The previous comment brings up some good points, but I think it's missing that dragons don't exist and therefore we can't really classify them into being reptiles, so I'd argue that your argument for Charmander doesn't really make any sense. Why can't an amphibian be a dragon? If I create my own little mythology where there are dragons that are effectively fire breathing salamanders, are they not still amphibians? Or does me calling them "dragon" inherently make it a reptile? I agree with your argument about Salamence, though just simply because you can't really decide what something is based on name, though it being based on a salamander dragon is, again, a weak argument for it being a reptile, considering dragons aren't real and salamanders aren't reptiles.
We also can't use dragon type to inherently mean reptile, because that means mega Ampharos, Kingdra, Flygon, Altaria, Dragalge, Goodra, Noivern, Turtonator, the entire Applin line, and Tatsugiri are all reptiles. Incredibly weak argument for dragon type = lizard, hell I'd say even the argument dragon type = dragon is pretty weak considering all of the Pokemon that are clearly not dragons that are dragon type, so even if you want to classify dragons as reptiles, you can't use their typing as the only reason for your decision. Not all grass type Pokemon are inherently plants. Rotom-Mow is obviously a machine, Shiinotic is a mushroom (not a plant!), and I think you could make an argument that almost every other grass type isn't *really* a plant because most of them are clearly animals. I feel like your argument for the Dreepy line is especially weak because it just seems like it's grasping at straws to explain why dragon type = dragon = reptile = lizard; I think its basing on Diplocaulus is incredibly obvious, as they both share their most prominent feature, the shape of their head.
