I guess it would really depend how deep one goes into researching Anthropomorphism.
I think even nonliving things that spring to life, reasoning like humans and have human characteristics, are also considered Anthros.
I'm fuzzy on the subject so I could be wrong.
I also think, on the whole, that it depends solely on what the artist is trying to convey through the image that they put down.
On this particular piece, I would have to say that the digital art ->portraits would be better suited; simply because the focus pays more attention
of portraying a majestic and proud figure (whether it be beast or man) rather than you displaying the Anthro genre.
I say this because one can fancy the thought of this figure being a man that strongly gives off the aura of a proud lion, or is viewed as one by others. Or say, one can imagine that the artist is trying to bring to the viewer's attention the essence and spirit of the lion's proud being, but instead drawing the animal as a four legged beast, so we are treated to a humanoid version and thus feel a greater connection for the animal. I know I'm struck in awe; captivated by the thought that though this lion may have certain human characteristics(be it standing on to legs, thinking, reasoning, laughing, etc.) it is still a wild beast. And a mighty one that is to respected.
Of course, that is to say I'm not under-handing the fact that an artist can't both show an dynamic figure while also striving for the Anthro image. (But keeping in mind I merely focusing on the image presented in front of me.)
Needless to say, these are all just me musing my thoughts aloud so I'm not meaning to sound pompous or that I'm trying to force my own ideology on the subject of the Anthro genre.
Anyways, I've said enough. I enjoyed your thoughts on the subject.
(I've also had them myself btw. )