First, to answer your question: No.

We assume that Argonians have something to do with the Hist, which the Argonians revere as holy. The Hist are kind of like tree people.

This book can tell you more about the Hist, http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/marobar02.shtml

UESP is great for ingame info - stuff that can be quickly checked for accuracy by playing the relevant game - so for lore from ingame sources it's perfectly acceptable as long as you use it right*. Anything else, I rely on the Imperial Library for answers.

*For example, it's not accurate to say "the Nerevarine went to Akavir" but that "there's rumors that the Nerevarine went to Akavir" - a subtle but important distinction.

What does the kangaroo example have to do with anything? That marsupial looks quite a bit like a kangaroo, at least to the same extent that an Argonian looks like a dragon. They're both fur-bearing mammals and also animals. Trees and lizards, however, have absolutely nothing in common. In fact, "plant" and "animal" are perhaps the two broadest possible terms for life on Earth, a clear dividing line. Almost every creature fits into either one category or the other, though a very few blur the line.

You also stated that "fish can be mammals," but they can't. The term "fish" is, in biology, kept completely distinct from "marine mammals," and to call a marine mammal a fish is erroneous.

However, I totally concede your point that Nirn is a magical world, and thus such rules don't apply to its inhabitants. Really I do. In Nirn, a catperson or an orc can actually be a type of mer. Still, the real-world examples you guys are presenting... well....



Yes, dinosaurs are reptiles, with the distinction of being warm-blooded.

You have to take this in context to see why I argued about it. The dinosaur/lizard example was used to show how dragons/Argonians aren't necessarily related, but it was a bad example, because dinosaurs and lizards are related. The fact that dinosaurs happened to be warm-blooded doesn't salvage the example (in context!).

How do you know that? While there may not be lore connecting the Argonians to dragons, neither is there lore to disprove the theory.



This is what people keep saying. However, the Ayleids revered the Daedra and had a close relationship with them, yet the Ayleids were mer, not Daedra.

Revering something as holy or having a close connection to it doesn't mean you share a common ancestry with it.

At this point, I really want to see the lore that's causing everyone to believe that Argonians are more closely related (in terms of kinship, i.e. ancestry) to the Hist than to dragons.

Actually, plant and animal are only two kingdoms, which isn't even a majority, of living things. Together, they make a minority. You still have fungi, protists, and bacteria, with bacteria making the majority of the number of living things on Earth. By no way do almost every living thing fall under the name of plant or animal.


You miss her point. What she's talking about is the fact that in function a living thing can be one thing, and act like one thing, but in reality actually be or be descended from something entirely different. Argonians might appear as lizards(or, as was said, dragons), but in reality they are descended from/are very closely connected to the Hist.




Well, because it is implied in several creation myths that Argonians are NOT descended from the Ehlnofey at all, and since the Hist showed up in Black Marsh, which is traditionally considered the home of the Argonians, and they're deeply connected to the Argonian culture somehow, I'd think it's a pretty logical thing to think.

This isn't Earth. When a entire race is made from the steaming pile of metaphysical [censored], saying the Argonians are Hist-born is NOT far off.




Then why cite the above statement? Yes, real-world examples are BAD in TES lore. But also, so is citing the Wiki. While it's a nice 'beginners' place for finding out how much gold Orcish Armor in Oblivion costs, it's not the best place to find out about the Argonians, citing-criteria aside.

Also, note that the Argonians are actually asixual at birth; that is, until they lick the sap of the Hist. When something like the Hist is to deeply rooted into the race of the Argonians themselves, it's hard to say they are (IS) or are not (IS NOT) the prodigy of the trees. The Hist have been around since the Dawn, and they got pretty radically killed off during that time. It's not far off to think that the Hist actually created the Argonians to protect them, especially when the tower of Argonia is a gigantic Hist tree. There's a formula behind what walks like fable until the fable walks like it. The Argonians are NOT Dragon-born, descended, related, or even remotely attached in any way. Also, realize that living in a swampy atmosphere means you're going to have characteristics that relay that. Look at any race in TES, and you'll find the same.

EDIT: And, uh, what? Ayleids did NOT revere the Daedra as anything special. The Ayleids actually looked upon the boundaries of entire entities separately. Read The Water-Getting Girl, then go take a look at White-Gold, then tell me they worshiped anything as close to Aethris as they did the Earth Bones.

i know the distinction, im saying that it looks like a fish just like an argonian looks like a dragon.

on the issue of looks, golden saints look like man, and yet they are a completely different sort of creature. Khajiit looks like cats but they are mer. Just because Argonians have scales and a tail just like dragons (who are huge, fire breathing, flying, mythical creatures) doesnt mean that they are descended from them.


whether dinosaurs are or are not warmblooded has not been definitively decided in the scientific community, to the best of my knowledge. Google shows mostly results that say that "some paleontologists think that all dinosaurs were warm-blooded," not that dinosaurs ARE warmblooded. please link me to a scientific paper that proves, with 100% certainty, that dinosaurs were warmblooded and that the majority of scientists agree with this fact.

anyways, this is completely off topic.

