Are these three tags really necessary? I sat thinking about them for a while, but in the end, my brain says they serve no real purpose beyond just tagging to tag. I can't think of anyone who would come to this site, and honestly search for THESE terms rather than an actual species that they would be after.

I don't mind being told I'm wrong, but still, SOMEONE has to understand my point on this, that it's just being a fluffer for tags list.

i don't even know what those are >.>

unguligrade = has hooves (walks on 'nails')
plantigrade = flat feet (like us H. Sapiens)
digitigrade = has paws (walks on 'toes')

I'll plantigrade your digitigrade you unguligrade! Did I say that right? I think I said it right. Sounds rather silly yes, but maybe, just MAYBE, there is someone out there going through random furry image boards looking for those exact words. I don't know about you, but i'd imagine the person who stumbles onto our little patch of interblags would be one happy guy. "But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

Someone with a foot fetish might search for those terms, as well as other artists doing research or comparison.

I find digitigrade sexy, so these tags i find very useful. Plantigrade, is sort of the default, i.e. most normal human style feet, and may not need a tag. but the other two, yes. I mean digitigrade is sexy! :D

http://www.e621.net/post/show/72013/armor-breasts-butt-canine-casia-collaboration-conv

snes>genesis said:
Someone with a foot fetish might search for those terms, as well as other artists doing research or comparison.

This one. On both accounts.

Marbles said:
This one. On both accounts.

A foot fetish for feet that don't actually exist. Turtles, all the way down...

temporal_crux said:
A foot fetish for feet that don't actually exist. Turtles, all the way down...

... they do exist

Aurali said:
... they do exist

You find me some furres and take pictures of their feet.
Unless you're just in denial, to which I applaud your efforts.

luvdaporn said:
i don't even know what those are >.>

Those are different arrangements of feet used by walking animals. They differ in how much of the foot touches the ground when the animal is standing.

Plantigrade - heel touches ground - examples: humans, bears, weasels, rodents
Digitigrade - only toes and ball of foot touches ground - examples: birds, cats, dogs
Unguligrade - only toes touch ground (like ballet dancers) - examples: all hoofed mammals except elephants (which are semi-digitigrade)

Also, paws refer more or less to the feet (and hands when anthropomorphic) of an animal that has claws. My rule of thumb: if the fingers have nails, they're on hands; if the fingers have claws, they're on paws.

temporal_crux said:
You find me some furres and take pictures of their feet.
Unless you're just in denial, to which I applaud your efforts.

an unguligrade creature: http://kinshipcircle.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/deer.jpg
a digitigrade one: http://howlingforjustice.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/wolf11.jpg

These terms weren't based off fiction XD

temporal_crux said:
A foot fetish for feet that don't actually exist. Turtles, all the way down...

You find me some furres and take pictures of their feet.
Unless you're just in denial, to which I applaud your efforts.

Isn't the entire furry fandom a fetish for something that doesn't exist?

Weak argument IMO. You seem to be in denial that foot fetishes exist.

Marbles said:
Isn't the entire furry fandom a fetish for something that doesn't exist?

Weak argument IMO. You seem to be in denial that foot fetishes exist.

And you seem to be in the habit of jumping to conclusions.

Foot fetish exists, yes. Furry fetish exists, yes.
And the development of a foot fetish in regards to furries well exists because people simply don't limit their attractions to a healthy degree.

My issue with these terms, is that are really only three categories that matter when labeling, in the scale of Classification. What the most common name for it is, what the Kingdom is, and then what the Class is. If we're going to start popping in Orders and suborders, then why not just go all out, and use the full Classification system? Just a straight taxonomic requirement for any and every post.

Then again, we'd have to figure out which side of the phylogenetic to use, since physically appearing the same as another creature does not mean it shares a common ancestor...

temporal_crux said things

... Y'know, 'tag less' isn't exactly the best suggestion, and slippery slopes are really kind of passé in the furry fandom. Just because it doesn't seem useful <i>to you</i>, doesn't mean that it isn't useful -- and the last I knew, the only reason to <i>not</i> include a tag was if it was entirely redundant, or had no potential use (as in, did not relate to the image in any concrete way).

Besides, surely you must realize they're not being used for the purpose of taxonomic grouping so much as for identification of the named body feature itself within the image? You know, like 'claws' or 'breasts'. And face it, there are people who find each of those three foot-structures relevant enough to their interests (prurient and/or otherwise) to search for them specifically. Ergo, the tag is relevant and useful.

acct0283476 said:
... Y'know, 'tag less' isn't exactly the best suggestion, and slippery slopes are really kind of passé in the furry fandom. Just because it doesn't seem useful <i>to you</i>, doesn't mean that it isn't useful -- and the last I knew, the only reason to <i>not</i> include a tag was if it was entirely redundant, or had no potential use (as in, did not relate to the image in any concrete way).

Besides, surely you must realize they're not being used for the purpose of taxonomic grouping so much as for identification of the named body feature itself within the image? You know, like 'claws' or 'breasts'. And face it, there are people who find each of those three foot-structures relevant enough to their interests (prurient and/or otherwise) to search for them specifically. Ergo, the tag is relevant and useful.

Just as pretty much everyone says "Horse = hooves". Tada. You prove my point

temporal_crux said:
Just as pretty much everyone says "Horse = hooves". Tada. You prove my point

No, you're missing the point <i>entirely</i>. A horse is not a body feature.

Searching for "horse:goat:sheep:antelope:wildebeest:unicorn:whatever" = for "hooves" (Syntax is probably fucked as hell, I can't even remember what the 'or' operator is for *booru searches).

But in the end, you know a horse has hooves. So tagging horse with "hooves" as well as "unguligrade" is redundant.

temporal_crux said:
But in the end, you know a horse has hooves. So tagging horse with "hooves" as well as "unguligrade" is redundant.

*Shrug*

Not disagreeing at all there, having <u>both</u> the tags 'unguligrade' and 'hooves' is indeed redundant. I wasn't aware the point had even been brought up; I thought we were debating the validity of the foot-structure type tags as a whole?

I was more in line with "If people want horses, they look up horses. If they want hooves, they look up hooves." When it comes to foot-structure tags, your average person is more likely to look up a species that posses the foot-type, rather than the foot-type. I'm willing to fathom that a small portion of the browsing population directly looks up one of the three terms.

But this has all gotten me thinking, though. Would be an amusing "Classification Tree" for the sort of furre species that are more common, represented as a massive orgy. If I knew a good enough artist, I'd attempt the commission, but the picture would likely end up massively huge....