smol fruit dragons out there...

...which might be a set I can make. Small dragons eating large fruits.

Furrin_Gok said:
Gho--
Wait, seriously?
post #1027175
Skele--
You're kidding?!
post #61550

Can't even say ant or moth, Fenoxo took care of that. So, uh... Beverages!

just droping this here, not sure if this counts sence its not exactly liquefied... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dz6c01_jMs

Ruku said:
just droping this here, not sure if this counts sence its not exactly liquefied... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dz6c01_jMs

...tin cans? Oh who am I kidding that's the same vein as cars.
Answer me this, then! Are there any toothpaste dragons?

Furrin_Gok said:
...tin cans? Oh who am I kidding that's the same vein as cars.
Answer me this, then! Are there any toothpaste dragons?

you want it in minty green or uh...well, i can't really link to pinterest due to their BS requirement of registering just to look at things so heres a link to a pic from there instead

really, why even allow a small preview where you can scroll down a small bit before hitting a "please register" wall? why not just go all the way and say "no content unless you register. end of discussion!"?

iir that's why i made an account i never use one pixiv (well, i use it to browse through the site and when sourcing pics i find here but that's about it). cause otherwise i couldn't browse anything on the site due to stupid requirements.

oh! and let's not forget the Gundragon, made out of countless guns in the Gungeon. ;)

treos said:
you want it in minty green or uh...well, i can't really link to pinterest due to their BS requirement of registering just to look at things so heres a link to a pic from there instead

really, why even allow a small preview where you can scroll down a small bit before hitting a "please register" wall? why not just go all the way and say "no content unless you register. end of discussion!"?

iir that's why i made an account i never use one pixiv (well, i use it to browse through the site and when sourcing pics i find here but that's about it). cause otherwise i couldn't browse anything on the site due to stupid requirements.

oh! and let's not forget the Gundragon, made out of countless guns in the Gungeon. ;)

Uuugh. Gorgons then. I have never seen a dragon gorgon hybrid, only really funky gorgons under a search on google that don't really fit any category of dragon.

Oops, found it

gorgon dragon? huh, never heard of that species before.

hmmm... well, i don't see any dragons made of furniture but i did come across this and they look absolutely amazing!

any of those sculptures would make for an amazing table. :)

treos said:
gorgon dragon? huh, never heard of that species before.

hmmm... well, i don't see any dragons made of furniture but i did come across this and they look absolutely amazing!

any of those sculptures would make for an amazing table. :)

Couch Dragon

Furrin_Gok said:
Couch Dragon

want!^^;

Furrin_Gok said:
Couch Dragon

heh, nice find.

By the way, Adventure Time apparently had a “Blanket Dragon,” made of a mattress body covered with a blanket, and pillows for the neck and tail.