Java generics - why is "extends T" allowed but not "implements T"?

There is no semantic difference in the generic constraint language between whether a class 'implements' or 'extends'. The constraint possibilities are 'extends' and 'super' - that is, is this class to operate with assignable to that other one (extends), or is this class assignable from that one (super).

The answer is in here :

To declare a bounded type parameter, list the type parameter's name, followed by the extends keyword, followed by its upper bound […]. Note that, in this context, extends is used in a general sense to mean either extends (as in classes) or implements (as in interfaces).

So there you have it, it's a bit confusing, and Oracle knows it.

Probably because for both sides (B and C) only the type is relevant, not the implementation. In your example

public class A<B extends C>{}

B can be an interface as well. "extends" is used to define sub-interfaces as well as sub-classes.

interface IntfSub extends IntfSuper {}
class ClzSub extends ClzSuper {}

I usually think of 'Sub extends Super' as 'Sub is like Super, but with additional capabilities', and 'Clz implements Intf' as 'Clz is a realization of Intf'. In your example, this would match: B is like C, but with additional capabilities. The capabilities are relevant here, not the realization.

It may be that the base type is a generic parameter, so the actual type may be an interface of a class. Consider:

class MyGen<T, U extends T> {

Also from client code perspective interfaces are almost indistinguishable from classes, whereas for subtype it is important.

Here is a more involved example of where extends is allowed and possibly what you want:

public class A<T1 extends Comparable<T1>>