So I just noticed that some but not all animal_humanoid tags implicate their regular common species equivalent. Like, "bat_humanoid" implicates "bat" and "bear- oh fine, ursid_humanoid" - implicates "bear", but "wolf_humanoid" and "fox humanoid" both only implicate "canine" instead of "wolf" or "fox".
I thought for ages that the latter was true and I'm going mad trying to wrap my head around it. Was this always the case? Why is it not consistent?? Is it a taxonomical practicality thing? Like, "there are too many Species so we're only doing these implications for Families/Subfamilies, except nah some of them will only go back as far as the Order"???
Somebody please help, I've spent the last two hours trawling forums and implications and fact checking and I don't know enough about phylogeny to understand this 🫠

lurkmore said:
So I just noticed that some but not all animal_humanoid tags implicate their regular common species equivalent. Like, "bat_humanoid" implicates "bat" and "bear- oh fine, ursid_humanoid" - implicates "bear", but "wolf_humanoid" and "fox humanoid" both only implicate "canine" instead of "wolf" or "fox".

I think it's because both bear and bat have as broad meanings as canine.

Implications

• bear -> mammal
• bat -> mammal
• canine -> canid -> mammal

Staff says specific humanoids like fox_humanoid shouldn't imply fox coz most people don't want humanoid when they search for species.