Classical sources do not agree on what kind of being a nasnas fundamentally is, and the disagreement runs along a real fault line in how Arabian and Islamic-era folklore classified the non-human population of the wild. One line of tradition treats the nasnas as belonging to the same broad category as jinn, a distinct but neighboring order of hidden beings inhabiting deserted and wild places alongside humankind, sharing the jinn's general association with liminal, unsettled ground rather than with settled human dwelling. A second line treats it instead as a degenerate remnant of a human tribe, transformed as punishment into a half-formed state, a story pattern that places the nasnas closer to a moral warning about a specific vanished people than to a standing category of supernatural being at all.
The two readings are not simply presented as equally valid folk variants by the sources that record them; they represent a real classificatory tension in how premodern Arabic writers sorted wonders and monsters, between beings understood as a permanent, ongoing part of the world's population and beings understood as the historical residue of a single past event. This atlas records both readings rather than resolving them, since the sources themselves do not resolve them, and treats the nasnas's undecided status as itself part of an honest account of the creature rather than as a gap to be silently smoothed over.