# Species List Update



## Dragoneer (Nov 10, 2011)

We made a significant large list of changes to the species list this morning (over 100+ changes total). We added species based on relevant interest, or by the amount they appear on the site or general fandom interest (e.g. Moogles, Citras, etc). This list is not 100% complete, but it's a significant addition to the site. Some species also had such a significant presence on the site they got their own category (e.g. GSDs and Huskies).

With that, we're still looking for feedback to apply to the lists, species to add. I've gotten some additional feedback like adding "Hybrid" and "Giraffe". Those will go in with a future update to the lists. In the mean time, if you have more you feel are worth to add feel free to reply to this thread, and we'll look over the suggestions.

In time, the lists will be converted over to tags, and we'll roll out an appropriate tagging system. For now, we're working within the limitations of the system we have, but are planning a more comprehensive rollout... eventually (don't hold your breath waiting for it - you may die!).

CHANGES/ADDITIONS ONLY

==Avian
    Corvid
    Duck
    Falcon
    Goose
    Hawk
    Owl
    Swan

==Amphibian
    Salamander    

==Aquatic (NEW CATEGORY)
    Aquatic / Other
    Cephalopod
    Cetacean (Dolphin)(MOVED FROM MAMMALS TO HERE)
    Cetacean (Whale) (MOVED FROM MAMMALS TO HERE)
    Cetacean - Other (Replaces "Cetacean General")    (MOVED FROM MAMMALS TO HERE)
    Fish - General
    Shark

==Exotic
    Alien
    Argonian
    Chakat
    Chocobo
    Citra
    Crux
    Daemon
    Digimon
    Dracat
    Draenei
    Elf
    Gargoyle
    Iksar
    Langurhali 
    Monster
    Naga
    Moogle
    Orc
    Pokemon
    Satyr
    Sergal
    Tanuki
    Unicorn
    Xenomorph

==Mammals
    Bovid - Bovines
    Bovid - Antelope
    Bovid - Gazelle
    Bovid - Goat
    Bovid - Other
    Canid - Coyote
    Canid - Doberman
    Canid - Dingo
    Canid - GSD
    Canid - Husky
    Canid - Vulpine (Replaces "Canid - Fox")
    Canid - Other (Changed from "Canid - General)
    Cervine (Changed from "Cervines")
    Donkey
    Feline - Cougar
    Feline - Jaguar
    Feline - Ocelot
    Feline - Other (Changed from "Feline - General")
    Gerbil (DELETE - Move to "Rodent - Other")
    Hedgehog
    Hippopotamus
    Llama
    Meerkat
    Marsupial - Opossum (Changed from "Opossum") (Moved from "Marsupials")
    Marsupial - Kangaroo (Changed from "Kangaroo") (Moved from "Marsupials")
    Marsupial - Koala 
    Marsupial - Other (Changed from "Marsupial / Other")
    Marsupial - Quoll
    Marsupial - Wallaby
    Mustelid - Badger (Changed from "Badger")
    Mustelid - Ferret
    Mustelid - Other
    Mustelid - Otter (Changed from "Otter")
    Mustelid - Mink (Changed from "Mink")
    Mustelid - Weasel
    Mustelid - Wolverine
    Mongoose
    Marsupial - Opossum (Changed from "Opossum") (Moved from "Marsupials")
    Marsupial - Kangaroo (Changed from "Kangaroo") (Moved from "Marsupials")
    Marsupial - Koala 
    Marsupial - Other (Changed from "Marsupial / Other")
    Marsupial - Quoll
    Marsupial - Wallaby
    Panda
    Pig/Swine
    Primate - Gorilla
    Primate - Human
    Primate - Lemur
    Primate - Monkey (Changed from "Monkey")
    Primate - Other
    Red Panda
    Rhinocerus
    Rodent - Beaver
    Rodent - Mouse (Changed from "Mouse")
    Rodent - Rat 
    Rodent - Other (Changed from "Hamster")
    Seal

==Dragon

==Reptilian
    Crocodile
    Iguana

==Marsupial (DELETE CATEGORY)

==Other (NEW CATEGORY)
    Dinosaur - Sauropod (Replaces "Dinosaur") (MOVED FROM 'REPTILIAN' TO HERE)
    Dinosaur - Theropod
    Scorpion
    Arachnid
    Mantid
    Insect - Other


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 10, 2011)

I know it's not a species, but what about adding my little pony friendship is magic to the type list?


Also thanks for the update, I've been waiting for a very long time for more species added to the list.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 10, 2011)

Scorpions are arachnids...why not have an arachnid category A
And split it scorpions, crabs, spiders.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 10, 2011)

what about dinosaurs that do not fit into the two categories? Add a general maybe?

oh nvm derp


----------



## MRGamer01 (Nov 10, 2011)

Its a pretty nice update actually.  But may I ask, what was (or is) up with Apple?  Lol is that even a specie or was that put in there as joke?


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 10, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I know it's not a species, but what about adding my little pony friendship is magic to the type list?
> 
> 
> Also thanks for the update, I've been waiting for a very long time for more species added to the list.


I'm just seeing MLP as being an entirely unique species on its own. It's an art style, and while I love MLP... I'm just not sure they need their own species list? If we go that route, we may as well do every show. Mind you, maybe that's not a bad idea, but... species wise? No.

I think that would fall underneath the style-categories, and I'll be reviewing those next week.



Fay V said:


> Scorpions are arachnids...why not have an arachnid category A
> And split it scorpions, crabs, spiders.


I'm just not sure we have enough crab or lobster characters out there. That said, I could see a general "Crustacean" category.



MRGamer01 said:


> Its a pretty nice update actually.  But may I ask, what was (or is) up with Apple?  Lol is that even a specie or was that put in there as joke?


Apple is the most important species of them all. You should know this. It's important.


----------



## Machinari (Nov 10, 2011)

How about a monster option?  A lot of the crazy critters I've seen don't really fall under any of those, and since the unspecific/any tag tends to include everything that people don't bother to tag, it seems that it could see some use.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 10, 2011)

Machinari said:


> How about a monster option?  A lot of the crazy critters I've seen don't really fall under any of those, and since the unspecific/any tag tends to include everything that people don't bother to tag, it seems that it could see some use.


*points up at the list*

Already there, and it's live on the site. =3 And we've got both kinds of Monsters. Regular, and Digital! </obvious_bias>


----------



## Machinari (Nov 10, 2011)

Lol, sorry, must've missed it.  xD  So many new additions.  x3


----------



## Williamca (Nov 10, 2011)

Pretty nice, although noticed a complaint or two about no "Sheep" species.


----------



## Cyril (Nov 10, 2011)

Red Panda is finally a species option! Woohoo!
Still no Viverridae category though... I consider that a major oversight <.<


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 10, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> I'm just seeing MLP as being an entirely unique species on its own. It's an art style, and while I love MLP... I'm just not sure they need their own species list? If we go that route, we may as well do every show. Mind you, maybe that's not a bad idea, but... species wise? No.
> 
> I think that would fall underneath the style-categories, and I'll be reviewing those next week.
> 
> Apple is the most important species of them all. You should know this. It's important.


Alright, I've been wondering about this cause next season the show is going to reach syndication which means they'll be able to air it on other channels like nickelodeon and cartoon network and that, which will only cause the popularity of the show to explode even further since the hub is much smaller in comparison, where as the other channels are the powerhouses of cartoons.
It's better to be prepared for the inevitable explosion of popularity by having it under style-category than to make one after the fact.

A apple a day keeps the doctor away, unless it's "The Doctor" then bugger the apple.


Cyril said:


> Red Panda is finally a species option! Woohoo!
> Still no Viverridae category though... I consider that a major oversight <.<


That animal is awesome and I'd want to give it a hug, but I have a feeling that would end in tragedy.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 10, 2011)

nevrean? another popular race by mick39


----------



## Fay V (Nov 10, 2011)

we have dranaei, werre and worgen on the original list? 
worgen just got a huuuge boost in popularity


----------



## Garuru_Wolf (Nov 10, 2011)

What about armadillos and Yoshis?  And maybe a distinction between bear types (brown/black/polar)? Not sure if that's important enough. I was going to mention Tylacines too, but I suppose those fall under marsupial-other.


----------



## Cyril (Nov 10, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That animal is awesome and I'd want to give it a hug, but I have a feeling that would end in tragedy.


Viverridae is a family of mammals, not a particular animal. I wouldn't care much if it was just one animal.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Nov 10, 2011)

I got an idea... What if instead of "Husky" we change it to "Spitz?"That way we can put similar dog breeds in the category, like Malamutes and Pomeranians.

God, the FA list is so detailed now. It looks like Transfur.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 10, 2011)

Fay V said:


> we have dranaei, werre and worgen on the original list?
> worgen just got a huuuge boost in popularity


I think Werres and Worgens would technically fall under the "wolf" species. Perhaps as a category we'd use "Were Creature" for that, but not as a species. Dranaei are something very specific.



