Implicating hornet → insect
Link to implication

Reason:

buzz buzz.

Pretty obvious.

Peekaboo said:
Implicating hornet → insect
Link to implication

Reason:

buzz buzz.

Pretty obvious.

wut'r u mplyin m8

Actinium-89 said:
wut'r u mplyin m8

dat yer mum is a sloot who births 800 children a year m8

Do you think an implication to wasp would work? I remember them being considered a wasp, but I don't know much about them tbh.

parasprite said:
Do you think an implication to wasp would work? I remember them being considered a wasp, but I don't know much about them tbh.

They are indeed.

They, along with bees and ants, are also in an order called "Hymenoptera" but I doubt many people here know what that means.

parasprite said:
Do you think an implication to wasp would work? I remember them being considered a wasp, but I don't know much about them tbh.

You guys seem to be more read up on the issue, so sure.

I looked it up, and hornets do seem to be wasps.

Interestingly, the term "wasp" seems to be paraphyletic, from what I can tell. It excludes bees and ants. It would seem, from what I could find, that to be accurate from a cladistics standpoint, bees and ants would be considered wasps.

That said, that is not the common usage, and I'm not proposing any sort of tag implication based on that. I just found it interesting and I thought someone else might too.

Clawdragons said:
I looked it up, and hornets do seem to be wasps.

Interestingly, the term "wasp" seems to be paraphyletic, from what I can tell. It excludes bees and ants. It would seem, from what I could find, that to be accurate from a cladistics standpoint, bees and ants would be considered wasps.

Bees, ants, and wasps are all part of distinct families.

That's not entirely true. If you look at the wikipedia article for the superfamily Vespoidea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespoidea

You can see a cladogram for how it is divided into families. If you take a look at formicidae, you'll see that that is the "ant" family. But, if you take a look at the families to either side of it - I checked Sierolomorphidae and Vespidae, both are considered wasps.

Cladiscially speaking then, their ancestor must have also been a wasp, and, due to their positioning, that means that the ancestor to ants must have also been a wasp. Which means that ants are not distinct from wasps, but are, in fact, wasps themselves.

So while, yes, there are families of wasps and families of ants, trying to draw a distinction between the two is like drawing a distinction between dalmatians and dogs.

I'm not an expert on taxonomy, but I got the impression that superfamily was...I don't know... less official? That's not exactly what I mean but I remember there being a specific reason why we don't acknowledge it for tagging purposes (I know you're not saying we should use it, just trying to remember the context is all).

Oh, implication hornet -> insect deleted, going to approve implication hornet to wasp instead (which already implies insect).

I would expect that the reason you don't acknowledge most taxonomic groupings is because generally speaking, they are not all that useful for tagging or for searching.

Especially considering that many terms are not particularly useful when used in a taxonomically accurate way. For instance: Humans are primates, but the human tag does not imply primate. Probably because when people search for "primate" they are not looking for humans, so the implication, though accurate, wouldn't be useful. Humans are also apes, though again, the same argument applies.

And besides all the terms who's common meaning differs from their scientific meaning, there are a whole bunch of groups which are almost never used for most people. As an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euarchontoglires

Though! On the topic of taxonomy and classification, I have an actual question.

Pterodactyls (and pterosaurs in general, though that term is rarely tagged) tend to be tagged with dinosaur. Pterodactyls are not dinosaurs. They are flying reptiles.

To be accurate, the tag dinosaur should be deleted from such images, considering they are not dinosaurs. But then, that might hinder searching - whether or not they are dinosaurs, many people think that they are.

I considered a while ago going around and fixing the tags to make them more accurate, but I decided against it because I wasn't sure if it'd actually help anyone to do so.

Since we're discussing taxonomy anyway though, might as well bring it up. Should I clean up the pterodactyl and pterosaur tags to make sure that if a picture is tagged dinosaur, it actually includes a dinosaur, or leave well enough alone?

I'd leave it alone for the moment as I could see this discussion going either way.

On one hand, they aren't technically dinosaurs and it may be inaccurate to group them as such.

On the other hand, colloquially anything that has a name with "*saur*", "-dactyl", "raptor", or "-don" is probably going to be a dinosaur to most people.

However, I think since this is one of the few exceptions it would probably be fine just to exclude them. There aren't many cases where non-dinosaurs are called "dinosaur", so we might as well.

I don't know...I keep going back and forth on this one. :\

Related discussion: forum #147767 forum #147459

Edit: Do we...do we call them scalie?

parasprite said:
Edit: Do we...do we call them scalie?

Depends on which definition of 'scalie' we're using.

It's a problematic tag, since it can mean 'anything that has scales'.
But is also used as the term for furries who are into dinosaurs, dragons, reptiles, amphibians, etc. Regardless of scales. Basically, the userbase of herpy.net.

See http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Scalie.

And it's tagged both ways here: some users tag it by that definition, while some simply tag it for anything scaly.

If a Dimetrodon gets the dinosaur tag, smack the tagger with a sonic screwdriver.

parasprite said:
Edit: Do we...do we call them scalie?

Pterodactyls might more accurately be called furries nowadays, considering advances in paleontological understanding. Heck, many dinosaurs aren't really true scalies, either, considering they used to wear feather coats. But popular perceptions of them as scaly creatures is still very strong and not necessarily entirely wrong, so, yes, pterodactyls, pterosaurs, dinosaurs, and any Dimetrodons wandering by ought to be labeled as scalie, in my opinion. It's not like we have very many of them (not counting birds) to check.

Clawstripe said:
Heck, many dinosaurs aren't really true scalies, either, considering they used to wear feather coats. But popular perceptions of them as scaly creatures is still very strong and not necessarily entirely wrong, so, yes, pterodactyls, pterosaurs, dinosaurs, and any Dimetrodons wandering by ought to be labeled as scalie, in my opinion. It's not like we have very many of them (not counting birds) to check.

It's funny, popular perception of what dinosaurs look like is pretty much just slapping a layer of skin over the bones...

Not that there's a whole lot else we can do though.