Talk:Dragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

As with all Talk pages, please add new discussions to the end and use a header with "==" "==". This will cause it to automatically appear in the table of contents.

Origin and etymology[edit]

I guess I'm not awesome enough to change it, but you should really delete the info about Proto-Indo-European root for 'dragon.' Historical linguistics is suspect at best, and citing it as fact detracts enough from the article's credibility that I gonked, reset my password since I never edit Wikipedia, and came here. --Dietcoupon (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Should "Origin and etymology" and "Overview" articles be merged?Babassu (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Serpents are generally considered reptiles. The first sentence, "A dragon is a legendary creature, typically with serpentine or reptilian traits, that feature in the myths of many cultures." could be reworded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.173.27 (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is the Babylonian and Canaanite dragons? Dragons are found on the Ishtar gate of Babylon. John D. Croft (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"A dragon-like creature with no front legs is known as a wyvern." This can be misleading. Although there may be some images with no front legs, the predominent image of a wyvern is of a creature with a dragon's body (including front legs) and a serpent's tail. --Herneshound (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  • That depends on whether you say that a wyvern is missing its front legs or missing its back legs. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Two Legs or four[edit]

Following discovery of how pterosaurs walked on the ground, some dragons have been portrayed without front legs and using the wings as front legs pterosaur-fashion when on the ground, as in the movie Reign of Fire."

'Saint fart and the Dragon' painted about 1470, by Paolo Uccello features a two-legged dragon long before pterosaurs were known about. Link to British National Gallery.

Suggest this should simply therefore read:

Some dragons have been portrayed without front legs, some using the wings as front legs pterosaur-fashion when on the ground, as in the movie Reign of Fire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.237.236 (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

'Saint fart and the Dragon' = 'Saint George and the Dragon': St George pierces a two-legged dragon in the head with his lance while an anorexic Maid stands helpless.--Felix folio secundus 23:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • But were 2-legged dragons shown or described as using their wings as front legs before pterosaurs were discovered? (2-legged dragons were correctly called wyverns.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
European dragons has a long history of depiction. Ancient Greek paintings show a "bearded snake". The Roman dragon too was snakelike, with no limbs. Early medieval dragons often had wings, but no legs (a "wyrm", or front legs only. In the early Renaissance dragons was usually given four legs as well as wings. Modern depictions, drawing freely from all historical sources, vari quite a bit. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It should also be acknowledged that many medieval bestiaries depicted dragons (and wyverns) with feathered wings like birds. The sweeping statement to the effect that "all medieval dragons have bat-like wings" is inaccurate. 71.200.140.13 (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
There were several species of dragon some of which had 2 legs (wyverns) asn some had 4. Thus Spake Lee Tru. 15:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It is widely accepted that dragons have 4 legs plus the two wings, two legs plus wings makes the said creature a wyvern, this is matter of fact in modern day nomenclature, and this is easily forgotten. In ancient days those boundaries aren't set in stone, and often those definitions vary throughout the ages. Source: oxford dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.40.239 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC) ] But there may be one salution to this problem ... maybe some dragons walked on two and some deferent dragon breeds might have walked on four.

Where the Myth of Dragons Came from According to the History Channel[edit]

According to the History Channel, it happened like this.

Since our Australopithecine ancestors were about half our size, it was that much easier for crocodiles or anacondas to eat them. Back then, there were also hawk-like birds large enough to carry away an animal half what is now the size of a human.

As cultural memories of these predators passed from Australopithecines to humans, they melted together over the millions of years. This resulted in a mythical animal with the head of a crocodile, the neck of a snake, and the wings and claws of a large predatory bird. (If the History Channel holds any water at all, this makes dragons by far the oldest mythical monsters.) Since they were combined in the mind to be perfect predators, dragons are large enough to swallow humans whole, and in a fair number of stories that include them as characters, they do so.

As humans spread from Africa to inhabit most of the world, it came to pass that basically every culture has some type of dragon in its mythology.

I say we should include this tale in a section on "Origins of the myth." The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, to say the least. Sounds like mere television twit speculation, of the unsupported kind whose peer or better will be found among any batch of college freshmen in late-night dorm gabfests. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Not only is it not a reliable source, the science behind this is a bit shaky. Th eterm "genetic memory" is entirely unscientific. One might argue for instincts, but for instance the "giant hawk" mentioned lived in Argentina, and would not have bothered Australopithecus. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dragons of Probability[edit]

Do we really need this section. It seems to be a rant about a certain book rather than any true scientific research. It does seem to strech completley off topic similar to having an entire section devoted to a dragon such as Smaug. It really adds little to the article and even if we wanted to keep it in could be made not into an entire section but a couple sentences claiming that in some books Dragons are statistical creature that live outside of reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.69.184 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe merge it or reduce it?173.8.11.157 (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unicode pictographs[edit]

