The tag implication #47278 ursid -> caniformia has been rejected.

Reason: phylogenetic classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carnivorans#Classification

edit: No, i didn't know there was a bulk update request feature for this sort of thing. I would make one now, if I could undo all of these. Sadly, I don't think I can.

EDIT: The tag implication ursid -> caniformia (forum #392) has been rejected by @Jelloponies.

@Dakka

Why would anyone vote against having consistent classifications, as used in biological systematics?

The worst part is that the order of carnivora isn't implied directly or indirectly (through the two sub-orders) by any family within at the moment.

And so there is now no filter-tag for all predatory mammals, aka the order of "carnivora".

Would be interested to hear what could possibly be wrong with these implications.

rantas said:
@Dakka

Why would anyone...

You can probably stop right there. It's just a dakka thing. I checked the other votes, they downvote everything lol. As for everyone else, they're probably just indifferent on the matter.

The tag implication ursid -> caniformia (forum #392) has been rejected by @Jelloponies.