Garuru_Wolf said:


> What about armadillos and Yoshis?  And maybe a distinction between bear types (brown/black/polar)? Not sure if that's important enough. I was going to mention Tylacines too, but I suppose those fall under marsupial-other.


Good points there, and I'll add them to the list.



Cyril said:


> Viverridae is a family of mammals, not a particular animal. I wouldn't care much if it was just one animal.


Y'know, honestly, I've never even heard of them until now.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 10, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> I think Werres and Worgens would technically fall under the "wolf" species. Perhaps as a category we'd use "Were Creature" for that, but not as a species. Dranaei are something very specific.
> 
> Good points there, and I'll add them to the list.
> 
> Y'know, honestly, I've never even heard of them until now.



I'm gonna have to argue with you on that. That's like saying pokemon and digimon are the same thing. similar but there is a distinct difference between drawing a wolf and drawing a worgen, even anatomically. You may as well put Tauren with Bovine. I could see were wolves just being part of wolf, but I think if wow species are getting their own category then Worgen should as well.


----------



## Williamca (Nov 10, 2011)

Hmm, nothing was stated on the sheep addition so I shall try again. D;
Unless of course it is already there.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 10, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I'm gonna have to argue with you on that. That's like saying pokemon and digimon are the same thing. similar but there is a distinct difference between drawing a wolf and drawing a worgen, even anatomically. You may as well put Tauren with Bovine. I could see were wolves just being part of wolf, but I think if wow species are getting their own category then Worgen should as well.


Point. I'll have to look through the lists a bit more and see what sort of impact/presence they have on the site.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 10, 2011)

I hope Apple stays


----------



## NerdyMunk (Nov 10, 2011)

Koala is a nice add.
You still have Squirrel on the list, do you? How about Chipmunk? Or at least Squirrel (other) or what Chipmunks technically are: Ground Squirrels.


----------



## SwooshyCueb (Nov 10, 2011)

How about turian under exotic? There are a growing number of turians on FA.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 10, 2011)

Why is 'Tanuki' in with all the imaginary species under 'Exotic'?
I have proof that they DO exist


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Nov 10, 2011)

Another thing... the Panther category. Do we still need it when we have Jaguars? Panthers are nothing but black leopards or jaguars (such as yours truly.)


----------



## Andraste (Nov 10, 2011)

How about replacing "Panther" with snowleopard since snowleopards are neither a
leopard nor a jaguar. 
They are a kind of feline itself called unica unica.

And there are many snowleopards out there o.o


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 10, 2011)

The dinosaur one seems oddly chosen, since they're both part of Saurischia, which excludes Ornithischia entirely. To quote a journal on FA:



> So all dinosaurs are either sauropods or theropods? What about, um, the entire clade of ornithiscian dinosaurs, which is one of the two most basic dinosaur groups? Theropods and sauropods are both part of the same group, Saurischia, so there is no way to submit an ornithiscian under a category that's even slightly accurate. Ornithiscians include stegosaurs, ceratopsians, ankylosaurs, and ornithopods of any sort.


----------



## Azure (Nov 10, 2011)

Sweet. I get a species list entry!


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 10, 2011)

wow to the people complaining about dinosaurs and dragons

can we just get you guys a section called "Losers" and be done with it

[im joking]


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 10, 2011)

Clayton said:


> wow to the people complaining about dinosaurs and dragons
> 
> can we just get you guys a section called "Losers" and be done with it
> 
> [im joking]



IMA RAPE YOU >:C and you wont enjoy it


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 10, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> IMA RAPE YOU >:C and you wont enjoy it



I should be feeling a cock balls-deep in my ass right now but I'm *not*


----------



## Azure (Nov 10, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I should be feeling a cock balls-deep in my ass right now but I'm *not*


INTERCEPTION :V


----------



## Platero (Nov 10, 2011)

Thanks for doing this; it was overdue!

A couple mistakes I see...


Squirrel should be under Rodent.
You created Mustelid - Ferret without removing Ferret, so there's now two ferret categories.
It's kind of amusing that you guys put Skunk under Mustelid and then moved it back into its own category, since there _is _some scientific debate over that.


----------



## Ixerin (Nov 10, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> The dinosaur one seems oddly chosen, since they're both part of Saurischia, which excludes Ornithischia entirely. To quote a journal on FA:


 
Yes, this issue is an important one and I think it should be fixed. There is now literally no category that fits triceratops, a fairly popular dinosaur, as well as many others. I would suggest either adding a "Dinosaur: other" category, or changing the current two categories to "Dinosaur: Ornithiscians" and "Dinosaur: Saurischians". The second option is more taxonomically sound but probably not the best choice due to the terminology that's likely unfamiliar to many people.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 10, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I should be feeling a cock balls-deep in my ass right now but I'm *not*



You are so knotty. 

Also... NERVEANS. GO GO GO


----------



## VazDrae (Nov 10, 2011)

Eventually 'Lombax' needs to be added. 'Ottsel' too. Hey there is Pokemon, so why not?


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 10, 2011)

Ixerin said:


> Yes, this issue is an important one and I think it should be fixed. There is now literally no category that fits triceratops, a fairly popular dinosaur, as well as many others. I would suggest either adding a "Dinosaur: other" category, or changing the current two categories to "Dinosaur: Ornithiscians" and "Dinosaur: Saurischians". The second option is more taxonomically sound but probably not the best choice due to the terminology that's likely unfamiliar to many people.


I dont think we need to get our panties in a twist about the terms of dinosaurs. I tthink "Dinosaur - Herbivore", "Dinosaur - Carnivore" and "Dinosaur - Insectivore" do fine :S


----------



## Yeno (Nov 10, 2011)

Where'd Apple go? =(


----------



## Shiroka (Nov 10, 2011)

I know a lot of people would hate that, but imho we should just set the specie field as a text box and be done with it =/


----------



## Ixerin (Nov 10, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I dont think we need to get our panties in a twist about the terms of dinosaurs. I tthink "Dinosaur - Herbivore", "Dinosaur - Carnivore" and "Dinosaur - Insectivore" do fine :S



Erm, no one is getting their panties in a twist. Your suggestion is fine by me also, though without the "Insectivore" (there generally isn't enough evidence to determine with certainty whether dinosaurs were truly omnivorous or insectivorous, and in the cases where we can, we certainly can't expect miscellaneous furries to know about it). I just have a problem with the current system because it excludes a huge number of dinosaurs.


----------



## Devious Bane (Nov 10, 2011)

We just need something simple like "_Furry_", "_Retarded_", and "_Both_" because that would be able to suit _everyone_.


----------



## RTDragon (Nov 10, 2011)

VazDrae said:


> Eventually 'Lombax' needs to be added. 'Ottsel' too. Hey there is Pokemon, so why not?



I have to say this considering there are tons of Lombax and ottsel characters. Though does sergals have their own catergory?


----------



## Corto (Nov 10, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> We just need something simple like "_Furry_", "_Retarded_", and "_Both_" because that would be able to suit _everyone_.


But I'm neither :c


----------



## Ainoko (Nov 10, 2011)

You need to add Hybrid to the exotics list for those of us whose species doesn't fit squarely in the other species tags


----------



## Ixerin (Nov 10, 2011)

Shiroka said:


> I know a lot of people would hate that, but imho we should just set the specie field as a text box and be done with it =/



I'd be cool with that. Would also solve the problem of having multiple species in the picture.

[Edit] And of hybrids, for that matter, of which there are nearly infinite varieties.


----------



## Throttle Deluge Kinyea (Nov 10, 2011)

YAYZ WE ON TEH LIST XD


----------



## Smelge (Nov 10, 2011)

I assume this means that the whole idea of getting rid of the species list has been binned now? Seeing as the excuse for not adding more species ever since I've been coming here has been "we're getting rid of the species list when the update happens".


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Nov 10, 2011)

Still don't see Lombax on that list. Could easily fit with exotics.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 10, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I dont think we need to get our panties in a twist about the terms of dinosaurs. I tthink "Dinosaur - Herbivore", "Dinosaur - Carnivore" and "Dinosaur - Insectivore" do fine :S



What about fish eaters hmmmm? WHERE IS YOUR LOVE OF SPINOSAURUS CLAYTON, WHERE :<


----------



## Riavis (Nov 10, 2011)

Yay, my species is an option now :v

Ocelots in the house yo.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 10, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> What about fish eaters hmmmm? WHERE IS YOUR LOVE OF SPINOSAURUS CLAYTON, WHERE :<


well fish is meaaat soo carnivores!!


----------



## Cherokee_Cory (Nov 10, 2011)

I think they should increase Gender options next, myself. :U
Then maybe make an amalgamation of the 'browse' and 'search' tools for even easier searching.
Unless this has already been discussed, I mean, I don't really come on the forums.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 10, 2011)

Cherokee_Cory said:


> I think they should increase Gender options next, myself. :U
> Then maybe make an amalgamation of the 'browse' and 'search' tools for even easier searching.
> Unless this has already been discussed, I mean, I don't really come on the forums.


