Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
They seem to be large carnivores. Large carnivores usually hunt large prey. For instance, Tyrannosaurus hunted ceratopsians and hadrosaurs; Allosaurus hunted sauropods and stegosaurs; lions and tigers hunt the big hoofed mammals that roam Africa and Asia; orcas hunt whales, etc. Are there any other animals in Alagaesia big enough to feed the dragons?
In the book Saphira seems to eat several deer each hunt, though she doesn’t hunt very often, and considering her size several deer every few days doesn’t seem enough for all the energy consuming fighting and flying she does.
Hmm, exactly how big are Inheritance dragons anyway?
I don’t think it matters that much. Honestly, I’d rather discuss writing.
This is why Steph is leaving / left!!!
I think they used to eat those Ra’zac they can grow pretty big and fly, it would make sense.
edit: virgil, why don’t you make a new topic about writing then and leave these kinds of topics to people who apparently do want to know/talk about stuff like this?
They eat sheep, deer, probably other similarly sized animals like horses and cattle.
@Fenix: Fair enough. I could press the point, but I’m hungry.
@BrandonP
There is no set limit. They never stop growing.
Great, now I have this image of Saphira plunging through Tokyo…
She also eats sheep; at least, it’s implied in one of her lines.
They never stop growing.
This raises the question of what kind of metabolism Inheritance dragons have. The growth pattern you describe here is typical of ectothermic (“cold-blooded”) animals. Endothermic (“warm-blooded”) animals typically grow only for a relatively short period of their lives. However, the powered, sustained flight that Inheritance dragons are capable of would suggest a high, and therefore endothermic, metabolism.
Whichever metabolism Inheritance dragons have would affect the amount of food they would eat. Ectotherms can subsist on smaller amounts of food, and can go without food for longer periods, than endotherms can.
Dragons are usually lizard-like, so Inheritance dragons are probably ectothems.
Here’s a thought: what if they can sustain themselves on magical energy alone? Dragons seem to have major deus ex machina level magic anyway, and I think I remember something from Brisingr (not sure, never read it) where Eragon drains energy from his surroundings to sustain himself.
Great, now I have this image of Saphira plunging through Tokyo…
That would be hilarious
dubbed over (pourly) in English
“Oh no, it’s Godzilla!”
“Wait, Godzilla isn’t blue!”
“Oh, sh#t!”
Yes, Eragon does make a habit of stealing energy from his surroundings, despite having been told, and believing, that this is an evil forbidden thing to do.
I thought Saphira ate humans and Dwarves. Doesn’t she mention it a few times throughout the books?
Sarcasm?
Yeah, I think she was just joking, but I guess wild dragons would eat humans.
They eat elves, obviously.
They eat furry elves that make women swoon.
Afterwards, they need breathmints because of the musk.
I can just imagine being a dragon and having the little glands pop in my mouth.
Ugh.
I was laughing as I read the last part of the thread.
On topic, it is obviously just another part of CP’s world-building that he didn’t think about. He probably thought it would be neat to have eternally growing dragons, but didn’t think of the implications.
I think dragons would be warm blooded. I base this on Saphira’s actions, she doesn’t spend massive amounts of time sunning herself, and that dragons were based on “dinosaurs”(that’s in quotes because “dinosaur” was not invented until 1842) which are often now considered to be separate class.
Dinosaurs are still classified in Sauropsida along with the traditional “reptiles” (crocodilians, turtles, snakes, and lizards). They are however more closely related to birds than other “reptiles”—-in fact, birds are considered true dinosaurs.
They are however more closely related to birds than other “reptiles”—-in fact, birds are considered true dinosaurs.
Actually Brandon…
According to recent updates, no they’re not.
Thx for the link, I’ll read up on it in more detail later. But I am curious. The article I linked said:
“For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,” Ruben said.
But can’t find any reply to that (at first glance) in the article you linked. Which strikes me as even more damning to the theory than the skeletal structure of air sacs. What’s the word on this? (assuming dinosaurs did not have time machines)
^ The fossil record is not complete. Who’s to say we won’t find the dinosaurs that evolved into birds sometime in the future?
EDIT: As a matter of fact, they HAVE found feathered dinosaurs older than Archaeopteryx (the so-called first bird, and likely the bird Ruben was referring to). Pedopenna is an example.
1 to 25 of 25