So I've been uploading a couple pangolins recently... and the question popped into my head. Is scalie and appropriate tag for things like pangolins or armadillos? They're often drawn with more scales than actual scalies are.

I guess so. If it's covered in scales and can even be made into scale mail then it is scalie to me.

Then again, does a creature count as scalie if only part of their body is covered in scales? If yes, where do you draw the line on minimum coverage?

What about birds? Many have scutae all about the legs.

Scalie is an arbitrary distinction already; nothing separates it from furry other than what specific animal is used.

It may as well be defined on a species-by-species basis, or maybe by genus, since no other fast rule is going to suffice.

We generally use the scalie tag the same way it's used in furdom: http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Scalie. As a generic category for reptiles, dinosaurs, and amphibians. The latter two don't usually even have scales, but are categorized as scalies regardless. So no mammals or avians, unless they're chimeric creatures such as lamia.

Genjar said:
We generally use the scalie tag the same way it's used in furdom: http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Scalie. As a generic category for reptiles, dinosaurs, and amphibians. The latter two don't usually even have scales, but are categorized as scalies regardless. So no mammals or avians, unless they're chimeric creatures such as lamia.

Personally, I'd say Pangolin and Armadillo are scalies. They look covered in scales, not hair. Granberia is considered a scalie despite being a humanoid, after all. If I didn't know they were mammals, I would assume that they were reptiles.

Furrin_Gok said:
Personally, I'd say Pangolin and Armadillo are scalies. They look covered in scales, not hair. Granberia is considered a scalie despite being a humanoid, after all. If I didn't know they were mammals, I would assume that they were reptiles.

having scales does not equate to being scalie. scalie is a blanket tag for reptile based creatures and pangolins are not reptile based.

Mutisija said:
having scales does not equate to being scalie. scalie is a blanket tag for reptile based creatures and pangolins are not reptile based.

So why isn't the tag just "reptile" then?

Furrin_Gok said:
Personally, I'd say Pangolin and Armadillo are scalies. They look covered in scales, not hair.

Following this logic, all fish creatures should be tagged scalies as well. Like merfolk and such. And turtles shouldn't.

Mario69 said:
So why isn't the tag just "reptile" then?

Reptiles are animals in the class Reptilia.

for example dragons are not this and neither is whole bunch of other fictional scalie species.

This is a really silly argument to be having.

The obvious INTENT of the term "scalie" is to refer to fans of anthropomorphism who fixate primarily on reptilian or quasi-reptilian anthropomorphs. Most dragons draw their inspiration HEAVILY from real-life reptilian species. The very few dragons that appear more mammalian in inspiration are not usually referred to as "scalies" at all, to my knowledge. Given that dragons are entirely fictitious and the adoption of the "scalie" mantle is entirely voluntary and usually self-assigned to begin with, what is even the point of this argument? Sure, you can call yourself a "scalie" if you happen to like pangolin or armadillo anthropomorphs. There is no furry word police who will write you up as violating furry law for doing so. But what would the point be of adopting that mantle when the commonly accepted definition of scalie does not include mammalian species, anyway?

Just saying dragons are not reptile based, anatomically speaking they generally more often then not have more in common with mammalian felines or equines and bats then any kind of reptile.

Furry & Scalie, terms for two major factions of the fandom they have nothing to do with species but have a whole lot to do with the type of body coverage.

Worth pointing out on all sources there is no reference for scalie be reserved exclusivly to reptile but does make statements that it is inclusive to all character that are predominately scaled. The term was created by fans to differentiate from fur covered characters, it had nothing to do with species.

Kavellrist said:
This is a really silly argument to be having.

The obvious INTENT of the term "scalie" is to refer to fans of anthropomorphism who fixate primarily on reptilian or quasi-reptilian anthropomorphs. Most dragons draw their inspiration HEAVILY from real-life reptilian species. The very few dragons that appear more mammalian in inspiration are not usually referred to as "scalies" at all, to my knowledge. Given that dragons are entirely fictitious and the adoption of the "scalie" mantle is entirely voluntary and usually self-assigned to begin with, what is even the point of this argument? Sure, you can call yourself a "scalie" if you happen to like pangolin or armadillo anthropomorphs. There is no furry word police who will write you up as violating furry law for doing so. But what would the point be of adopting that mantle when the commonly accepted definition of scalie does not include mammalian species, anyway?