I believe that the Argonians are more closely related to Hist than to Dragons because there is no lore what so ever to show any relationship between Argonians and Dragons. Looks account for nothing.

edit: when a new theory is proposed it is the proposer's work to prove the theory, not ours to disprove it. basic argument 101.

http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/classify/classify.html It's an article entitled Classification of Plants and Animals. Yes, that's right: Before we even start to classify living creatures on earth, we still recognize "plant" and "animal" as dividing lines. Claiming otherwise is delving into semantics.

I advise you to research the organisms you just mentioned and see what actual scientists have to say about them. They are special cases, with special classifications; bacteria are more numerous in number and species because they're microscopic, and thus have a relatively much larger biosphere (millions of times larger) than hundred-pound animals. This does not invalidate the fact most of what is not microscopic can be considered either a plant or an animal.



I see the point, but it's not entirely appropriate. I don't know of any case in nature where one animal can look quite a bit like another, unrelated animal, yet instead be descended from a creature that looks entirely different and has a completely different physiology. Okay, so there's a kangaroo that looks like a bear. So? Bears look a whole lot more like kangaroos (and share far more in common with them) than they look like trees.



Fair enough if there's lore to disprove the connection, but I'm still not following about the Hist.

So far, this is the logic pattern I see people using:

1.) the Hist live in Black Marsh

2.) the Argonians live in Black Marsh

3.) The Argonians revere the Hist

4.) The Argonians are "deeply connected" (a phrase very open to interpretation) to the Hist

5.) Therefore the Argonians are trees, even though they look like lizards

Doesn't add up, in my opinion. It's jumping to a conclusion.

Indeed, but then no one has actually proven that the Argonians are "Hist-kin," either. Claims have been made, conclusions have been drawn, but none of it is based on anything concrete (see my list in my post above).

Lamest of the lame lame lame. That practically created the 'A Wizard Did It' trope.

The Hist are rarely mentioned except in association with the Argonians. Also, reading certain myths will reveal that the Hist are not just a species of plant. They have been described as an entirely separate form of life descending from a very different divine origin, representing forces much more significant than mere trees.


You do realize that anyone who wants to put in the effort could have a field day with this statement?

what we are arguing is that Argonians have more in common with trees than they do with dragons. sounds kind of weird, but you have to keep the mythological angle in view. we arent talking direct evolution (as you seem to be), rather a mythical descendance. Perhaps the Hist (who we know to be above mortals) created or modified the Argonians like Azura created/modified the Khajiit. We (or at least I) arent saying that trees suddenly grew hearts and started walking, but rather that trees played a major part in the development of the Argonian species.

Again, as ive been saying from the beginning, there is no evolution in the earth sense on Nirn, everything is guided in one way or the other by the whims of divines or similarly powerful beings.

We have proven that Argonians and Hist are interconnected culturally and mythologically. There is no connection what so ever between Argonians and Dragons, short of being scaly and having a tail (fish do that too, btw)

I just did. -_-

Indeed you did, and this has been backed up from first hand explanation from argonians, though limited. But, there is a direct relation between argonians and his, that for sure is known.

Yes, and I agree with you. It is quite possible that, even though the Argonians look a lot like dragons, they're completely unrelated and were created or descended from another source entirely.

However, I do not agree that this creation or descent must have something to do with the Hist, or that Argonians have anything at all in common with them from a racial standpoint. A very close, even symbiotic relationship and reverent worship can take place between creatures from completely different origins, and so saying that Argonians have anything in common (from a kinship standpoint) with the Hist seems like an assumption to me.

Well as I said in the beginning of my thread, I just find many relations between argonians and dragons

1. We know that dragons of Nirn can take human shape.

2. We know that argonians Also changes shape from time to time.

3. They are often proud of who they are and almost any argonian have something wise to say.

4. And both argonians and dragons have deep respect of other people.

Citation for dinosaurs being warm blooded: Jurassic Park But really, I would not start to classify dinosaurs by present day animal similarity standards. They existed in a completely different environment, and we do not know enough about them to start assuming they are birds or reptiles.

