Susan, absolutely, but it's too high-level a categorisation for everyday use.
Roger, that's an interesting point about dictionaries not really helping. I looked at the OED2 and 1993 supplement on-line but the only entry that approaches relevance to possible colloquial usage is:
2. In common usage one of the lower animals: a brute or beast, as distinguished from man. (Often restricted by the uneducated to quadrupeds; amd familiarly applied especiallly to such as are used by man, as a horse, ass, or dog.
Rather a 19th century de haut en bas tone to that - wonder if it's been there since the start.
Maybe a corpus-based dictionary would throw some light. Or maybe there's a real gap and some field research is needed, unless one of the linguistics-savvy of Esphere can expand.
I'm sure, as you say, people think of birds as animals, but only in a very general sense in academic or scientific contexts. I think frogs, on the other hand, are more likely in everyday usage to 'count' as animals. Perhaps also reptiles with legs would stay longer under the 'animal' umbrella. Fish, no, though there are those 'walking' mud-skippers I suppose.
The phrase 'wild animals' also brings to my mind at least mammals, not even vultures, though again possibly crocodiles. Komodo dragons etc.
I shall continue to ponder. Meanwhile, back to resuscitation of a defunct cuckoo.
|