Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?

[Koen G]

If we have people arguing that the same image may be of an armadillo, a pangolin, a dragon or a ram, then what should our conclusion be?

The answer to this Socratic question is not: 
"Well obviously our conclusion should be that all those other guys are wrong, because they are ignoring different parts of the image than the ones I'm ignoring!"

I was rather expecting something along the lines of: if people see an armadillo, a pangolin, a dragon, a ram or even a fox, then clearly the drawing is not an accurate representation of a living creature, and we cannot deduce which species was intended by comparing the critter to living creatures. If a natural species was intended to begin with. 

R. Sale does have a point about the surroundings. But here, again, you can be picky. 

I see an image of a young, nude woman with long hair. In her hand, she extends a round, red object. Above her head is positioned a curving scaled creature, bending its head towards the woman.

What did I just describe for an average medieval European audience? 
Hint: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

"But it doesn't look like a serpent!" That's because it hasn't lost its legs yet. How is it supposed to look like a snake before it gets transformed as a punishment?

Do I think this is the solution? No. It ignores too much for that, and I have no theory that would prefer it to be this over anything else. I frankly don't know what it's supposed to be, but I see the scene echo one that was engraved in medieval brains. Whatever it is, it must be a magical creature because to people with New World theories it's an armadillo and to people with Asian theories it's a pangolin...

R. Sale: you'll see a cloudband too in the page I linked, though the composition isn't quite there

Edit: cross-posted with Stolfi - we seem to be in agreement that the drawing is not too reliable