Implicating human → primate
Link to implication

Reason:

these tags are intentionally left separate
https://e621.net/forum/show/163050

I’m not going to pick a side here but... it’s technically true

There are some details about taxonomy which are ignored by our tagging system because it makes searching easier.

If we were going for scientific accuracy, we could have human imply ape, and ape imply monkey. Yes, apes are monkeys, and by extension humans are monkeys. And yes I am willing to defend that point.

But while this would be accurate, it would not be useful. People searching for "monkey" are typically not looking for humans.

Here's a couple other examples:

turtle -> reptile | EDIT: I'm wrong about this one.

This isn't correct. In short, turtles are anapsids, reptiles are diapsids, and if you wanted a group that included both you'd also necessarily include synapsids, which would be a problem because it would encompass mammals - which, most people would typically argue are not reptiles.

bird -> dinosaur

Birds are dinosaur. You can't evolve out of a clade that your ancestors belonged to.

ichtyosaurus / mosasaurus / pliesiosaurus -> dinosaur

This one I'm not sure what we should do. First off, none of those are dinosaurs. There were no marine dinosaurs, to my knowledge. But typically people searching for dinosaur are ignorant of that and so I would have said it's fine to leave it implicated... Except pterosaur is no longer implicated to dinosaur so maybe this is one that we ought to actually fix.

Anyway point being that we do have some special cases, and this is one of them.

Clawdragons said:
Here's a couple other examples:

turtle -> reptile

This isn't correct. In short, turtles are anapsids, reptiles are diapsids, and if you wanted a group that included both you'd also necessarily include synapsids, which would be a problem because it would encompass mammals - which, most people would typically argue are not reptiles.

...What? The debate isn't about if reptiles are turtles, it's about what kind of reptiles turtles are. Anapsida is currently listed as an informal group within the class of Reptilia, thus anapsid reptiles are still reptiles.

Ratte said:
...What? The debate isn't about if reptiles are turtles, it's about what kind of reptiles turtles are. Anapsida is currently listed as an informal group within the class of Reptilia, thus anapsid reptiles are still reptiles.

Looking into it, it seems like things aren't as settled as I thought, and there seems to be some differing opinions since I last looked into it.

In short, the traditional grouping of Anapsida as basil to both Synapsida and Diapsida is paraphyletic, in that it excludes synapsids. This is what I was remembering, and would have the implication of either turtles not being true reptiles or mammals being considered reptiles.

But it seems like the position and divergence of turtles may have come later, and genetic studies seem to put them firmly within diapsida (so they are diapsids, just ones that have lost their temporal fenestra). Which, of course, means that they would be reptiles, with no other issues arising from that classification.

I apologize for my error. Allow me to replace it with a more clear example.

Fish would be near-useless as a search term if we attempted to define it as a clade, because you would necessarily include all tetrapods within that clade, meaning we would have to have a mammal -> fish implication (or chain of implications with the same end result).

Clawdragons said:
Looking into it, it seems like things aren't as settled as I thought, and there seems to be some differing opinions since I last looked into it.

In short, the traditional grouping of Anapsida as basil to both Synapsida and Diapsida is paraphyletic, in that it excludes synapsids. This is what I was remembering, and would have the implication of either turtles not being true reptiles or mammals being considered reptiles.

But it seems like the position and divergence of turtles may have come later, and genetic studies seem to put them firmly within diapsida (so they are diapsids, just ones that have lost their temporal fenestra). Which, of course, means that they would be reptiles, with no other issues arising from that classification.

I apologize for my error. Allow me to replace it with a more clear example.

Fish would be near-useless as a search term if we attempted to define it as a clade, because you would necessarily include all tetrapods within that clade, meaning we would have to have a mammal -> fish implication (or chain of implications with the same end result).

I recently joked about using cladistics for taxonomy implications for reasons like these.

I'm really not opposed to removing the implications of notdinosaurs from dinosaur since it's not correct and it was part of a giant list of crap that got implicated to that tag anyway. The same giant list of crap also had things like quetzalcoatlus and pterodactyl aliased to pteranodon which I already undid about a month ago. Even if we can't be absolutely correct with the title suggestion I would like to be as correct as possible with everything we can be.

Ratte said:
I recently joked about using cladistics for taxonomy implications for reasons like these.

It would genuinely amuse me if this were done because it would probably result in furries being abnormally excellent at taxonomic classification in order to search out precisely what sort of porn they want.

The end result would be a good mix of educational, awkward, and stereotypical.

What if there's a chordate tag?