>>81928751The first thing to recognize is that there is literally no specific definition. There's never been anything like a heraldric set of definitions either. There's no real way to go back to the primodial story of a dragon to get a "proper" definition. It's formed out of a host of shit from different stories and has always been fluid in description. Hell, the fact that we call eastern and western Dragons both "Dragons" gives a lie to any objective definition given their very different symbolic histories and roles. Through sheer, autistic grognard willpower, Dragons and Wyverns are slowly coming to be recognized as having specific sets of limbs. Not even size, just limbs.
Drakes, Wyrms, Wyverns, all are historically poetic words used to refer to dragons in various contexts. There's always been vague sense of scale or importance to them. Drakes and Wyverns have always kind of been ho-hum, wild animals. Probably smaller, yes, because bigger is more impactful and important, but there's never really been a rule. Wyrm is a fairly biblical term and is consequently Important. But these are all trends, all vagueries of language. Again, there has never been rules.
None of this really matters except within a single fictional universe. There, you can set aside specific rules and borders. Wyverns only have four limbs? Sure. Drakes refer to male dragons? Sure. Drake refer to juvenile Dragons? Knock yourself out. Wyrms refers to a limbless, snake like Dragon that burrows through the earth? Good on you, extra pun points. In a "real" world, there would be terms to differentiate these sorts of things, and using terms people have actually used to refer to Dragons will help avoid "dumb fantasy word" syndrome.
But if you call a four limbed, flying, fire breathing reptile a Dragon, no one is going to be confused. You call a four winged, four legged scaly beast that shoots black lightning out of its mouth a Wyvern, people are gonna get the point.