That could be cool

Male
Female
Herm
Transgender
Genderqueer
No..gender.. I duno the word atm


----------



## virus (Nov 10, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Why is 'Tanuki' in with all the imaginary species under 'Exotic'?
> I have proof that they DO exist


 
While raccoon dogs are the real thing, and although tanuki is what its phonetic is in japanese. Tanuki is more commonly referred to as the mystical one who shapeshifts and whatnot.


Also. FINALLY. NO MORE SHARKS IN MY CETACEAN-GENERAL.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 10, 2011)

virus said:


> While raccoon dogs are the real thing, and although tanuki is what its phonetic is in japanese. Tanuki is more commonly referred to as the mystical one who shapeshifts and whatnot.
> 
> 
> Also. FINALLY. NO MORE SHARKS IN MY CETACEAN-GENERAL.


Tanuki is the Japanese word for Raccoon Dog, but Tanukis/Raccoon dogs are in folklore. They are called Tanukis in folklore because the folklore originates from Japan 
They also have awesome, unique fur.. *owns a tanuki tail*
it's like.. it's uniform with no stray hairs, but the hairs curve and bend however without disrupting the smooth texture. Not like a fox or coyote's tail which has straight hairs


----------



## MitchZer0 (Nov 10, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I know it's not a species, but what about adding my little pony friendship is magic to the type list?


I don't think furries are mature enough to handle that without getting into a rage fit.... though it may work for a category


----------



## MandertehPander (Nov 10, 2011)

Panda-cats :'c


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 10, 2011)

Clayton said:


> well fish is meaaat soo carnivores!!



Tell a vegetarian that still eats fish that :U


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 10, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Tell a vegetarian that still eats fish that :U


say what


----------



## Corto (Nov 10, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Tell a vegetarian that still eats fish that :U


Here in Chile we call those "hypocrites".


----------



## Littlerock (Nov 10, 2011)

Hey, there are apples out there. I'm serious. Put that back :'c

Also, +1 for the creation/expansion of the dinosaur category. Can't we just trust Wikispecies on this one and speed things up a smidgen?


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 10, 2011)

barefootfoof said:


> Hey, there are apples out there. I'm serious. Put that back :'c
> 
> Also, +1 for the creation/expansion of the dinosaur category. Can't we just trust Wikispecies on this one and speed things up a smidgen?



Needs to be a foof species. Lets call them Foofiers.


----------



## Littlerock (Nov 10, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Needs to be a foof species. Lets call them Foofiers.


_YES._
Doing basic anatomical sketches right now, it's a frightful cross between burd and cat and WHATTHEFUCK.


----------



## Hazel-roo (Nov 10, 2011)

Mammals need to be sorted to the top of the list. I hate scrolling all the way down towards the bottom for rabbit. Something simple now takes extra time because you wanted to appease a minority of people. Their species shouldn't be at the top of the list.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 10, 2011)

Hazel-roo said:


> Mammals need to be sorted to the top of the list. I hate scrolling all the way down towards the bottom for rabbit. Something simple now takes extra time because you wanted to appease a minority of people. Their species shouldn't be at the top of the list.



you mad bro?


----------



## Hazel-roo (Nov 10, 2011)

Sure am. Steamin


----------



## Littlerock (Nov 10, 2011)

Hazel-roo said:


> Sure am. Steamin


You think you're mad? My species was around a over a million years before yours, and it's not even on the list.


----------



## Hazel-roo (Nov 10, 2011)

barefootfoof said:


> You think you're mad? My species was around a over a million years before yours, and it's not even on the list.


im so sorry wil u evar furgive meeee


----------



## Littlerock (Nov 10, 2011)

Hazel-roo said:


> im so sorry wil u evar furgive meeee


o yes i furgive yu hun :c life is hard when u gotta scroll fur your species, i feel ur pain


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Nov 10, 2011)

Hazel-roo said:


> Mammals need to be sorted to the top of the list. I hate scrolling all the way down towards the bottom for rabbit. Something simple now takes extra time because you wanted to appease a minority of people. Their species shouldn't be at the top of the list.



Tigers need to be at the top because of their sheer superiority in the animal kingdom.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 10, 2011)

Hazel-roo said:


> im so sorry wil u evar furgive meeee


The poor grammar, it burns!


----------



## Littlerock (Nov 10, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The poor grammar, it burns!


THE GOGGLES, THEY DO NOTHING!
On a side note, I'm fairly certain that sarcasm was included in that post.


----------



## Paint (Nov 10, 2011)

The reptile category is a mess. In some cases its only making room for certain sub groups that fall under the same group. Silly stuff! It's an easy fix, though.

Reptiles-
Snakes
Lizards
Crocodilians
Chelonians
Tuatara if you want to get really specific, since they are not any of the above, and/or just Reptile Other

Entire problem solved. Efficient categories. Few in number. All modern  reptiles are represented. Nobody looks like a fool for posting a caiman under alligator or gets questioned when they put it under Reptilian - Other. No frustrations to be had by  the artist or art browsers. Also seriously, reptilian? Just say reptile, don't be scared. The word won't bite.

Nice short list, doesn't add too much, and covers everyone who would need to use the category correctly. Considering Gecko and Iguana are categories rather than just listing 5 basic things that encompass all, though, I guess people want fancier?  It adds a lot more to break up the list and everyone seems to want to keep it simple, but just in case, here's a suggestion:
Crocodilian - Crocodiles
Crocodilian - Alligators
Crocodilian - Caimen
Crocodilian - Gharial or Other

Snake - Boids which covers pythons and boas, or alternatively
Snake - Python
Snake - Boa
Snake - Colubrids
Snake - Other        Since beyond those first 3 groups, waters get murky and groups get tiny.

Chelonian - Turtle
Chelonian - Tortoise
Chelonian - Terrapin

Lizard - General/Other
Lizard - Gecko
Lizard - Iguana
Lizard - Agamid
Lizard - Varanid
Lizard - Chameleon

Yaaaay everything where it belongs with some fancy elaboration! As a primarily reptile artist who only really likes to browse under the reptile categories, first set of categories please. No, really. Please


----------



## LarkspurDragon (Nov 11, 2011)

Paint said:


> The reptile category is a mess. In some cases its only making room for certain sub groups that fall under the same group. Silly stuff! It's an easy fix, though.
> ... stuff



I support this.


----------



## Hazel-roo (Nov 11, 2011)

The point I'm trying to make is that most "FURRIES" are mammals of some kind. It makes more sense to place the Mammals category at the top since that will allow the majority of people to quickly check out their own species. I'm not against scalies or apples... it's just a time efficiency thing.


----------



## LarkspurDragon (Nov 11, 2011)

Can we have categories for original species and hybrids? THAT WOULD BE NICE

And by this I don't mean one category for folf, one for cat-fox, one for wolgen, etc. I mean one category for all hybrids.


----------



## Ainoko (Nov 11, 2011)

LarkspurDragon said:


> Can we have categories for original species and hybrids? THAT WOULD BE NICE
> 
> And by this I don't mean one category for folf, one for cat-fox, one for wolgen, etc. I mean one category for all hybrids.




This so many times!!!


----------



## LarkspurDragon (Nov 11, 2011)

Also.
There is now both a "crow" and a "corvid" category.
I'm super-serious about rehauling the reptile and amphibian categories; why can't we go into as much detail with them as with mammals? I know tons of people with herp characters. I mean, woohoo, now amphibians have "salamander," but what about toads? What about caecilians?


----------



## Ben (Nov 11, 2011)

I'm still not entirely sure why the species list is even being bothered with when you can just put the species of all the animals in the tags, and there's commonly more than one character in a picture. It's like this is the easiest thing to possibly distract people with, a feature that doesn't really add anything, but captivates everyone because they want it to be as thorough as possible. Everyone's forgotten about the Furocity thing (even though it's still technically happening) because Yak suddenly fixed a few things that could have easily been fixed years ago. It's almost as if FA is trapped in this recurring cycle of becoming complacent, having a huge incident occur, and then fix some minor or irrelevant stuff to give the illusion of the site moving forward. 

I don't mean to be a sourpuss or anything, but this is essentially the perfect storm of a distraction technique, and it seems to be working. That's the most upsetting part, really.


----------



## Deleted member 3615 (Nov 11, 2011)

Apparently creatures that don't exist are "exotic" ....Also what's the point of having Pokemon and Digimon as species, when they are listed under TYPE. I think this whole species list is a bit overkill...


----------



## Tuss (Nov 11, 2011)

Dammit no vulture. 

 And no sheep? D: I know a few sheep.

 And I also agree about the original species/hybrid things.  


 ... Needs more vulture.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 11, 2011)

This is my own personal opinion, but updating the species list is ridiculous. That's a very big list to scroll that was easily resolved with tags. Granted people may misspell things but I really do not see the point in creating a big list of stuff that has been said it would be outdated. Why not just work on the converting the system to tags and save yourself the headache and others with an eventual clusterfuck of a huge list that has stated it was going to be discontinued.

