Title is self explanatory, I keep seeing ferals and anthros of the same species together but the only good way to search for that is
bestiality -(every other species)

Qmannn said:
It's not perfect unless you're only searching for duo images, but -interspecies is he closest thing I know of to what you're asking. Of course, the interspecies tag currently needs to be added to a bunch of images for it to be effective.

In general, an intraspecies tag would be a nice thing to have.

Bestiality implies interspecies though.

parasprite said:
Bestiality implies interspecies though.

No. Bestiality implies feral (or more accurately feral bodyshape) and anthro. We can't separate feral_lion and anthro_lion, and yet feral lion on anthro lion is still always bestiality.

FurryMcFuzzball said:
Title is self explanatory, I keep seeing ferals and anthros of the same species together but the only good way to search for that is
bestiality -(every other species)

anthro_on_feral is definitely a tag you want to use.

Tvtropes refer to this as Furry confusion, which makes an interesting potential tag name.

Circeus said:
No.

Yes. Parasprite is making a statement of fact: e621 currently implicates interspecies.

It also doesn't currently implicate anthro (and IMO clearly shouldn't -- consider bestiality human, which has 8700+ posts)

savageorange said:
Yes. Parasprite is making a statement of fact: e621 currently implicates interspecies.

It also doesn't currently implicate anthro (and IMO clearly shouldn't -- consider bestiality human, which has 8700+ posts)

Which hardly invalidate my argument. If there is no difference, then do we even have a need for bestiality is human_on_anthro can be bestiality?

Circeus said:
Which hardly invalidate my argument. If there is no difference, then do we even have a need for bestiality is human_on_anthro can be bestiality?

A difference between what and what? The bestiality wiki page defines bestiality as *_on_feral. Thus, the results in bestiality human mostly correctly depict one or more human interacting with one or more feral. Searching bestiality human feral duo illustrates this more directly.

I don't see why human_on_anthro is entering the picture. Human_on_anthro isn't implicated to bestiality; human_on_feral and anthro_on_feral are.

Since bestiality and interspecies are basicly the same tag, I would suggest maybe making bestiality specificly for feral/human or even removing one of the tags.

Circeus said:
No. Bestiality implies feral (or more accurately feral bodyshape) and anthro. We can't separate feral_lion and anthro_lion, and yet feral lion on anthro lion is still always bestiality.

anthro_on_feral is definitely a tag you want to use.

Tvtropes refer to this as Furry confusion, which makes an interesting potential tag name.

I mean anthro/feral of the same species (example below)
post #626617

Also your furry_confusion suggestion is ok but its not very clear, thats why im suggesting a same_species_bestiality or similar tag

It would be one hell of a tagging job, but I wonder if we should start tagging same_species? Searching for -interspecies works for duos, but it is useless for groups; and same_species would have more applications than limiting it to just bestiality.

FurryMcFuzzball said:
Since bestiality and interspecies are basicly the same tag, I would suggest maybe making bestiality specificly for feral/human or even removing one of the tags.

They aren't actually. For example, an anthro fox and an anthro dragon having sex can be tagged with interspecies. The same can be said for human_on_anthro which actually implies interspecies, but for tagging purposes isn't considered to be bestiality. It just ends up looking the same as bestiality because bestiality implies interspecies, and any other combination (other than humans) need to be tagged separate to this.

The tags currently run like this:

• interspecies
• bestiality - "X_on_feral"
• human_on_feral
• anthro_on_feral

Which is problematic because that means anthro_on_feral eventually implies interspecies, which as others have mentioned here, isn't always the case. I mean sure, we could add a same_species tag (which would have different, but overlapping usage). However, as we have it set up now, this wouldn't actually solve the "same species bestiality" issue.

Why do I say this? Well, remember how I said that anthro_on_feral currently implies interspecies? Tagging-wise we are making the assumption that a feral horse and an anthro horse aren't considered the same species. By extension, this means that choosing to tag them with something like same_species_bestiality would either have to directly conflict with this assumption, or not apply at all in these cases.

This is my proposal:

• Unimplcate: bestiality -/> interspecies
• Implication: human_on_feral -> interspecies
• If we decide to use a tag like same_species_bestiality, we can easily imply bestiality without causing any issues, while still allowing bestiality to be the blanket term for "x_on_feral".

