This article, if it's really meant to contrast "(anthropo)morphic" with (animals with the capacity to think like humans), is a bad idea. For starters, animal-shaped beings that think like humans are unquestionably anthropomorphic. Secondly, I challenge whether the folk-etymology that analyzes the "morphic" part back out actually widely means/is recognized to mean this. Of course, I'm sure there're little groups that have adopted this usage, but this goes to the root of problems with the scope of Wikifur that prevent it from having even a tentative way of approaching these kinds of questions the way, say, Wikipedia, can.
If somebody said 'Morphic' to me, I would first, realize they were using unecessarily inscrutable jargon, second assume they'd done the same kind of folk-etymological back-analysis of the root '-morphic,' assume the term refered to questions of form, and then assume that 'Morphic' meant something with a *non* human shape.
If nothing else, I think the page should also include mention of the fact that to some people, the word 'Morphic' will entail beings shaped more (or entirely) like an animal than like a human.--Furthling 00:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)