When it's really close like that, usually it's just the artist's decision as to how it's categorized.

--
~Norsk Skogkatt, frotteur extraordinaire.
Icon by the wondrous =Coloriffic !
[link] -Help others and help your vocabulary!

Ehhh, I dunno, I don't think either of them really go in anthro. It's... a matter of tastes I guess? I have no idea honestly. What I consider anthro is anything with human characteristics (as is the definition).

The first one doesn't scream human characteristics at all, it's just a toony face--and while the animal couldn't really do that, drawing a big grin on a dog doesn't make him anthro.

The second one just... looks like a frog. xD; I dunno, humanish legs or pose? But to me it just... I dunno. *Flail.*

Anthro just ought to be animals on two legs, with ability to speak, wearing clothes (that includes all those sparkledogs out there), etc... at least to me. Who knows, we all view things differently. D:

--
_{You're a bit off; I may be a canine, but I'm not a dog. Instead of bitch, try the word vixen next time.}

I think they both can be considered anthro. And like the worlf example, that would be anthro to me.

--
I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn as my savior. If you do too and are not afraid to admit it, post this in your signature.

98% of teens would be dead if Twilight said breathing wasn't cool. Post this if you are apart of the 2% laughing.

both can be considered as anthro buuut, the proportion in the first one makes it cartoony, hence it also plays as a cartoon

[btw, just a note here, I assumed it was in some cartoon category before actually clicking the pic]

--
I'm not an artist, I just like to make people laugh with the things I do for them...

GOD I'M A WHORE FOR THE LULZ

*try to avoid the problem*

Me I shut my mouth about that.

( but I admit with all of this category and now this critique fonction ( just like you need a tool for make a good critique ) it's a total confusion ( I would to read what the GD think about this journal anyway hehe ).

It's just a like pic' I see who are not anthro with animal, can we propose that like a DD or said it's anthro ( when the pic' are not in anthro, but you seem to think it's can be that ), result: I forget about that. XD

--
Crazy Cat

Fail in communication since 87

The difference in categorization depends on artist's preference and intention. If the purpose is to fit the work with the mindset to fit the work into a cartoon/comic frame, then it's probably in the cartoon/comic category. If the purpose is to fit the work into the frame of purely personification of a specific object/animal (and nothing else in mind), then it's probably in the anthro category.

As usual, there are no hard and fast rules to determine such categorization; some would place relevant works as "Cartoons and Comics", anyway. In practice, however, "anthro" per se is just a theme of art - a specialty interest, and not a unique category of art.

--
_{I AM (DEVIANT), THEREFORE I AM (DEVIOUS)!}

They're both anthro.
When a piece of work fits into two categories equally, a GM from the category in which it's currently located can DD it, they'll normally consult a GM in the other gallery and then they make the decision to DD it.
Both of these images would fit neatly into the anthro galleries.

--
My Photography: =Poppet-Pictures