I think this would work pretty well for our current setup, as well as allow it to be compatible for the tags that have been suggested here.

parasprite said:
Tagging-wise we are making the assumption that a feral horse and an anthro horse aren't considered the same species.

Which would be a correct assumption. Comparing the two is like comparing a human (Homo sapiens) and an ape (probably an australopithecine, maybe one of the early Homo species, or possibly chimps if you want to). However much they would resemble each other and derive from the same stock, they'd still be of different species, just like Homo sapiens and Pan paniscus do. If someone did a human on australopithecine/Homo habilis/chimp picture, would that still warrant a same-species-bestiality tag?

On the other hand, if same_species_bestiality isn't the right tag to use, what sort of tag should be used? Or should we chalk this up to one of those cases where a bit of inaccuracy is necessary to get the point across in a simple and succinct manner?

Clawstripe said:
Which would be a correct assumption. Comparing the two is like comparing a human (Homo sapiens) and an ape (probably an australopithecine, maybe one of the early Homo species, or possibly chimps if you want to). However much they would resemble each other and derive from the same stock, they'd still be of different species, just like Homo sapiens and Pan paniscus do. If someone did a human on australopithecine/Homo habilis/chimp picture, would that still warrant a same-species-bestiality tag?

I think it's worth mentioning that for tagging purposes, interspecies generally excludes things like house cat/lion pairings as they're both "feline" (technically felid :P ).

Anyways, if they can reproduce sucessfully...well you know the rest.

parasprite said:
I think it's worth mentioning that for tagging purposes, interspecies generally excludes things like house cat/lion pairings as they're both "feline" (technically felid :P ).

So basically, interspecies is used as shorthand for "inter-taxonomic-family"? It gets the point across in a simple and understandable manner even if it isn't totally scientifically correct. Thus same_species_bestiality would really be same_taxonomic-family_bestiality in a simple (which doesn't mean "stupid") manner. This is a furry art and related archive, not Tetrapod Zoology , after all.

It does bring up the question of whether that house cat (Felis domesticus)/lion (Panthera leo) pairing qualifies as same_species_bestiality, even if it's just to officially state that such-and-such is where the line is drawn. Furthermore, what about that human/chimp thing? :p

Anyways, if they can reproduce sucessfully...well you know the rest.

In the furry world, everything can potentially reproduce with everything else, from humans to toasters. :p On the other hand, a picture or a comic sequence doesn't necessarily mean that individuals of the same species can reproduce (barring in-picture evidence, be it pregnancy, sperm torpedoing an ovum, or parents/children). On e621, as in the furry fandom, ability to procreate doesn't necessarily mean the parents are of the same taxonomic family, much less species, almost the opposite of what it is in real life.

parasprite said:
This is my proposal:

• Unimplicate: bestiality -/> interspecies
• Implication: human_on_feral -> interspecies
• If we decide to use a tag like same_species_bestiality, we can easily imply bestiality without causing any issues, while still allowing bestiality to be the blanket term for "x_on_feral".

I think this would work pretty well, with the addition of some sort of intraspecies / same_species tag. Then you can just search for same_species bestiality instead of having to create a new tag for it.

While we're at it, how does the bestiality tag actually work? Do we want it to apply to anything non-feral with a feral? Or only humans? If the latter, then what's the point of the anthro_on_feral tag? EDIT: OK, it just appears to be an umbrella tag for anthro_on_feral and human_on_feral, never mind.

Clawstripe said:
In the furry world, everything can potentially reproduce with everything else, from humans to toasters. :p

DING- post #573990

Clawstripe said:

It does bring up the question of whether that house cat (Felis domesticus)/lion (Panthera leo) pairing qualifies as same_species_bestiality, even if it's just to officially state that such-and-such is where the line is drawn.

It's a bit of an informal, loosely defined rule that mostly affects anthro. Put another way, an anthro house cat and an anthro lion can easily look like breeds of the same species. Treating that like interspecies ends up watering down the tag with results that don't really apply very well in practice.

Furthermore, what about that human/chimp thing? :p.

Currently human doesn't imply primate, so tagging-wise that would still be considered interspecies.