But back on topic, I don't believe there are any more dragons in Akavir, but there is no way to disprove that. The only thing regarding it is the Ka Po' Tun leader's ascension into tiger-dragonhood. As far as the Empire keeping dragons alive, I don't recall anything that said that, but I am not well versed on the topic of dragons. Entirely possible, but I find it more likely that they had done that years ago at the beginning of the Empire with General Talos and whatnot, then still doing it today. I do expect some to exist high in the Jerrall range, above where even Nords can find them. Or they are invisible like M'aiq said

Also regarding the Hist, they were originally, I believe, covering most of Cyrodiil and other countries, especially Valenwood, but they were driven back into a small corner of Tamriell, aka the Black Marsh. The exact relationship between Argonians and Hist is unknown, but we can speculate by the fact that they are sentient trees that are worshipped by the Argonians and are used to determine their gender. Thus they must have some deep biological rooting with the Argonians, most likely a symbiotic relationship stretching back to the Dawn Era.

And to Vainglorious, please be careful how you talk to people, as you appear to be coming off very haughty and un-willing to admit you are wrong. It is usually a bad idea to cite real world examples like dinosaurs and almost as bad to cite the wiki. I myself love the wiki, but it is not considered a credible source. Real world examples are almost useless. Biology is not straightfoward in Tes, and evolution is very selective, insinuating that it is the work of a divine. The ayleid were mostly killed in the rebellion, and the others evolved to match their surroundings, ie the Bosmer in Valenwood.

Thanks, and please no more dinosaur talk

Actually, no, you did not. A symbiotic relationship with another species (as bees have with flowers, for example; they must gather pollen to live, and some flowering plants need the bees to reproduce) doesn't "prove" that there is any ancestral relationship between them.

But I can see that this idea of the Argonians and the Hist being related is far too ingrained here to make any headway in this argument, so I'll have to wait for more concrete lore about the relationship between the Hist and the Argonians, personally. Feel free to jump to conclusions in the meantime if you prefer.

I NEVER recall an Argonian changing shape.



Like I said, I NEVER recall and Argonian changing shape.



The [censored] does that have to do with dragons? Seriously. Honestly. Your logic intrigues me.



What? WHAT?


EDIT:

I did, actually. I never said ANYTHING about a symbolic relationship, I said that they were rooted into the Argonian culture, yes, but that's simply stating that there's a REASON for it, just like there's a reason why bees have hot, dirty, productive (:thumbsup: ) six with flowers. But walking like the fable until the fable walks like you is the evidence I'm concreting to you, here.

Aww, you got to it first. Just because two species are both polite doesn't make them descendants of one another. Oh, and here is a though, Argonians and dragons were both pretty much around somewhere near the beginning of time. Most all species were around before the Dawn Era ended, and very few changes took place after that concerning number of races. I believe that they were simply defined as different when Akatosh joined the Mundus and crystallized all creation into linear time.

well, the other stuff may be pontless without more knowledge, but I could have sworn they change 'form" from a sort of subsentient proto-Argonaian to a full Argonian when they lick the hist. Also, something tells me some part has to change shape when they switch sixes. maybe not all of them, but something changes.

Vainglorious: i'm content. We have very little information on the Marsh, and if our arguments have not yet convinced you that Hist and Argonians are interconnected then i dont think you will be convinced with what we have. Maybe in the future we will have more information, but for the time being I am content to agree to disagree.

TzToppDogg
1) we do?
2) game mechanics.
3) proud =/= wise. Altmer are also both proud and wise, but are not descended from dragons.
4) I would say neither Argonians nor Dragons have any sort of respect beyond the norm.

read the rest of your thread.

[edit] woah, ninja'd by like 5 people.

I havent ?read it myself but I heard that the argonians changes shape or "form" like argonians in the northwest of tamirel may not look like the ones in black marsh-

If someone had proved me wrong, I would admit that I'm wrong... but as far as I'm concerned, they haven't. People keep saying I shouldn't cite the Wiki, but then, when they make statements about the lore, they usually don't cite anything to back up their claims; am I supposed to accept that as fact? I'd like to see the actual lore that backs up their statements, or at least have a reference so I know where I can see this lore for myself.

And no one in this thread has "proved" that the Argonians are biologically related to the Hist yet, which is the final issue we're ironing out here.

game mechanics.

the thing about changing gender or their coming of age ceremony is a more valid point, but it is still irrelevant as dragons do not change shape (the only reference to this that i can remember is M'aik)

That's Oblivion doing it's thing: having no self-respect. Kind of like a hoker in Nevada. Hmmm...

And, like I said, they don't change shape when they like the Hist, they gain a gender.