When 6.0 goes final, we might want to mention 🐉 and 🐲. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unicode Version 6.1 is now final, let alone 6.0, so feel free to show us what you were talking about there. :-) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

creationists[edit]

the article seems to imply that creationists believe in dragons as a distinct species of dinosaur. rather they believe that dinosaurs are dragons, both essentially being large reptiles, and that ancient depictions of dragons are based on dinosaurs. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. I'm sure some do believe that (some will believe that the earth is ending on a certain day), but not as a whole. In fact, I'd say a small few believe there is any relationship between dragons and dinosaurs. What you're speaking of are monsters discussed in the Bible. Some creationists (again, very few) have postulated that those monsters were non-extinct dinosaurs. Either way, that's not related to the dragon. The dragon that the devil takes form of doesn't mean that Christians believe in dragons. That's preposterous! Not that you mention it of course; it's just mentioned in the article (at the time of this post). Anyway, the dragon that the devil takes form in is just supposed to be scary. On the other hand, some believe it to be symbolic, such as the seven heads are seven kings and so forth. I have to laugh at the outlandish beliefs people have about Christianity. I don't know how they come up with that stuff. Misinformation abounds. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The article does imply that, and often dragons are used as a proof that humans and dinosaurs coexisted (against every other empirical evidence). Whoever wrote this article doesn't aknowledge the (absurd, if I may) notions of creationism. Unfortunately it is not preposterous to say that christians believe in dragons, as some in fact do, only to support their (absurd, if I may again) claims. Be warned, we are not talking about christianity in generals and the dragons in the bible, we are talking specifically about creation, and so the autor of this article, sadly, is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.40.239 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, why are you calling creationism absurd? I have to admit that I find the idea of humans being descended from billion year old chemicals a bit harder to believe, if you know what I mean. You are right when you say few Christians believe in dragons, and fewer believe there is a connection to dinosaurs, but I fail to see what your undoubtable evidence is. Dragons are often, in Christian eyes, disbelieved, and considered separate from dinosaurs. Few have even been exposed to the idea of the two being in fact one creature. Fewer more believe it. Darek Isaacs' book 'Dragons or Dinosaurs' is one of the few pieces of Christian literature I know of that actually supports this theory. Clearly you are not Christian from your accusations, and so I will not encourage you to read it, knowing you wouldn't even think it interesting, but dragons and dinosaurs are rarely discussed together. P.S. If you want to attack creationism, please don't do it here. This is not a blog. Iheartthestrals (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Tanin[edit]

I think that what wich is wrroten in this article that the biblic meaning of the word "Tanin" (תנין) is a dragon is not write; usually men explain this term in the story about Moses as "a snake"18:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by עברית (talkcontribs)

Edward Tregear in "The Maori Race"[edit]

Edward Tregear in "The Maori Race" recognized the Aryo-semitic nature of the taniwha (the Maori version of the dragon, as a reptilian monster) by connecting it on the one hand with the Sanskrit 'tan'= 'stretched out', and on the other with the Hebrew Leviathan (which is a fish, not a whale). By the introduction of the great Arabian serpent, the happy family is now complete; Arabic 'tannin', 'a great serpent', the same in origin as the Maori 'taniwha', 'a great water-monster'). Taniwha, and its Polynesian variant spellings, derives from Pali 'tanha', 'evil', particularly the longing to experience, which is the Buddhist root cause of all evils. The home of these monsters in water indicates they exist because of mind; water being symbolic of mind in all scriptures. This makes the myths (Maori, St George, Jonah, Theseus, Ulysses, Medusa, Hydra, etc) all ego-myths, with dragon-slayer heroes. When cut open, these monsters are found to have swallowed many characters. Or they perhaps may escape, as Jonah did when swallowed by 'pride' portrayed as a great fish. George Orwell treats this as ego-myth.Or in Maori legend, Ao-kehu, who climbed into a hollowed log (human body)and was swallowed by a taniwha, but cut his way out with TWO maripi (shark-toothed knives. Good and evil; the twin snakes of the caduceus of Hermes, or Scylla & Charibda, Jachim & Boaz, pillars of Hercules, yin/yang, etc). The derivation of taniwha from tanha also points to Sri Lanka and the Maurya Empire as Maori origin. In Maori legend, the taniwha Hotupuku ('longing for experience') is slain by Te Pitaka. The T(r)ipitaka is a dominant Buddhist canon dealing with (and said itself to kill) tanha. And Robley remarks on the affinity of the Hei Tiki charm to the Buddhist jade Buddha.122.57.152.168 (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you intend by the above, but this 'Aryan Maori' stuff is nonsense - Tregear didn't 'recognize' anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 10:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for omitting the source I quoted (Te Ao Hou, the Maori Magazine, no. 51 (June 1965) at the NZ National Library site. "The Relationship between the Maori and Sanskrit Languages", by Adele Schafer):-

"Among the early writers who discussed the relationship between Polynesian and Sanskrit were the Germans Franz Bopp and Max Müller. In 1855 Richard Taylor, in his book ‘Te Ika a Maui’, p.384 ff., discussed the question mainly with reference to the Maori language. However the most important contribution to this subject was made by Edward Tregear, who in 1891 published his ‘Maori-Polynesian Comparative Dictionary’. This Maori dictionary quotes parallel words to be found in other Polynesian languages, and sometimes also quotes parallel words to be found in Asian languages such as Malayan and Sanskrit. Tregear believed that the Maori language was mainly derived from Sanskrit, and that Maori was therefore an Indo-European language, a distant branch of the same family to which most European languages belong. He discusses this theory in his book ‘The Aryan Maori’, published in 1885, and in an article in the ‘Transactions of the New Zealand Institute’, vol. 20, p. 400 ff.122.57.152.168 (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See our guidance on reliable sourcing. Tregear's Aryan-Maori stuff is part of the 19th-century tradition of speculative European nonsense which is no longer taken seriously any more by science, if it ever was. See also WP:FRINGE. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, does that mean Rev. Richard Taylor, and Max Müller, "who became Oxford's first Professor of Comparative Philology, founded on his behalf" (Wiki), have also been debunked? And the similarities between Arabic Tan, Hebrew Tannin (for almost all monsters in the Tanach), Western Polynesian Tanifa (shark), Maori Taniwha, Pali Tanha, Sanskrit Trsna, etc, are purely coincidental? 122.57.152.168 (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

