I thought of the words earlier and smaller, but I think they are incorrect. Is there a way of referring to this kingdom and not include humans?


The focus of the class shifted from humans to the [...] members of the animal kingdom.

  • 6
    The focus of the class shifted from humans to the other members of the animal kingdom.
    – Andrew Leach
    Oct 2 '15 at 13:00
  • 3
    I don't understand the downvotes, it's quite an interesting and valid question.
    – JHCL
    Oct 2 '15 at 13:20
  • 2
    We generally distinguish between humans and animals. Although humans are technically animals, people tend not to think of it that way, at least in English. "You're an animal!" is used to tell someone he's behaving brutishly. And if you show someone a picture of a little girl with three puppies and three kittens and ask them "How many animals are in this picture?" you're most likely be told "six."
    – Robusto
    Oct 2 '15 at 13:22
  • 1
    Well in my line of work I quite regularly refer, in the English language, to 'non-human animals'. I for one, would welcome a more concise and easy phrase if it's out there.
    – JHCL
    Oct 2 '15 at 13:55
  • 2
    You found it already: non-human (members of the animal kingdom)
    – 0..
    Oct 2 '15 at 14:47

...shifted to other species of ... or "to the other members of ..."

  • (I wrote the same answer, before I realized yours was present.)
    – Drew
    Oct 2 '15 at 17:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.