It reminds me of this one site I went to that asked for your zip code in drop down format. WTF.


----------



## Ben (Nov 11, 2011)

So I'm guessing no part of this was run by you guys, and was just gone ahead and done? 

Honestly, I'd rather have a search that displays things from the last year instead of having a more in-depth species list that serves no real function, but I guess that's just me!


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 11, 2011)

Arshes Nei said:


> This is my own personal opinion, but updating the species list is ridiculous. That's a very big list to scroll that was easily resolved with tags..


Okay, let's have someone implement tag support on the Browsing page then so we can eliminate the outdated listbox for good.

While the unannounced (and quite major) update to the Species list (in defiance of all the official "no, not taking suggestions" responses) is quite a surprise, at the same time it at least (mostly) eliminates one of the most recurring suggestions in the forums.  As does the three-way GMA filter recently implemented.


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Nov 11, 2011)

Tiger In A Tie said:


> Tigers need to be at the top because of their sheer superiority in the animal kingdom.



Without a doubt


----------



## Ben (Nov 11, 2011)

Stratadrake said:


> Okay, let's have someone implement tag support on the Browsing page then so we can eliminate the outdated listbox for good.
> 
> While the unannounced (and quite major) update to the Species list (in defiance of all the official "no, not taking suggestions" responses) is quite a surprise, at the same time it at least (mostly) eliminates one of the most recurring suggestions in the forums.  As does the three-way GMA filter recently implemented.



Except it then also broke the search engine to not show results from the last year. So uh. Great job FA?


----------



## WaxBadger (Nov 11, 2011)

I have a few suggestions for the list.

1. For Mustelid, add one for Martens, because there are a good number of them and I have one in my gallery.

2. I also think you should have Elephant on the list, or maybe with  Hippopotamus and Rhinoceros have a Pachyderm section in the list.

3. And here is a concern given that foxes are a very popular species in the fandom.  Changing the category name to "Canid - Vupines" might cause confusion for those who don't know what Vulpine means, especially among non-English speakers who use the website.  The word fox alone is not specific of an actual species, unless you think it's more inclusive of Fennecs, Arctics, and Silver foxes by using the scientific term.  But still, I'm concerned about how it translates.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 11, 2011)

Tiger In A Tie said:


> Tigers need to be at the top because of their sheer superiority in the animal kingdom.


That's funny, seeing as how there's like.. what.. 500 or 5000 tigers in the wild because men has been making them his bitch forever


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Nov 11, 2011)

Clayton said:


> That's funny, seeing as how there's like.. what.. 500 or 5000 tigers in the wild because men has been making them his bitch forever



Sadly it's closer to 500 than 5000 (at least for Sumatran tigers). :c

Tigers do have one of the prettiest furs in the animal kingdom. Too bad you're right, though...there's prolly more tigers on trophy room walls than in the wild.


----------



## Shelby (Nov 11, 2011)

The only thing about MLP is, while I like them, I don't necessarily want to see them every time I browse for horses.  Also, I'll leave these for a future update:

Equine - Donkey
Equine - Horse
Equine - Mule
Equine - Zebra
Giraffidae - Giraffe
Giraffidae - Okapi


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 11, 2011)

Man I don't care what all y'all say. 

_Coyote_ is finally on the list, and that's all I really care about.

Now excuse me while I do I happy dance in the midst of people bitching about the update. 

*dances*


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 11, 2011)

Stratadrake said:


> Okay, let's have someone implement tag support on the Browsing page then so we can eliminate the outdated listbox for good.
> 
> While the unannounced (and quite major) update to the Species list (in defiance of all the official "no, not taking suggestions" responses) is quite a surprise, at the same time it at least (mostly) eliminates one of the most recurring suggestions in the forums.  As does the three-way GMA filter recently implemented.



I agree. I thought I remember years ago a technical reason this would be a problem if the list kept getting updated especially the way it was added in the first place. There are tags too already in our system. It may be just me but it seems like logic to just start pushing those into a tag system and eliminating it, instead of adding weight to a system considered a burden. If I'm reading this correctly, there are reports about the search being broken in the process. It may not be related of course but it bothers me that we keep doing updates like this.

The mature/adult/general filters were a long time coming and necessary since we kept enforcing the rules on properly tagging submissions correctly. 

But the Species list? We already have tags...so wtf?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 11, 2011)

I don't see a reason why we can't have a species list. Rather than update it all the time I would prefer to have broad categories. Then supplement a good key-word/tagging system. I say this because often people don't spell species names correctly as well as misuse tagging in general. I would imagine this would improve people's hits when they use the search feature over just a tagging system alone.


----------



## MischievousPooka (Nov 11, 2011)

Is there a category for plant anthro/furries?


----------



## SilverKarja (Nov 11, 2011)

Llamas...but no camels...

I'd be happy with just a general 'camelid' group.

I think the specific breeds getting their own is not....helpful.  It's...bulky and a bit annoying.  

The break down feels like it needs work, but that could be my animal nerd side coming through.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Nov 11, 2011)

Needs a furfag species. SRS, FURFAG GO GO GO


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 11, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I don't see a reason why we can't have a species list. Rather than update it all the time I would prefer to have broad categories. Then supplement a good key-word/tagging system. I say this because often people don't spell species names correctly as well as misuse tagging in general. I would imagine this would improve people's hits when they use the search feature over just a tagging system alone.



A lot of systems will auto-correct or suggest a spelling as you're typing. You know how like google asks "Do you mean?" Even our forum software will suggest previously used tags. People also will incorrectly do a lot of things so I don't understand "misuse the tag system" you can put a limit on the number of tags people can use. It makes sense.

In addition a lot of the species debate ensued due to mis-cats and spellings on our part. "No u audience stupid, use our drop down list we r smart"

Even broad categories as a drop down is a bit aggravating as tagging has been shown to be more interesting and effective.


----------



## MalaikaWolfcat (Nov 11, 2011)

Shelby said:


> The only thing about MLP is, while I like them, I don't necessarily want to see them every time I browse for horses.


 
I agree with this. And I think saying that they aren't a "species" is a bit bias maybe, especially when you have things like pokemon and digimon on there. Are there not different kinds of ponies? You have earth, pegasus and unicorn. I think putting them in their own listing would probably save some hate from the people that like to go around on MLP drawings going "OMG THESE ARE EVERYWHERE I'M SO SICK AND TIRED OF SEEING PONIES" because then if you don't want to see them you can just keep from clicking on the MLP species listing and go search around on "horse" or "unicorn" without worry.

Anywho, I really just came to also add that I'd like to see a hybrid category. I don't know if it would be to much to have a "hybrid" listing and then options for the most common hybrids? Like dragon-hybrid, fox-hybrid, canine-hybrid, feline-hybrid, equine-hybrid?


----------



## RedSavage (Nov 11, 2011)

I'd put in MLP as a species entirely for the lulz and to see how much of a shit storm would occur.


----------



## Elessara (Nov 11, 2011)

MalaikaWolfcat said:


> I don't know if it would be to much to have a "hybrid" listing *and then options for the most common hybrids? Like dragon-hybrid, fox-hybrid, canine-hybrid, feline-hybrid, equine-hybrid? *



Dear God no. This list is already going to be long as hell. >_<


----------



## Grae Sparrowkin (Nov 11, 2011)

AHm..... I am cougar?
I think you should add Housecat, though


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> I'd put in MLP as a species entirely for the lulz and to see how much of a shit storm would occur.


How people put it under horse-
furry drama saying. "STOP POSTING MY LITTLE PONY!"
If they made it's own style list-
furry drama saying, "The Fa staff are ruining the site"

Seriously every time something happens the furry drama llama comes to town to visit.
And in this case either way there's drama, so the staff should just go, "fuck it" and do whatever cause as of now people are upset at how people label it under horse and they'd be upset if there was mlp on the list.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 11, 2011)

Seconding "Housecat" or "Domestic Cat"


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2011)

You have quolls, but not tasmanian devils or thylacines in marsupials?

:c


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 11, 2011)

Deo said:


> You have quolls, but not tasmanian devils or thylacines in marsupials?
> 
> :c


thats cays enobody likes those!


----------



## Oasus (Nov 11, 2011)

tell me how MLP =/= horse <_<  Pony = horse <_< fuckin a


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2011)

Clayton said:


> thats cays enobody likes those!


But quolls, seriously? And wallabies are like mini-kangaroos. I'm prtty sure there aren't any wallaby fursonas going "DAMMIT I HAVE TO PUT THIS UNDER KANGAROO".
Whereas there are a shit-ton of people with tasmanian tiger/thylacine characters. Move those guys out of "other" and that'd be good. 
(Because then other is really just for devils anyway. And that one guy with a wombat character.)


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Oasus said:


> tell me how MLP =/= horse <_<  Pony = horse <_< fuckin a


Furries 'nuf said.


