Posted under General
So. Is there a significant difference between scalie and reptile? Or at least reptile anthro? I see that it has several fictional species implicated to it, but if those species shouldn't be implicated/tagged reptile, should they be implied scalie?
I know this is a popular fandom term so I don't want to just go "this tag needs to die" without discussion first.
Scalie basically means reptile-like, but also includes fictional species and other real-world species that not typically associated with the "reptile" name.
For example, Newts are a subcategory of salamanders and are considered to be amphibians. However, we still tag them as scalie since they look like a lizard/reptile.
Updated
thegreatwolfgang said:
Scalie basically means reptile-like, but also includes fictional species and other real-world species that not typically associated with the "reptile" name.
For example, Newts are a subcategory of salamanders and are considered to be amphibians. However, we still tag them as scalie since they look like a lizard/reptile.
I mean, mammal also includes fictional species. Is the inclusion of some, but not all salamanders enough? Couldn't you use ~newt ~reptile anthro?
The main difference I'm seeing between that search and scalie, that would not necessarily be covered by reptile, is furred_dragon, but the relevancy of stuff like post #4889178 to people searching scalie is debated, to say the least.
regsmutt said:
I mean, mammal also includes fictional species. Is the inclusion of some, but not all salamanders enough? Couldn't you use ~newt ~reptile anthro?The main difference I'm seeing between that search and scalie, that would not necessarily be covered by reptile, is furred_dragon, but the relevancy of stuff like post #4889178 to people searching scalie is debated, to say the least.
I don't know where you are getting this idea that scalies are just reptilian anthros, perhaps from the WikiFur definition?
Over here, we don't care about form or scales, just that they broadly have "reptilian features".
Also, I'm not saying that people don't include fictional species into reptile, I'm saying that sometimes reptile just doesn't cut it.
As you have already pointed out, dragons are one of the most diverse fictional species that can include a range of characteristics from various animal classes while still having "reptilian features".
For example, some look mammalian, and some look cetacean, and some look avian. All would be considered scalie, but not necessarily reptile.
thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't know where you are getting this idea that scalies are just reptilian anthros, perhaps from the WikiFur definition?
Over here, we don't care about form or scales, just that they broadly have "reptilian features".Also, I'm not saying that people don't include fictional species into reptile, I'm saying that sometimes reptile just doesn't cut it.
As you have already pointed out, dragons are one of the most diverse fictional species that can include a range of characteristics from various animal classes while still having "reptilian features".
For example, some look mammalian, and some look cetacean, and some look avian. All would be considered scalie, but not necessarily reptile.
I just made a wrong assumption for the anthro bit.
I can see the use for an umbrella tag for dragons, but that already exists with 'dragon'. Which don't always have reptilian features. If 'reptilian features' is a requirement for dragons, the furred_dragon tag would need some serious cleanup:
post #4901959post #4893065post #4892315
So basically it looks like 'scalie' covers reptiles, some (but not all) salamanders, fictional reptiles, and mammalian dragons. The latter is something I see complained about not infrequently.
regsmutt said:
I can see the use for an umbrella tag for dragons, but that already exists with 'dragon'. Which don't always have reptilian features. If 'reptilian features' is a requirement for dragons, the furred_dragon tag would need some serious cleanup:
post #4901959post #4893065post #4892315So basically it looks like 'scalie' covers reptiles, some (but not all) salamanders, fictional reptiles, and mammalian dragons. The latter is something I see complained about not infrequently.
Yeah, that is one of the problems that cannot be easily fixed since dragon as a whole implies mythological_scalie, and thus implies scalie.
One could argue that those examples just barely fit the criteria for scalie with the general shape of their heads, but it gets harder with hybrids (e.g., kirin being a horse-like dragon).
Then again, you have to consider that scalie is applied very loosely for any reptilian features.
Updated
I've always taken the word "scalie" to include all creatures reptilian in nature, including mythological creatures like dragons, but excluding scaly mammals like pangolins.
The same way "furry" includes furless creatures like sphynx cats, naked_mole-rats and other hairless/furless critters.
