 Despite its plainness, (1′) is easily misinterpreted (for discussion, see D. Mackie 1999b: 230–33; Olson 2003: 318–21; and Snowdon 2014: ch. 1). According to the intended reading, the ‘we’ picks out human persons such as you and me. Nevertheless, (1′) should not be taken to assert that all persons are animals. It leaves open the possibilities of both non-animal people (e.g., robots, angels, aliens, deities) and human animals that are not people (e.g., patients in persistent vegetative states, human fetuses). The ‘are’ reflects the ‘is’ of numerical identity. Consequently, animalism is not the view that each of us is “constituted by” a particular organism, in the way that a statue is sometimes said to be non-identically constituted by the hunk of matter with which it coincides (see  section 2.3).  Nor still should (1′) be understood to claim that each of us has a body that is an animal—as if you were one thing and your animal body another. Finally, ‘animals’ refers to biological organisms—members of the primate species Homo sapiens. While participants on both sides of the debate over animalism tend to treat these terms interchangeably, some prominent critics distinguish ‘animals’ from ‘organisms’ and deny that these terms co-refer (e.g., Johnston 2007: 55–56, S. Shoemaker 2011: 353).