Bullshit.
At best there's collections of various depictions in various contexts. There is nothing authoritative about fictional creatures.
According to whom? None of this is real. There is nothing to fall back on here. It's purely descriptive - "this is what other people called their own creation" and nothing more, nothing binding, and certainly nothing authoritative.
You're INVENTING a "standard" by setting YOUR preference as the default.
The validity problem arises from your own argument. You can't say "Trying to explain fiction with logical reasons just makes you sound pretentious" and then use a lack of logical reason in an explanation of fiction as your angle of criticism.
If you don't think one is valid, then the other isn't, either. You're trying to have it be invalid when other people use it, but valid when you use it. That don't work, son.
GEE I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IF YOU'D READ, IDK, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF MY POST YOU COULD TELL?
Are we immediately back to you just not reading shit? We've been down that road before.