It's based on the looks. If it looks like something scalie, it gets adopted to the term.

And since pangolin and avians don't look like scalies, they don't get the tag. Yep, that seems clear enough.

Genjar said:
And since pangolin and avians don't look like scalies, they don't get the tag. Yep, that seems clear enough.

Avians, no, but
post #1148541 post #1120126
"Not scalie"? I heavily disagree. After all, Pangolins are nicknamed "The scaly ant-eater."

Furrin_Gok said:
Avians, no, but
post #1148541 post #1120126
"Not scalie"? I heavily disagree. After all, Pangolins are nicknamed "The scaly ant-eater."

scalie =/= scaly. scalie = reptile based. those do not look reptile based, especially the second one.

The thing about the term "scalie" is that it doesn't necessarily describe an anthropomorphic creature, and "furry" isn't really used to describe an anthropomorphic creature either. They're both understood to be words that describe fans of anthropomorphic creatures, with "furry" being the more generalized of the two and "scalie" usually referring in particular to furries who gravitate more towards reptilian (and draconic, if you insist on differentiating dragons from reptilians in general) anthropomorphs than towards anthropomorphs based upon mammalian (or avian, for that matter) creatures.

I mean, for example, you wouldn't generally call a Star Trek Klingon a "Trekkie". A Trekkie may dress up as a Klingon, a Trekkie can be a fan of Klingons, but a Klingon is not actually a Trekkie.

In the case of anthromorphic creatures, the community generally refers to them by the name of the species they're based upon, sometimes with the term "anthro" preceding the species name. I have seen people refer to anthros themselves as "furries" but these people are, in my experience, generally outsiders-looking-in upon the fandom rather than actual furries themselves.

YouWereNeverMyFriend said:
The thing about the term "scalie" is that it doesn't necessarily describe an anthropomorphic creature, and "furry" isn't really used to describe an anthropomorphic creature either.

I've found myself using both to describe anthros. I've always thought it could mean either anthros which are specifically animals (since you can have an anthropomorphic object that is not an animal, such as a game console or a political belief), or people who have an interest in art or other media featuring such.

Mutisija said:
scalie =/= scaly.

Pretty much this. If we were to tag scalie simply because the creature has scales, then there's no reason for the tag to exist: it'd be identical to the scales tag.

It's a category tag. Reptiloids that happen to have breasts aren't tagged as mammal, and mammals that happen to have scales aren't tagged as scalie.

Genjar said:
Pretty much this. If we were to tag scalie simply because the creature has scales, then there's no reason for the tag to exist: it'd be identical to the scales tag.

It's a category tag. Reptiloids that happen to have breasts aren't tagged as mammal, and mammals that happen to have scales aren't tagged as scalie.

It's a little weird to see amphibians in this category since they don't have scales.

To me, it looks more like a distinction between warm-blooded species and cold-blooded species. Reptiles and amphibians being cold while birds and mammals being warm.

BlueDingo said:
It's a little weird to see amphibians in this category since they don't have scales.

To me, it looks more like a distinction between warm-blooded species and cold-blooded species. Reptiles and amphibians being cold while birds and mammals being warm.

That makes me wonder... Are fishes considered scalies too? "fish scalie -dragon -reptile" return almost four hundred results.

Genjar said:
unless they're chimeric creatures

Am I the only one to see these mammals as "chimeric by nature"?

Mutisija said:
scalie =/= scaly. scalie = reptile based. those do not look reptile based, especially the second one.

Genjar said:
Pretty much this. If we were to tag scalie simply because the creature has scales, then there's no reason for the tag to exist: it'd be identical to the scales tag.

It's a category tag. Reptiloids that happen to have breasts aren't tagged as mammal, and mammals that happen to have scales aren't tagged as scalie.

So we have a little problem, since "scaly" is currently aliased to "scalie"; this probably explain how Furrin Gok's examples (post #1148541 and post #1120126) would got that tag.

O16 said:
So we have a little problem, since "scaly" is currently aliased to "scalie"; this probably explain how Furrin Gok's examples (post #1148541 and post #1120126) would got that tag.

Yeah, that'd work better if it were aliased to scales instead.

Someone should probably check all of those year zero aliases. Most of the worst ones have been fixed by now, but I bet there's still more to be found.