Implicating puro_(changed) → dark_latex
Link to implication

Reason:

As officially stated, Puro is a dark latex. After all, he resembles the other dark latexes with the exception of his huge fluffy tail. Plus dark_latex needs to become a species tag because not all dark latexes are Puro.

EDIT: The tag implication puro_(changed) -> dark_latex (forum #261354) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

-1, this site does not implicate characters to species because of alternate_species and other weird ways for a character to look different. Character names are an undisputed TWYK, if anything states that it's the character, then it gets tagged that; nearly all other tags are TWYS, if it is not present then it doesn't get tagged. If dark latex isn't present, should it be tagged?

I'm also not sure about "dark latex", but I am unfamiliar with the game so I won't give any input.

We don't implicate characters to species tags because it's possible for a character to be drawn as a different species, the same way we don't implicate a character to a gender or form since they can be drawn as crossgender or feralized, humanized, whatever.

edit:ninja'd

Although it hasn't been tagged yet and the only activity related to it is a wiki page made by the thread OP, "dark latex" as a tag seems unnecessary. Use living_latex or goo_creature as appropriate for the image. The latter seems to see plenty of use in Changed images already.

The tag implication puro_(changed) -> dark_latex (forum #261354) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.