While browsing today, I was surprised to find a series of (I thought) very tame drawings and animations, such as
https://e621.net/posts/3044735
https://e621.net/posts/1714804
https://e621.net/posts/3828774
https://e621.net/posts/3819875
https://e621.net/posts/3805248
that nevertheless were rated Explicit or (for the first one, Questionable) - and, per how the current guidelines read, correctly so.
However, I would suggest that an exception is in order. When a drawing, animation, etc. depicts a feral animal that has zero explicit or implicit sexual content - no sexual interaction or content, no arousal, no focus on the genital/anal areas, no provocative poses, or anything of the like - and the artist was just trying to draw the animal realistically (or, in the case of the last one, match the character's depiction in a children's cartoon!) - I don't think the Explicit rating ought to apply.
I thus suggest something like the following be be added to the "Safe (General)" rating guideline:
"realistic but incidental/nonfocal depictions of a feral animal's anatomy, if that animal is not aroused or in a sexual/explicit situation"
Updated