There are even some snakes and lizards without scales, though these wouldn't survive in the wild, they're only seen in captive breeding programs. Still, if someone made a scaleless lizard or snake anthro, I'd still call it a scalie. Scales aren't the determining factor for being a scalie!
Updated
pankino2002 said:
I've always taken the word "scalie" to include all creatures reptilian in nature, including mythological creatures like dragons, but excluding scaly mammals like pangolins.The same way "furry" includes furless creatures like sphinx cats, naked_mole-rats and other hairless/furless critters.
There are even some snakes and lizards without scales, though these wouldn't survive in the wild, they're only seen in captive breeding programs. Still, if someone made a scaleless lizard or snake anthro, I'd still call it a scalie. Scales aren't the determining factor for being a scalie!
That's more-or-less my understanding of the term. And as a fandom term it's fun and good! I don't know if it's a good tag though.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Yeah, that is one of the problems that cannot be easily fixed since dragon as a whole implies mythological_scalie, and thus implies scalie.
One could argue that those examples just barely fit the criteria for scalie with the general shape of their heads, but it gets harder with hybrids (e.g., kirin being a horse-like dragon).Then again, you have to consider that scalie is applied very loosely for any reptilian features.
I don't think that it's an impossible issue to fix. Have 'dragon' imply 'mythological_creature' instead. Possibly make a 'reptilian_dragon' tag that would imply reptile.
If those examples I gave have head shapes that are considered 'reptilian' then the term has no meaningful definition here. A blocky snout with no rhinarium is as reptilian as having four legs and claws.
regsmutt said:
Have 'dragon' imply 'mythological_creature' instead.
Honestly I think dragon is too generic these days with very diverse interpretations that don't fit being considered a mythological creature, so shouldn't imply either. Just as we wouldn't consider every anthro jackal or even anubian_jackal as egyptian_mythology, not all dragons should be considered mythological_creatures. Previously, dragon didn't imply anything, only western_dragon implied scalie, until somewhat recently.
regsmutt said:
I don't think that it's an impossible issue to fix. Have 'dragon' imply 'mythological_creature' instead. Possibly make a 'reptilian_dragon' tag that would imply reptile.If those examples I gave have head shapes that are considered 'reptilian' then the term has no meaningful definition here. A blocky snout with no rhinarium is as reptilian as having four legs and claws.
I would not be supportive for any solution that results in the invalidation of scalie.
As I have already pointed out, there are many applications of scalie (no matter how loosely it is currently being used) that a simple implication to reptile would not be sufficient.
A reptilian_dragon tag would be redundant in this case as most dragons are already reptilian by default.
It is only the edge cases where they do not resemble reptiles that could be an issue, but a negligible one in my opinion.
wait, who's tagging salananders as scalie?
basically excluding reptile and mythological creature, there are only very small 4 pages of salamander denoting them as scalies. as much as salamanders most particularly newts resembling most common lizard, they are not but more to frogs and what anyone like to call "slimies". that example of newt post inaccurately having reptile tag which implicates scaly doesn't arguably seem to count.
so technically what i believe is that scalies are for those who 'seem' to possess any form of scales or based very tightly and intentionally to reptiles, not reptile-like salamanders who coincidentally look like lizards.
dba_afish said:
wait, who's tagging salananders as scalie?
Amphibians that are shaped like lizards are scalies as per the wiki.
I like the scalie tag because I can chuck that into my blacklist and catch pretty much everything I don’t want.
In fact I think it’s not tagged enough, especially on pokémon.
Like charizard. Is there any instance where it’s not a scalie??
snake-girl said:
so technically what i believe is that scalies are for those who 'seem' to possess any form of scales or based very tightly and intentionally to reptiles, not reptile-like salamanders who coincidentally look like lizards.
The presence of scales is irrelevant in the tagging of scalie. The wiki specifically indicates:
I think the "scale" part of "scalie" is what’s confusing users. Would it be better to rename the tag?
dimoretpinel said:
I think the "scale" part of "scalie" is what’s confusing users. Would it be better to rename the tag?
