Implicating pawprint → footprint
Link to implication

Reason:

Disagree with this. Feet and paws are different depending on species. Footprints imply bipeds by default, whereas this isn't always the case with pawprints.

There's also no reason that an anthro biped with paws in place of hands couldn't place a pawprint from their "hand paws", meaning it would be a handprint rather than a footprint, wouldn't it?

I may be overthinking, but that's my thought on it.

blazingfury1996 said:
Disagree with this. Feet and paws are different depending on species. Footprints imply bipeds by default, whereas this isn't always the case with pawprints.

There's also no reason that an anthro biped with paws in place of hands couldn't place a pawprint from their "hand paws", meaning it would be a handprint rather than a footprint, wouldn't it?

I may be overthinking, but that's my thought on it.

Paws are feet. Quadripeds still have feet.

Furrin_Gok said:
Paws are feet. Quadripeds still have feet.

What about bipeds with paws for hands?

The tag implication #8958 pawprint -> footprint has been approved.
(updated link above since link at start of topic is old format)

So this implication got approved, but want to offer a late oppose:
1) a pawprint could also be a handprint (as WispTheHusky pointed out)
2) paws doesn't imply to feet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footprint says :
"Footprints are the impressions or images left behind by a person walking or running.
Hoofprints and pawprints are those left by animals with hooves or paws rather than feet, while "shoeprints" is the specific term for prints made by shoes. "

Suggest:

• if an anthro has paws, then they leave pawprint(s)
• if an anthro has human-type feet, then they leave footprint(s)

(I'm getting square eyes, so time to rest eyes)