The tag implication #45337 predator/prey -> interspecies has been rejected.

Reason: Based on the definition of the tag, predators and prey must belong to different species

See also https://e621.net/forum_topics/27854?page=1#forum_post_302311

EDIT: The tag implication predator/prey -> interspecies (forum #339202) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

Does predator/prey take into account cannibalism? It's written like it does not, so should it?

siral_exan said:
Does predator/prey take into account cannibalism? It's written like it does not, so should it?

It is based on real word predatory relationships, unrelated to vore.

Some species do practice cannibalism on a regular basis, but saying that a species is its own predator and prey at the same time does not make sense for scientific purposes.

predator/prey always felt a bit too TWYK for me. Does it take into account real predator/prey relationships, or is it just any carnivore with any victim?

strikerman said:
predator/prey always felt a bit too TWYK for me. Does it take into account real predator/prey relationships, or is it just any carnivore with any victim?

Technically you have to know something about real species in order to tag species at all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

predator/prey:

NOT predator/prey:

predator/prey says:
Images or animations that depict two or more different species who, in real-life, would be the predator or prey of the other(s). Note that this label by itself doesn't imply anything about the character's interactions.

interspecies says:
Sexual, mating, or romantic activity between different species.

The former doesn't have to include the later.

Though honestly I don't like that first definition. Any image that happens to include two species in any situation (including where one is a random background character while the other is a focal character, completely oblivious or uncaring to each others' presence), where one of those species in real life would prey on the other, feels very irrelevant to tagging. A completely human-like society with humans replaced by random anthro or humanoid species, I don't think should be tagged like that just because two characters happen to be a certain set of species. I would prefer the tag to require some form of predatory behavior (which needn't be "sexual, mating, or romantic").

watsit said:
Though honestly I don't like that first definition. Any image that happens to include two species in any situation (including where one is a random background character while the other is a focal character, completely oblivious or uncaring to each others' presence), where one of those species in real life would prey on the other, feels very irrelevant to tagging.

Your interpretation may be a little too literal. Of course the characters have to interact, it just doesn't specify the kind of interaction.

A tag or group of tags for "predatory behavior" sounds like an interesting concept, but that would be ultimately a different discussion.

gattonero2001 said:
Your interpretation may be a little too literal. Of course the characters have to interact, it just doesn't specify the kind of interaction.

Not according to the wiki, which explicitly states the tag says nothing about the characters' interaction. Not interacting falls into that umbrella, but even if it didn't, there would be a very blurry line between not interacting and interacting in any capacity.
post #3436634 - Is the nidoqueen interacting with the nidoking or nidoran?
post #3437183 - Is the quilava in the back interacting with the dragonite or other quilava?
post #3436385 - Is the rabbit interacting with the fox?

gattonero2001 said:
It is based on real word predatory relationships, unrelated to vore.

Some species do practice cannibalism on a regular basis, but saying that a species is its own predator and prey at the same time does not make sense for scientific purposes.

Some species eat their children, so the adults are predators and the children are prey.

watsit said:
Not according to the wiki, which explicitly states the tag says nothing about the characters' interaction. Not interacting falls into that umbrella, but even if it didn't, there would be a very blurry line between not interacting and interacting in any capacity.

We will have to agree to disagree on that point. Regardless, the wiki is not set in stone and can be changed at any time.

furrin_gok said:
Some species eat their children, so the adults are predators and the children are prey.

That is called size-structured cannibalism. It cannot be considered a predator/prey relation any more than sexual cannibalism (e.g. praying mantis).

The tag implication predator/prey -> interspecies (forum #339202) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.