And if I've goofed it up, I welcome and acknowledge all corrections.
There's another fallacy I've discovered but I can't find a reference to it; someone should have seen it before. I would like to call it the "Fallacy of the Clade" or "Cladistic Fallacy" because "Taxonomic Fallacy" is already taken.
This fallacy consists in assuming that "being a member of a group" is a property of an individual rather than a property of the classification method. It's not the same as the "Fallacy of Composition" or "Fallacy of Division." It's peculiar to cladistic analysis.
That's going to excite the leather crowd.