Implicating red_panda → mustelid
Link to implication

Reason:

They aren't actually related to the big pandas, although they do apparently eat bamboo.

Eh, I'm not really for it.

I agree, red pandas aren't at all related to the panda bear. Panda bears are indeed a bear, albeit with an oddball diet. (Does panda_bear already implicate bear? Perhaps plain old panda should implicate invalid_panda? ;p )

The red panda, sometimes known as the lesser panda or sankam, is related to mustelids like weasels, badgers, and otters, but it's actually no more of a mustelid than raccoons and skunks are. That is, they're related, but aren't part of the Mustelidae proper. In the past, zoologists have categorized them all over the place, from bears to raccoons to mustelids to their own family with panda bears. Nowadays, though, it's mostly agreed that they're just pandas in a class of their own.

Fossils of prehistoric pandas have been found in North America, and it should be noted that the red panda is the original panda. The panda bear was so named later on because its diet and markings were similar to the red panda's.

Clawstripe said:
Eh, I'm not really for it.

I agree, red pandas aren't at all related to the panda bear. Panda bears are indeed a bear, albeit with an oddball diet. (Does panda_bear already implicate bear? Perhaps plain old panda should implicate invalid_panda? ;p )

The red panda, sometimes known as the lesser panda or sankam, is related to mustelids like weasels, badgers, and otters, but it's actually no more of a mustelid than raccoons and skunks are. That is, they're related, but aren't part of the Mustelidae proper. In the past, zoologists have categorized them all over the place, from bears to raccoons to mustelids to their own family with panda bears. Nowadays, though, it's mostly agreed that they're just pandas in a class of their own.

Fossils of prehistoric pandas have been found in North America, and it should be noted that the red panda is the original panda. The panda bear was so named later on because its diet and markings were similar to the red panda's.

Panda_bear doesn't, but panda does actually implicate bear. If we were going by geneology I'd throw them all in musteloid for convenience, but that's just me.

That being said, I definitely didn't mix up mustelid and musteloid or anything when I made this implication. Nope.

parasprite said:
Panda_bear doesn't, but panda does actually implicate bear.

I also noticed there was only one panda_bear, too. I suppose we could just alias panda to panda_bear which would implicate bear, but then I wonder why bother? Even though the red_panda came first, uploaders and taggers will generally think of the bear as a panda rather than the sankams.

That being said, I definitely didn't mix up mustelid and musteloid or anything when I made this implication. Nope.

I'll still suggest to leave red pandas be. Raccoons and skunks aren't tagged mustelid or musteloids either despite being similarly related. It's kind of like tagging hyenas as felines; their families are related, but not closely enough for an implication to work.

Red pandas are ailurids, but that's not needed as a tag because they're the only living species in that family.

And we don't have species tags for musteloids, because so far we haven't tagged superfamilies. Mammal tag group has enough levels already.

My suggestion would be to just implicate red pandas directly to mammal.

Clawstripe said:
I also noticed there was only one panda_bear, too. I suppose we could just alias panda to panda_bear which would implicate bear, but then I wonder why bother? Even though the red_panda came first, uploaders and taggers will generally think of the bear as a panda rather than the sankams.

I'll still suggest to leave red pandas be. Raccoons and skunks aren't tagged mustelid or musteloids either despite being similarly related. It's kind of like tagging hyenas as felines; their families are related, but not closely enough for an implication to work.

Yeah, I was thinking it was musteloid and jumped ahead. I just made the tag tree for mustelid and didn't realize until you mentioned it that skunks/raccoons/etc. weren't implicated because they shouldn't be. I'm happy with leaving it how it is.

Genjar said:
Red pandas are ailurids, but that's not needed as a tag because they're the only living species in that family.

And we don't have species tags for musteloids, because so far we haven't tagged superfamilies. Mammal tag group has enough levels already.

I never noticed that until you mentioned it. That simplifies things a lot.

Genjar said:
My suggestion would be to just implicate red pandas directly to mammal.

They are already implicated to mammal. So...well that's alright then.

-1 to my suggestion for misunderstanding genetic links. :)

Alright, implication denied. Based on the points brought up in the discussion it looks best to just leave red_panda implicated to mammal for now.