----------



## AlexDachshund (Nov 11, 2011)

Dunno if I'm in the right place to suggest this as I rarely post in the forums, but maybe adding Rodent - Chipmunk, Canid - Mixed Breed, Chupcabra, and Monotreme - Platypus to the list would be a great idea ^^


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2011)

Shouldn't Canid-Other cover all mix-breed canids?

How many chipmunks and chupacabras does FA actually have?


----------



## AlexDachshund (Nov 11, 2011)

Sorry, didn't see that tag until now. xD And as for Chipmunks and chupacabras, I see pages and pages of them in the search


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Deo said:


> Shouldn't Canid-Other cover all mix-breed canids?
> 
> How many chipmunks and chupacabras does FA actually have?


Just enough to hear stories of them, but not enough for it to be proven to exist.


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2011)

I still think quoll needs to be replaced by thylacine.
And that's not because my character is a thylacine, so this isn't a "please cater to meeee" sort of thing. There are just a lot of tasmanian tiger/thylacine characters.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Nov 11, 2011)

Sparrowkin said:


> AHm..... I am cougar?
> I think you should add Housecat, though



"Feline- Cat"


----------



## Ben (Nov 11, 2011)

Deo said:


> You have quolls, but not tasmanian devils or thylacines in marsupials?
> 
> :c



NO DEO, DON'T FALL FOR THEIR DISTRACTIONS, YOU'RE STRONGER THAN THIS.

):


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Ben said:


> NO DEO, DON'T FALL FOR THEIR DISTRACTIONS, YOU'RE STRONGER THAN THIS.
> 
> ):


But the Tasmanian devil is important.


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2011)

Ben said:


> NO DEO, DON'T FALL FOR THEIR DISTRACTIONS, YOU'RE STRONGER THAN THIS.
> 
> ):



I'M SORRY BEN
http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af217/aptmoral/crying.gif


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Deo said:


> I'M SORRY BEN
> http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af217/aptmoral/crying.gif


I second the motion to add tasmanian devil to the list.


----------



## Ben (Nov 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I second the motion to add tasmanian devil to the list.



hurf durf durf durf

But seriously, there's like, millions of animal species. Having a dropdown menu for something like that is inane. Why anyone cares about whether their species is included on this list is absolutely beyond me.


----------



## Lunar (Nov 11, 2011)

Yes, cows are slowly becoming more recognized!


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Ben said:


> hurf durf durf durf
> 
> But seriously, there's like, millions of animal species. Having a dropdown menu for something like that is inane. Why anyone cares about whether their species is included on this list is absolutely beyond me.


You do realize this is furries we're talking about right?


----------



## Deo (Nov 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I second the motion to add tasmanian devil to the list.


We don't need one for tasmanian devils. There's only like, eight people with tassie devils as their 'sona. There is in no way a reason to make a species slot for tasmanian devils, they are just not common and not worth it.
Whereas thylacines are kinda more common (I know there's like 100+ thylacines right? I dunno a bunch of them...) and if they're going to add one it should be thylacine instead of quoll right? I don't want to add another species to an already pretty big list, but instead swap quoll for thylacine.


----------



## Seas (Nov 12, 2011)

Why isn't Khajiit on the list when Argonian is?


----------



## Deo (Nov 12, 2011)

Seas said:


> Why isn't Khajiit on the list when Argonian is?


What tha fuck are those?


----------



## Onnes (Nov 12, 2011)

Deo said:


> What tha fuck are those?



The Elder Scrolls, a.k.a. Skyrim, races. You're either going to have to leave the internet or learn more than you want to about The Elder Scrolls over the next few weeks.


----------



## Shireton (Nov 12, 2011)

Why is a list used instead of a box where you can type something in yourself?


----------



## Summercat (Nov 12, 2011)

Shireton said:


> Why is a list used instead of a box where you can type something in yourself?



There's a tag box...

This is additional to it.


----------



## Fiereci (Nov 12, 2011)

What I personally find ridiculous and honestly quite offensive, is the  fact this list seems to be put together in one evening and without much  regard as to either correctness or fairness.
There's a BILLION  mistakes in this list, some of them are laughably stupid and I can't  help but wonder if Dragoneer bothered to check wikipedia at all. Last  time I checked, Scorpions were part of the Arachnid family. The list is  filled to the brim with these kind of mistakes. Apart from the fact it's  still incomplete, I also really dislike the "exotic" category. What  kind of criteria do there have to be to have your original species on  there? This smells like favouritism. Chakat, Cirta, Crux, Dracat,  Draenei, Iksar, Langurhali and Sergal: All of these are unnecessary and  put one person's "special species" in the spotlight while there are  -millions- out there by other people. I have this feeling Dragoneer put  his buddies up there, so they could have a special little category of  their own. Most of these "species" seem to have mostly one artist in  them, anyway. Sergal I can still -kind of- understand, because of the  popularity, but it still doesn't justify it and this has made me even  more wary of Dragoneer as a webmaster. 
It would be nice if he paid some attention to my critisism, I would really like to hear your reasoning, Dragoneer. I'm highly dissapointed in this list. 

I am also in favour of an open box. Why not have a system implemented where it shows the user suggestions as they're typing? that would solve the typos problem.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 12, 2011)

@Fiereci

Please stop caring so much about a list that I'd both neither all to terribly important at all and is going to be scrapped whenever the UI/code/whatever overhaul will eventually take place.

I'm sorry to be one of those people that tells others to ignore problems, but like...

It really isn't worth getting worked up about at all.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2011)

I see how organized and well planned this is....this doesn't look like a chaotic free-for-all with bickering, more inaccuracies, more confusion and implied favoritism for some artists... on a list that shouldn't have been updated at all...

yeah...not at all.

:/


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 12, 2011)

Just a note -- I'll be compiling a list of changes based on feedback sometime next week, and make a new thread for feedback based on that. =3 Lots of good feedback and comments here.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 12, 2011)

Seas said:


> Why isn't Khajiit on the list when Argonian is?


Admittedly, I looked up "Khajiiti" on FA vs "Khajiit" and didn't see a huge impact, so I didn't include them. I went by the wrong search term.

It'll be on the next list, along with Krogans and Turians.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 12, 2011)

The list was better when it was generalized, now everyone will try to do specifics specially since you guys still plan to remove the species list...
wait why the fuck didnt you guys do that instead?

I smell something off, usually means something is up


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 12, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> The list was better when it was generalized, now everyone will try to do specifics specially since you guys still plan to remove the species list...
> wait why the fuck didnt you guys do that instead?
> 
> I smell something off, usually means something is up


Dragoneer gave a spoiler the other day, more updates next week.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 12, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Dragoneer gave a spoiler the other day, more updates next week.


reason why they didnt do this cause they cant please everyone, hence its far smarter to do generalization than specifics.
Problem is furries being furries want their species to be the snowflake ones instead of generalized.


----------



## Fiereci (Nov 12, 2011)

> It really isn't worth getting worked up about at all.



Well it's kind of important if you realize FA is supposed to be for everyone, not a parade for a couple of people to flaunt their original species by giving them separate categories, because they are "oh-so-special". 
There are as many original species as there are people out there. If I would make one and make it publicly available for everyone to use, would it make the list? probably not, because of elitism and favouritism. 

I can't believe so many people are fine with this.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 12, 2011)

Fiereci said:


> Well it's kind of important if you realize FA is supposed to be for everyone, not a parade for a couple of people to flaunt their original species by giving them separate categories, because they are "oh-so-special".
> There are as many original species as there are people out there. If I would make one and make it publicly available for everyone to use, would it make the list? probably not, because of elitism and favouritism.
> 
> I can't believe so many people are fine with this.


Chill the fuck out, it's just a list.
Also inb4 Fiereci hits the report button.


Crysix Fousen said:


> reason why they didnt do this cause they  cant please everyone, hence its far smarter to do generalization than  specifics.
> Problem is furries being furries want their species to be the snowflake ones instead of generalized.


Well in this case regardless there's going to be furry drama, 'neer just needs to go, "aw fuck it" and do it anyways.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 12, 2011)

Not reading the full list of responses (dramaphobe present and accounted for) but I do get a general impression that the overall update falls partly under the "squeaky wheel" category.  I.e. it may not be a very important fix, but it at least puts an end to one of the most common suggestions and eliminates one of the _distractions from_ other priority things that also need doing.  



Arshes Nei said:


> But the Species list? We already have tags...so wtf?


The Species list is *convenient* -- right there on the Browse page.  Tags are not.

If you want tag support to outright replace the current listbox system "because it's superior" I can go with that *as long as* something resembling the current listboxes (in both overall power/usefulness and general convenience) remains present in the relevant locations of the Browse page (and submission forms).  Otherwise, removing it is a regression in functionality; Browse is not Search.

