I always thought she was suppose to be a cat, most people who draw her seem to show her as more cat like.

She isn't a cat, she has a humanoin nose. In fact she is an imp

well i know she is an imp, I just thought she was a cat for a while. also since when has any human like fetures stopped someones from calling something an anthro animal?

I got lost with those lines somehow. All I know is that Midna isn't an anthro since she doesn't feature any animal hybrid parts. She rather looks like an imp from OoT, but SD-ed. Though she doesn't look much of SD-ed to me.

ok I never played TP, so seeing midna, I thought she was "suppose" to be a can, the teeth, the ears, the grin on her face and the personality they depict her as having, even after playing the game a bit it seemed she was suppose to be a cat, and her personality just confirmed it for me.

Lots of furry artists seemed to of been showing her more cat like as well, at least to me.

I know better now, because people have told me and I saw my roommate playing through the part of the game were they explicitly tell you she was turned into in imp.

Yay! Yes, most people thought at first she was some sort of anthro, but the ears were placed right where the human ears are, so for me it means she was some sort of humanoid creature. But don't worry, at least you aren't like those people who thought Midna was the Master Sword. It's kind of funny how they always think the Master Sword will materialize into something human. Like OoT, people thought Sheik was the Master Sword. XD

well anthros don't have to have all the right parts in the right places, and in fact a real anthro would have ears closer to were us humans do.

As far as this master sword stuff. I wouldn't know I never really play the games, the only zelda game I ever finished was wind waker because I cheated.

Well, the original anthros from the old mythology place human ears where humans ears belongs and and the animal ears adobe the eyebrows where usually animals have them. Remember, the true original anthros were beast able to have feet and hands and able to walk as humans do. They didn't have any looks alike the human face, just the animal face.

I don't think there is an "original" anthro, I think their are some pretty old cultures that had customs or traditions, or stories about such things, but I don't think that the concept of an anthro was every originally known to be made up by anyone, and I think that people may of had such notions even before they were able to record those feelings and ideas.

Well, usually the first is the first being recorded in a book, cause most of our history is not about who is the creator but rather by who and when it was recorded. Therefore our humanity has relay on such term for about three milleniums or so now.

And actually here you have it:

anthropomorphism
(an-thruh-puh-mawr-fiz-uhm) The attributing of human characteristics and purposes to inanimate objects, animals, plants, or other natural phenomena, or to God. To describe a rushing river as “angry” is to anthropomorphize it. It was up to the late 70's when anthropomorphs gain faces as humans and the place of the ears like them.

Besides, anthros are animals, not humans. And the structure of an animal is different from a human, mainly in the idea that an anthro is an unanimated object, animal, plant, or even a deity or god. With the abilities of talking, walking and etc. However the most important thing is that anthros have both attributes from animals and humans. Which lead us to this: Main anatomy of an animal, ability to walk like a human and have the brain of a human.

However, the furries from animes, cartoons picture furries at first like talking animals.