Implicating cross_fox → red_fox
Link to implication

Reason:

The cross fox is a color variation of the red fox.

I actually opted to implicate cross_fox directly to --> fox instead of going through the red_fox tag.

The reason for this is two reasons:

1, just because we're tagging images, the genetic similarity between red_fox and cross_fox isn't useful for a piece of art as it is in biological taxonomy.

2, their coloration and markings is so strikingly different, that I don't think many people who are looking for one are going to be satisfied with images of the other. So implicating cross_foxes to --> red_fox is very accurate biologically, but I don't think it's going to be that helpful for searching pieces of art. Especially since Red Foxes are quite well known, but I don't think many people know what Cross Foxes are. So instead, I implicated cross_fox directly to fox, to make it easier for people's searches for either cross foxes or red foxes to give them exactly what they're looking for. And to avoid having people be confused if cross_foxes results were showing up in their red_fox search and creating a "that doesn't look like a red_fox at all, must be mistagged, better 'fix' it, etc" type of scenario and resultant mess. I know it's going to make some biologist cringe, but for our purposes in tagging art, I think it will work a little better this way.

At least it gets the implication it needs instead of just dangling about all alone as it was before I tripped over it.