For example, say that instead of being its own separate field in the database the Species listbox is just a shortcut for adding predefined, frequently-used tags to a piece (e.g. select "Tiger" from the browse page, it restricts the browsing to "tag=tiger", etc.) via the tag system.  That would work -- same functionality, same convenience, but processed using the better system internally.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 12, 2011)

Fiereci said:


> Well it's kind of important if you realize FA is supposed to be for everyone, not a parade for a couple of people to flaunt their original species by giving them separate categories, because they are "oh-so-special".
> There are as many original species as there are people out there. If I would make one and make it publicly available for everyone to use, would it make the list? probably not, because of elitism and favouritism.



You seem to be under the impression that the list is there purely for the benefit of the creator of the species, and not the _thousands _of people searching for that species. I'm not even joking, some of those species have 3000+ matches. Sergals are over 5000. Sure, you can make some bullshit species in 5 minutes, but will anyone besides you give a damn? Hell no.


----------



## Mewtwolover (Nov 12, 2011)

Snow Leopard should be added to the list since there's so many of them. Here is a little comparison between Snow leopard and some other species that are already on the list.


----------



## WhiteMantis (Nov 12, 2011)

Finally a Mantid category, yay!


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2011)

Stratadrake said:


> The Species list is *convenient* -- right there on the Browse page.  Tags are not.
> 
> If you want tag support to outright replace the current listbox system "because it's superior" I can go with that *as long as* something resembling the current listboxes (in both overall power/usefulness and general convenience) remains present in the relevant locations of the Browse page (and submission forms).  Otherwise, removing it is a regression in functionality; Browse is not Search.



I don't see how a long drop down list is "convenient" It's like I said how "convenient" it was to have a drop down list for a zip code.

Yes I know it's part of the browse filter, but that doesn't mean it should be there.

It's added bulk that's unnecessary. Search is ...supposed to search for your species.

This is an ugly solution for something that needs to be more dynamic.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 12, 2011)

Arshes Nei said:


> I don't see how a long drop down list is "convenient" It's like I said how "convenient" it was to have a drop down list for a zip code.
> 
> Yes I know it's part of the browse filter, but that doesn't mean it should be there.
> 
> ...


That's what you use for the search function for, you're generalizing what you use the site for onto others.


I use the search function for finding a particular artwork from another website that I don't know who made it and it doesn't have the artist's name on.


----------



## Deo (Nov 12, 2011)

@Fireci
Those species are more readily used, thus this is to cater to the userbase of FA that uses those species as their personal fursonas. For example, Quolls are real animals, but faaaaaar more people have Sergal characters than quoll characters. To better fit the community (supply and demand and whatever) the more used original species are added to the list.



Also I do think that My Little Pony should be added as it's own species. It would be a clear and easy search distinction for people specifically looking for LP art, and would save the people who just want to look at horse art from wading through ponies. Also, other television shows are listed as species, like Pokemon, Digimon, etc. There is also a huge section of this fandom that really loves MLP and there has been a huge outpouring of art on the topic. I think simply because of how used they are that they should be given their own species distinction. I mean a simple search of "my little pony" yields 22,636 results. And "MLP" yields 16,787.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That's what you use for the search function for, you're generalizing what you use the site for onto others.
> 
> 
> I use the search function for finding a particular artwork from another website that I don't know who made it and it doesn't have the artist's name on.



No I'm using common sense. Anymore than I expect google to have a long drop down list to search for something. The drop down list for a filter is outdated. It's a band-aid and using a lot of "array" is just silly. There's more elegant solutions than what is being used. It furthermore becomes a headache when you start uploading artwork in batches.


----------



## GingerM (Nov 12, 2011)

Arshes Nei said:


> No I'm using common sense. Anymore than I expect google to have a long drop down list to search for something. The drop down list for a filter is outdated. It's a band-aid and using a lot of "array" is just silly. There's more elegant solutions than what is being used. It furthermore becomes a headache when you start uploading artwork in batches.



It is, but that may be by design. 'Neer and the FA staff may want to throttle how fast and how much art people can upload at one time. Other sites do similar by various means.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 12, 2011)

GingerM said:


> It is, but that may be by design. 'Neer and the FA staff may want to throttle how fast and how much art people can upload at one time. Other sites do similar by various means.


Throttling how fast users can use a site isn't always a bad idea.
Fa in the past has had problems with D.o.s. attacks using the search function, throttling the search function reduces the ability for the site to get D.o.s. attacked.
If you ask me the staff should implement that no user can search more than a search a second, cause it wouldn't be enough to interfere with Fa, but enough to stop future attacks.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 12, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Throttling how fast users can use a site isn't always a bad idea.
> Fa in the past has had problems with D.o.s. attacks using the search function, throttling the search function reduces the ability for the site to get D.o.s. attacked.
> If you ask me the staff should implement that no user can search more than a search a second, cause it wouldn't be enough to interfere with Fa, but enough to stop future attacks.



How do I anti-this a post? Throttling the search function wont do a damn thing except annoy people and provide yet another way for FA to fuck up.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 12, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> How do I anti-this a post? Throttling the search function wont do a damn thing except annoy people and provide yet another way for FA to fuck up.


In the time needed to read this sentence, two seconds passed.


A second inbetween searches isn't exactly a long time.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 12, 2011)

psh, everyday I'm thinking e621 is far smarter with their shit
Put down Renamon as a tag the system includes other tags such as fox and digimon automatically as Renamon is a fox like digimon.


but nah, Fa will gladly just give you a choice of a specific species of dog...
wait why the fuck do we have two dog species on that list and then we have Canid-Dog



CannonFodder said:


> In the time needed to read this sentence, two seconds passed.
> 
> 
> A second inbetween searches isn't exactly a long time.


brb gonna break that system by using multiple tabs and internet explorers


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 12, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> In the time needed to read this sentence, two seconds passed.
> 
> A second inbetween searches isn't exactly a long time.



Every time FA tries to add something, it fucks up. Every damn time. Unless this becomes some desperately-needed thing, it's just providing another opportunity to throw spanners in the works. Time would be better spent fixing things that are _actually_ broken, not 'repairs' to something that already works (most of the time).

This will probably never happen anyway so whatever.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 12, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Every time FA tries to add something, it fucks up. Every damn time. Unless this becomes some desperately-needed thing, it's just providing another opportunity to throw spanners in the works. Time would be better spent fixing things that are _actually_ broken, not 'repairs' to something that already works (most of the time).
> 
> This will probably never happen anyway so whatever.


Everytime Fa does something something happens.
Remember when the search function didn't even work?
Don't you use the search function?
Using your logic the search function should have never been made.

http://www.brandammo.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2011-09-21-new_facebook.png


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 12, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Everytime Fa does something something happens.
> Remember when the search function didn't even work?
> Don't you use the search function?
> Using your logic the search function should have never been made.



Fuck me sideways.



CannonFodder said:


> Remember when the search function didn't even work?





LizardKing said:


> things that are _actually_ broken


 
It was broken, now it's fixed! Christ on a bike. How did you interpret "don't break things that are fixed" as "don't fix things that are broken"? Gauuuahghahggajgjsgn#phidl;nhk#kptq5mqkptthpfuck. I'm out.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2011)

GingerM said:


> It is, but that may be by design. 'Neer and the FA staff may want to throttle how fast and how much art people can upload at one time. Other sites do similar by various means.



There's elegant solutions to throttling and there are incompetent ones.

For example, Concept art was well meaning with their attachment manager when people got up and scared about Orphan Works Bill introduced. However, that system on CA is complained about. It made users *leave*. CGhub is easy to find art, and is well managed for what is important.



Crysix Fousen said:


> psh, everyday I'm thinking e621 is far smarter with their shit
> Put down Renamon as a tag the system includes other tags such as fox and digimon automatically as Renamon is a fox like digimon.



Which is why this solution is better. It encompasses a more futuristic solution. As people develop or new items are created. Instead of pestering for an outdated method to have more manual items added in with lots of scrolling, the system incorporates and suggests.


----------



## Fiereci (Nov 12, 2011)

I still find the exotic list ridiculous. I don't care about "demand", a species list should only include -real- animals and mythical creatures that have been around for more than a century (dragon, unicorn, etc.) If people want their submission searchable for an original species, make a species tag "original species", and put the specific species in the tags. No favouritism there, fair towards everyone's original species.



> Chill the fuck out, it's just a list.


Yeah, but it's a stupid list. And that's my opinion, deal with it.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 12, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> psh, everyday I'm thinking e621 is far smarter with their shit
> Put down Renamon as a tag the system includes other tags such as fox and digimon automatically as Renamon is a fox like digimon


Honestly, when we do tags... this is exactly how I want them to work.


----------



## Deo (Nov 12, 2011)

Then do the tags and don't waste the time or manpower on a species list.


