The next problems arise on the page documenting the distribution of dragons throughout the world. Not only do the authors of this book fail the history of science, they apparently failed taxonomy as well. First off, all the dragons have the genus name Draco. Every. Single. One. Of course, there is the slight problem that the genus name Draco is already occupied, by a small gliding lizard from Asia. Not only that, but the authors screw up the rules of subspecies as well. Take for example the subspecies of European dragons, D. occidentalis magnus and D. occidentalis martimus. Or the three or so species of "amphitheres", D. americanus mex, D. americanus tex, and D. americanus incognito. First off, the very definition of a subspecies states that one subspecies has to have the same subspecies as its species, that's the whole point of a subspecies, to further differentiate below the species level. Where are D. occidentalis occidentalis and D. americanus americanus? Secondly, while science does not frown upon using non-Latinic words in scientific names, it does demand they be "latinized". Thus, D. americanus tex and D. americanus mex should be D. americanus texanus and D. americanus mexicanus, under the rules of classification.
Other than its classification, there are other problems with D. occidentalis martimus, otherwise known as the frost dragon. First off, the book claims that the frost dragon attacks with a frost blast. What? How can the same venom that produces the fiery blast in most other species of dragons, suddenly turn to ice just because the animal lives in the Arctic. The other problem is that the range of the frost dragon is a Holarctic one, ranging across Greenland, North America, and Scandinavia. And yet the article says that the frost dragon says it eats leopard seals...which live on the other side of the world. This book also fails geography forever, apparently.
There are also numerous problems with the amphitheres. First off, the book states that prehistoric amphitheres killed their prey by using their powerful talons. So...why did the talons vanish from the amphithere's body. To put this in perspective, that would be like saying that an anteater's claws and long tongue, the very means by which it makes its living, would suddenly vanish. It makes no sense. But all that seems miniscule by their claims regarding Archaeopteryx and the phoenix. According to the book, Archaeopteryx is a species of primitive phoenix, a group that represent transitional forms between venomous reptiles and dragons. WHAT! So...birds share a common ancestor with dragons...who both evolved from toxicoferans (the "venomous reptile" clade, which includes monitor lizards, gila monsters, snakes, and iguanas. Yes, really.) Apparently, this person hasn't picked up a single paleontology book in their lives. I mean, even when the bird-dinosaur theory wasn't popular, scientists still knew birds were related to archosaurs in some way.
Finally, we come to the marsupial dragon. WHAT! So, let me get this straight, just because an animal lives in Australia, it automatically makes it a marsupial? So that explains all those pouched crocodiles, monitor lizards, and birds running around in Australia, then. And what about the Australian dragon-like creatures in aboriginal mythology. The bunyip, people, the bunyip! And the thing hops. Like a kangaroo.
Of course, for every poorly done speculative biology book, there is a good one on the same subject. If one wants to read an actually good book on the subject of "dragon natural history", I would reccomend Dragons and Unicorns: A Natural History by Paul and Karin Johnsgard.
Edit - Upon further rereading of the book, I discovered that it states that frost dragons make annual migrations to and from each pole. This...sort of explains how leopard seals can figure into a frost dragon's diet, but it doesn't explain how a creature can survive for half the year by feeding on the apex predator of an environment (it just doesn't work). Nor does it explain why they breathe ice.