On the classification of monsters

The science of monsters is a constantly changing one, and only recently has been based on anything other than wild speculation. Drunken tales were just as good as a vivisection. Now, however, we have the tools and knowledge to properly examine our past methods and move forwards.

Until today, monsters have not been classified by size, species or evolution, but by their danger, hunting styles and appearance. For example, a common frogcat would be classified in this way:

Benign/Aggressive
Dangerous/Harmless
Man Eater/Just Territorial
Ambush/Pursuit/Persistance
Mimic/Camoflagued/Plain

This is all very well for most people. It tells you that the creature actively preys on humans, is more suited to sudden attacks than chases, and disguises itself as something else. However, it does not tell you what the creature actually is, what it evolved from, where it lives or even how many limbs it has. With just that and the name "frogcat" to go on, you might not even know what to look for.

This is why I suggest that we move away from this as an official way of categorising them, and move towards a more scientific method. They are species just like any other, and should be classified as such.

The first step towards this is figuring out where each monster fits upon the tree of life, and them assigning them fitting binomial names. I understand that locals might find the traditional system easier and more convenient, and I do not discourage them from using it in any means, but scientifically speaking they do, like all other lifeforms, require formal classification.

This will be an ongoing project, advancing as more monsters are closely examined. If you wish to discuss certain names or argue semantics, please feel free to come to the next meeting. Each species classified and analysed will be featured in the STARLLIGHT along with information on their anatomy, habit and general existence.

Hoping you well until the next edition,

R.F. Banks
Editor-in-chief