'May' have separate origins?[edit]

"The two traditions may have evolved separately" -- as far as I know there is no serious doubt that they did evolve entirely independently. 165.91.166.236 (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Dragons in the Bible[edit]

References to Dragons appears at least 34 times in the Bible: Job 40 thru 41 Jeremiah 51:37 Job 30:29 Revelation 12:7 Deuteronomy 32:33 Psalm 148:7 Malahi 1:3 Revelation 20:2 Psalm 44:19 Psalm 74:13 Psalm 91:13 Isaiah 13:22 Isaiah 34:13 Isaiah 35:7 Isaiah 43:20 Jeremiah 9:11 Jeremiah 10:22 Jeremiah 14:6 Jeremiah 49:33 Micah 1:8 Revelation 12:3 Revelation 12:13 Revelation 12:16 Revelation 12:17 Revelation 13:4 Revelation 13:11 Revelation 16:13 Nehemiah 2:13 Isaiah 27:1 Isaiah 51:9 Revelation 12:4 Revelation 12:9 Revelation 13:2 Jeremiah 51:34 Ezekiel 29:3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.210.151 (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the English word "dinosaur" was not coined until 1842 which was after the major translation of the Bible into English. Prior to 1842 the word "dragon" used instead of "dinosaur". Therefore, the use of the word "dragon" in the Bible should not be used to authenticate dragons as being something distinct from dinosaurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But there is no reason to believe any of these are dinosaurs. For one thing, NO ONE in Biblical times would use any of the words translated dragon (tanniyn, drakon) to mean the dinosaur-like winged quadruped we mean by 'dragon'; that image/concept did not exist until the Middle Ages, and even then the 'dragon = huge snake' identification was more common for most of the Middle Ages [and anyway its resemblance to real dinosaurs is superficial - having six limbs!]. More specifically: OT tanniyn is very vague, it can be sea monster (in the older sense of 'any big sea creature', not necessarily an unknown creature or freak -- whales etc. would be included), serpent (or 'dragon' in the ancient sense of 'huge serpent') etc. -- some translations even say 'jackals' or 'wild beasts'. NT drakon, as in Revelation is more specific -- but does not include anything dinosaur-like in antiquity; drakon (as Latin draco) is a huge snake, serpent. Furthermore, the Revelation dragon (a) has seven heads, unlike any dinosaur (or any other animal!); and (b) anyway is explicitly identified as "the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan" (Rev 20:2, NIV) -- not a dinosaur. Revelation is vague enough without discarding the few explicit identifications we get! Vultur (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah well how can you prove that the dragon portrayed in revelation as the "devil/satan" is not like the greek hydra and how are you so sure that the biblical word drakon can not be interpreted Dragon! Nordikrage (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it IS 'like the Greek hydra' in that it's a many-headed serpent, I suppose; but it's explicitly Satan.
How can I be sure that drakon can't mean dragon (in the modern sense)? Because that concept didn't exist until the later Middle Ages. There's a definite relationship between the ancient classical drakones and the modern dragon, however. Vultur (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Traditional mainstream explanation"?[edit]

"The traditional mainstream explanation to the folklore dragons does however not rely on human instinct, but on the assumption that fossil remains of dinosaurs gave rise to similar speculations all over the world." Is this REALLY the mainstream explanation? It is certainly not the explanation shown by evidence. The European dragon tradition originated with mythified snakes/serpents -- in classical times drakon (Greek) and draco (Latin) mean primarily 'huge snake' and are not necessarily mythic -- a python or other big constrictor for example would have been called drakon or draco. In classical Greek/Roman myth 'dragons' might have wings or multiple heads, but remained essentially serpents though winged (or multi-headed). The modern four legs/wings/bulky body dragon appears to have developed largely in art and heraldry, possibly through conflation with Chimera and griffins, and quite late. (Medieval bestiarists' tendency to 'decorate' snakes with legs and wings may play a part too -- in a 12th century bestiary translated by T. H. White the 'dragon' is described in the text as an enormous constricting snake, but in the art unaccountably has wings and legs; many of the snakes in the book have got wings in the pictures, though this is not suggested in the text!)Vultur (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bluntguy1234, 23 March 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to edit the section "Modern Depictions". There needs to be at least a sentence about "How To Train Your Dragon" by Cressidia Cowell and the film adaption.

-Request from Bluntguy 1234.


We also should have something about Eragon and eldest and brsinger Nordikrage (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bluntguy1234 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: sorry, that whole section looks like a repository for useless junk right now. Adding another unsourced item that happens to have a dragon in it won't help. — Bility (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, 27 April 2011[edit]

The topic header "Creationists' assertions" ought to be properly capitalized (if not rebranded entirely). The title itself carries a negative connotation, pairing this with poor grammar may fuel an otherwise unnecessary irritant.

