The 10% trope is now Kemonomimi, Petting-Zoo People now describes animals with humanoid bodies, or furries.
Can you think of a picture that fits for Petting-Zoo People?
^Star Fox qualifies for the 50% furry variety.
10% would be Makoto Nanaya from BlazBlue
◊, or Felicia from Dark Stalkers
◊ (yeah, she's the Innocent Fanservice Girl, but she still counts,) or any number of catgirls from anime.
... Then again, the definition is so vague and screwed up that it doesn't really say exactly what percentile range the Human to Furry ratio has to be.
Yes, we've relaunched the article with its new definition. No percentage numbers anymore.
For lack of a better alternative at this time, I'm putting up the Star Fox image.
We can still discuss better alternatives for the Petting-Zoo People, as well as the "kemonomimi" or whatever-we're-going-to-call-it article. @DRCEQ, those two examples are mildly NSFW, we'll need something more family-friendly.
And no catgirls please, they're common enough to be a separate trope altogether.
Let's see, Googling...
edited 31st Oct '10 10:07:23 AM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.Percentage numbers impose artificial precision on a scale that is a smooth spectrum with blurred lines and edge cases. Sure, we can use the "ten percent" variety as a nickname for "kemonomimi", but we can't it as a criteria for the trope.
Summing up the differences:
- Funny Animal: Animal body with a bipedal stance
- Petting-Zoo People: Generally human body with animal's head + tail
- Kemonomimi: Obviously human body with animal's ears + tail
edited 31st Oct '10 10:10:27 AM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.- Funny Animal: Animal body, bipedal stance.
- Petting-Zoo People: Body with human proportions, but major animal features.
- Little Bit Beastly: Human body with minor animal features.
I started a Trope Repair Shap Discussion
talking about how to rework the definition of Funny Animal so that it includes the difference between their body shape and the body shape of a Petting Zoo Person.
The image of Fox is very appropriate. John Blacksad might be more so, but Fox is certainly the more recognizable of the two. Generally the difference between Funny Animal and Petting-Zoo People is that Funny Animal is essentially a talking/walking animal, but still an animal. Petting-Zoo People are people first with animal appearances, and general act and live more the way humans do. Animal stereotypes might brush against the audience from time to time, but their overall lives are quite human.
I find that, whether Petting-Zoo People have very animal-faces or just human faces with animal ears, is not entirely relevant. The latter has its own trope, Kemonomimi.
edited 27th Dec '10 1:14:54 PM by Gilgameshkun
I... don't think Fox is the prime example, but rather Blacksad or LeBrock. While Fox is definitely belongs in Petting-Zoo People, his short stature and rather cartoony look gives him a rather Funny Animal feel. The other two examples are more distinct and direct to the point.

Okay, I'll admit Firefox-tan (or whatever she's called) is adorable, but judging from this YKTTW
, I think she obscures the point behind the trope somewhat. At the very least, the pic should illustrate the two ends of the spectrum: the "ears and tail only" style currently depicted, and the "humanoid Funny Animal" this YKTTW is talking about.