Topic: Tag implication: Hyena -> feliform

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Watsit

Privileged

feliform doesn't seem to be an established tag. It has no wiki, no implications or aliases, and is only on 22 posts.

So, feliform/caniform are weird. Despite the fact that hyenas look extremely canid-like, they are not caniforms. They don't look felid at all, but are feliforms. Martens arguably look closer to felids than canids, but are caniforms. Bears are caniforms but look nothing like either group. Pinnipeds are somehow caniforms? These groups are pretty much purely taxonomic, cladistic groups that don't have anything to do with their physical appearances as the names might suggest.

I do agree that these species need to be grouped up somewhat, because mammal is a gargantuan tag and it's hard to search for anything more specific than mammal without searching individual species. I'm not entirely against caniform/feliform, but for one, they don't strike me as particularly useful for our tagging system since they visually overlap with each other a lot and are composed of species that often bear fairly little visual consistency with each other, or sometimes resemble the opposite group more than their own group. Two, this isn't going to be done through a single species implication if we are doing this. There are dozens of caniform/feliform species tags that would need to be implicated. Three, this group is probably covered much better by carnivoran, which we're probably going to establish once we're done fixing the vulva tags. Carnivorans include caniform and feliform already, but are more visually distinct from other mammalian taxa like ungulates. That just seems like a far more useful tag in my opinion, and would make caniform/feliform a bit redundant.