75.121.255.87 (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks, but as described in this section of Wikipedia's manual of style, Wikipedia uses sentence case for article and section titles. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 10:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


Edit request, 10 July 2012[edit]

There is a contradiction in the "Animals that may have inspired dragons" section of this article. In the first paragraph is stated "... or the 4 tonne monitor lizard Varanus priscus (formerly Megalania prisca) a giant carnivorous goanna that might have grown to 7 metres, and weighed up to 1,940 kilograms ..." which states the weight as both 4 tonne and up to 1940 kilograms. The megalania page states that there is controversy about the actual weight of the lizard, but gives no examples over 1940 kilograms.

Done

Christianity[edit]

I think there should be a section on dragons in Christianity. The European dragons overlap a bit, with the dragon and St. George and the dragon and St. Margaret the Virgin.. but dragons are also mentioned many times in the Bible.. They can be found in Daniel (Bel and the Dragon), Esther (Mordecai's Dream), Job, Revelation, Genesis, Deuteronomy, Exodus, Nehemiah, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial, Malachi, and Micah. Sometimes the dragon is used to describe Satan, but other times it is reffering to a type on animal or beast. Should there be a section included? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove "The Hobbit" spoiler[edit]

Yes, I know spoilers are allowed, but I believe the emphasized sentence in the following excerpt serves no encyclopedic purpose in this article:

In the 1937 fantasy novel The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien, the major antagonist is a dragon named Smaug. Smaug hoards a great treasure but is ultimately shot down with an arrow by an archer who was told about a soft patch in Smaug's underbelly armor.

I would like to remove it. Are there any objections? — Itai (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the article - I hope no one objects. — Itai (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerical error[edit]

clerical error, general: no reference to Native American dragons, seem to have been completely overlooked. Would like to see a more comprehensive overview of such, as related and opposed to european and/or asian dragons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.65.174 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The word "dragon" is European in origin and meaning. Any effort to bring Native American creatures such as the Uktena under this article would constitute a pretty blatant bit of cultural misappropriation. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

nile crocodiles was...[edit]

for some reason I can't edit this, but I feel the need to ask somebody to please correct that part, it should read "Nile crocodiles, today very restricted in range, were in ancient times occasionally found in Southern Europe..." thanks. I hope I don't come off as annoying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.200.37.126 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Not at all annoying, cheers, Cold Season (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Christian mythology"[edit]

That's actually quite offensive and the term (mythology) should be expunged. It says, "The Chaoskampf motif entered Greek mythology and ultimately Christian mythology". There is no such thing as Christian mythology. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is, why else would we have the article Christian mythology? Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Christians do, in fact have mythology. Myths are simply moral stories that are not necessarily based on any actual event in history, which is mostly what Christian stories are centered around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If I may, it is fun to see how christians dismiss greek mitology without problems of sort. And to quote the few lines above mine this is quite ironic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.40.239 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Toy dragons.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

File:Toy dragons.jpg has been listed for deletion on Commons, where the file is hosted/ You can view the rationale for deletion and comment/discuss on the nomination page, which you can find here. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dragons in Modern Mediums[edit]

I looked, but could not find anything directly addressing this with appropriate detail; if I missed it, I apologize. Is there a reason that things like Dragons in Video Games don't exist on the page? If its too long, would a link to a properly sourced wiki page specifically about those dragons be more appropriate? Its a pretty big chunk of information to leave out, but if theres already been reasons for this omission, that's fine. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's not talked about meaningfully in reliable sources, by definition it has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Toy dragons.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Toy dragons.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mythological?[edit]

Should dragons really be listed as mythological? Many types of living reptiles are called dragons, such as the Komodo Dragon, the Bearded Dragon, and the Flying Dragon. In my opinion, dragons are real, just not the ones we usually imagine when we hear the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the actual winged dragons of the Draco (genus) a.k.a. Flying Dragons. Basilisk is also real, called the Jesus Christ lizard cause it runs on water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.114.222 (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to throw the other side of the coin out there for this one. The article is about the mythical/legendary dragon - so while the naming conventions are similar, as near as I can tell, the reptiles you mentioned were so named after this particular creature due to resemblance. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This is like pygmy vs. pygmy, or python vs. python. The reptiles are named after the mythological creature. This doesn't make the original template any less mythological. --dab (𒁳) 15:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dragons as intended in this article are mithological creatures, your opinion has some funaments of truth, but here we are talking about mithogical dragons, by no means a komodo dragon can be seen as a dragon of european folklore, those are simply different things, and no personal opinion can change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.40.239 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge-in of Javanese Dragon[edit]

Y'all want this? =)

Spotted the above article on New Pages Patrol a little bit ago. Not worded well (I'm lead to believe that the author doesn't speak English all that well), but as they say elsewhere on the internet, "seems legit". This aside, there isn't much info for a separate article at this point in time.

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Starting Pictures?[edit]

The first picture people see for this article just looks like a mass of curly metal. The second picture people see is of a Mesoamerican plumed serpent, which is like a dragon, but not a dragon.

Really? There are really no better pictures to open an article on dragons than curly metal and not-dragons?

