They’re not wrong though
Hmm, does it count if the animal (human, in this case) could be omnivorous, but chooses not to be for whatever reason?
That’s how I see it. I’m a vegetarian omnivore, if my life depended on it I would eat meat.
Herbivores can be carnivorous. I’ve seen plenty of videos of horses and cows cromching on baby chickens.
And carnivores can be herbivorous. Dogs can be vegetarian no problem, and a while back humans solved the synthetic taurine problem for cats. Turns out all animals are omnivores. Herbivores and carnivores are fake.
I think you don’t understand the definition then. When herbivores happen to eat some animals, like when cows eat baby chickens, it doesn’t make them carnivores just for doing so. They’re still herbivores
I like to think of the distinction in a de jure vs de facto way.
If all the evidence we have of a species is them consuming autotrophs, then we do mental gymnastics and induce that they are 100% herbivores.
Of course this also leaves room for an herbivore’s potential to consume heterotrophs, in which case our knowledge would have to update and reflect reality. Maybe 99% herbivore, 1% carnivore.
And at that point, we may still do mental gymnastics and call species herbivores because that is their normal behavior, where their abnormal behavior is shown due to abiotic or biotic factors, perhaps from loss of habitat or removal/introduction of species in the food web, etc.
Edit: for humans, I’d say we can classify different humans differently because of the times we live in (it’s so easy to be a vegan nowadays) and our natural, higher moral concepts and empathy.
