You yourself have not put forward any evidence to suggest that mythology actually has any part in furry
Maybe that is because I've said multiple times the historic anthropomophism is not a central part of the furry fandom or part of the development of the fandom. I've only been suggesting it can be relevant to understanding the development, which doesn't mean it has to be part of the fandom to be relevant.
And that the mythology is symbolism derived doesn't really change that, as what was relevant is the commonness of such symbols and how engrained such ideas can be in culture and with people in general. And I've actually seen quite a few furries make a big deal about the cultural symbolism of their choice in animals, and even choosing directly as a result of such symbolism and appeal to symbolism. That is only a subset of the fandom, so is not a general defining characteristic, but does mean the symbolism vs. aesthetics alone is not what differentiates furries from historic anthropomorphism.
What I think is the most important relevance of historic anthropomorphism is to establish that something must obviously differentiate the two, despite their many overlaps, because of the drastic difference in age and pervasiveness. By most important, I mean to furries, it is probably more important and useful in something directed to non-furries to help establish what anthropomorphism is, even if, getting back to my original point, many people are loose with language, and frequently use furry to mean anthropomophic in addition to, or instead of, furry to mean a member of fandom.
Maybe that is because I've said multiple times the historic anthropomophism is not a central part of the furry fandom or part of the development of the fandom. I've only been suggesting it can be relevant to understanding the development, which doesn't mean it has to be part of the fandom to be relevant.
And that the mythology is symbolism derived doesn't really change that, as what was relevant is the commonness of such symbols and how engrained such ideas can be in culture and with people in general. And I've actually seen quite a few furries make a big deal about the cultural symbolism of their choice in animals, and even choosing directly as a result of such symbolism and appeal to symbolism. That is only a subset of the fandom, so is not a general defining characteristic, but does mean the symbolism vs. aesthetics alone is not what differentiates furries from historic anthropomorphism.
What I think is the most important relevance of historic anthropomorphism is to establish that something must obviously differentiate the two, despite their many overlaps, because of the drastic difference in age and pervasiveness. By most important, I mean to furries, it is probably more important and useful in something directed to non-furries to help establish what anthropomorphism is, even if, getting back to my original point, many people are loose with language, and frequently use furry to mean anthropomophic in addition to, or instead of, furry to mean a member of fandom.