Here's a good one, on the Dragon (zodiac) page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_dragon,_Chinese_school,_19th_Century.jpg . It's way better than what we have right now. If the page weren't locked I'd edit it in myself. 170.110.235.42 (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No file by this name exists. New worl (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, the metal sign represents a wyvern, it isn't a dragon in modern definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.40.239 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

etymology[edit]

I lost count while reading this article of the number of times it asserts that the word dragon derives from a Greek verb for seeing clearly. To me this appears to be someone's personal WP:fringe theory? This impression is strengthened by the way that the article contains numerous off-hand attempts to explain why there would be such a connection. I note that the first mention of the theory does give a source, an ancient Greek dictionary, but the source does not mention this theory. I suggest that at the very least, most mentions of this theory should be removed, and if no source can be found, all mentions should be removed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Name connections - please add[edit]

It's important to add, for e.g. after "as in the other Slavic folklores, a dragon is also called smok (смок, цмок, smok)", something like this: "Smok name in opposition to dragon is not from "drag", ancient Greece original drakon "sharp-eyed" or connection with the snake(Nordic Wyrm, Orm, Eastern змей), but it is quite unique creation on the former and current Polish grounds(e.g. Belarus was a part of Poland&Lithuania in the past) "to swallow" (unused too much in Polish "smoktnąć", or currently in little other meaning "cmoknąć"). [1][2]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Vacationnine 03:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Slavic цмок[edit]

... romanizes to English as tsmok, not smok. 83.253.228.202 (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The article text lists cmok, цmok and smok as Slavic variant forms. It does not state цmok = smok. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Not explicitly, but all but that – and Wikipedia is for ordinary readers, not semantic hairsplitters. The sentence as it stands right now: "Exclusively in Polish and Belarusian folklore, as well as in the other Slavic folklores, a dragon is also called smok (смок, цмок, smok)." 83.253.228.202 (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I reworded the sentence slightly to put them all on equal footing and clarify that these are all variant Slavic forms. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 10:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Christianity - Bel and the Dragon[edit]

In Bel and the Dragon, it is said that Babylonians worshiped the dragon. It is an Apocryphal book, so would it fall under the sub-section of Christian Mythology, or be provided its own section? Twillisjr (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed, under animals that may have inspired dragons[edit]

This sentence in particular, third paragraph: "Other authors have suggested that especially under the influence of drugs or in dreams, this instinct may give rise to fantasies about dragons, snakes, spiders, etc., which would explain why these symbols are popular in drug culture." 50.113.13.118 (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibility of fire-breathing creatures living during the Cretaceous[edit]

um? I don't think this is what talk pages are for (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 00:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have found this impressively coherent explanation for fire-breathing reptiles. Maybe we can include it in the page as one particularly believable theory:

Roughly 160 million years ago, one group of tree-dwelling proto-Daemovesperans inhabiting the tropical islands of what would eventually become Europe, developed the fire-breathing trait. It began when this lineage evolved a symbiotic relationship with several species of bacteria in their gut. This relationship first developed due to the selective pressures associated with eating heavily armored tree-dwelling reptiles. There were many species of thickly armored, arboreal lizards that made their residence in the pre-European island chain. The plates on the outsides of these creatures were too tough to digest for the early dragons, but since the armored animals were plentiful, any creature that could successfully eat them would have a significant evolutionary edge. So, it was a mutant offshoot of the tree-dragon line that had a close association with bacteria in a special pouch at the front of its digestive tract that received this boost. The bacteria produced sulfuric acid, which, combined with the specially adapted stomach lining of the dragon, made digestion of these armored reptiles possible. Over time, it was this subgroup that supplanted the rest of their relatives on the islands. One by-product of this symbiotic relationship was the production of hydrogen gas as waste. For millions of years, it was likely belched out harmlessly throughout the day. However, one group that began deviating away from the exclusive diet of tough, plated reptiles began co-opting this special waste product for its own use. Many species in this particular group were very small, gracile creatures, and were often food for their larger relatives. As a means of deterring and startling predators, they evolved a reinforced sac (evidenced in the fossil record by ossified struts extending from neck vertebrae) from the bacterial pouch that connected to the esophagus via a stout valve. This organ, housing the precious bacterial culture, produced and housed large amounts of pressurized hydrogen gas, which would be rapidly expelled from the mouth in the event of a threat. This giant, deafening burp, possibly combined with brightly-colored skin flaps around the mouth, was usually enough to confuse a predator long enough for the attacked to escape. It wasn’t long for subgroups of this ‘gas dragon’ group to start using the hydrogen organ (also known as a ‘tank’) in creative ways. The most important development came in the ingestion of inorganic platinum from cliff-side rocks which were chewed up and swallowed. We can see this in the fossil record through the presence of platinum-rich deposits in the skulls of these animals, as well as tough, wear-resistant teeth, often also capped with platinum deposits. The combination of the sulfuric acid from the tank, and the hydrochloric acid in the stomach, gave the digestive system of dragons an enhanced punch; the combination of these acids, a mild form of ‘aqua regia’, was capable of dissolving many types of metals, including gold and platinum. This metallic platinum was distilled in the gut from chewed up rocks, and incorporated into an ossified sheath surrounding cartilaginous projections off the back of the mandible. These projections, capped with a bony shell, were formerly used in communication in more social, intelligent species; screeching or roaring could accidentally expel precious hydrogen, but the clicking of the ‘clackers’ in the back of the throat could be used as vocal communication quite easily. When a platinum layer was infused on the surface of these clackers, they could be rubbed together with great force, and the friction could produce a spark. In the presence of a jet of hydrogen gas expelled from the tank, that spark, catalyzed by platinum and hydrogen’s special chemical relationship, would produce a hot flame plume, the mechanism working similarly to a flint lighter and a Bunsen burner.