Come on, it's like saying all "furries" are only characters with "fur", and that we should rename not_furry in that case so that people don't tag it on characters without fur.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Come on, it's like saying all "furries" are only characters with "fur", and that we should rename not_furry in that case so that people don't tag it on characters without fur.
because "furry" has an actual coherent definition on here. "scalie" is like "reptiles and dragons, even if the dragon really doesn't look that much like a reptile and also entirely lacks scales it's still scalie because ???. also sometimes salamanders because a salamander is a wet kind of lizard, I guess.".
Can we humor this question for a moment, what is reptilian (saying they are simply shaped like "x' species may be insufficient, given this thread's existence while that kind of definition is used on the wiki already to describe scalie)? Having scales does not make a scalie so what are any other specific features to go by?
For the record I have always viewed all reptiles, dinosaurs, dragons, Nagas/Lamias and land/surface dwelling amphibians (including frogs) as being scalies.
darou said:
Can we humor this question for a moment, what is reptilian (saying they are simply shaped like "x' species may be insufficient, given this thread's existence while that kind of definition is used on the wiki already to describe scalie)? Having scales does not make a scalie so what are any other specific features to go by?
I always just assumed that the tag was a kind of weird anachronistic chatchall for all real-life reptiles and reptilian draconic characters because we didn't want to tag reptile on european dragons for some reason. just like how avian is for birds and also stuff that looks like a bird that we don't want to tag with bird for some reason.
darou said:
Can we humor this question for a moment, what is reptilian (saying they are simply shaped like "x' species may be insufficient, given this thread's existence while that kind of definition is used on the wiki already to describe scalie)? Having scales does not make a scalie so what are any other specific features to go by?
Reptilian as in anything resembling reptiles, by part or entirely.
The presence or absence of scales should NOT be the sole determining factor, it can be one of it but the overall body shape/anatomy should also be considered.
If we resorted to calling scalies as characters with scales, one could easily call a fish a scalie since it has scales.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Reptilian as in anything resembling reptiles, by part or entirely.
The presence or absence of scales should NOT be the sole determining factor, it can be one of it but the overall body shape/anatomy should also be considered.If we resorted to calling scalies as characters with scales, one could easily call a fish a scalie since it has scales.
the question is what does it mean to resemble a reptile? The point of this thread is that just saying that appears to not be sufficient to make a difference between scalie and reptile.
And as Ive just said having scales does not make a scalie, I already know that and was always my understanding.
darou said:
Can we humor this question for a moment, what is reptilian (saying they are simply shaped like "x' species may be insufficient, given this thread's existence while that kind of definition is used on the wiki already to describe scalie)? Having scales does not make a scalie so what are any other specific features to go by?
I have some reptiles at home in the agamidae family.
I blacklist the scalie tag because I’m uncomfortable seeing features in porn that remind me of my pets.
There’s a specific limb placement that is "lizard-like". They have 4 legs, but it’s still easy to distinguish the shadow of a dog/cat vs the shadow of a reptile just by the legs, tail and neck.
An uromastyx just has that "uromastyx" shape, a bearded dragon has a "bearded dragon" shape, and both are "lizard-ish"
However, I do not know how to explain it clearly, it’s hard to put my finger on it. It’s abstract, like a gut-feeling.
Agamidae have their own leg shape, like dogs (digitigrade), horses (unguligrade) and humans (plantigrade) do. The lenght of the tibia matches that of the femur. The lenght of the foot and toes either match the lenght of the tibia and kneecap, or exceed it.
I personally think we would need a *igrade tag for that.
See:
This x-ray of an uromastyx;
https://www.science-photo.de/bilder/12490086-Uromastyx-spiny-tailed-lizard-X-ray
tibia as long as femur;
post #4537963 post #4703367
In agamids, they are super long! As long as the foot or more! They’re also surprisingly supple, because they have 5 joints. You’d have to break your toes to match their flexibility.
See:
This xray of a bearded dragon’s foot (with a broken middle toe);
http://adventuresthroughart.blogspot.com/2013/03/x-ray-images-of-bearded-dragon.html
They are fat. It’s part of what makes charmander and totodile so "scalie" to me: they have fat all little arms and legs, like crocodiles. Little sausage arms.
