The tag implication #32549 lycanroc -> canine has been rejected.

Reason: Lycanrocs are canines as per Bulbapedia

EDIT: The tag implication lycanroc -> canine (forum #292898) has been rejected by @Millcore.

In the same fashion, pikachu should implicate rodent. I'm sure a lot of similar implication are missing.

Unless there is a special rule or case preventing this ?

Pokemon do not implicate real species.

lafcadio said:
Left character is a Ho-oh, but not an avian.

But they are hybrids. Hybrids do not have to follow realistic taxonomic classification, as long as some component of the base species is identifiable:

Your example falls into this same pattern. That ho-oh hybrid is as much an avian as this is:

watsit said:
ugh

You were wrong in topic #23438 and you're still wrong now.

Every single example of an "avian" in your post has some characteristic that is true of avians, whereas all the Ho-oh character has going for them is feathered wings. Feathered wings are so widespread that assuming every character with them has to be some form of avian hybrid is totally unrealistic. Angels, winged cats? Both avian hybrids, apparently.

lafcadio said:
Angels, winged cats? Both avian hybrids, apparently.

Winged cat, avian:

Winged cat-rabbit, avian:

My example above doesn't even have wings, just feathers and scaly arms.

Is this not angel-like?

Phoenix hybrid, where phoenix implicates mythological_firebird->mythological_avian->avian. What's avian about it, aside from the feathered wings?

As hybrid states:
Use the component animals and hybrid tag if you want to tag these, provided the component animals can be discerned from each other in the post.
It says nothing about "make sure unique taxonomic features are visible", just the ability to discern the component animal. Ho-oh itself is undeniably avian. A ho-oh hybrid implicating avian while not necessarily showing any uniquely-avian qualities would just be a consequence of how fantasy hybrids work and are tagged here. It's no different to the above examples, where the component animal is discernible, but the depiction doesn't always show unique taxonomic features for each of said animal.

To clarify on why pokemon don't get implications to species here, it's because they're treated as pseudo-characters and characters don't get implicated to species. Not because it breaks down with hybrids, as there's plenty of examples of normal animals like above (also, tiger hybrid or zebra hybrid? ). I do find the reasoning a bit flawed still, but that's the official ruling.

watsit said:
ugh

You have been on this site editing tags on posts for just over a year. It is baffling that you do not know how implications (and TWYS, for that matter) work by now.

Posting avian characters with feathered_wings means absolutely nothing when a single image can demonstrate that not all feathered_wings are necessarily avian. All it takes is one image for an implication to be rendered incorrect. This is why feathered_wings does not imply avian.

Similarly, Pokemon can't imply real species categories when it's possible to illustrate creatures that are very much that Pokemon, but lack features associated with its "real" counterparts. Shaymin is hedgehog-like, but not all Shaymins illustrated here are necessarily the same. All it takes is one image for an implication to be rendered incorrect. This is why land_forme_shaymin does not imply eulipotyphlan.

lafcadio said:
Posting avian characters with feathered_wings means absolutely nothing when a single image can demonstrate that not all feathered_wings are necessarily avian.

And I'm not suggesting to implicate feathered_wings to avian. What I'm saying is that feathered wings are avian-like, and when it comes to hybrids (as you brought them up), feathered wings may be a component to identify the avian part. Saying one feathered-wing creature is an avian hybrid character but another feathered-wing creature is not an avian hybrid character is completely arbitrary. If that's the way you want to swing it, that's your prerogative, but recognize that it is arbitrary, and people can have different valid opinions on it. But either way, just because hybridization can mess up the taxonomical structure such that SpeciesX is normally a ClassificationY, but a hybrid SpeciesX does not clearly look like ClassificationY, is not a reason to not implicate it. Otherwise, the whole species implication chain needs to be undone.

lafcadio said:
Similarly, Pokemon can't imply real species categories when it's possible to illustrate creatures that are very much that Pokemon, but lack features associated with its "real" counterparts. Shaymin is hedgehog-like, but not all Shaymins illustrated here are necessarily the same.

Because furry artists are known for proper depictions of animals. What should matter is what the official on-model depictions are like, not the stylized and anthrofied depictions of (third-party) artists, that can in turn emphasize or deemphasize different aspects of the species, to the point that it can start looking like a different species or a hybrid/humanoid.

The tag implication lycanroc -> canine (forum #292898) has been rejected by @Millcore.