1

What about a centaur, goblin or a neanderthal? If not a neanderthal, would it need to go back to Australopithecus or something stupider?

Valorum
  • 689,072
  • 162
  • 4,636
  • 4,873
asdkvcuhs9d8cvya9sed8yc
  • 143
  • 5
  • 1
    An intelligent being, unless we're being speciesist, is a "person," not an "animal." Yes, technically all people are taxonomically "animals" (unless they're fungi, or plants), but the reason it's insulting to call people "animals" is that it reduces them to their biology. If the Patronus can only take the form of an animal, then it follows that it can't take the form of a person, any "person." (With the obvious exception of Patronus 2 in HPMoR.) – DavidW Mar 31 '22 at 16:27
  • 1
    @DavidW So what's the threshold? Like an Australopithecus or what? How dumb does it have to be to be a patronus? A wizard's patronus can be an animal of which they are ignorant, how does magic know what pool of animals from which to pull? – asdkvcuhs9d8cvya9sed8yc Mar 31 '22 at 16:36
  • A wizard or witch needs to have a "deep affinity" with the animal for it to be their Patronus. A wizard or witch might not know what their Patronus will be until they successfully cast one. – fez Mar 31 '22 at 16:39
  • @fez "according to J.K. Rowling ‘it is usual for a Patronus to take the form of an animal commonly found in the caster’s native country’" https://www.wizardingworld.com/features/what-your-patronus-says-about-you This implies to me you can summon an animal you're not aware of, especially in olden times when English wizards couldn't look up what i.e. a platypus is. – asdkvcuhs9d8cvya9sed8yc Mar 31 '22 at 16:55
  • Well, that depends: do you consider the Phoenix to be an intelligent creature? – Martha Mar 31 '22 at 17:58
  • @Martha Fawkes was pretty smart but not on the level of a human or goblin. Probably on par with an australopithecus (I don't know how smart neanderthals were). So what's the difference? – asdkvcuhs9d8cvya9sed8yc Mar 31 '22 at 18:25
  • 1
    I think "animal" was a bad choice of word. A "beast" would have been slightly more specific. – Clockwork Apr 01 '22 at 14:56
  • @Clockwork What's the distinction? – asdkvcuhs9d8cvya9sed8yc Apr 01 '22 at 15:24
  • 1
    Well, the way I see it, "animal" is more vague and can sometime include human-beings, whilst "beast" is exclusively "not humans" (or, in some case, specifically 4-legged mammals). Then again, seafood can be patronus too. Hmm... – Clockwork Apr 01 '22 at 18:46

2 Answers2

4

Of the 159 known Patronus forms, all 159 are broadly what could be termed 'animals' (e.g. as opposed to intelligent magical creatures that are broadly referred to as "beings", described in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them as

"any creature that has sufficient intelligence to understand the laws of the magical community and to bear part of the responsibility in shaping those laws’")

Of the known Patronuses, it's arguable which is the most intelligent, but I think we can assume that it's a fair toss-up between the dolphin, the elephant and the orang-utan, all of which are usually considered to be unusually smart.

Interestingly, chimpanzees (which would have been a pretty clear winner) were slated to appear in one of the films, but this got cut.

Valorum
  • 689,072
  • 162
  • 4,636
  • 4,873
0

There are many various Patronus forms one could consider the most intelligent. They are consistently "beasts" or "animals", that is, not an "being" and not capable of bearing a part in wizarding law.

If you simply look at animals, you could list creatures such as orangutans, dolphins etc. However, when you look at magical "beasts" there are a lot more options. Kneazles for example, are extremely intelligent, as are crups. Fantastic beasts and where to fine them, lists many more beasts that one could argue are the most intelligent.

However, within the Harry Potter books themselves, three animals prove themselves to be intelligent enough for basic communication. Crookshanks, a half-kneazle, can communicate with Sirius well enough to try to capture Scabbers, implying that a full kneazle would be stronger. The basalisk can follow orders and attempt to kill people, not through training, but through understanding its own tongue. And Fawkes (a phoenix), can independently understand English, following Harry's instructions, as well as coming up with ideas and communicating them effectively through his use of body language.

When comparing these three animals, Crookshanks seems the most capable of both independent thought and communication, consequently implying that a full blooded Kneazle would be the most intelligent Patronus one could have.

Mym
  • 1
  • 1
    These may be intelligent creatures but has anyone had them as a Patronus? Looking at the link in the other answer a Phoenix has been but the other 2 not. The question isn't what is the most intelligent creature in the Harry Potter universe but rather more specific to what is the most intelligent creature in the Harry Potter universe that someone has has as a Patronus. You have the makings of a good answer here arguing for a Phoenix but it would be better if you [edit]ed it to focus on that rather than the more general question which is not is what is asked here! – TheLethalCarrot Aug 16 '22 at 10:27
  • I don't believe there's any evidence of a basilisk or kneazle patronus. There's no special evidence against them either, other than their absence from the lists – Valorum Aug 16 '22 at 11:15