[Cursebearer]

Not trying to ruffle any feathers or be contrary here, but I do love a good debate. One definition of something being anthropomorphic is simply 'having human characteristics'.

The transformation itself is zoomorphic- that is it's adding animal qualities. However, the result is both anthropomorphic and zoomorphic. It's my understanding that it's equally correct to say that the person has turned into a zoomorphic human as it is to say that they have turned into an anthropomorphic animal. An anthropomorphic animal is simply an animal with human characteristics, not necessarily only an animal that was later given human characteristics. I'm pretty sure that 'anthropomorphic animal' and 'zoomorphic human' describes the exact same thing. It is an animal with human characteristics and also a human with animal characteristics. It's not saying that the transformation itself is lending the person human characteristics, but rather it's saying that the person is transforming into an anthropomorphic animal (anthro for short).