I'll start with #1 here, suffice it to say that I've looked at all of the comparative studies you've posted in your gallery as of now. I was curious if these were comparisons of people's facial expressions and positions, matching them with similar animal photography, or if it was meant as a species comparison to humanity's variety? I'm by no means racist, but it's very interesting to see the animal you paired with each face, how each chart seems to be racially specific, tigers to people of predominantly Indian heritage, Lions, Rhinoceros and Elephants to Jamaican/African/African American people, wolves and dogs for American Caucasians and a majority of birds for people of Asian Heritage.

My point in mentioning isn't to criticize, I think it's actually really neat! I'm honestly curious as to what the comparison is supposed to show, as in some cases I can see a bit of stereotyping (which is fine, none of it is offensive), but in others there seems to be mixed comparisons.

In any case, I'd be happy to see more and what you do with them. South Americans have a unique racial look, different from north (Mexico) to south, Europeans are varied but you already covered the majority of Caucasians, the region of Saudi Arabia and the areas of Egypt have unique looking people, and aside from obvious chinese/japanse/korean heritage there are people that come from the many islands south, Russian indigenous people and Eskimo (Northern Canada), Native Americans... wow we have a WIDE variety of racially different people! Seeing them all in your charts would be interesting but I can imagine it's quite daunting! Good luck to you anyways!

The general logic behind it stems from my beliefs and understanding of different religions and philosophies, mainly based on Daoism. The premise is there is a mathematical structure to all things, derived from the binary concept of yin-yang. Yin and yang are categories that correspond to dualistic properties, such as black and white, dark and light, moon and sun, night and day, earth and heaven, even and odd, and feminine and masculine. However, yin and yang are implicitly complementary in Chinese philosophy; one cannot exist without the other. My belief is that ultimately yin and yang correspond to binary itself, 0 and 1.

It is very easy to imagine animals corresponding to numbers if numbers simply represent information and patterns. Smaller numbers would be less complex creatures, larger numbers would be progressively more complex. Families of species can be easily represented as thus, as each species came from those preceding it. My belief is the current stage of existence we are at is in the fractional stage between 0 and 1. Creatures around the .1 - .2 range would perhaps be bacteria to funguses and other basic life forms, .3 - .4 plants, then coming to animals. I have no idea of the number range; the numbers I picked are just for representation. It could be .032416 - .0451799 for bacteria for all I know, but there is a progression.

.96 is the human animal; simply the average of all other animals, proceeding from apes (around .94 - .95, maybe?). However, obviously there must be progression past .96. If you think of ecologies like economies, then it's simple to make the translation to peoples roles in society, or the behavioral traits of animals corresponding to human ones; we've been doing that for millenia, which has led to the heart of our fandom, anthropomorphism.

Behavioral traits, environment, culture, and social role have all led to diversification. We look different. If there is a mathematical structure to the universe, perhaps there is an implicit logic in the existence of non-human animals; each specific one plays a role. As each human animal also plays a role, we will inevitably develop into those non-human animal roles.

Overall, there is a very basic logic to my theory; people look like the animals they are, and those animals are overall indigenous or in close/historical proximity to territory where the humans themselves lived. Therefore, overall, Africans will be African animals, Europeans European animals, Asians... well, you get the idea.

However, there is an odd component to all this; combination of species. If everything is numbers, then animals can be... added together. What is the product?

I have a few examples I can call on; several of my friends, and my family itself. My two best examples are two of my friends, one who I'm pretty sure is a coyote, the other, a wolf. Coyote is pictured in chart 9; his parents to the left and right. The basic equation is fox plus rabbit equals coyote. He is an English Dutch Cherokee mix.

I've talked about this with my other friend, the wolf. I asked him about his parents, and indeed this was what led me onto the whole equation thing, to his great credit. He was able to understand and stated his mother was a bobcat, his father, a rooster. I was able to see a picture of his father, and since one of my friends is a rooster, I was able to establish the veracity of his claim. Of course I can be incorrectly identifying people, but I do think the roosters I've pictured overall are pretty convincing. At any rate, this means: rooster plus bobcat equals wolf. He is a German Irish mix.

My hypothesis at present is that nations represent one product species, composed of that species, its parents, and other branches of fauna in the local environment. Germany, for instance, is mainly wolves, roosters or bobcats. I'm not completely sure about how this works; it's definitely more complex than what I'm saying, but it's all I can do to establish a basic theory. France, and perhaps Holland as well, are rabbits, while England is a Fox. I think Ireland might be Roosters. I don't know their parent species, except that I think one of the Foxes parents might be a snake.

Why does a rooster and a bobcat make a wolf? Simply merge their physical features. What a rooster, or a snake, as a possible parent of foxes, represent is an elongated face; cats have flattened, round faces. The combination between these makes the fox and wolf. I'm not sure what Fox's other parent might be. Perhaps a rabbit?

