Species Listing

Anonymous #F668
is it necessary to add real-life existing species implications to Pokemon? Dachsbun is not really a canis familiaris.
Suppose this also applies to species to class (e.g mammal). It should be done something manual given it’s completely separated from ours.
Even Worse Kobold -
Birthday Fur - Joined within the first year of the site operation and has had significant amount of activity as of June 1, 2021.
Founder Artist - Had at least 75 images under their tag before the site has hit its 50,000 uploads milestone.
Astra - Helped choose the name for our mascot - Astra.
Passing of the Eclipse - Joined within the first month of public opening and has had at least some activity as of August 3, 2020.
Artist -

As I recall, the decision made was that top level IRL things (mammal, reptile, etc) could be implications, but nothing more specific than that. It’s been pretty inconsistently applied, but Ponyta, Rapidash, and Eevee all imply mammal currently.
Whether or not a dog made of bread counts as a mammal is an interesting question, but Dachsbun does have fur, and is implied to only look like it’s made of bread.
EDIT: Post in question confirming the implication policy is here: https://furbooru.org/forums/tagging/topics/species-listing?post_id=8002#post_8002
Unless that decision was revised between then and now, it should still stand, right?
Anonymous #F6D9
Deletion reason: Rule #6
Anonymous #B1D2
Syntax quick reference: **bold** *italic* ||hide text|| `code` __underline__ ~~strike~~ ^sup^ %sub%

Detailed syntax guide