'Neer, you didn't accept my FAF friend request, my gentle-flower heart wilts at this.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2011)

Well considering it also went along for quite a few years without updates. It makes adding them now useless. There's a lot of submissions that would need updates or they don't show up on the filter. :/


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 12, 2011)

Arshes Nei said:


> Well considering it also went along for quite a few years without updates. It makes adding them now useless. There's a lot of submissions that would need updates or they don't show up on the filter. :/


Yak and I were talking about it. Right now, it's going to be of limited use (we know) but when we convert all the submissions over to tags anything already tagged will auto-convert over. So it's sort of groundwork while we map out how tags/filters will work.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 12, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Yak and I were talking about it. Right now, it's going to be of limited use (we know) but when we convert all the submissions over to tags anything already tagged will auto-convert over. So it's sort of groundwork while we map out how tags/filters will work.


Ah I getcha, that way the users don't have to go in manually and do it.


----------



## antihuman (Nov 12, 2011)

Thank you, I really like how you've updated the list so far. 

A few things I would add or change though:

-adding a multiple character option under species, just like under gender
-change dinosaur:sauropods and dinosaur:theropods to Dinosaur:feathered, dinosaur: other. I know this is not phylogenetically correct as it cuts theropod in half, however I think it would be the easiest system for someone who is not familiar with dinosaur taxonomy to understand. 
-add a prehistoric: other for things that are not technically dinosaurs 
-add a fae/fairy option to exotics 
-rat is listed twice right now, although I'm sure that was just an oversight because of all the changes that were made recently. 
-Daemon should probably be changed to Demon so not to be confused with less demonic 'daemons' such as the soul creatures from Golden Compass. 

Things I'm not sure about: 

-I'm not sure if adding a generic taur category would be a good idea or if taur versions of creatures should stay under the category of the animal they most resemble (should a skunktaur be listed under skunks or taurs?). As I said, I'm not sure which would be a better idea, it's just something to think through. 
-I'm not sure what should go in antelope and what should go in gazelle since these categories work differently from a taxonomic perspective then they do from a colloquial perspective. Taxonomically only the pronghorn antelope should go into antelopes while a number of small bodied, long legged bovid generas fit in gazelle. And honestly I haven't seen a lot of pronghorns on FA. From a common usage perspective these two categories are interchangeable, so it's confusing as to what goes where. 

So that's my ideas to consider. I hope I've helped and not repeated too much of what everyone has previously said.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 12, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Honestly, when we do tags... this is exactly how I want them to work.


then common sense say let that drop down stay dead, you dont fix up a bike to brand spanking new... to then just drive a car the next day, its probably actually better to do generalization of things than specifics...heck I'm half expecting some furfag to come in and request renamons to be a choice even though we have DIGIMON in the drop down just cause renamons are popular


----------



## Everbound Venvel (Nov 13, 2011)

I'd love to see Robots/Technodogs/Reploids/Bioconstructs under "Exotic".


----------



## Deo (Nov 13, 2011)

Everbound Venvel said:


> I'd love to see Robots, Reploids and Bioconstructs under "Exotic".


For who? I can't think of a single person with a robot character. I don't even know what the fuck a Reploid is. 





HA HA HA HA Fuck that.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 13, 2011)

This is site dicussion so let's try to keep everything on topic, and minus pics please. If you don't have something helpful to say on the topic then just move on to R&R for your forum needs.


----------



## Garuru_Wolf (Nov 13, 2011)

I think "mecha" would be a nice category. There are quite a number of furs out there who either have a mecha/robotic fursona or they like to draw that kind of stuff. I was originally going to suggest it as well, but I figured people would make the argument that, for example, a mecha dragon could just be put under "dragon".


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 13, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Yak and I were talking about it. Right now, it's going to be of limited use (we know) but when we convert all the submissions over to tags anything already tagged will auto-convert over. So it's sort of groundwork while we map out how tags/filters will work.



Here is the thing, that didn't address the issue. Converting everything to tags should have been done first. By introducing the species list again caused more of a mess because of submissions that didn't utilize it for a long time. I'm just puzzled by bringing something in that says will be eliminated vs, just spending the time and manpower on converting as it should be done.


----------



## Accountability (Nov 13, 2011)

GingerM said:


> It is, but that may be by design. 'Neer and the FA staff may want to throttle how fast and how much art people can upload at one time. Other sites do similar by various means.



If anything, they should be letting you upload _more_ art at one time. Multiupload has been standard on many sites for _years_ now. It's one of those little inconveniences that could instantly make a competitor look better than FA.


----------



## Fiereci (Nov 13, 2011)

I'll bring up this quote again from a few pages back:



Ben said:


> It's almost as if FA is trapped in this  recurring cycle of becoming complacent, having a huge incident occur,  and then fix some minor or irrelevant stuff to give the illusion of the  site moving forward. I don't mean to be a sourpuss or anything, but this is essentially the  perfect storm of a distraction technique, and it seems to be working.  That's the most upsetting part, really.



Seriously, the  site hasn't changed one bit since I joined a few years back, maybe added  a search function or something, but that's about it.
I joined  because I thought it was a better alternative to DA at the time, since  it didn't demand you for your money every few minutes and such. But Fa  is seriously falling behind when it comes to website technology and user  friendliness. I'm disappointed.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 13, 2011)

Fiereci, I love how you pulled up that quote, about it being a distraction, because that's exactly what you are/were guilty of.

Whoops.


----------



## Armaetus (Nov 13, 2011)

No Nevrean or Synx?


----------



## Fiereci (Nov 13, 2011)

@Xenke: This is a forum, things are meant to be discussed.


----------



## Deo (Nov 13, 2011)

Can we just nominate Arshes Nei to some higher FA power? Because honestly she usually has the most logical ideas and things about making FA better. Sorry, Neer old boy.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 13, 2011)

Arshes Nei said:


> I don't see how a long drop down list is "convenient"


I agree.  Can I diverge for a moment to tell you a story?  Over at Fanart Central where I mod at, its category system is _massive_.  Like, 12 top-level entries "wide" and an average of 3-4 layers "deep" massive.  The first years of the site, how did you select a category?  From a _single listbox_.  One list, 2,000 entries.  The nightmare Species listbox you rant about is nothing in comparison.

Fanart still has the massive number of categories (over 3,000 these days), but the listbox now uses scripting to function in an expanding manner:  Click on an entry in the list and it immediately refreshes the box to display your current location within the overall heirarchy and what sub-entries (if any) your clicked item contains.  Same data, less visual clutter, _much_ easier to navigate.  It still leaves the problem that when you Browse one heading it doesn't automatically include the sub-headings, but that's a different topic.



> Search is ...supposed to search for your species.


Again, Browse is not Search.  Browse gives you a list of pre-defined categories and just shows you the most recent whatever relevant to each one.  Search requires you to manually enter, well, a search keyword for specific results.  Want to browse for, say, wolf art?  You can either pick "Canid - Wolf" from the Species listbox and it shows all submissions linked to that setting, or you type "wolf" in the Search form and it shows you every submission that involves thing the _word_ "wolf", whether it's actually wolf related art or not.  Oh, and if a picture refers to "wolves" but not "wolf", it won't show up because the Search engine doesn't recognize synonyms.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 13, 2011)

Stratadrake said:


> Again, Browse is not Search.  Browse gives you a list of pre-defined categories and just shows you the most recent whatever relevant to each one.



Browse may not be search, BUT...guess which is more effective right now?
Search because species that weren't on the list will come up in SEARCH. Those that didn't have the species used a tag for several years.
This in effect makes it a pretty much half-assed browse


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 13, 2011)

Arshes Nei said:


> Browse may not be search, BUT...guess which is more effective right now?


Depends on whether I just want to cruise through the site with no aim about what _specifically_ I'm looking for, or if I'm trying to find something in particular very quickly.  The entire purpose of using one or the other is much different.


----------



## darkdoomer (Nov 14, 2011)

no mokvwaps ?
aw.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 14, 2011)

On a related note, one of the drawbacks to the species listbox is there's no functional way to separate between "Any" and "All" type options.

For example, say I want to browse submissions tagged as _any and all_ Canids -- not just "Canid (Other)" which is its own tag, but _the entire range_ -- all ten tags from "Canid - Coyote" to "Canid - Wolf" (including "Canid (Other)", too).  There is (but to be fair, has never been) any way of doing this.

This is the only conceptual problem I have with expanding the Species listbox:  There's a ton of individual choices, but there is no way to select an encompassing range of choices which are close relatives.  Like, there are now twelve varieties of "Avian" choices (previously, just five) but there is no way to browse more than one at a time.  I can't, say, browse for all "Avian - raptors" (eagle + falcon + hawk), nor can I browse "Avian - Corvid" and expect it to include "Avian - Crow" at the same time, because they are separate tags.

Admittedly, this idea has nothing to do with the actual entries in the list, but rather an ability to organize and select them in groups, which would clearly require tweaking how the Browse query gets constructed internally.


----------



## SwooshyCueb (Nov 15, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Admittedly, I looked up "Khajiiti" on FA vs "Khajiit" and didn't see a huge impact, so I didn't include them. I went by the wrong search term.
> 
> It'll be on the next list, along with Krogans and Turians.


