Just a thought, are werewolves killed when hit by Avada Kedavra? Coz you know how only a silver bullet is supposed kill them... may be different though. If they are invunrible to the Curse though, would they only be so in wolf form? And are they hurt by silver? And is that only in their wolf form?

Werewolves are supposed to be deadly allergic to silver, and I'm fairly sure that is in both forms. However, IF they are invulnerable to curses, it would have to only be in wolf form. However, I don't believe they are invulnerable. I think they have tougher skin and are harder to kill, but I don't think that skin completely makes them immune to curses, just means that it will take A LOT more to bring one down. But once they are humans, their skin is the same as any other human's, meaning curses can affect them.

This is because I'm obsessed w/this sort of thing.
Werewolves can be killed ONLY if when in werewolf form they get a bullet through the heart.

I don't think that will be the case here. I don't think a gun would work in Hogwarts - it said somewhere that muggle appliances wouldn't work and I'm guessing guns are among them. In POA Snape set the assignment to the ways of "recognizing and killing" so I think there would have to be more than one. I was figuring on silver arrows in a crossbow like Hagrid uses - and of course certain torture techniques like transfiguring their bones to be of silver substance. I bet that would burn! Potions with silver compounds... I'm sure there are plenty. Since the only mention of guns in the books are wizards making fun of them I doubt the bullit would do it.

Plus, there are about a thousand different werewolf myths out there. What is true in one myth is not true in another. Some legends say that the heart and/or mind of the werewolf must be destroyed to kill the beast. Others say that they are just like normal wolves and can be killed any way that would normally hurt an animal. Some have werewolves that can change at will, others have wolves that are permanently beasts unless they are given their natural human clothes (the Tale of Bisclavret had that one I believe).

So in Harry Potter, a werewolf is whatever JKR says it is. There are no set rules. Hell, there are even stories where the were-person changes into any animal it pleases, not just a wolf. The werewolf is completely in the hands of the maker.

she already seems to have changed her mind at least once on the subject, too: in book 2, tom riddle described hagrid as having kept werewolf cubs under his bed. now, judging by lupin, i can't imagine werewolf cubs existing - did hagrid just keep them under his bed on that one night that they were cubs and then when they were actual children take them out, or what?!?

sabethea

"When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the fire department generally uses water."

I don't think Hagrid really had werewolf cubs under his bed. Tom Riddle was probably lying about that.

   

UGH! That was the absolute WORST excuse JKR ever made in her life. It was during an interview when someone asked her about it. She replied: "Tom was lying".

No. I think if she had actually been considering werewolves in book 2, she would never have put that in. JKR has yet to ever admit she made even a simple, tiny mistake yet. If something is completely unexplainable, she just says someone was lying or it was "magic". But that was the most blatant example of it. There was absolutely no reason for Tom Riddle to make that lie. He wanted to make himself out to be superior to Harry in that scene. He didn't know Harry's knowledge on werewolves. He wanted Hagrid to look bad. For all he knew, Harry could know a lot about werewolves, and we know Tom Riddle was probably a master at Dark Arts at that time. Why would he make such a blatant lie to Harry, knowing that if Harry caught his bluff, he'd make himself out to be a fool and make everything he said about Hagrid seem like a lie? It doesn't make any sense.

So YES, it was a mistake, but JKR wouldn't admit that. She just said it was Tom lying when if you read the scene, he's almost clearly not.

I just don't see what the big deal would have been for her to simply say "it was a mistake" or say that it was made before she had fully considered the nature of the werewolves she was creating...or even just imply there are more than one species of werewolf out there. But the excuse she gave was completely illogical when you see that Tom Riddle would have not only no reason to lie, but A LOT to risk in being caught in any lie.