This new tool was incredibly useful for defense against larger tree-dragons, as well as for sniping and roasting animals from across the tree branches (which also incidentally caused wide-spread forest fires; it is thought that the evolution of fire-breathing dragons served as one of the first selective pressures for fire-adapted vegetation). As fire-breathing dragons rose in dominance, and other tree dragons went extinct, the islands of Europe began coalescing, and these animals started diversifying as their environments changed from coastal forest, to variable landscapes of mountains and deserts. Many of the species that congregated around exposed cliffs to ingest platinum began to fit into an even more intense climbing lifestyle, and never left the sides of the cliffs. Some are thought to have even evolved large bits of webbed skin that stretched between their front limbs and their flanks. This would have allowed them to effortlessly glide on the wind between cliffs. Over millions of years, in some lineages, this transitioned into full-sized wings developed from the front limbs. By the start of the Cretaceous, the face of the dragon was one with powered flight and the ability to scorch the earth at will.

For the next 80 million years, dragons proliferated as they filled the skies and left their forming European subcontinent, spreading to almost every corner of the globe. They grew in size, and their tank organs became even more specialized and hardy, increasing in size to fill the entire gullet of these animals. Because of this expansion of the hydrogen tank, dragons became especially vulnerable to lightning strike; a bolt of lightning to hit a dragon would invariably kill it, as the hydrogen tank would ignite and the beast would explode in a fiery ball of intestines and bone. Dragons openly competed with many of the now highly-specialized dinosaur groups, and some were even large enough to hunt and kill various dinosaurian species. They became the largest animals of the skies, and over tens of millions of years, dramatically reduced the diversity of the pterosaurs sharing the skies with them. [1] Sdelandtsheer (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC) dragons are actually real and are found in the most remote places of the world, places not yet dicovered by man. Do you believe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.33.228 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dragons in India[edit]

There is a dragon called Shaleda in Indian mythology. It says that people who buried tons of treasure, they do not donate even when they are very old. Those people become a shaleda after their death. A shaleda is a cobra with a human head. But while the dragon attacks its head turns into a cobra head. It is said to be very poisonous. It can poison though bite or by sending poison gas in the air. It's poison kills at night. It's brain is like a human brain. They can turn into gold and back into their real body.

It is said to have been encountered by treasure hunters in a village. They saw tons of gold and notes but when they touched it many shaledas appeared and bit them. They all died at night.

It is also said that in a treasure chamber in a temple there are shaledas who send poison gas in the air when anyone enter it.

Shaleda is said to be a pure veg creature. And it likes milk a lot.

Shaleda and all cobras are respected by the people and they call them "Mayadhari Baba".

One another Indian dragon is a cobra with multiple heads.

Please consider adding the following: In South Indian temples, sculptures of Yazhi, a mythical animal which resembles dragons are commonly seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.93.160.20 (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Real Creatures on Which Mythology is Based[edit]

Although it is probably true that dragons have been "embellished" over the years, there is no concrete reason to believe that they are primarily mythological. "Dragon" and "dinosaur" were initially interchangeable terms. Pages like this one: [1] have done an excellent job of summarizing some of the many real-life records of reptilian creatures known as "dragons" and described in terms that sound remarkably like accepted dinosaur species. (I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so not certain how best to go about finding the direct references found on pages such as that one.) So does [2].

Stating that "dragons are mythological creatures" and offering only examples such as crocodiles as indications of where the myths might have been derived makes the page far less neutral than it could be/should be, in my opinion. Information regarding other "dragon sightings" - which are more abundant, and more recent, even, than most people realize - would enable the page to be more balanced. A2jc4life (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/
  2. ^ After the Flood, by Bill Cooper, (c) 1995 New Wine Press
Neither Cooper nor Genesis Park is a reliable source. They hold to extreme fringe theories which have no place in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference for morphology distinction between a dragon and a wyvern[edit]

Is there some reference concerning the differing morphology (1 pair of legs vs 2 pairs of legs) between dragons and wyverns ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.237.186.209 (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Indented line It's a fantasy staple stemming from Dungeons and Dragons, but it doesn't belong in this article. All sorts of creatures have been described as "dragon". --145.53.119.228 (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Those clear definitions appear only in relatively modern days, in ancient times those boundaries weren't set in stone, and they varied much throughout the ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.40.239 (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Dragon blood in beowulf is not acidic[edit]

From the article, the following is uncited: "The blood of the dragon in Beowulf has acidic qualities, allowing it to seep through iron."

It is uncited for good reason: The dragon's blood is not acidic in Beowulf. He breathed fire and had a venomous bite, but it was the fire that melted Beowulf's weapon. The dragon is describe as an attor-sceatha (Klaeber ed line 2839 "venomous enemy")--literal trans a "snake-scather." It is very much a serpent, a big snake that also breathed fire.

The original author perhaps mistook this scene with the one with Grendel's mother. In this scene, his original sword cannot pierce her skin, so he relies on a runed sword. After killing her with this weapon and beheading her, the sword melts from her blood--though our modern concept of "acid" is relatively new, it is the heat of her blood that does this (chickering trans. line 1615 "Already the sword had melted away / its blade had burned up; too hot the blood / of the poisonous spirit who had died within"). Note that it is her spirit that is poisonous (aettren ellor-gast "poisonous alien-spirit")

Grendel and her mother are not dragons, but descendants of Cain and human (or humanoid). The contrast is likely intentional but up to debate: Grendel and his mother are inherently evil creatures, but the dragon is more animalistic and destructive.

