Implicating Scrafty → Reptile
Link to implication

Reason:

Scrafty is a "lizard-like" pokemon, so I suppose it might not deserve to be implied to Lizard, but it is a reptile, and deserves the child-implication (Scalie) of it as well.

imo this is bad implication.
1. it doesnt even look like reptile
2. sometimes people might draw them as something more mammal like

Mutisija said:
imo this is bad implication.
1. it doesnt even look like reptile
2. sometimes people might draw them as something more mammal like

Agree, though I see some scales, so we could at least implicate scalie.

Yyunko said:
Agree, though I see some scales, so we could at least implicate scalie.

where? if you mean the belly plates, they do not really qualify as scales. and even if they did, people can still draw scrafty without belly plates

Denied: because it's been decided that implicating pokemon to other species isn't a good idea. They are their own species. Despite often being inspired by real life species, or a mix of them, the resemblance isn't always very strong. Even when a feral version is similar enough to another real life species, implicating them would cause tagging problems whenever a pokemon was being drawn as a different species or as a human. Pokemon tags are also unique from most other species tags, because they are both a name and a species.

Now, the wikis for them can include a link to the pokemon or real life species that's similar-ish in the "see also" section, as a related tag. But we've found that creating actual implications between them and a real life species that's sorta-similar just doesn't work very well in practice because pokemon tags just function a little differently to other species tags. The few that have been tried in the past have been UNimplicated because of all the aforementioned problems.