[boothby]

And now I'm picturing a dragon with bombardier-beetle style pulsed jet boosters. And while I'd typically question your assumptions of how big dragons need to be in order to deserve the name, I'll assert that quetzocoatlus nothropi[1] was big enough.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus

[krapp]

"Dragon" as a classification is odd, because when you look at every kind of mythological creature that gets classified as such nowadays, sometimes from cultures that wouldn't have recognized the concept, you find that they have little in common beyond some vaguely reptilian vibe and being scary.

And I'm sorry but that thing is too goofy looking to be considered a dragon.

[coldtea]

That's begging the question. We don't need to look "at every kind of mythological creature that gets classified as such nowadays" from "cultures that wouldn't have recognized the concept".

One could stick on those classified as such in western culture - which is where the fantasy novel about dragons and knights and spells and the rest are based on.

And in there, dragons have quite specific characteristic and vibes, as evidenced from medieval iconography of St George to countless fantasy book covers and illustrations.

[PaulHoule]

Dragons are dinosaurs, that is, closer to birds then contemporary reptiles.