Another example I have is my father and mother, pictured here in the middle. My mother is Serbo-Croatian-Czech. I believe she is a Siberian tiger. While Siberian tigers do not live anywhere near Serbia, here I am basing it on physical resemblance. I do act partly on intuition (or whimsical belief, perhaps?), partly spiritual or psychedelically derived information. Perhaps that makes my findings incorrect; I will leave it to you to decide. I am sure I've made mistakes in species, however overall I believe I have been pretty accurate. My father is Chinese, although born in Italy (his father served the Chinese government in a diplomatic capacity in Italy as well as Germany), and moved at 8 to the United States. I believe he is a snake; in this case, an Emerald Tree Boa. This is partly based on adapting to one's environment, becoming that species; my father was born a snake, but raised in a specific environment, and from a certain parentage (his mother's family had been Imperial advisors). One can imagine, being in the Imperial court, as being in the tops of a tree. One faces very few threats, and eats and behaves very specifically according to one's station. My father has been married once before me, and had two sons. I haven't seen a picture of her for quite a while, but asking my dad a bit, based on my own intuition, when asked whether his first wife, who was Jewish, was like a cat or a mouse, he quickly identified with cat.

My brothers look quite different; one has a long thin face and nose, the other shorter, slightly more rounded face, broader forehead, and shorter nose. This shows one of the properties of animal equations; depending on the dominant species in the child, he or she will trend along a spectrum towards one animal or another, polarities on a complementary scale. In this case, snake and cat can equal either rat, or dog.

I believe each animal has this counterpart. The counterpart of wolf is mice; the counterpart of tiger is pig. As you can see in this picture, the tiger and pig on the bottom row, the tiger is my uncle from my mother's side; the other, an actor in a splendid series, Pie in the Sky. You can see the facial similarities; the main differences are that the pig has an upturned nose, and a broader, square jaw. The tiger's jaw starts more from a point and slopes upwards.

This is another component in the theory; even numbers are herbivores/maybe omnivores, odd numbers are carnivores/maybe omnivores. There is a mother/daughter or father/son to each species. In the case of tigers, I think the mother species is the elephant. Elephants exist in both Africa and India, but tigers exist only in India and other parts of Asia. I have some examples of Indian elephant people I'll compile sometime, although it's still hard for me to identify. Somewhat paradoxically, it seems like elephants have small noses and ears, as seen in chart 3. Please note I am quite unsure on whether I've correctly identified the first female African elephant in the chart. She could be a hippo instead. I am fairly certain with the second woman. In chart 5, I have two possible examples of Sumatran tigers; column 2, rows 2 and 3. Note how they both have similar faces to the second female African elephant. The main difference is the bend in the nose.

Therefore, the progression, like from 6-7-8, would be Elephant as the herbivore parent species, the Tiger as the carnivore child species, from Sumatran through to Siberian... where the herbivore child species, the domestic pig, is born.

I'll write more on this in the future, and as I talk with my friends and get new material or evidence the theory changes, but I'm trying to communicate the core elements, which I think are either largely correct, or help one understand how the process works.

Sorry for the delayed response, just got back from Antheria, and I have no laptop!

Oh, I forgot; so let's just say a 5 is a dog, a 7 is a wolf, an 8 is a tiger. (just using random whole numbers for these.) A .967 would be a human with wolf characteristics + features, a .965 would be a human with dog characteristics + features, a .968 would be a human with tiger characteristics + features.

A 1.7 would be an anthropomorphic wolf, a 1.5 would be an anthropomorphic dog, a 1.8 would be an anthropomorphic tiger.

I understand quite well now! I like your theory! Not to say that I've had anything as complex running through my head with binary denominations of different species specific qualities, but I am fond of the idea that it shouldn't be horribly difficult to type someone by their both native heritage and their parental species. My father being of Hungarian and French-Canadian heritage (First blood settlers) and my mother of mixed French Canadian and Native French heritage, all of whose native species are more wolf, dog, horse and farm animal types, I end up with a long face of a new very mixed breed, my conclusion being Dog. My parents, if I were to say anything of personality, would be my father as a polar bear, and my mother as a wild cat, bears being mixed parental species and wild cats similarly mixed. My PERSONAL choice for a character is, lets' be honest, quite different than what the ACTUAL dog breed of representation might be,... hmm. Well I could qualify that both cats and polar bears and quite long creatures, polar bears with no tail and wild cats with not overly long ones, hence a stumpier variety of canine might be adequate, but perhaps not to the extreme I've chosen on a personal basis with a vallhund (a slight bit taller than a Corgi).

Although, facially, it might be a bit more difficult or straightforward in choosing species identification. If we don't take into consideration my parental heritage and are left with my FACE, which is different in appearance from both my sister and brother's of whom in even mildly longer with a longer nose, my nose is large although slightly upturned, my eyes VERY large, my smile equally so with added dimples (I've been told that dimples are caused by a lacking or extra muscle in the cheek), my teeth a family trait and separated in the middle, my hair thin and my hairline far back, my jaw strong and my cheeks full although my neck is long and muscled. I have... a strange appearance to say the least, unique is a word, but more often than not people don't judge my appearance as anything other than... comforting. With those features in summary, a large eyed slightly upturned nosed creature with a strong jaw of North American shared with European Heritage seems... a Hare, or a Lynx.

Not to say your theory is by any means wrong. We take to personal feelings of what we can characteristically identify with better as well. Funnily enough the animal kingdom has made it easier than not by giving themselves species personality traits based on their social, hunger driven and behavioral differences. Not all animals of the same genus will share the same traits. Tigers like to swim, and other large cats avoid the water. Wolves have specific gender roles and pack dynamics, while Pigs do not seem to have the same distinguishing traits.

Thank you for the explanation, it was a great read!