There is definitely a lack of consistency in their use, but I actually use 'zoomorphic' to represent the inverse of the 'normal' furry fandom use of anthropomorphic -- that is, an animal that is primarily, well, animal. No bipedal walk, with only a few human features such as the ability to speak human language, the ability to grab or manipulate things with their paws/hooves/claws/etc. that the 'real' animal would not be able to, etc.
- Seconded. I would consider a fursona that was basically animal to be zoomorphic. Loganberry (Talk) 01:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- As with terms like anthropomorphic, the stress on the idea that 'zoomorphic' means a human to which (a few) animal characteristics are being ascribed, is really just confusing. Sure, there's a significant minority of people who don't know the word except in the context of the fandom, and think it somehow implies being very human-like in general, but it doesn't, and using zoomorphic to describe something that's quadrupedal isn't an inconsistency. Really, calling an actual animal zoomorphic or a human being anthropomorphic is no more inaccurate or confusing than calling a car 'car-like.' The idea that zoomorphic implies being very humanlike should either be stricken from the article or set off from the main description as the exceptional use of the term. Furthling