LogFAQs > #965503520

... Why doesn't the legislation just say "animal" and leave it at that? I can understand having separate marine and terrestrial legislation, since they tend to involve different conservation measures and different departments, but formally legislating protection for a list of whatever animals the lawmakers at the time could come up with seems a lot less simple than just saying "animal." "Animal" is pretty well-defined, or at least as well-defined as "plant" (which is also there). Could probably take it even further and just say "organism," which means you don't have to quibble over fungi or unicellular stuff, but I don't know how often conservation of non-plant/animal organisms really comes up.