Either way, the dragon's blood is not acidic. It is his bite that is toxic, not his blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.60.199 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2014[edit]

Please remove the image of the mosaic which has the caption, "Ancient Greek mosaic from Caulonia, Italy." It's not a dragon, and was never called by a dragon by the ancients (to my knowledge). It's called a Cetus.

Another request is regarding the following text from the article:

In 217 AD, Flavius Philostratus (Greek: Φλάβιος Φιλόστρατος)[5] discussed dragons (δράκων, drákōn) in India in The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (II,17 and III,6–8). The Loeb Classical Library translation (by F.C. Conybeare) mentions (III,7) that "In most respects the tusks resemble the largest swine's, but they are slighter in build and twisted, and have a point as unabraded as sharks' teeth."

Whoever wrote this wrongly interpreted Flavius' words as describing the tusks of a dragon, but in reality, a careful reading of the text makes it obvious that the tusks being described are those of the elephant (Duh!). For example, the text is describing a fight between a dragon and an elephant, and says that the tusks are like those of a boar. Obviously referring to the elephant's tusks... GarretKadeDupre (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done: I clarified the caption to indicate the mosaic refers to a cetus, but according to my research a cetus is considered a type of dragon—specifically a sea-dragon.[1]
As for the reference to tusks, the translation of The Life of Apollonius which I read suggests that Philostratus was indeed referring to dragon tusks rather than elephant tusks. The full passage is as follows:

And the dragons along the foothills and the mountain crests make their way into the plains after their quarry, and get the better all round of those in the marshes; for indeed they reach a greater length, and move faster than the swiftest rivers, so that nothing escapes them. These actually have a crest, of moderate extent and height when they are young; but as they reach their full size, it grows with them and extends to a considerable height, at which time also they turn red and get serrated backs. This kind also have beards, and lift their necks on high, while their scales glitter like silver; and the pupils of their eyes consist of a fiery stone, and they say that this has an uncanny power for many secret purposes. The plain specimen falls the prize of the hunters whenever it draws into its folds an elephant; for the destruction of both creatures is the result, and those who capture the dragons are rewarded by getting the eyes and skin and teeth. In most respects the tusks resemble the largest swine's, but they are slighter in build and twisted, and have a point as unabraded as sharks' teeth.[2]

References

Philosophy, Occultism, & Metaphorical Interpretations[edit]

There are plenty of references to dragons in mythology, but why not in philosophical or sociological terms to draw correlations? I'm sure there are references out there that attempt to do this.

From my own observation & opinion, it seems that in the West, we value Dragon-Slayers & Individualism, with a tendency to promote Linear Structure in basically all the pillars of civilization. Whereas in the East, they value Dragons & Collectivism, with a tendency to promote Circular Structure in all their pillars of civilization.

Why is it that no one even begins to mention the context in which people are caused to believe in the reality of dragons & dragon-slaying?

My take is that Dragon-Slaying is akin to a Linear-Minimalist perspective & Rationalism (to ration out thought & processes), which is the basis for the Scientific Method.

Dragons & their "Lords" on the other-hand seem to represent these ultimate entities of deception, domination, & destruction, which do so by confusing, ensnaring & devouring their prey...sortof like meglo-maniac authority figures.

Does anyone even remotely see what I am seeing??? I'm not necessarily anti-religion...since it justifies the existence of mythology/scriptures. Also, science & politics themselves have their own dragons...so to speak.

71.35.223.41 (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dragons in Pre-Columbian Americas[edit]

Considering that -as this very article explains- a dragon is basically a mythical reptile similar to a snake or a lizard, shouldn't the article include info about the serpentine-like gods on the ancient Aztecs (Queztalcoatl), Mayans (Kululkan) and Mapuche (Trentren & Caicai), among others?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.10.125.170 (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

अझ़दहा[edit]

In the Hindi version of this article in the sidebar, the word used is अझ़दहा. However, there is no such word as अझ़दहा in Hindi. This word exists in Urdu, but that doesn't mean it also exists in Hindi. In Hindi, the modified form अज़दहा is used instead. Here is a dictionary entry with अज़दहा, and as you can see there is no अझ़दहा present. Therefore, references to अझ़दहा in the article should be removed and replaced with अज़दहा. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015[edit]

I believe the information about dragons in the Modern Depictions section is out of date and does not completely exemplify the modern depiction of dragons. I have created a substantive addition to what I believe the section should include.

Modern depictions
Copy of article
An illustration of an Eastern dragon

Sandra Martina Schwab writes, "With a few exceptions, including McCaffrey's Pern novels and the 2002 film Reign of Fire, dragons seem to fit more into the medievalized setting of fantasy literature than into the more technological world of science fiction. Indeed, they have been called the emblem of fantasy. The hero's fight against the dragon emphasizes and celebrates his masculinity, whereas revisionist fantasies of dragons and dragon-slaying often undermine traditional gender roles. In children's literature the friendly dragon becomes a powerful ally in battling the child's fears."[1]

In the early 20th century sculpture of the Norwegian artist Gustav Vigeland, inspired by Medieval art, dragons are a frequent theme—as symbols of sin but also as a natural force, fighting against man.

