please stop arguing on the title of a creature that does not exist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salamander HURRRRR

if you read my previous statement you would have probably realized i was talking about the creature in the picture. not a (real) salamander.

You're probably trying to be a smartass, in which case i would advise you to look for other lines of work.

A western dragon has legs underneath, like a big cat or a dog, while an eastern dragon has small serpent-like limbs or none at all. None of the typical definitions of dragon have splayed out legs like a komodo or a gecko.

mythical creqatures can be drawn in whatever way the artist wants, because they don't fucking exist. if they cal it a dragon, then it is so.

The point I'm making is that this artist most likely didn't intend this to be a dragon due to the amphibian body and head structure, right down to the fins on the head, which resemble those of an Axolotl, and the ridges around the ear holes, which are similar to those of many amphibians. It also has no wings, not even undeveloped ones or small lumps from which they might grow, which are often depicted as a feature of baby dragons. It's also crawling around in the embers of a fire, which is a trait associated most closely with salamanders in lore.

again, this is a creature that doesn't exist, so it can be interpreted however the viewer likes. if OP says it's a dragon, then whatever, but don't go correcting them on something that really doesn't matter nor exist. it's just stupid.

because OP is always the actual artist and not just some guy who saw a picture and posted it!
Speaking as an illustrator, I'd be pretty pissed if I drew a hydra or something and a bunch of people kept saying it's a wyvern because that's how they 'interpreted it'. Fuck that, the artist is the one who defines the subject of the image (unless it's specific varieties of art that have no objective focus). Of course the easy way to discover what the artist's intentions were would be to image search this and find the artist, but I can't be arsed and they might not even write in English.

I'm not a wyvern.

then i guess we really don't need to drag on this pointless argument that happens to be taking away from both our enjoyments on this beloved land known as the internet, and so with that i bid you good day.

To be fair, not all dragons have wings. The Chinese Dragon for example, is Serpentine can capable of self-sustained flight without wings.
The Knuckle Dragon is (as far as I know) wingless.

Also, some baby dragons look like Salamanders, because both creatures are reptilian.

uh, salamanders are amphibians, not reptilians. Unless you're talking about appearances.

Yeah. Reptilian in appearance.

Derp time: I had no idea Salamanders were Amphibians.

some salamanders look reptilian, but no they're amphibians

And capable*

My bad there

so I googled 'knuckle dragon', since I've never heard of that, and all I could find is that 'knuckle dragon' is used as a term for an extremely large cameltoe or as racist slang for a primitive-looking black man (apparently derived from 'knuckle draggin').

There are Knuckle Dragons. I just don't remember if they're Wingless or not. I'll try and find a picture of one.

no a pheonix is a bird reborn from its own ashes.
this dragon is in fire probably because dragons are famous for breathing fire and thus considered fire proof, or a fire elemental

There's some old folk legend that salamanders were actually small dragons that rose from fires (hence the small baby sized dragon emerging from a burned out fire). Or, oh i don't know, maybe just the artist getting creative?

the mythological salamander is a fire elemental that looks like a small lizard that crawls around in the bed of a fire. Since the creature in this picture is in the ashes of a fire and has no evidence of any wings or undeveloped wings I'm inclined to think this is a salamander.

is that...skyrim?

reminds me of the smugglers from bioshock

I think it's Dark Brotherhood from Skyrim...not sure

you are correct.
pick unrelated.