An Animagus is supposed to be able to transform itself into the animal that most suits its personality.

Since humans are animals, what if it transforms himself into another human?

3 Answers 3



This is not supported by canon, just my humble thoughts. But I think it's reliable.

An animagus doesn't just take the appearance of an animal, he becomes this animal. When transformed, the animagus keeps his special traits. Wormtail doesn't recover his lost fingers when in rat form, Rita Skeeter has some marks near the eyes that remind her glasses when in beetle form, and so on...

‘[...] Look very closely, and you'll notice the markings around her antennae are exactly like those foul glasses she wears.’

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, when Hermione reveals that Rita is an Animagus

And in PS, chapter 1, description of McGonagall:

a rather severe-looking woman who was wearing square glasses exactly the shape of the markings the cat had had around its eyes.

And again in PoA, chapter 6:

[McGonagall] transformed herself in front of their eyes into a tabby cat with spectacle markings around her eyes.


By this, I understand that their appearance when in animal form is the appearance they would have had if they were born this animal. (Doesn't make sense to you? Yeah, I'm not sure either..)

So if an Animagus transformed into a human, he would take the appearance he would have had if he was born human... But wait ! He actually was born human ! And this appearance his... himself. Pointless.

What you're may be talking about (taking anyone appearance, or at least modifying your own appearance) is what a Metamorphmagus can do, like Tonks.

  • 1
    Do you have a source/quote for "their appearance when in animal form is the appearance they would have had if they were born this animal"? May 23, 2013 at 12:55
  • No, that's why I began the sentence with "I understand that"... but this is really the way I have always understood it.
    – Kalissar
    May 23, 2013 at 13:06
  • Precisely the fact that McGonagall and Skeeter have "glasses" disproves your theory of taking the appearance of the animal form they would have if they were born that animal. Having glasses in the animal form is, in my opinion, intentional (or unintentional, if having glasses is part of your personality and is thus reflected in your "inner self"). Either way, you have complete control over the form or you transform into your inner self, which would be the precise scenario for transforming into a human of a different appearance than yours. Nov 14, 2014 at 0:50
  • I guess it's up to speculation then, because I do not think it's intentional.
    – Kalissar
    Nov 20, 2014 at 20:26

In an interview with JK Rowling (Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16 July 2005):

You see, you do not know what you are going to be until you have done it, so you might spend half a decade trying to turn into an animal and then find out you were a slug or something, which would be most unpleasant.

Ablus Dumbledore's Commentary after "Babbity Rabitty and Her Cackling Stump" (The Tale of Beedle the Bard) describes Animagus as

. . . human-to-animal transformation [that] requires much study and practice...

That suggests that human-to-human transformation would not be an example of an Animagi.

  • 2
    As the question states, humans are animals, therefore a human-to-human transformation counts as a human-to-animal transformation. May 24, 2013 at 2:22

It is impossible, since Animagi can only transform into an animal, and only one type of animal.

  • 2
    But humans are technically animals.
    – Kevin
    Jun 3, 2013 at 0:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.