The bulk update request #7589 is pending approval.

create implication feral_taur (44) -> unusual_taur (48)
create implication head_taur (1) -> unusual_taur (48)
create implication rear_taur (13) -> unusual_taur (48)
create implication two_taur (23) -> unusual_taur (48)
create implication long_neck_taur (36) -> unusual_taur (48)

Reason: It makes sense to me to group together unusual taurs under unusual_taur.

Bonus discussion: I included long_neck_taur, but I am not totally sure if this belongs, since it is a proportional difference instead of an anatomical one. Feel free to disagree.

Bonus discussion: I excluded long_taur due to them being fairly common taur types these days. Feel free to disagree.

reverse_taur and human_taur should count maybe?

I wonder if two_taur and rear_taur are necessary when pushmi-pullyu already exists.

nimphia said:
reverse_taur and human_taur should count maybe?

reverse_taur: Maybe, needs cleanup. It has overlap with rear_taur right now and no wiki page.
human_taur: No. There is nothing anatomically unusual about human taurs by themselves.

dba_afish said:
I wonder if two_taur and rear_taur are necessary when pushmi-pullyu already exists.

Those are not the same thing. pushmi-pullyu is not taur. two_taur has both arms and legs, while pushmi-pullyu does not. This is not taur:

post #2490926

I suppose both should implicate conjoined though.