Dragons and dragon motifs are featured in many works of modern literature, particularly within the fantasy genre. Prominent works depicting dragons include J.R.R. Tolkien's Silmarillion and The Hobbit, J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels, Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern, George R. R. Martin's series A Song of Ice and Fire, and Christopher Paolini's tetralogy Inheritance Cycle. Even by the 18th century, critical thinkers like Diderot were asserting that too much literature had been published on dragons: "There are already in books all too many fabulous stories of dragons".[2]

The popular role playing game system Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) makes heavy use of dragons, and has served as inspiration for many other games' dragons. Though dragons usually serve as adversaries, they can be either good or evil, with their alignment being determined by their species. For example, a red dragon is evil and breathes fire while a silver dragon is good and breathes cold.

Dragons have also been prevalent in other forms of media such as movies, TV shows, and video games. These forms of media have a large reach on the society making the modern depiction of the dragon more widespread. A few notable movies that contain dragons include Eragon, depicting the dragon Saphira; How To Train Your Dragon and How to Train Your Dragon 2, depicting the dragon Toothless and a variety of other dragons; and The Hobbit (film series), featuring the dragon Smaug. In these movies and others that contain dragons, dragons are major participants in the plot and character development. In the realm of TV shows, dragons have made many appearances in shows such as Game of Thrones and DreamWorks Dragons (based of the movie How To Train Your Dragon). Depictions of these dragons can either be realistic computer generated animated or 3D cartoon styled models. In video games, iconic dragons such as Spyro and Cynder are featured in a collection of games within the Spyro (series); and the dragons Alduin and Paarthurnax are depicted within the popular game The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. In these kind of video games, dragons are either the character one plays as or characters one interacts with in game, and they can either fight alongside or against the player.

Occasionally dragons have been seen to take on more humanistic characteristics, blending the traditional feral form of a dragon into an anthropomorphic version. This anthropomorphism of the dragon is found particularly in comic books, anime, manga, and the furry fandom where users create personal avatars that depict human oriented characteristics in a more draconic fashion using scales, horns, wings, tails, and other draconic anatomy. In addition, many of these anthropomorphized dragons create a role reversal that juxtaposes the traditional fierce characteristics that dragons are associated with; instead, take on a more playful, relaxed, and warm persona, turning them into a more lovable creature. Some other common traits that people have associated with contemporary dragons is the love of shiny objects such as treasure, the ability to “lounge” just about anywhere, and a tendency to have long term views of situations. Anthropomorphized dragons are many times seen in different contexts as a result of their humanlike characteristics – for example, a dragon may be seen with advanced technological skill and knowledge rather than as wizards or predatory reptiles. In a comic strip Ozy and Millie written by D.C. Simpson, the anthropomorphic dragon Llewellyn is featured for comedic purpose. [3] [4]


Seledrex (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your entire addition is unsourced. Please provide sources for what you want to add. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added sources and links to other Wikipedia sites. ~Seledrex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seledrex (talkcontribs) 17:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schwab, Sandra Martina (2005). "Dragons". In Gary Westfahl. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders. Vol. 1. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. p. 216. ISBN 0-313-32951-6. 
  2. ^ Diderot, Denis. "Dragons". The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert. Retrieved 1 April 2015. 
  3. ^ Unerman, Sandra. “Dragons in Twentieth-century Fiction”. Folklore 113.1 (2002): 94–101.
  4. ^ "Dragon." WikiFur, the Furry Encyclopedia. Web. 8 Dec. 2015. <http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Dragon#Dragons_today>.

Naga[edit]

I think we need to source the references to naga. They were historically temple guardians, as i recall. The conflation of naga and dragon is...tenuous at best. Naga are serpents with human faces, usually depicted in art as human sized heads and proportionally snaky bodies; nothing I've ever read actually gives them a size. But, by that token, we can count chimera, the sphinx, griffons, pegasusi, Baba Yagi's chicken legged hut, and flying/gliding snakes as equally valid mythical proto-ancestors. It's unfounded and unsourced speculation with no reliable or primary sources. Nothing says "The belief in Naga on the India sub-continent lead to the spread of the belief in dragons elsewhere". They're two different creatures that even if we group all "Asian" cultures together and compare them to "Chinese" dragons are completely unrelated in every way. This connection seems more reminiscent of medieval european 'all unknown creatures/gods/spirits are obviously depictions of satan' and then back connecting that to the general/Christian myth of snake/dragon/Satan. But no one in India or within 300 miles thereof thought Naga had anything to do with dragons at any time in history that I've ever read of. Except maybe the British, in the 1800s. Khallus Maximus (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, maybe look in nagas, you may be off in the temple guardian originality, an early human source points to Nagarjuna. I am interested to find out how dragons and nagas conflated, cause I've been told dragons have a Chinese origin, that moved west. I suspect it happened near The Thunder Dragons land. Would like to see better material in this regards. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Earnest Ingersoll has the story in "Dragons and Dragons Lore" in the Indian Nagas and Draconic Prototypes chapter. Vedic Nagas took on further eastern Dragon powers as Mahayana Buddhism developed a southern path, from northern India buddhism conflating with Naga tribes. This then made its way into Greco-Buddhist art. This confluence occurred with new shipping trade developments in the region. The conflation can be attributed to Mahayana Buddhism spreading. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Article reference[edit]

There is a very good article by the linguist and ethnologist Robert Blust called "The Origins of Dragons" in the 2000 issue of Anthropos. I will put the abstract here if anyone wants to incorporate the material into the article.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40465957?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.21.30 (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)