See:
The same little sausage arms on dragons, which are "scalie";
Lizards store their fat in their tail, contrarily to cats, dogs, horses, etc…
The fat is stored at the base of the tail in agamidae;
In the case of geckos, it’s a bit thinner at the base, as the fat is stored in the middle of the tail;
Updated
I'm still not sure why we'd ever be tagging amphibians as scalie. I'm also not really all that sure we should be blanket tagging all dragons as it either.
dba_afish said:
I'm still not sure why we'd ever be tagging amphibians as scalie. I'm also not really all that sure we should be blanket tagging all dragons as it either.
Salamanders are just slick lizards (in terms of appearance)
dimoretpinel said:
Salamanders are just slick lizards (in terms of appearance)
I'd argue that it's more like some lizards, namely geckos, look vaguely like salamanders, rather than the other way around. but either way that's not how we tag species of real life animals.
dba_afish said:
I'd argue that it's more like some lizards, namely geckos, look vaguely like salamanders, rather than the other way around. but either way that's not how we tag species of real life animals.
Scalies aren't real life animals, they're an arbitrary category the furry fandom made up to distinguish reptilian and adjacent species from the rest of the fuzzy furry mammal and bird 'sonas. Regardless of taxonomy, salamanders and newts are reptile-shaped, IMO. They have reptile-like features. If amphibians had been the namesake of this subset of furry/anthro species and we called them "slimies" or "smoothies" instead of scalies I could see your point about it working both ways, but lizards are closer to the "center" of the category "scalie" than newts and salamanders so they have priority.
It's difficult to give an exact definition of a "Chair" that includes all chairs and excludes all non-chairs. A chair can't be defined by the number of legs it has, whether it has back support, whether it's flat or round, what elevation it's at, a chair is just something we sit on, and we tend to know it when we see it. "Scalie" seems to be a category of anthros we project reptilian features onto, based more on an abstract conception of what a "reptile" looks like in our heads than any standard set of criteria.
The "slimies" part made me think… do we have a word for fish?
There’s furries for mammals, scalies for reptiles and amphibians, avian/featheries for birds… What’s fish?
dimoretpinel said:
There’s furries for mammals, scalies for reptiles and amphibians, avian/featheries for birds… What’s fish?
dimoretpinel said:
The "slimies" part made me think… do we have a word for fish?There’s furries for mammals, scalies for reptiles and amphibians, avian/featheries for birds… What’s fish?
we do use marine for all sea creatures/river livers, but, since that's a habitat-based designation, that overlaps with "furry" since both would apply to pinnipeds. I'm not sure if there is a fandom term for fish characters, though (or arthropods or mollusks, for that matter).
"ichies"? is that too obtuse?
dba_afish said:
I'm not sure if there is a fandom term for fish characters, though (or arthropods or mollusks, for that matter).
Considering how rare those are, I don't think we have one.
As for the topic, scalie is one of those things that seem obvious if you are a scalie... but unclear to everyone else. It is largely split by what the scalie fandom as a whole tends to be attracted to: lizards, snakes, crocodilians, other reptiles, dragons, kobolds, amphibians (esp. salamanders and such), dinosaurs, and so on. Regardless of scales. Xenomorphs and sharks tend to be included too.
The furry/scalie split is known even outside of furdom. Scalies tend to have better reputation than furries. As in, "at least you're not a furry." (The 'why' of this varies, but often it bounds down to the fact that even the mainstream likes dragons, etc.)
Updated
genjar said:
Considering how rare those are, I don't think we have one.
man, I never realized quite how stark the population difference is. I thought there were way more hymenopterans and arachnids than there actually are.
genjar said:
The furry/scalie split is known even outside of furdom. Scalies tend to have better reputation than furries. As in, "at least you're not a furry." (The 'why' of this varies, but often it bounds down to the fact that even the mainstream likes dragons, etc.)
I wonder if that was also somewhat internally influenced as well. it did feel, from a sort of half-outsider perspective, that there was at least a bit of, like, cringe-dodging done by a portion of scalies by kind of disassociating themselves with the larger furry fandom, but it seems like that's become less common over time.
