@Somethingcheeky What @Mr_Owl is pretty right. Part of the problem is that there is no definite canon. Different artists and writers had different takes on fluffies. Many like to claim the PETA canon, but there have been writers and artists who have worked without it. Even the definition of a fluffy, differs, with some going for animal, some going for pure biotoy, and so on.
Hell, even the msot basic question, “what do fluffies look like?”, has no definite answer, as there are various ways one could draw a fluffy. As Mr_Owl linked the teaser, I’d namedrop my Sam Adams series, which had its basis on that question.
But going back to the topic of canon, I had compiled an index related to the “breeds” and subspecies covered in the #sam_adams_guide . But see, this Index works for that canon. Its not meant to be universal or to apply to everyone
I think this is a silly idea, and I’ll explain why. The reality is that a lot of subspecies were not properly developed. Some only got one image at most, and were promptly forgotten. And then, at other times, you have people introducing certain species as “better fluffies”, making their fluffies kind of Mary Sue-ish (hunting fluffies come to mind). Hell, one could argue that jellenheimers, especially on the reddit, got overly popular because of this problem - why make fluffies when everyone thinks they’re so “uncool”?
Going back to unique subspecies, you also have the case of being doing their own take of a specific subspecies. Buwwito pretty defined the microfluffy, but @Muffin did her own version which is based off Ants.
Its part of the reason why I am both not keen on a wiki, nor an “official” list. Hardly anything in fluffies is official or definitive as canon