It’s a common misconception that dragons are reptiles. The are actually mammals. For some reason, historical depictions of dragons depict them with scales—this is inaccurate, real dragons have fur, give live birth, and even produce milk. I think the misconception of dragons as reptilian has an origin in early European depictions of dragons. Dragons are not native to most parts of Europe so we can assume that the artists never saw a real dragon. You can see similar inaccuracies in depictions of other animals, like lions, leopards, beavers, and elephants.
You’d think the Unicode consortium would know better. Dinosaurs are also miscategorized as reptilian but I can understand the mistake, because dinosaurs are extinct.
Our dragons are all reptiles around here. I had to slay four of them last fall before they set up dens in the yard. It was miserable work, but I'm a good candidate for canonization now, which is more than I can say for most weekend projects.
The world "dragon", i.e. Greek "drakon", originally meant just "big snake" and this is its meaning in the stories from the Greek/Roman antiquity or in the Bible translations.
Much later, during the Middle Ages, "dragon" began to be used for translating the names of many kinds of animals, usually of the winged type, from the mythologies of various countries.
In order to identify the many kinds of "dragon" animals, in each case one would have to trace the origin of the story, which was the original language of the story, which was the original word that has been translated as "dragon", and which was the description of that animal, e.g. with or without wings, with fur or with feathers or with scales, with or without feet and so on.
Ah, I see. Probably, "dragon" is a misspelled contraction of "Dr. Racoon," which fits both your description and the records of their medical properties.
You’d think the Unicode consortium would know better. Dinosaurs are also miscategorized as reptilian but I can understand the mistake, because dinosaurs are extinct.