Implicating human -> plantigrade.

Reason: There are no pictures of digitigrade/unguligrade humans. Even 'feral' humans are plantigrades.

And now that you've said this someone will read it and say "Oh, really? I've got to fix that." Suddenly the world of reason is turned upside down and the implication is rendered invalid.

Seriously. I agree completely, but there's an important Rule of Reality to take into consideration: Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not a naysayer, here, either. This makes 100% sense to me and it should be done. I'm just warning that such an implication might cause problems at some point in the future, so don't take offense. I'm not mocking you. I'm just doing one of the things I do well, and that's taking things to a logical extreme to see if they might break.

RedRaven said:
And now that you've said this someone will read it and say "Oh, really? I've got to fix that." Suddenly the world of reason is turned upside down and the implication is rendered invalid.

Seriously. I agree completely, but there's an important Rule of Reality to take into consideration: Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not a naysayer, here, either. This makes 100% sense to me and it should be done. I'm just warning that such an implication might cause problems at some point in the future, so don't take offense. I'm not mocking you. I'm just doing one of the things I do well, and that's taking things to a logical extreme to see if they might break.

Hello, thank you for the answers (this is a bit of a response to all your replies on the not so smart implications I suggested). I guess you're right, though I haven't seen digitigrade humans before yet. I guess I need to think these things a bit more though should I suggest other implications next time. Well, lesson learnt: anything is to be expected in the furry fandom, and logic is not a boundary :)
Thanks again!

Asphyxia said:
Reason: There are no pictures of digitigrade/unguligrade humans. Even 'feral' humans are plantigrades.

Humans being digitigrade: walking tiptoe.
Humans being unguligrade: ballet dancing.

I don't think we need this implication honestly

Most times the number of fingers/toes on humans is irrelevant as like you said, they almost always have the same number, which would make this tag unnecessary as it could be assumed they are ungl...ugil... that word

Asphyxia, there's no reason to do that. Just because a few people might have some problems with some of your suggestions is no indication that all of them are bad suggestions. You may very well notice something the rest of us don't.

Clawstripe, "digitigrade", "plantigrade", and "unguligrade" don't actually just refer to the foot . Biologically, these terms refer to the entire leg structure, including the foot. A ballet dancer on the very tips of her toes is not "unguligrade" in this sense, since her leg structure is still very much adapted for plantigrade locomotion.

That said, very few digitigrade/unguligrade characters are ever depicted with legs adapted to that sort of walking/running. Most artists just attach the appropriate feet to a human body, attach an animal head to the other end of the body, maybe draw in some indication of fur, and that's it - you have a "digitigrade" or "unguligrade" character.

If feet/ankles aren't shown in an image, the plantigrade, digitigrade, or unguligrade tags have no business being there anyway right? That would invalidate any implication of them by a species tag alone.

Sorry but no. Feet aren't always visible in the image.

MaShCr, implication of leg/foot structure by species doesn't make sense, anyway. Remember that many artists draw all of their characters with human-like feet, regardless of species, and I've seen images where some species which are plantigrade in real life (such as rabbits and skunks) have been given digitigrade feet.

Also, sometimes humans end up with no legs.

RedRaven said:
And now that you've said this someone will read it and say "Oh, really? I've got to fix that." ... Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Oh, really? I've got to fix that .

Clawstripe said:
Oh, really? I've got to fix that .

I'm personally not convinced those are humans. Especially not the last one. No legs should probably fit though.

Lyokira said:
I'm personally not convinced those are humans. Especially not the last one. No legs should probably fit though.

Granted, they're not Homo sapiens sapiens, but all three creatures are genetically modified descendents of humans in the Man After Man storyline.

The spacesuited being in the last one is supposed to be a descendent of a space-faring human who's been so genetically modified for an alien environment that he/she can't handle Earth's. Given TWYSNWYK, I wasn't sure exactly what to call that one since we can't actually see what sort of being he/she is. Would alien be appropriate as he/she could qualify as both an alien and a human descendant (in story)? The tag might also placate those who would see the character as an alien (as TWYSNWYK would suggest) but not know he/she is a human descendant.

Addendum: Tagged the last one with alien and, as Lyokira suggested, no-legs anyway. If I'm wrong, them's the breaks. :/

Clawstripe said:
Granted, they're not Homo sapiens sapiens, but all three creatures are genetically modified descendents of humans in the Man After Man storyline.

The spacesuited being in the last one is supposed to be a descendent of a space-faring human who's been so genetically modified for an alien environment that he/she can't handle Earth's. Given TWYSNWYK, I wasn't sure exactly what to call that one since we can't actually see what sort of being he/she is. Would alien be appropriate as he/she could qualify as both an alien and a human descendant (in story)? The tag might also placate those who would see the character as an alien (as TWYSNWYK would suggest) but not know he/she is a human descendant.

Addendum: Tagged the last one with alien and, as Lyokira suggested, no-legs anyway. If I'm wrong, them's the breaks. :/

Tag what you see. I don't see a human in the last one. The first two is slightly arguable.