Documents can say whatever they want, it's up to how its commonly interpreted. The common interpretation is that if you create IP that is written or drawn, it is your IP.
Written and drawn representations of sergals are copyrightable. I've never argued against that.
However anything closely resembling said artwork or fictional species could possibly be considered infringement even though it is a species.
This is the exact problem and reason why it's not copyrightable. A species is far too broad of a thing, that allowing it to be protected would cause copyright claims everywhere.
Imagine if someone copyrighted "dog with wings"
It's such a vague concept that has so many renditions of it, the owner would be making copyright claims everywhere"
"Animal with shark head" isn't a whole lot more original than "dog with wings"
We're talking about whether or not a specific fictional species should be considered protected intellectual property that can be traced back to one point of origin, the author herself. I agree that attempting to copyright the general idea of an animal standing on two legs is too vague, mainly because it's been a thing that's been conceptualized and represented in every art medium for a long forgetin time, and that no one entity is responsible for the idea of anthropomorphic animals.
I don't know man, furries seem pretty fictional to me.
You missed the point that "now put a shark head on it" isn't a whole lot
I looked it up
See, you keep saying things like this, but you never provide a link.
I am offering citation, I'm interpreting the legal documents you provided. That's the whole point.
Stating your interpretation is not a citation. Provide a link to a credible source that says you can copyright a species. Because every result for a Google search of "can I copyright a species" says exactly what I'm saying,
including the first one, which has answers from actual attorneys
Poll