As
@Amber noted, it is not
too uncommon among the whole of the community, here included, for individuals to experience a number of therian expressions,
@Spindel. It is more uncommon, however, to experience a definite amalgam of them in a form of say, psychic or spiritual chimerism. By psychic I mean that which is the psyche, allow me to specify, and I suspect that is largely because many of these organisms are caniforms barring the inclusion of a hyenid in an unspecified hyena species, although I can not state for certain for the reasons one imagines.
The differentiation of species, or type at all in the broader otherkin sense, is a tremendously difficult challenge many face. To receive a more precise - rather really a definitive - answer it often requires a substantial amount of investigation into the connections of the experience as well as its manifestations checked rigorously about what is
known with certainty or to the best extent possible by science about that animal. Therians have this easier by virtue of their nature as animals, the majority of which are extremely well recorded and documented with literal hundreds of years of observation and study in most species, with around some one hundred years of rigorous observation in a more refined format. This poses a tremendous asset most otherkin cannot access, often relying upon mythological pieces and many varied interpretations, thus regularly therians can navigate these investigative waters better and it is something that needs to be done.
This leads me back to my earlier observation that there is a consistent thread here of caniforms, those mammals who are canines and or canine adjacent relatives and how it is fairly often observed that individuals struggle with differentiating species, let alone subspecies, of similar suborders, let alone families - cladistics aside. I postulate that generally at this stage of being new and inexperienced to the phenomenon that it is less that these things are all combined, rather it is that they are
indistinct. For example, one lists a coyote, the Shiba Inu dog breed, and the maned wolf, but when questioning oneself and exploring the experiences of each, what really defines each from one another? What identifiers arise in a "shifted" state? How does one come to those conclusions and how does on feel they are all of these things yet different but all in one? Likewise, it is important to ask where the outlier falls with the hyena. Is it that they are a hyena or that the constellation of cognitive process has drawn in the very canid-like hyena as well? Or is it that this other unrelated thing has begun to orbit the "mass" of the other three by proxy?
Stellar comparisons aside, it is also not impossible that one is all of these things at once in a continuous format. Yet it transition to a conceptually game of equally seeking answers by approaching with different questions. Say, "If I am all these things, what about each do I see reflected? How can I know I am a maned wolf, which is very different from a coyote?" Eschew imagined physical manifestations or daydreaming some here because many of these can be deceptive, useful as they are. If one "sees" these things in the mind's eye and perceives them, knowing them to be part of themselves, is one so certain it is not something else or that their amalgam quality just does not express traits that might lead oneself to think it another organism?
But I believe that is fair enough elaboration for the time being. I suggest by starting to try and denote, really express and record, each difference and suspicion then compare it against what is known then reflect on it.