 
This pleases me. Now you would just make my day week if you added Hylian, but I doubt that will happen.


----------



## Rachez (Nov 15, 2011)

Still a few errors just now, ferret and rat are there twice, skunk should be under mustelid and squirrel should be under rodent. 
Phoenix is classed as avian instead of exotic.
Human probably shouldn't be under primate unless we are counting everything as fish.
 Also Cetaceans are classed as aquatic but seals are classed as mammals and you have 4 categories for amphibian but there are only 3 amphibian orders, (Frogs and Toads, Newts and Salamanders and Caecillians)
I don't see why we need so many categories for canidae and felidae. Husky and doberman are classed different from dogs and panther and jaguar are classed as different things too.
Just a few changes, I think it's a little complicated as is but you can't please everyone


----------



## Jesie (Nov 15, 2011)

Rachez said:


> Human probably shouldn't be under primate unless we are counting everything as fish.



à² _à²  _WUT?_


----------



## SwooshyCueb (Nov 15, 2011)

Rachez said:


> Phoenix is classed as avian instead of exotic.
> Human probably shouldn't be under primate unless we are counting everything as fish.


The Pheonix _is_ a bird, and humans _are_ primates. What do primates have to do with fish anyway?


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 15, 2011)

SwooshyCueb said:


> The Pheonix _is_ a bird, and humans _are_ primates. What do primates have to do with fish anyway?


you know


that life came from the ocean
fish live in the ocean...


----------



## Zydala (Nov 16, 2011)

Rachez said:


> Human probably shouldn't be under primate unless we are counting everything as fish.



_(Anthropology Major Rage Time!)_

And why not? Humans are primates. Humans. Are. Primates. Suborder Haplorhini, infraorder Simiiforme, superfamily Homonoidea. We share the same family with six other species. We are considered the only _human_ primate but that's just because we like to think we're special somehow because we have these big brains and can't stop making gadgets.


----------



## SwooshyCueb (Nov 16, 2011)

Zydala said:


> _(Anthropology Major Rage Time!)_
> 
> And why not? Humans are primates. Humans. Are. Primates. Suborder Haplorhini, infraorder Simiiforme, superfamily Homonoidea. We share the same family with six other species. We are considered the only _human_ primate but that's just because we like to think we're special somehow because we have these big brains and can't stop making gadgets.


Miss, you have just made my day. +over9000 internets and such.


----------



## Rachez (Nov 16, 2011)

SwooshyCueb said:


> The Pheonix _is_ a bird, and humans _are_ primates. What do primates have to do with fish anyway?



The phoenix isn't real so it shouldn't be under avian, it should be under exotic. I admit I'm wrong about the human thing I was getting confused there. Since almost every vertebrate is evolved from fish the technically everything should be known as a fish, however since fish are classed as a separate group then the current system is taxonomically wrong.



Zydala said:


> _(Anthropology Major Rage Time!)_
> 
> And why not? Humans are primates. Humans. Are. Primates. Suborder Haplorhini, infraorder Simiiforme, superfamily Homonoidea. We share the same family with six other species. We are considered the only _human_ primate but that's just because we like to think we're special somehow because we have these big brains and can't stop making gadgets.



Sorry about that, I was getting confused there (I was thinking of genus instead of order...I think)


----------



## SwooshyCueb (Nov 16, 2011)

Rachez said:


> The phoenix isn't real so it shouldn't be under avian, it should be under exotic.


To be honest, I think pheonix doesn't belong in exotica for the same reason dragons don't. They're mythological. Furthermore, people would probably look under Avian for pheonix anyway.


----------



## Rachez (Nov 16, 2011)

SwooshyCueb said:


> To be honest, I think pheonix doesn't belong in exotica for the same reason dragons don't. They're mythological. Furthermore, people would probably look under Avian for pheonix anyway.



True. Maybe there should be a Mythology section with dragon, phoenix, unicorn, elf etc. out there instead of lumped in with pokemon


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Nov 16, 2011)

Rachez said:


> Since almost every vertebrate is evolved from fish the technically everything should be known as a fish, however since fish are classed as a separate group then the current system is taxonomically wrong.



I can understand people wanting to change a thing or two on the list, but that's just ridiculous. Where the hell did you learn taxonomy? I don't understand your logic.


----------



## Rachez (Nov 16, 2011)

Tiger In A Tie said:


> I can understand people wanting to change a thing or two on the list, but that's just ridiculous. Where the hell did you learn taxonomy? I don't understand your logic.



Obviously I'm not actually suggesting that we change it to this, you're taking my post out of context.
I learned taxonomy at uni, the vast majority of my degree is based on taxonomy (unfortunately =D)
I can explain the logic if you would like, if not then the next part is probably pretty boring so I won't blame you if you don't read it.

- In evolutionary terms everything with a backbone is evolved from a fish. This means that everything belongs to part of the fish family, the same way that dogs belong to the canine family which belongs to the mammal family. Since we know that fish are common ancestors they would need to be part of that chain too however "fish" is simply a name given to that group of animals yet it is represented in the taxonomic system as a completely different group. 
I'm not sure why everyone's getting so worked up about this.


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Nov 16, 2011)

Rachez said:


> Obviously I'm not actually suggesting that we change it to this, you're taking my post out of context.
> I learned taxonomy at uni, the vast majority of my degree is based on taxonomy (unfortunately =D)
> I can explain the logic if you would like, if not then the next part is probably pretty boring so I won't blame you if you don't read it.
> 
> ...



But why would that be expected of an online art site? I can't argue with what you just said (I admit myself being wrong), but not many people would know or understand that. What people do understand is that humans evolved from primates, thus making it simpler for the users of the site that know very little of taxonomy.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 16, 2011)

God, someone get tags working and stop this incessant madness.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 16, 2011)

Rachez said:


> Obviously I'm not actually suggesting that we change it to this, you're taking my post out of context.
> I learned taxonomy at uni, the vast majority of my degree is based on taxonomy (unfortunately =D)
> I can explain the logic if you would like, if not then the next part is probably pretty boring so I won't blame you if you don't read it.
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordata - Where fish and everything else are grouped. Please note that this is *one* step below the 'Kingdom of Animalia'. EVERY animal with a vertebrea is here, but seperate out at the ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapoda ... superclass. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae - "The Hominidae (pronounced /hÉ’ËˆmÉªnÉ¨diË/; anglicized hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1]), as the term is used here, form a taxonomic family"

Erm. No. And that's just ten minutes browsing Wikipedia.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 16, 2011)

> God, someone get tags working and stop this incessant madness.


Exact value of "working" debatable, but yes it would stop a lot of the mess.

BTW, maybe there's a compromise some of the sorting/classification snafus.  Is there some reason that a given Species entry must only go under *one* heading?  Phoenixes and gryphons may be technically fantasy/exotic, but they are _visually_ avian (and that's also where they've been for years before said update) so the argument can be made they should be listed under both headings.

I seem to remember it is not a problem to have multiple options in an HTML listbox sharing the same associated value (Gryphon = "AV05" and Phoenix = "AV04", for anyone interested).  It should be a simple matter of HTML formatting to place duplicates in their respective groups.


----------



## Zydala (Nov 17, 2011)

Rachez said:


> Obviously I'm not actually suggesting that we change it to this, you're taking my post out of context.
> I learned taxonomy at uni, the vast majority of my degree is based on taxonomy (unfortunately =D)
> I can explain the logic if you would like, if not then the next part is probably pretty boring so I won't blame you if you don't read it.
> 
> ...



Taxonomy is based on relations to other animals in specific features that they share. No, not everything belongs to the fish family, they belong to the same phylum but that's where everything branches off. If we all belonged to the same families as fish there would be no damn reason for taxonomy in the first place. I fear your uni's program, if that's what they're telling you :\


Tiger In A Tie said:


> What people do understand is that humans evolved from primates



Not "evolved from", ARE. We ARE primates.



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> God, someone get tags working and stop this incessant madness.



No! I wanna keep yelling at people!


----------



## Syclo (Nov 18, 2011)

Fuck yes Coyotes


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Nov 18, 2011)

Zydala said:


> Not "evolved from", ARE. We ARE primates.



Eeep, I mis-typed that. Thanks for the correction!


----------



## shnurui (Nov 20, 2011)

Rabbits and hares were formerly classified in the order Rodentia (rodent) until 1912, when they were moved into a new order Lagomorpha. This order also includes pikas.

Ok?  Can we have our whole families back?  The whole of the thirteen?  K. Thanks.

Or at least the Big Four
*Leporidae - Cotton
Leporidae - Rabbit
Leporidae - Pika
Leporidae - Hare
*
On the MLP.  Seriously?  They're base Equine.

Equine - Horse
Equine - Unicorn
Equine - Pegasus
Equine - Alicorn
Equine - Gryphin
Equine - Centaur


----------



## Foxy_Gamer (Dec 2, 2011)

Does it count if your the only one?


----------

